The Phantom of the Premier League: Why Liverpool's Shadow Looms Large, Even in Sixth
It’s a peculiar kind of footballing paradox we’re witnessing. Arsenal, sitting pretty at the summit of the Premier League, are being told, in no uncertain terms, that they are not the best team in the division. And the voice delivering this rather bold pronouncement? None other than former Anfield hero Michael Owen. Personally, I find this entire debate utterly fascinating because it forces us to confront what we really value in a football team. Is it current form, potential, or the sheer memory of past brilliance?
Owen’s assertion, delivered with the conviction of someone who’s seen it all, is that Liverpool, despite their current sixth-place standing, remain the benchmark. This isn't just a casual observation; he's suggesting they are "not even close" to being as good as Jurgen Klopp’s side was last season. What makes this particularly interesting is the context: Arsenal are on the cusp of winning the title, a feat that, by all conventional metrics, should solidify their claim to being the best. Yet, Owen is drawing a line in the sand, harking back to a Liverpool that, in his eyes, played a brand of football so superior it transcends their present struggles.
From my perspective, Owen is tapping into a sentiment many fans share: the intangible aura of a truly dominant team. Liverpool last season wasn't just about winning; it was about the way they won. Their relentless attacking, their suffocating press, and their sheer joy on the pitch created a spectacle. It’s easy to see why, even with new signings like Alexander Isak, Hugo Ekitike, and Florian Wirtz, the current Reds squad, under Arne Slot, is struggling to replicate that magic. Owen's frustration is palpable, and it highlights a crucial point: sometimes, a team’s peak performance is so extraordinary that even a dip from that dizzying height still leaves them above many others. It’s a testament to the quality of that previous iteration of Liverpool.
What this also brings to the fore is the ongoing conversation around Arsenal’s style of play. The focus on their set-piece prowess, while undeniably effective, has led some to question the aesthetic appeal of their football. Slot himself has voiced this, lamenting the Premier League’s obsession with dead-ball situations and yearning for the more fluid, attacking football of yesteryear, citing Barcelona's iconic teams. This, in my opinion, is where the real debate lies. Is winning ugly, if it means winning consistently, superior to playing beautiful football and falling short? Mikel Arteta’s response is pragmatic: in the modern Premier League, with its intense tactical battles and near-man-to-man marking, such 'beautiful football' is a luxury few can afford. He argues that teams have adapted so thoroughly that the game has become a chess match of tactical adjustments rather than a free-flowing exhibition.
If you take a step back and think about it, Owen's comments, while perhaps controversial given Arsenal's league position, serve as a powerful reminder. They suggest that true greatness isn't just about accumulating points; it's about a sustained period of dominance characterized by a certain quality of play. It implies that even when Liverpool aren't at their absolute best, the DNA of that exceptional team, and the potential for them to rediscover it, still places them in a different category in the minds of those who witnessed their peak. This raises a deeper question: will Arsenal’s current, effective style be remembered as fondly as Liverpool’s scintillating, albeit perhaps less consistent, era of dominance? Only time, and perhaps a return to their former selves for the Reds, will tell.
