Reflecting on his off-the-ball encounter with Arsenal’s Kai Havertz in Liverpool’s recent 2-2 tie at the Emirates Stadium, Virgil van Dijk noted that the situation could be applied on a broader spectrum as well. Specifically, he highlighted the issue of player availability, questioning which team had really been more affected.
Arguing that injuries and absence of players are part and parcel of the sport, the Liverpool skipper pointed out that his team, too, had missed key players. Despite the expressive silence that followed his statements, van Dijk’s towering figure made it clear that he had effectively communicated his point.
Earlier, he had also mentioned to television reporters that Arsenal “only had two players injured…they played a robust team.” Even though the correct tally was three, van Dijk might have unintentionally neglected Takehiro Tomiyasu while concentrating more on Riccardo Calafiori and Martin Ødegaard. Additionally, Arsenal lacked William Saliba due to a suspension, while Gabriel Magalhães and Jurriën Timber were compelled to leave the game.
In essence, van Dijk was detracting from the portrayal of Mikel Arteta’s stripped-down Arsenal squad putting up a gallant draw. Liverpool, on the other hand, was missing injured players including Alisson, Diogo Jota, Harvey Elliott, Federico Chiesa, and Conor Bradley. The underlying sense of frustration was palpable.
Van Dijk’s perspective on the Havertz incident had a similar tone. Having pushed his adversary and made him tumble with two targeted back heel kicks, it might have seemed probable that the referee, Andrew Taylor, would be nudged by VAR to inspect the monitor at the pitchside. Yet, Taylor had seen the entire episode unfold and merely granted a free kick.
Van Dijk’s minimisation of the incident could be considered as the ultimate understatement. “Of course, the game is physical,” stated Van Dijk, “These occurrences are bound to happen. Given the intensity of the on-field skirmishes in the matches, it’s a reciprocal process. It’s an inherent part of the game. That’s all there is to it.”
It seemed as though Van Dijk sought to preemptively justify his actions, but refusing to cast himself in a saintly light, he implied that Arsenal were equally culpable. It’s not invariably a one-sided affair against them. They can’t expect to play both fields.
Five weeks prior, Arsenal’s tempestuous 2-2 standoff with Manchester City ended with allegations of Arsenal’s manipulation of unsporting methods to maintain a 2-1 lead after Leandro Trossard was sent off – faking injuries, dilatory strategies, all aimed to disturb the game’s flow. Once again, the nature of their tactics is the focal point, invigorated by both the post-game discussion with Liverpool manager, Arne Slot, and the tenor of Van Dijk’s statements.
Slot expressed irritation when Arsenal’s goalkeeper, David Raya, was penalised for dawdling when the home team was leading 2-1 at the 66-minute mark. His anger was evident when Timber hit the ground with cramp in the 72nd minute. He communicated his annoyance to defender, Ibrahima Konaté, referring to the event as a “damn joke”. Slot received a yellow card, presuming it was for the official misinterpreting his comment as directed at him.
Slot’s grievances revolved around the frequent instances of Arsenal players being grounded. “While I’m not faulting them for this, it’s conspicuous that it happens once they gain control of the ball,” he added. “To me, it seems like it takes the life out of the game.”
It’s worth acknowledging that Timber’s cramp was legitimate. He had been out of action since sustaining a muscle ailment in a game against Paris Saint-Germain on the 1st of October and was hastily reintroduced for the Liverpool match, manifestly struggling with cramp. His discomfort was evident in his last move – a lengthy dash back towards the goal.
Isn’t it intriguing how Arsenal is chastised for their shrewd match tactics, when previously, they were lambasted for being weak and naive? Clearly, people can’t appreciate both sides of the coin.
Van Dijk emphasized that Liverpool’s draw was an achievement rather than a missed opportunity. The reasons were plentiful and reportedly outweighed the belief that Arsenal’s makeshift defense was vulnerable after Mohamed Salah’s 81st-minute equaliser to make it 2-2.
Liverpool’s performance was not outstanding, but they managed to regain dominance in the second half, despite being 2-1 down at half-time. With a stable 4-3-3 formation, comprising of a No 6, a box-to-box No 8 and a No 10 all orchestrated by Slot, Liverpool’s strategy was clear at the Emirates. They had full faith in their measured, possession-oriented game plan. Although it may lack the intensity of the past, is it necessarily detrimental?
Resilience is shown when a team can bounce back not just once, but twice. When it happens at the field of an immediate competitor, where the previous two league matches ended in losses, it can confidently be considered a victory.
“Some are of the opinion that if you lose, the league is lost… they truly have no understanding,” remarked Van Dijk. “It’s a long season. If a team builds a strong base before December and then navigates through December in the best possible manner, with no injuries and favourable outcomes, they stand a good chance of being league leaders.” – Guardian