The last time he lost three games in a row, Brendan Rodgers was still managing Swansea.
And that may be the most telling stat when it comes to the Liverpool boss. The 2-1 setback against Chelsea yesterday makes it a hat-trick of defeats in a week and, in that sense, he's in uncharted territory. In his first campaign, despite not qualifying for Europe, he was given the benefit of the doubt; in his second Liverpool came within a hair's breadth of winning the Premier League. Now you look for more progress, but the losses of Daniel Sturridge (to injury) and Luis Suarez (to Barcelona) only give you so much of an alibi.
The unprecedented decision to leave out seven first-team picks - billed by some as a masterstroke, by others as an unforgiveable raising of the white flag - at Real Madrid has repercussions. A strong performance against the league leaders yesterday might have vindicated it in some measure.
And, for nearly 20 minutes, Rodgers got just that. Liverpool were aggressive, Cesc Fabregas was struggling, it looked like they might add a second. Then followed the customary set-piece collapse and, with a bit of help from goalline technology, Chelsea got their equaliser, even if it was scrappy.
In the end the bottom fell out. The midfield ceased to create. Raheem Sterling got lost down his flank and Oscar and Diego Costa grew more threatening in the final third. It became a case of when, not if, Chelsea would score again. Which is what happened, midway through the second half, when Costa fired home.
There was no reaction on the pitch, so Rodgers tried to generate it from the bench. Off came Emre Can - whose driving shot was deflected past Thibaut Courtois by Gary Cahill - and Philippe Coutinho, who, for all his deficiencies did show a bit of spark and on came Fabio Borini and Joe Allen. Unsurprisingly, the Anfield crowd didn't take it too well.
Still, Rodgers was steadfast after the game. He correctly pointed out Liverpool should have had a penalty for that Cahill handball late in the game. He also said he "was pleased with the performance". No accounting for personal taste of course, but there was little to cheer in anything Liverpool did after the 20-minute mark. At best, Rodgers could say he was glad the result was close - a narrow defeat being better than a walloping - and that his crew could have snatched the draw. But, truth be told, even if they had, it wouldn't change this fact: they aren't playing well and haven't played well in a long while.
He wrote in his programme notes yesterday that he wasn't going to "offer excuses" but instead he would "provide solutions". Asked what those solutions might be, he cited the return of Sturridge (that's the way to put more pressure on the guy) and that they would "continue to work hard".
That kind of talk is wearing a bit thin.
On Thursday, the 72 Football League clubs were asked to vote on allowing the return of artificial pitches. It ended in a tie, which means the third and fourth tier of English footall will be playing on green - and occasionally brown - grass. And, on Friday, a group of the world's top women footballers saw their gender discrimination lawsuit - based on the fact that the 2015 Women's World Cup in Canada, unlike the men's version, is set to be played on artificial turf - saw their case referred to an independent arbitrator.
You can see the women's argument on the grounds of equality. Football at the highest level - ie: men's - is played almost exclusively on grass. If Fifa and organising nations can muster grass pitches for the men's World Cup, they ought to do it for women too.
But the other arguments - and those of the Football League clubs - do appear rather flimsy. Prozone studies suggest there is no difference in the way the game is played on the latest generation pitches.
As for the supposed risks of injury, most of the large-scale studies which do show higher injury rates aren't limited to latest generation pitches, but include the older, plasticky, Astroturf variety. Further muddying the waters is the fact that competing studies - which show no increase in injuries - are often funded either by manufacturers of artificial pitches or by Fifa, who obviously have a vested interest. The fact of the matter is that most people who play football do so on less than perfect grass pitches. And that includes professionals. If you want to develop the game in countries that are not wealthy or don't have a climate comparable to "England's green and pleasant land" you either go with high-tech artificial pitches that require little maintenance or you end up playing on craggy, muddy piles of dust and gravel. Or you simply don't build more pitches.
In the summer, Everton's owners - buoyed by the club's fifth place finish and the universal accolades showered upon the manager, Roberto Martinez - opted to do something they had not done since the summer of 2007: spend more than they took in on transfers. And they did it in the most emphatic way, with a net spend of £36.5 million, the fifth highest in the Premier League.
It was a "now-or-never" calculated gamble, almost entirely fuelled by two factors: turning Romelu Lukaku's loan into a permanent deal and hanging on to their coveted youngsters like Ross Barkley, James McCarthy, Seamus Coleman and John Stones.
Three months into the season, results are mixed. Ninth heading into today's trip to face Sunderland at the Stadium of Light, they have, however, acquitted themselves well in the Europa League, handily beating the likes of Lille (3-0) and Wolfsburg, second in the Bundesliga, 4-1.
They remain entertaining to watch, the big question, though, is whether they've grown enough to justify the outlay. To do this, they'd need another top-six finish and perhaps a cup run, either in the FA Cup or the Europa League. They remain attainable goals, despite the somewhat disappointing start.
Barkley's injury only offers a partial vindication, they need to start coming together soon and show that their youngsters have grown and that stability hasn't yielded staleness but rather a platform on which to grow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article