Good Season for 'Pool, but Man U Better

Man Utd may have claimed a third consecutive title, but for me, that’s not the real story of 2008/09 English Premiership season.

Don’t get me wrong, Man U were certainly worthy winners – you get what you deserve after a 38 game season – and there can be no arguments about why they finished top of the pile again. They obviously boast the biggest and best squad in the league, have quality players all over the pitch (and bench and beyond), had a time-tested and pretty stable team in place, and in Sir Alex Ferguson, they have the most accomplished football coach of this generation – and any other for that matter. They started the season as favourites, and despite some rough patches along the way, finished as many expected they would.

For me though, the real story is the emergence of Liverpool – ahead of Chelsea and Arsenal - as the biggest threat to Man U’s crown. As a Liverpool fan, I know I’m going to get slated for bias, but numbers don’t lie and the fact that the Anfield Road side finished just four points behind the champions (and greatly improved on last term’s 4th place finish) is just the tip of the iceberg. For one thing, when the season kicked off in August, only the most hardcore of Liverpool fans would have truly believed that they would still be within shouting distance of the title in May.

Yet Liverpool turned in what, in Premiership terms, was a watershed season to push Man U all the way to the tape. In the process, they lost just two matches all season (Man U lost 4, Chelsea 5 and Arsenal 6) and finished with 86 points – their best ever tally in the Premiership, and a 10 point improvement on last season.

Liverpool also scored more goals than any other team (77); had the best goal difference (+50); and were the only Premiership team not to lose on their home field – the first time they’ve achieved that since 1988. Add to these home and away conquests of BOTH Chelsea and Man Utd, and it’s clear that Liverpool have just had a season like they haven’t since the halcyon days of the 1980s.

That they didn’t crown a great season with the title is for me just another testament to the quality of the team that finished above them, and not – as some would argue – down to the “failings” of manager Rafa Benitez, or “too many draws”.

To address the first point, it’s curious that the very same critics that have labelled Liverpool a “two-man team” can now turn around and criticise a manager that has led that same team within 4 points of the title. Surely, if the players aren’t up to scratch, - and, remember, those two trees that make a forest were missing for large chunks of the season - the manager must have had something to do with the team’s progress. Benitez has slowly and surely built a team that has proved that it can compete with the best teams in Europe and I find it ridiculous that some are quite happy to blame the man for every little slip while failing to acknowledge the tremendous strides he’s made in 5 years at Anfield.

As for the second point, how many draws is too many? It’s all relative, isn’t it? Sure, Liverpool should have won a few more games, especially at home, but 11 draws is only too many because Man U drew just 6. But it’s become almost gospel for all the TV talking heads to say “they drew too many games”.

The funny thing, as I just learnt, is that the last time Liverpool lost two matches in a season, back in 1988, they drew 12 matches – and still won the title by 9 points! And did you know that Arsenal drew 12 matches in 2004? Yes, that was the same season they completed a full season without a single defeat and won the title by 11 points!

So can we really pinpoint how the title was lost in such simple terms? After all, if Liverpool had won at both Tottenham and Middlesbrough – the two matches they lost – they’d be champions now. Even one win and a draw would have sufficed. So, maybe they lost too many matches??

And you know what else? Chelsea drew “only” 8 matches, but I’m sure they would have loved to swap their 5 losses for draws, a scenario that would have left them with 12 draws. Too many, surely, but good enough to overhaul Liverpool and earn 2nd place.

Of course, there are no prizes for second place, and all these are scant consolation for us Liverpool die-hards. Yet, when earlier this week a friend asked why Liverpool “failed to win the title”, it was hard for me, as you might have gleaned, to think of this season as a failure.

My answer: Liverpool had a very good season, better than most – except Man U, who had a great season.