So—you're Rafa Benitez, you've conceded a goal at home, and now you head to a stadium where your team has not scored a goal in eight games, but has to do so to earn that coveted ticket to Moscow.
It is (at least in my opinion) at times like these when a manager looks to field their strongest and most agressive side, hoping to score a quick goal, and play the rest of the game on their terms. Apparently, not if your name is Rafael Benitez.
On a rainy night in west London, Benitez picked the following 11: Reina, Riise, Carragher, Arbeloa, Skrtel, Gerrard, Alonso, Benayoun, Mascherano, Tores, and Kuyt. All good—if you're looking for a goalless draw.
It was obvious from the first few minutes that the sharpness and explosiveness of Liverpool's attack was missing. Attempts to outpace the Chelsea defense went futile, as Yossi Benayoun tried moves more suited to the strikingly fast Jermaine Pennant, and Fernando Torres kept missing from places where Peter Crouch could have easily finished the job.
Which made me wonder, where were Crouch and Pennant? Surely Benitez couldn't have forgotten Crouch's goal-scoring performance against Arsenal? And Babel? His victory-sealing strike against Arsenal must have booked him a starting place at the semifinal, right?
Well...yes (Benitez looked like he had forgotten in-form Crouch), and no (Babel's excellent play against Arsenal did not book him a starting squad place).
It might be just me, but I feel a 4-3-3 formation with Torres, Crouch, and Kuyt at front, Gerrard, Alonso, and Pennant in midfield, and Carragher, Hyppia, Arbeloa, and Riise at the back would have been a lot more threatening, and consequently, a lot more effective than the side Benitez initally fielded.
Note: Skrtel (who looked shaky from the start) did give way to Hyppia after an injury in the 22nd minute. What a waste of a substitution.
Mind you, Pennant and Babel did eventually come on in the 78 and 98th minute respectively, however, Babel came in for Torres, who looked like more-or-less the only man that could score a last-minute winner for Liverpool.
Nevertheless, it was Babel who scored for Liverpool in the 117th minute to make it 3-2 (why wasn't he in the starting lineup again?), but by that point, the likes of Alonso had given up all hope and looked like traffic cones on the pitch.
Of course, Liverpool owe much to Benitez's genius, and the Spaniard is definitely a factor in Liverpool's three semifinal appearances in four years. However, at times (like last night and last year's final) his decisions have been more than questionable.
comments (13) write a comment »
write a new comment
5 months ago
Thanks for sharing your view Stoil. I also thought Crouch should have played.
5 months ago
benitez knows what hes doing but i do question taking torres off, unless he had the injury like benitez says. however, you cant say that the team benitez put out was one for a 0-0 draw, he's been playing more or less that team since christmas and weve only had one 0-0 since then, and there was no torres or alonso in that match. I also think he didnt play crouch because of the recent good form weve been having with that formation, and im sure he wouldve come on had it not been for the enforced sub of skrtel, who has also been in good from as of late. babel didnt start because of the impact he has as a sub in the champions league, especially with the tired legs they would have out there. good article and bentiez's tactics are sometimes questionable but im sure theres a method to his madness
from 5 months ago
agreed, though i still think Babel came on way too late, and shouldnt have come on for Torres.
5 months ago
You are right in the fact that we should have been more aggressive, Crouch should definitely have started, but he should be starting pretty much every game.
5 months ago
Struggling to see where you are coming from to be honest. The team you chose would be suicidal against Chelsea at the Bridge. Maybe if we were 2-0 down from the first leg, but at 1-1? no way we needed to be that gung-ho, as proved by the fact we took the game to extra time?!
Not sure on your point about the Skrtel substitution either. What else was Rafa supposed to do at that point? Chelsea had started the game well, and Liverpool had to bring another defender on, again, otherwise it would have been suicidal. Do you really think going 3 at the back with only 20 mins gone and the score at nil nil (which Liverpool have never played, or not consistently) would have been the right decision? The mind boggles.
Pennant was given his chance as a sub and made no impact, likewise Babel other than his goal which Cech should have saved comfortably. Benayoun was Babel's replacement in the starting line-up, and he exquisitely set up our first goal. Babel has been a better sub than starter all season, note his dismal performance as a starter in the first leg at the Emirates, followed by his dramatic impact as a sub in the 2nd leg.
He could have possibly brought on Crouch, but the referee was given a free-kick every single time a striker or defender raised their hands when jumping for a header. Crouch is already hard done by with foreign referees who simply don't understand how to deal with a tall player it seems, and with last nights referee I can imagine that if Crouch came on, virtually every time a ball was knocked up to him the ref would have penalised him, and Terry and Carvalho would relish the challenge also. So I can see why Rafa felt Crouch wasn't the right way to go on this occassion.
And, and I am getting fed up of saying this, TORRES WAS INJURED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Leaving him on would have only worsened his hamstring problem, meaning that he would carry the problem into Euro 2008 in a month, and then into the start of next season as well. It wasn't worth leaving him on, Rafa was just being sensible, and looking at long term planning, not potential short term advantage (and only potential, Torres was already looking tired, and had done little other than his excellent finish for the goal)
from 5 months ago
good criticisms Simon.
But Torres played for 98 minutes, which to me says that his injury wasnt that severe. I think he could have made it to 120 minutes, given that theres not much point to play him at all for the remainder of the season...
Also, I found the referee quite willing to let the game go on and not make pointless calls (at least for most of the first half), and i am sure that if Crouch had started, he would've scored that chance that Torres had at the beginning. Also, I think Torres would have been a lot more effective with Crouch drawing Terry and possibly Carvalho out beyond the edge of the box, thereby leaving more space for Torres to stay deep to feed off him.
And as far as Yossi Benayoun, although he wasnt as effective as the importance of the game required, I'm willing to accept Rafa's decision to start him, but in my opinion Pennant came in too late.
from 5 months ago
As for Skrtel my point was that Sami Hyppia should have started instead of him. I never suggested that he should put a striker or midfielder in his place.
from 5 months ago
Torres was not injured before the game, he was injured during it, and Torres was speaking to Benitez and telling him that he was feeling his hamstring. Thats why he was subbed at that minute, because thats when he was feeling injured.
Sorry I misunderstood what you meant regarding Skrtel, but I disagree anyway, Skrtel's pace would have helped us cope with Drogba more easily, and though Hyypia has been a great player for Liverpool, it was his error, in miscontrolling the ball and then diving to try and make amends, that put us 2-1 down with the penalty. He was also culpable for the first Chelsea goal, when he should have showed Kalou down the wing but made a rather feeble effort to tackle him after allowing him inside instead, allowing Kalou to get his shot away, with Drogba profiting on the rebound.
from 5 months ago
yeah i cant understand the penalty either...surely players of that class should know not to do anything dodgy in the penalty area, especially in extra time...
5 months ago
I completely agree with you simon. good comment.
Yossi Benayoun should have stayed on. He orchestrated one goal, and could have set up another if given the chance. I was a little surprised when i saw Pennant coming on for him. Although Babel's goal was wonderful (due mostly to a rare mistake from Peter Cech) I would have placed money on Crouch receiving precedence over Babel for the impact sub spot. Crouch is accustomed to hitting big goals, knows he can hit match-winning goals, and Rafa should have known that too. I think his height would have posed a problem to Terry and Carvalho, and if Gerrard kept up the good crosses he was sending in, surely one would have been met by the head of Crouch and ended up in the back of the goal.
from 5 months ago
agreed. Or he could have fed Torres, thereby setting up a short-range strike. Which is why I believe there was the need for Crouch and also one more winger to feed him with crosses (Pennant). The two had a great time playing together against Birmingham.
5 months ago
True, but Birmingham and Chelsea are very different animals. Pennant has never proved himself against quality opposition, while I maintain that Crouch struggles in Europe because referee's don't give him a chance to play his game.
5 months ago
i think pennant should of been on for beniyoun and babel for alonso this would have made a much more positive attack, also i don't see how benitez can exspect torres to score on his own. i also don't understand why liverpool couldnt have played as possitive as they did in the extra time in the match, and liverpool always go back when they feel threatend but when they actually ran with the ball we got a goal
write a new comment