VAR is flaky but Pep should look at himself

For defeated football managers it was generally blame the ref. To that we can now add blame the other ref, i.e. VAR. To be fair, VAR is a long way from working smoothly. Why anyone would think that decisions would become totally clear and uncontroversial - or indeed quick - because you can see a replay I can't imagine. After all, pundits have often disagreed after looking at interminable replays. And it has always been the case that, where one person sees a foul, another sees a defender "being strong", for example.

Rugby's TMO system has got a better handle on this, with the referee asking "is there any reason why I can't allow the try?" It seems this question lends itself to a clearer and quicker interpretation of what football is calling "clear and obvious". Or maybe it's just that football hasn't got it's mind round the issues yet. Maybe they should give it a maximum of one minute then stick by the on field decision because, by definition, it can't be clear and obvious by then can it? But still there will always be the judgement call about whether there was "enough" contact or what actually constitutes an "unnatural body shape". So, unlike Pep Guardiola, I can see why two people will look at the same replay and reach a different conclusion.

What I'm finding difficult about VAR is the spurious precision of the offside line. It seems daft to say that someone was offside by the size of their big toe, as happened when a Sheffield United goal was disallowed at the weekend. I realise that your toe is part of a bit of your body that you can score a goal with, so it "counts" when they draw the line. But by any sensible definition that's "level". Level was once offside, but it was changed years ago to give a bit of benefit to the attacker. Now they can draw that infernal line on a screen, "level" seems to have no meaning, you're either offside or onside. If the football authorities want to keep the advantage with the attacker of being level not behind the defender then maybe the guidance should be that the attacker needs to be "clearly" beyond the defender to be offside. After all, that's the way the game was pretty much played before VAR. But wait - how many millimetres is "clearly"?

However, my real problem with the way it's being done at the moment is that the technology can't currently be precise about when the ball has been kicked, so the accuracy with which the line is being drawn is completely spurious. Indeed, since the ball compresses when kicked should it be when foot strikes ball, or when ball leaves foot? Logic would say the latter. This may seem pedantic but remember we are talking about millimetres with people running at speeds which can be close to ten metres a second.

I always found it harder running the line than refereeing in junior football. That is because you have to look at two things at the same time: watch for when the ball is kicked while also looking at the position of the attacker, who is often sprinting forward, relative to the defenders, who might be moving in the other direction. Given the player playing the ball forward can be 50 yards away from the position of the receiver, to use an American Football term, this is physically impossible. You have to glance at the defensive line and quickly look back to the ball and make the best judgement you can. If the action is close enough, you can watch the line and listen for the sound of boot on ball. (No, I didn't try to factor in the difference between the speed of sound and light.....)  It always impresses me how good the top assistant referees are at doing these things. And it's why the best assistant refs aren't necessarily good refs; they are different skill sets to some extent. Assistant refs don't need to be people managers, for example.

Maybe it's just that the rugby TMO has it easy: checking for forward passes can be fraught but the distances and relative movement aren't as large.

What causes me to muse about VAR was Pep Guardiola's childish behaviour during and after Manchester City's resounding defeat at Liverpool yesterday. (Incidentally, I thought both managers should have been sent to the stands). Yes there was VAR controversy - when isn't there? Many pundits thought City should have been awarded a penalty just before Liverpool opened the scoring. Many others didn't. Former Premier League ref Mark Clattenburg thought the decision was right, but not for the reason given. I agreed with him that, as the ball had ricocheted against Trent Alexander-Arnold's red sleeved arm from the hand at the end of Bernardo Silva's blue sleeve, it would have been perverse to award the penalty.  Neither "handball" looked deliberate to me but, even if Alexander-Arnold was making himself "bigger" with his arm position (for me he wasn't) why should City benefit when the ball had hit their player's hand first? That would go against any idea of natural justice.

More materially, as Martin Samuel pointed out, it wasn't VAR's fault that, 22 seconds later, Liverpool scored a cracking goal. The fact that City couldn't contain Liverpool's counter attacks for most of the game had more to do with it. As did Gundogan's weak clearance to the scorer, Fabinho. And also the fact that City's number 2 goalkeeper, Claudio Bravo, isn't an adequate standby for Ederson. A fact which is proved by the remarkable stat that Bravo has conceded 22 goals out of the last 41 shots he has faced.

Being a good goalkeeper in a great side isn't easy as there are long periods with little to do. Pulling off a world class save after standing around for an hour is much harder than making a great save when your team is under the cosh and you've been making a series of saves. Coming in as a rarely used number 2 goalkeeper isn't easy either. But Bravo obviously isn't up to it. He's an insurance policy that's not worth the premium.

I felt Liverpool's win was much more comprehensive than the scoreline suggests. City's strongest players didn't perform on the day. I was bemused by my newspaper giving Kevin de Bruyne 8 out of 10 for his performance. He saw plenty of the ball but didn't use it particularly well. De Bruyne has hit some killer passes and crosses this season but looked ordinary yesterday; the killer balls came from Robertson and Henderson. Sergio Aguero had chances to break his Anfield scoring duck but bizarrely seemed to pull his foot away from the most dangerous cross towards him.

All of City's players can look outstanding on their day, but I'm not convinced by some of them. Ikay Gundogan can do some nice things in a good team playing well but, for me, he fails the Lee Sharpe test. Sharpe looked a good player for Manchester United and won several England caps but when Alex Ferguson tired of his attitude and moved him on he never looked the same player. This may be unfair - Sharpe did have an injury at Leeds which might have been material. But I doubt I'm being unfair to Gudogan, who is one of those "big lightweight" players, like Everton's Morgan Schneiderlin: a big guy who plays with all the physical presence of a midget. Gundogan is 5 ft 11 in in old money but plays like he is several inches shorter. Yesterday both Claudio Bravo and Kyle Walker came in for criticism for not defending Henderson's cross for Mane to score Liverpool's third. But it was a cross that was every bit as good as a de Bruyne classic. And the problem started with Henderson, who had been suffering from flu in the week and didn't see out the match, bursting past Gundogan on the touchline as if he just wasn't there. To take the Lee Sharpe analogy further, I don't think Gundogan would justify a place in the midfield of any top half Premier League team. Not only would I not swap him for any of Liverpool's midfield squad, I wouldn't swap him for any of Everton's (apart, maybe from Schneiderlin - tough call that) including Fabian Delph who City sold to Everton on the summer. Delph would have done a better job for City at Anfield than Gundogan.

As for their coach, I laughed when he took off his leading goalscorer at 3-0 down, making a like for like change in bringing on the talented but lightweight Gabriel Jesus. That's not what most people would do in that situation, Pep! But City's team selection was curious anyway. Guardiola trusted Angelino at left back and the £10M summer re-signing spent most of the game looking like a startled rabbit. Meanwhile Guardiola had over £100M worth of full backs kicking their heels. Cancelo was on the bench and Mendy, who always looks eccentric at best when he does play, didn't even make the squad. Guardiola preferred to keep midfielder Fernandinho in the back four, leaving centre-back Otamendi on the bench. Fernandinho tried to clear Robertson's cross for Salah's headed goal with his foot when a natural back four player would surely have attempted to head it and probably succeeded, or at least blocked Salah's vision, which is often all a centre back needs to do (spoken from experience). In his place in centre midfield Rodri looked as ineffective as he has all season.

Guardiola can only look at himself for these shortcomings. He has spent a fortune - more than £200 million - on full backs while not getting anyone as good as the ones he inherited (Zabaleta and  Kolarov). He has also spent hugely on centre backs with patchy results. Admittedly, the injured Laporte was a success. John Stones should have been but has gone backwards under the mentoring of his famous manager. In contrast, Raheem Sterling has come on hugely over the last two seasons, so maybe it's just that Guardiola and his style of play don't work as well for defenders. Other doubtful but expensive signings like Otamendi and Mangala preceeded Pep's time at City, so this is a recruitment problem for the club that predates him. Nevertheless, it was puzzling that Vincent Kompany, who retired in the summer, wasn't replaced, meaning City went into the season with three experienced centre backs, four being the normal complement.

It seems strange to criticise someone with such a stellar record as Guardiola, especially in view of his back to back Premier League titles. But before that, let's face it, he had no-one to beat in Germany and only one and a half teams in Spain (Real and Atletico Madrid). One wonders, if Pep had gone to Manchester United or Chelsea in 2016, where would they be now and where would Man City be? United would have been a difficult rebuilding job for anyone.

In contrast, Liverpool's recruitment has been far more targeted and successful. When pretty boy man-mountain Virgil Van Dijk signed for Liverpool rather than City nearly two years ago he said he wanted to play for Klopp, and was impressed by the passion of the Liverpool fans.  I was a little surprised as City seemed the better bet to me at the time. Klopp was sure he had the right man and I can now see why van Dijk made his choice.

I'd much rather play for Klopp than Guardiola and I'm an Everton fan.......