Progression: Liverpool were Two Goals From Winning the Premier League

For all of the experts' talk of the multi-million pound United squad being the best in the world, and how far from quality in comparison Liverpool are supposed to be, just two goals would have taken the trophy to Anfield. Two goals.

Mention Liverpool's 2008-09 season and the first thing you will get in response from a large number of football fans is "Rafa Benitez lost it because of all his draws." He was "too defensive" in his tactics and "too negative" in picking teams.

In my opinion, Rafael Benitez played a near perfect season.

"Quite a bold statement," you're probably now muttering under your breath and of course there will be the usual comments of "desperate" and "delusional" from some of our troubled United readers. The ones still choosing to bury their head in the sand when it comes to accepting Liverpool are on the resurgence.

Liverpool's current 86 points would have won them the league on seven separate occasions over the last 14 Premier League seasons. But the title-winning bar has been raised so considerably, by the quality of Chelsea, Arsenal, and Manchester United over the last six years, that you have to go back to 2003 for that to have happened.

It is the second highest points tally for the runner-up position in the history of the Premier league, behind only the 88 points achieved by Manchester United in 1995. Liverpool were only one win and a draw away from claiming victory. Liverpool were just two goals from success.

Two goals to win the title looks like a near perfect season to me.

This is not about ifs, buts, and maybes, it is about gauging just how close Liverpool came to winning the league. Yes, the team could have run away with it if they hadn't had 11 draws and dropped points against teams like Stoke and Hull City. But the point is, 11 draws did not cost us the title.

Two draws cost us the title.

Or one draw and the loss against Spurs, but either way, it is nowhere near as far from success as some would have you believe. Whenever supporters and the media attack Rafa for all of his "negative" management, they casually mention the 11 draws like it was the bare minimum needed for the club to have won the league this season.

In reality, it was just two.

Two goals in just two of the 11 draws was the actual bare minimum needed to finish across the line ahead of Manchester United.

This is not me trying to spin statistics to suit my argument because there is no denying the fact that Liverpool needed just four points to win the title. Turning two draws in to wins gives you four points and requires scoring one goal in each match.

Therefore, Liverpool where just two goals from a perfect title winning season.

You will hear supporters offer the famous Shankly mantra that "second is nowhere," but in building a squad's confidence, and more importantly its experience, second is somewhere.

Second gives the players belief and it gives them another necessary step toward that title and another inch closer to completing the hardest task of all.

Actually winning the league for the first time.

The closer you get, the harder it gets and when you are so near to dragging yourself across the finishing line, it really does come down to the very smallest of details. The perfect season that ends with the title can quite literally come down to needing just two more goals to win the Premier League.

Progression: Liverpool are Crowned Winners of the 'Top-Four' Mini-League

History normally determines that the winner of the "top-four" mini-league goes on to take the Premier League title with four of the last five seasons following this pattern.

It is widely considered that taking the most points from the other "top-four" teams is a vital ingredient in becoming English domestic champions, however with the current campaign just one game from completion, Liverpool run-away winners of the mini-league and Manchester United already being crowned champions, history will not be repeating itself this time around.

Since his arrival in the summer of 2004 Rafa Benitez has struggled to dominate games against Chelsea, Arsenal, and Manchester United with only 17 points from the 72 on offer and finishing bottom of the mini-league every season.

But as the Spaniard propels the club steadily forward he has once again shown that he is on the right road to success with another progressive season that has seen an impressive turn-around against his "top-four" rivals.

• Played 6


• Won 4


• Drawn 2


• Lost 0


• Scored 14


• Conceded 7


• Points 14

Despite a poor run of results for Manchester United which saw them win just one game against their title rivals, it was their incredible performances against the other 16 teams in the league which ensured they won their third English title in three years.

The current league champions managed 26 wins and four draws from the 32 games against teams outside the 'top four' with just the one loss against Fulham and one more game against Hull City still to play.

Some have suggested that it shows Manchester United are not as great a team that many have lauded over the recent months when compared to the other top sides and the quality between the top three or four clubs is alot closer than United are probably comfortable with.

On their day, any one of the 'top-four' clubs can be considered the best team in the country.
But the strength in depth and the quality of the players involved at United have proven the key factor during an incredibly long and very hard fought campaign that has seen them fighting for honours in the Premier League, World Club Cup winners, FA Cup semi-finalists, League Cup winners, a second Champions League final in two seasons and UEFA Super Cup runners-up.

Liverpool's run of form over the last few months has seen an impressive attacking unit that has ensured they finish as the leagues top scorers and proven to many with dominant displays against Real Madrid, Manchester United, and Chelsea that they are finally being considered as genuine Premier League title rivals alongside being one of the best teams in European competitions.

Benitez has once again shown progression with his team as Liverpool record their highest ever Premier League points total and the possibility of finishing an agonisingly close four points from newly crowned champions Manchester United should ensure that next season will definitely be one to watch for Liverpool supporters.

And no doubt for Manchester United supporters aswell.

Media Myths: Rafa Benitez and His Transfer History With Liverpool Football Club

Myth: "fable, fiction, lie; a widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief."

There appears to be a trend growing amongst media outlets, “expert” pundits, and rival supporters who strive to ensure a negative air surrounds Liverpool Football Club and more commonly its manager, Rafa Benitez.

It seems he can do no right in the eyes of some people—his own supporters included—and more false claims appear every week that serve only to derail him from his quest of rebuilding Liverpool Football Club.

As more and more newspapers churn out sensational headline after headline and "expert" television pundits spout opinion as fact; the more people are brainwashed by these stories and the further from reality a situation will get.

Many lazy debaters claim their opinion to be a pragmatic truth whilst they simply recycle misleading newspaper propaganda as their own knowledge or belief.

Biased supporters who choose to jump on the slander bandwagon when it involves a rival team are common place, and this only adds to the ever-growing ideology of a story perceived as fact.



Ideology: “a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant group of a society to all members of this society.”

“Organizations that strive for power will try to influence the ideology of a society to become closer to what they want it to be. Organizations and other groups (e.g. Media Outlets) try to influence people by broadcasting their opinions.”



One such myth which seems to have appeared recently has been the same tired line about Rafa Benitez and his transfers since his time at Liverpool.

You will hear people claiming things like:

“A larger proportion of Rafa's signings have been expensive and poor.”

This does of course depend on how a person interprets the words expensive and poor—the latter obviously being down to their personal opinion of a player.

If someone wants to use the barometer of anything over a million pounds to be expensive and any player other than Messi or Ronaldo is considered poor; then anyone will struggle to argue against that logic—me included.

We can easily address the “expensive” part of this particular argument:

(Numbers in brackets are players still at the club)

£20+ million: 1 (1)

Torres

£15-20 million: 2 (1)

Mascherano, Keane

£10-15 million: 2 (2)

Babel, Alonso

£5-10 million: 14 (9)

Dossenna, Riera, Agger, Skrtel, Reina, Benayoun, Leiva, Kuyt, Pennant, Crouch, Bellamy, Sissoko, Morientes, Garcia

£0-5 million: 47 (36)

Degan, Cavelieri, Ngog, Plessis, Insua, Leto, Itandje, Voronin, Arbeloa, El Zhar, Aurelio, Palletta, Fowler, Kromkamp, Barragan, Nunez, Zenden, Gonzalez, Carson, Pellegrino, Josemi, Martin, Antwi, Hobbs, Miki Roque, Gulacsi, Padelli, Anderson, Poloskei, Crowther, Hansen, Saric, Ayala, Weijl, Blanco, Flora, Mendy, Ajdarevic, Simon, Bouzanis, Nemeth, Pacheco, Palsson, Brouwer, Durán, Huth, Domínguez.



It is easy to see that the majority of Rafa’s signings have been below the £10 million mark and nothing like the fabrication that he has bought mostly “expensive” signings. It is also interesting to note that a large proportion are teenagers bought for the future of the club and may not be on alot of people's radars.

With 49 of his 66 signings still at the club, it means the selling on fee cannot yet be properly forecast and it is near impossible to fully determine if the original fee paid for each player is expensive.


Here are some more comments and claims made about Rafael Benitez:

“He has bought 53 players for £190 million and sold 56 for £108 million, clearly a loss of £82 million proves he doesn’t have a clue in the transfer market.”

I think the easiest way to explain this would be to just show you a full rundown of Rafael Benitez’ signings since he joined Liverpool in June 2004:



Players bought in by Benitez: 66

Players still at the club: 49

First Team: 18

Alonso, Reina, Agger, Aurélio, Kuyt, Arbeloa, Mascherano, Lucas, Torres, Itandje, Benayoun, Babel, Skrtel, Degen, Dossena, Cavalieri, Ngog, Riera.

Reserve Team: 22

El Zhar, Insúa, Palsson, Brouwer, Durán, Huth, Domínguez, Pacheco, Nemeth, Plessis, Hansen, Saric, Ayala, Weijl, Blanco, Flora, Mendy, Ajdarevic, Simon, Bouzanis, Crowther, Poloskei

Out on Loan: 9

Andriy Voronin, Jermaine Pennant, Sebastian Leto, David Martin, Godwin Antwi, Jack Hobbs, Miki Roque, Peter Gulacsi, Paul Anderson



A figure of 49 players bought by Rafa are still playing for the club with the majority (29) bought as youth players for the reserve team—with the idea for future revenue if they perform to their potential. It will also save the club a great deal of money if they turn out to be superstars worth a large transfer fee.

From that 49 figure, there are 18 still playing for the first team and contributing to the clubs success on a very large scale—with the majority of them being priced by many as a greater figure than when the players were initially bought by Rafa.

From the nine players out on loan, only two are established players with the other seven being young reserve players gaining experience at other clubs—with the hope of either returning to Liverpool’s first team or making a profit to invest in future transfers, a policy utilised by many big clubs.



Players Sold On by Benitez: 56

Players Bought by Other Managers and Sold on by Benitez: 39

Players Bought and Sold on by Rafa Benitez: 17



For me, this is the key point from which poorly informed debaters’ opinions collapse. Most propaganda articles or rival supporters will wildly claim that Rafa has sold "56" players and made little money in return.

They claim the “majority” of the "56" players the Liverpool manager has sold on have been at a loss and “proves” his failings in the transfer market. This is such a misleading statement to make that I really don’t know how people can still get away with it, let alone acctually believe it.

For starters, Benitez has sold 39 players bought by other Liverpool managers.

Benitez cannot be held accountable for selling a player at a loss when; Benitez was not the one who identified the player as a target in the first place or sanctioned the over-inflated transfer fee when the player was first purchased.

You can only really judge him on the players he has bought and sold since he has been at the club and this brings the true figure down to just 17 players.



Profit: 7

Carson +2.25, Barragan +0.43, Sissoko +2.6, Crouch +4.0, Gonzalez +2.0, Bellamy +1.5, Nunez +0.5

Loss: 6

Garcia -2.0, Morientes -3.3, Palletta -0.8, Josemi (swapped for) Kromkamp -0.25, Idrizaj -0.19, Keane -3.0 (could be even less depending on contract triggers)

Even: 4

Pellegrino, Zenden, Fowler, Padelli (all four players were brought in and moved on for a free transfer)



So the true extent of Rafa’s failings in the transfer market is just six players from 17; coming with a loss of just under £10 million within four and a half years—the most expensive loss being just £3.3 million; nothing like the losses achieved by other established Premier League managers who manage to avoid the media abuse storm.

Propaganda did not die out at the end of World War 2, it is still very much evident in football today.

Media Myths: Andy Gray, Rafael Benitez, and Liverpool's Zonal Marking

After a disappointing result at home to Chelsea in the Champions League, it is no surprise to see the Liverpool forum boards filled with complaints about the zonal set-piece system that Benitez has championed since he joined the club in 2004.

Last night the Liverpool players conceded two goals from two corners against a dominant Chelsea team—which has given The Reds a very difficult trip to Stamford Bridge if they hope to proceed in the competition—and unsurprisingly the papers and sports-news channels are now filled with the recycled zonal marking debate.

What is also not surprising is this subject for debate appears just a couple of times a season and is not a constant source of discussion every week. It is probably because this "problem" with zonal marking is not actually a problem and the system has ensured Liverpool have had a fantastic defensive record over the last four seasons.

This zonal marking frenzy is not a new situation as it has been common place ever since Benitez took charge of Liverpool.

His first season in charge would no doubt bring with it problems in terms of conceding goals. The Spaniard had to get a group of players to change their ethos on defending set-pieces and get them playing to his system as quickly as possible. Despite this, match commentators routinely attacked the system as players struggled to adapt in the first few weeks and this led to the team letting in 41 goals in 38 matches.

Of course this was all because of the zonal marking system Rafa was stubbornly forcing on to his players. That is what the media "experts" would have you believe anyway.

What this statistic doesn't tell us is that from those 41 goals only four came from set-pieces all season. Rafa's players had 137 corners to defend and conceded just twice, with only two goals being scored against them from free-kicks.

After spending a season working with the new system, Benitez managed to get the players performing close to the way he had envisioned with a worthy tally of just 25 goals conceded in 38 games—his lowest amount in the league to date.

This came against the initial tide of media speculation that the new zonal system was ridiculous and would never work, and if Rafa persisted with it his time at the club would be a short one. However, Rafa has gone on to record the club's lowest goals-conceded tally in the league since 1984, and his three previous seasons of 28, 27, and 25 are Liverpool's three lowest records since 1989.

Not bad for a system that experts would have you believe is riddled with flaws.
What is amazing—and greatly hypocritical—is the amount of goals that are conceded every single week of every single season from the man-to-man marking system. But how many "experts" and supporters are heatedly debating that system and it's many fallacies?

Propaganda: "is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognition's, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the person providing the information."

Famous Liverpool propagandist, Andy Gray claims in his recent article; "Much has been made of Liverpool's defensive strategy and let me say now I'm not a fan of zonal marking and never have been. I guarantee that a running jump will beat a standing jump at any level of football at any time."

I would like to challenge this claim that Andy Gray guarantees a running-jump will beat a standing jump at any time. I could be incredibly pedantic and state that a static Peter Crouch (6'7") could probably beat Aaron Lennon (5'5") running to meet a header eight times out of ten. But surely I wont have to go that far to prove that a running jump does not beat a standing jump every time.

The First Goal
Andy Gray goes on to claim: "I'm not saying it's a shocking system, but it is flawed and that makes it very difficult to blame people who are marking space."

With Andy claiming it is the system that is flawed and that the players can't be blamed, he is just creating a very subtle straw man fallacy in order to lay the blame at the door of Rafael Benitez for choosing the flawed system—when in fact it is down to the players not doing their jobs properly.

The first goal was conceded because Ivanovic lost his man-marker—that's right, man-marker—Xabi Alonso, who tracked his run inside the box but lost him due to some intelligent maneuvering from the Chelsea defender. With blocking-off and dummy runs, this is something that happens in the man-marking system pretty much every time.

Another contributing factor for the first goal was the positioning of Albert Reira who mistimed the flight of the ball and the area it would land as he took three or four steps to meet it.

Despite being just a foot in front of Ivanovic when the Chelsea man headed the ball, the Spanish winger could still not manage to clear the corner as he lept from a running jump.

Not a standing jump.

But the most interesting point, and probably the most important in terms of blaming zonal marking for the goal, would be that despite Ivanovic's run in to the box; when he met the ball he was actually standing still, and the momentum of his run in to the box had absolutely no bearing on the pace of the header.

Ivanovic could have been standing in that exact position from the very beginning and the Liverpool players would still not have cleared the corner. Simply because it was the players at fault and not the zonal marking system.

Andy Gray rightly states the system is not shocking but has its flaws. So because it is not a system that guarantees 100 percent of the time no-one will score from set-pieces; does that make it a subject that is worth criticism every time a goal is actually conceded?

And it seems only when it is Liverpool who conceded that goal.

The man-to-man system is flawed and teams who utilise that type of marking system routinely let-in goals every single week on more than one occasion. Where are Andy Grays criticism's of that system? Where are his debates and statistics complaining about a system that is actually more flawed and concedes more goals than zonal marking?

The Second Goal
If we look at the second goal Liverpool conceded "due to the zonal marking system," we can see a repeat of the first goal. The keeper does not come to claim a cross that is flighted on to his six-yard line, Steven Gerrard mistimes his reading of where the ball will land in order to clear, and Ivanovic does not meet the ball with great speed from a running position when he scores.

During the game Andy Gray—after highlighting zonal marking as being the reason for a second goal being conceded—claims that the cross clears "five" Liverpool players without them being able to clear the corner.

I am sorry but four of those five players would have had to be something like 12 foot tall or bigger if they had any realistic chance of getting near that cross.

The only person with any chance to clear the ball was Steven Gerrard who was a couple of feet in front of Ivanovic. As we know, he failed. Steven Gerrard was also man-marking Ivanovic before the corner was taken but once again intelligent running from the Chelsea man—which are just as prolific in the man marking system—created space as he lost his marker.

So that is two goals that was not actually down to a system that is apparently so flawed that it should be abandoned at all costs. I am surprised "experts" have not tried to make out Chelsea's third goal was down to zonal marking as well.

Once again people are ignoring the glaringly obvious that when the system works—and the system works a great deal week in week out without any mention during its success—it is not a problem. When players fail the system and don't do their job properly, it is the players who are at fault and not the system.

When players make mistakes during man-to-man marking, the system is not ridiculed or debated furiously the next day.

Andy finishes with this little gem: "They could easily go man-to-man if Rafael Benitez wanted but he chooses to go zonal."

Would that be because Rafael Benitez has spent quite some time studying under some of the best managers in the world and actually worked as a football manager for a few years, Andy?
And could it be that the system does actually work?

When a defender goes to tackle a player who has the ball, he sometimes ends up fouling that player and giving away a penalty. Should we just eradicate tackling all together because the idea of tackling has some flaws to it?

Or maybe we should just accept that sometimes in football players get it wrong and not everything is 100 percent guaranteed.

Apart from Andy Grays theory about a running jump beats a standing jump every time.

John Aizlewood Says Liverpool Supporters Are Excessively Sentimental

John Aizlewood is apparently an "award-winning author, writer and broadcaster" who "scrubs up quite well and always speaks in proper sentences." John also kindly informs us he knows "the difference between it's and its." What John's insipid blog-bio doesn't tell us about is John's worryingly obvious xenophobic attitude.

John's self-indulgent blog-bio also doesn't educate the reader about his Victor Meldrew outlook on everything from "having to carry a laptop too far across a car park" and "having to share a press-room with non-journalists" to "having to wait for his free, luke-warm pie longer than should be expected" and "writing an article before a game has finished, only to have to re-write it when (shock horror) a goal or two is scored in the final 10 minutes."

Victor, sorry, I mean John, does however happily explain his strong feelings about, amongst many other things, the city of Liverpool. The "award winning writer" believes that Liverpool supporters are "weakly and excessively emotional and foolishly sentimental" in their mourning of the dead.

He unashamedley depicts how the city of Liverpool "will always be the place where teenagers give away their unwanted babies and then spend the rest of their lives regretting it" with John proudly stating that "this city's curious mix of mean and maudlin means it could never be my kind of place. Never ever."

John loves Liverpool, honest he does.

"Colin from the Sunday Express gives me a lift to Putney Bridge, the tube's full of drunken Scousers." —John Aizlewood

Thanks for that pointless and irrelevant piece of information John. People in Liverpool drink and use trains. Call the police.

John Sees Dead People
John "Award-Winning" Aizlewood's latest blog entry is simply entitled "I see dead people."

Was this latest offering—from the writer who thinks it's worthwhile noting that he can write and speak in full sentences—about his assignment to a local morgue? Or perhaps it was an indepth film review about Bruce Willis in The Sixth Sense? Well, it was infact John's labourius experiences of attending a League game between Liverpool and Blackburn that just-so happened to precede the 20th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster by four days.

John confidently remarks on how the Liverpool supporters are in a mawkish and belligerent mood as the rapidly approaching anniversary of the day fellow men, women and young children where crushed to death thanks to the mistakes of several people in charge of safety during the game.

After the "leading football correspondant" complains about the "hostile and hopeless" Anfield stewards and the "mawkish and maudlin" Liverpool supporters, he tries to imply that the Hillsborough families are hunting for "closure" masquerading as "justice."

"People are still seeking closure, or as they put it "justice" —John Aizlewood

Of course the man who "has interviewed almost every major pop music figure of the last two decades" doesn't stop there. He tries to belittle the mourning of the Hillsborough dead by comparing it to the Hysel disaster and claiming that nobody here [Liverpool] speaks of the victims of the that disaster and their families' suffering.

"The pain is still raw, just as raw, I'd imagine, as the pain of the relatives of the Liverpool fans' Heysel victims is in Turin, but nobody speaks of them here." —John Aizlewood

John then moves on to a favourite subject of his which, judging by some of his other blogs and articles, he clearly enjoys writing about. John apparently loves it when Rafael Benitez is in "cocky gibberish mode" despite John never being able to fully "undertand what he says." He proudly claims the foreigner is "covertly bonkers" and "brought up Alex Ferguson without prompt."

"I don't understand his [Benitez] reply, but he smiled at me, so the answer was probably yes." —John Aizlewood

Apparently the "award-winning writer" has "no idea" as to why Rafa would bring up "Sir Alex Ferguson" again and he doubts "Rafa knows why either." It is strange that such an acclaimed writer has such a selective memory when it comes to "Sir" Alex Ferguson and it's interesting that there is rarely any meldrew-type criticism for the British-born, Manchester United manager from the propagandist, John Aizelwood.

The Xenophobic Article
The Sunday Times has felt it perfectly acceptable to publish John Aizlewood's latest article that is fundamentally underpinned with a xenophobic attack on a foreign manager. The article boldly claims the Spaniard has given an interview to John and the "multi-award winning" writer has instead created a deluded version of his desired response and laced it with a large amount of subtle and not-so subtle digs at the Liverpool manager.

The article not only consistently mocks a Spanish-born man attempting to speak English but also throws-in a few cultural stereotypes as humour.

"...he [Ferguson] is attempting to bait me [Benitez] into saying something rash, into responding like a bull to a red rag (ah, sweet blood-stained memories . . .)" —John Aizlewood

The stunningly biased article is simply one big fallacy hiding behind humour, but clearly rooted in the "journalist's" true feelings which are evident in many of his other ramblings. The Ad Hominem approach to addressing the points raised in his article are basically a straw-man fallacy that does nothing but discredit someone in a blatantly biased manor and completely failing to address anything near the truth in any of the issues he mocks.

But it was obviously not the intention of John "I love Rafa" Aizlewood to produce an article filled with truth or factual balance.

The fact that The Sunday Times have felt this article is within any standards of decency is slightly worrying. But perhaps not when you realise that The Sunday Times is in fact part of the Rupert Murdoch News Company that also owns The Sun newspaper.

Shy Sam Allardyce, Angelic Alex Ferguson and the Evil Rafael Benitez

It is a moment like this that I wish I wasn't a Liverpool supporter. Not because I am embarrassed or ashamed of something our manager has done. It is because my article or opinion can't be lauded as biased.

If I supported Manchester United my opinion would be exactly the same. If I supported Blackburn Rovers my opinion would be exactly the same. If I hated football, you guessed it, my opinion would be exactly the same.

Alex Ferguson is one of the biggest hypocrites this game has, or will ever see and it looks like Sam Allardyce is trying his hardest to emulate the United manager.

If your not upto date with the current episode of Home and Away (that's the Premier League soap opera, not the Australian serial drama on Channel 5) then your missing out on the latest round of the Benitez vs. Ferguson saga.

Judging by the reaction of a "humiliated" Sam Allardyce—with the unexpected inclusion of comments from a usually media-shy Alex Ferguson—the Liverpool boss has simply taken things so far in his personal attack of the Blackburn manager and his team that an FA inquiry for bringing the game into disrepute will surely follow very quickly.

When I got home from work and switched on Sky Sports News the headlines suggested that our manager had finally cracked (before you say it, no, he didn't crack up earlier in January) and passed comments that where so derogatory about another club or manager, that I really would struggle to believe or defend it.

Just reading through some of the comments made by Alex Ferguson and Sam Allardyce and anyone would probably come to the same immediate conclusion I did when I first heard about the situation.

The United manager doesn't normally enjoy the media spotlight but this time he truly felt that the behaviour of his Liverpool counterpart towards his close friend, Allardyce, warranted him to offer his opinion on such a disgusting display from Benitez.

The gobsmacked United manager shyly speaks to the reporters and states: "...arrogance is one thing. You cannot forgive contempt, which is what he showed Sam Allardyce last weekend." He finishes his unrehearsed speech with: "In my experience no Liverpool manager has ever done that. It was beyond the pale."

Beyond The Pale: Unacceptable; outside agreed standards of decency.

Just reading those two comments alone and your imagination would be racing to all sorts of conclusions. Rafa spat at Allardyce? He gave Big Sam the finger? He whispered in his ear after the match that he should give up wearing suits? He pointed and laughed at "Big Sam's" earpiece? He ran along the touchline with his finger to his mouth, offering a chance for the Blackburn manager, the squad and their fans to shut up?

The comments from a "humiliated" Sam Allardyce continue from where the shocked United manager left off: "I was hugely disappointed by those gestures. I think they were disrespectful and quite humiliating."

The fragile Blackburn manager continues by saying: "you don't expect those sort of things to happen in a game of football. I was very, very upset by it."

For those who know absolutely nothing about the latest act of evil behaviour from the Liverpool manager; after reading the comments so far, you must surely be thinking something horrendous has taken place and surely, surely, Benitez will be reprimanded for his obviously disgusting acts of contempt towards the angelic Sam Allardyce?

Well I guess I had better divulge you with the gory details of that fateful day which saw the pride and honour of a respected football manager smashed to pieces by a horrible "foreigner" who had the sheer audacity to show any form of emotion in the presence of the people's prince, "big" Sam Allardyce.

Rafael Benitez smiled (the main news story should be that Rafa actually smiled) when his team scored a goal and made a small hand gesture/signal towards the pitch and in the opposite direction of Sam Allardyce.

Have you finished laughing yet?

Propaganda: is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.
Propaganda often presents facts selectively, thus lying by ommision, to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented.

Back to the main reasons for this article. Firstly, Alex "I am clearly suffering from dementia but no one cares whilst we're winning" Ferguson.

At this point it might be interesting to note that Ferguson's comments on the issue became public pretty much the same time Sam Allardyce had offered his opinion on his "humiliation." It makes you wonder what the conversation between the two managers could have been prior to informing the world on "Big Sam's" feelings.

Let's start with the most obvious of his fallacies, according to the papers this is what Ferguson said: "...[for Allardyce] to get that kind of contempt...I don't think any other Liverpool manager would have done that"

Without even needing to browse Wikipedia or Google to find all sorts of facts and quotes to prove these "claims" by Ferguson to be completely wrong. I know off the top of my head that one Liverpool manager in particular routinely showed "contempt" towards another football club.
Bill Shankly is pretty well known for saying such things as: "When I've got nothing better to do, I look down the league table to see how Everton are getting along." and "If Everton were playing at the bottom of the garden, I'd pull the curtains."

A Liverpool manager showing arrogance and contempt? How can that possibly be if the messiah that is Alex Ferguson claims that he doesn't believe a Liverpool manager has ever done it?

The "Mindgames Master" goes on by saying "...arrogance is one thing. You cannot forgive contempt, which is what he showed Sam Allardyce last weekend."

Alex, please, you make this too easy for people. It is almost as hypocritical as Jose Mourinho accusing someone of being cocky and arrogant in an interview.

You have not shown any contempt, arrogance or disrespect for Rafael Benitez at any point in his Liverpool Career have you Alex? You are safe in the knowledge that you are completely without hypocrisy in regards to showing contempt towards another manager?

You must be, otherwise you wouldn't go on record and claim "contempt is unforgivable."
Do I really have to trawl through the Internet and provide links to everyone when every time the innocent Alex has shown contempt or arogance towards the media, rival players, (his own players) rival supporters, (his own supporters) the Football Association, match officials, and most importantly of all, rival managers?

If your one of the Manchester United supporters who back your manager regardless of the glaringly obvious hypocrisy, I'm sure I would have to. Im certain you would still ignore it for the sake of petty rivalry.

I guarentee if you were at work with Alex Ferguson as your boss and he showed the same arrogance, hypocrisy, immaturity, and ignorance towards you or your work-mates; you would be first in-line to punch him on the nose.

I will resist all nose-related jokes at this point.

Hypocrite: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

Sam Allardyce is also not a manager who enjoys the media spotlight and will routinely pass up the chance to provide us with his comments about other managers and teams.

So we should consider ourselves lucky to get an insight into how Big Sam feels on an emotional level when it comes to interactions with his fellow managers: "...in terms of respect, you don't expect those sort of things to happen in a game of football. I was very, very upset by it."

Allardyce is clearly a broken-man and the emotional wreck goes on to say: "the game is hard enough as it is without a fellow manager doing what seemed to be an undermining gesture."
If we re-wind a few days and go back to the previous comments made by Sam Allardyce before the Liverpool-Blackburn game, you will hear Big Sam claim: "Bolton always used to batter them [Liverpool] at the Reebok"

Surely a manager showing respect to a fellow manager would perhaps mention that his team always "played well" instead of "battering" the opposition?

My version of "agreed standards of decency" would suggest that "battering" is showing signs of "arrogance" and "contempt."

The heartbroken Allardyce also said "...you can't help him whingeing and moaning, can you? He loves it."

Come on Sam, it's a little disrespectful to claim someone whinges and moans. Especially when that's all you seem to do when you talk to the reporters. The papers are currently filled with your whinging and moaning. Just like they have been for most of your career.

The offended Blackburn manager goes on to say "...if I can beat Liverpool, Chelsea, Manchester United home or away, then I am a major tactician and a very good manager."
No Sam, that's not arrogant at all, is it?

I have been through several Liverpool-Blackburn match reports and have not found a single mention of this "incident" from any reporter and more importantly anywhere in Big Sam's three minute interview following the game.

Surely someone who has been so incensed by Rafa's actions that he waited in his office after the match to get "clarification" on the incident, would mention it at some point during his post-match interview. Or at some point during that day. Or maybe the next day. After all, Big Sam was "very, very upset."

Perhaps the reason is because Big Sam is such a media-shy manager who doesn't normally voice his "concerns" and this meant he instead chose to pass-up the opportunity to discuss the incident with the post-match reporter and possibly get some idea of what the reporter thought Rafa's gesture might have meant.

Allardyce apparently went in to Rafa's office after the game: "I then waited to have a word with him after the game in his room, but as usual and unfortunately, he didn't turn up."

As usual? How many times have you been in to Rafa's office for a word Big Sam? After your "contempt" in many previous comments about Rafa, I was surprised you even managed to be allowed in to Rafa's office.

Even though the Blackburn manager failed to get "clarification" from Rafa Benitez on the hand-gesture, he took it upon himself to interpret what it actually meant and decided to concur with his close pal Ferguson before informing the media (several days later) of his "humiliation" over the hand-gesture. Despite not knowing what the actual meaning of the hand-gesture was.

"What I expect is a little more respect from a fellow manager." —Sam Allardyce