It's a feature of this strange, compressed Premier League table that today's clash between Manchester United and Liverpool will determine the narrative for the next week or so.
A United win would consolidate their status in the top four, confirming that the Louis Van Gaal effect is real and that the grand rebuild is well on schedule. It would also turn the screws further on the embattled Brendan Rodgers and bring even more angry, pitchfork-wielding villagers to his door.
The converse applies, too, of course. Win at Old Trafford and Rodgers would point to the fact that the Champions League places are within striking distance and that despite his many injuries he never stopped believing in the squad (nor the squad in him). As for United, it would serve as a reminder of just how long a road back it really is, how Ed Woodward needs to pump in even more money, how they can't cope with injuries, and so on.
Look beyond the knee-jerk and a few things are relatively clear. Both teams have been hit hard by absentees and a lack of tactical clarity. Daniel Sturridge isn't Cristiano Ronaldo, Marco van Basten and Ian Rush rolled into one - though sometimes Rodgers has talked about him as if he is - but his availability would have smoothed the club's transition out of the Luis Suarez era.
Liverpool's woes have been compounded by Rodgers' erratic tactical approach and his inability to play a style that suits his newcomers. On top of that, in the last few weeks, he has made matters worse by abandoning his long-time philosophy - which may have had its critics but at least was progressive and won him the job - in favour of some kind of results-obsessed, barricade-raising involving the resurrection of Lucas Leiva. It's ugly and short-termist and does him no favours.
United have been rocked by the injury bug as well - Daley Blind, Angel Di Maria, Radamel Falcao - while also being subjected to Van Gaal's trial-and-error approach to giving players chances. That's why a total of 31 have featured for them in the league this season.
To put that in context, Arsenal have used 24, Manchester City and Liverpool 22 each and Chelsea just 20. Van Gaal has also switched formations liberally: 3-4-3, 4-3-3, 4-3-1-2, 3-5-2, 4-4-2. He's not new to this - when he says it's about philosophy, not tactical schemes, he means it - but it has slowed the club's progress. Indeed, in some ways, it's the opposite of Rodgers. He has sacrificed short-term results for - hopefully - long-term gain.
Oh, and don't let those five straight wins fool you either. Huffing and puffing to overcome Stoke City and Crystal Palace at home isn't particularly impressive. United did look extremely good against Hull City at Old Trafford, but then whenever Steve Bruce shows up at his old place of employment, he tends to get battered. And the two big away wins? Arsenal gifted them the game. Southampton were absurdly unlucky. It's not just my opinion, it's Van Gaal's too: his team did not play well in either.
That's what strikes you most. The extreme fragility surrounding these two sides and the knee-jerk reaction that will inevitably follow, depending on the result. It's not what we're used to seeing when England's two biggest sides go to battle. It's both a sign of the times and a sign of how much work remains to be done.
For all the moaning folks do about Uefa co-efficients and the like, the Champ-ions League group stage did pretty much what it was supposed to do ahead of tomorrow's draw.
Six of the eight top seeds won their group. Arsenal finished second, level on points with winners Borussia Dortmund, but that was only due to that weird home implosion to Anderlecht, when the Belgians came back from 0-3 to 3-3.
Benfica, who were bottom of their group, were the big disappointment. Similarly, seven of the eight second seeds qualified, the one exception being Zenit St Petersburg, who finished third. And of the eight third seeds, just two - Galatasaray and CSKA Moscow - ended bottom of their groups. This doesn't mean the group stage was dull, far from it. There were close calls and might- have-beens right through to matchday six, but it does suggest that over six games the cream does tend to rise to the top, which is what it's supposed to do.
Talk now inevitably turns to who you hope to face in the round of 16. If you're a group winner, you pray for Schalke, Basel or Shakthar Donetsk. If you're a runner-up, you keep your fingers crossed for Monaco, Porto or Dortmund (though even the latter is tricky: awful in the Bundesliga this season, Jurgen Klopp's men are still talented and dangerous in a knock-out setting).
This is where, by and large, luck and happenstance come into play. The fact the big boys have pretty much all made it thus far is one of the strengths of the Champions League, regardless of what the purists who pine for the days of straight knock-outs, no seeds and only champions involved, might say.
ON Friday it emerged that the next Premier League TV deal will include up to 10 games on Friday nights, starting from the 2016-17 season. Overall, the total number of games broadcast will increase from 154 to 168, or 41% to 44%.
Friday night football is a staple in Germany, as well as occasionally in Ligue 1, Serie A and La Liga. It's not a big deal and the likes of Jose Mourinho are in favour of it, particularly when it comes to preparing for, say, a Tuesday night Champions League match. And if it raises a few extra bob - as much as £4 million more per club per season by some estimates - so be it.
As always, what matters - and what likely won't be addressed - is where this extra revenue will go. If it's used for youth development, infrastructure, subsidised ticket prices for categories you'd like to attract (like young people, given that the Premier League has the oldest match-going fans in Europe), then it's not a bad thing.
If it simply goes back out in dividends or to pay higher wages to reserve right-backs and fourth-choice strikers, then perhaps it's not such a good thing.
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