Manchester United and Liverpool flattered by pub comparison

Gary Neville's chortling suggestion on Monday night that the forthcoming fixture between Manchester United and Liverpool will be like the Dog and Duck playing the Red Lion could yet land him in trouble. With the denizens of the Dog and Duck and the Red Lion, that is. Frankly, United and Liverpool currently might be flattered by the comparison with a couple of pub teams. A fixture that has usually included at least one team in with a realistic shout of the title will, for the first time in fifty-odd years, be played out without either side in serious contention.

Neville's interjection was, as his heaving shoulders and the giggling of his fellow pundit Jamie Carragher suggested, a joke. Not that Louis van Gaal took it as a gag. He described Neville as an "ex-legend" and advised him to be careful with his words. Which is a touch unfair. Neville's description that United "got away with murder" against Southampton may have been hyperbolic, but it was rooted in truth.

And what he said was right about Sunday's game: United and Liverpool are hardly ringing endorsements for the defensive arts. Liverpool were as shambolic against Basel last night as United were against Southampton.

Faced with a must-win challenge Brendan Rodgers's team capitulated to a side with a tenth of their wealth and renown. What was most alarming about the failure to beat the Swiss was the air of fatalism in the Anfield crowd. It was a result they had come to expect. The jittery atmosphere contrasted with the raucous jollity of United's away following at St Mary's the night before. They may have been watching a match in which their team produced the fewest shots on target of any United side in Premier League history, but they had a feeling things would turn out alright.

This is the one big difference between the two sides right now: United have the attacking resources to compensate for any hapless defending. Liverpool don't. Or as Neville almost said, United are much better equipped to get away with murder.

The decline of Liverpool this season is pretty explainable. We all know the reasons. They have been endlessly rehearsed and rehashed. Luis Suarez improved the players around him and Daniel Sturridge scored a lot of goals. Without either - and with a bunch of reinforcements who at best have been lacklustre - Liverpool are half the team in departing the Champions League as they were when qualifying for it last season.

What must be alarming for the Liverpool support, however, is the thought that this deficiency has been obvious since the first game of the season. Yet - beyond its endless repetition - nothing has been done to alleviate it. Rodgers, a good man manager and acute tactician that he might be, looks increasingly bereft of ideas to turn things round.

At United, the cause of their defensive frailty is equally easy to diagnose: a total lack of consistency of selection caused by injury. But as with Rodgers, there is a sense that the cause of the problem has been clear for so long, you wonder why little has been done to alleviate it. Indeed Mike Phelan this week joined a growing chorus of disapproval of Van Gaal's injury management regime. The Dutch fitness coach Raymond Verheijen insists that Van Gaal is to blame for the catalogue of injuries.

Tactically brilliant as he may be, Verheijen claims, the United manager is old fashioned in his physiological approach to training. Run 'em hard and run 'em often is no longer the best way of shepherding resources, Verheijen suggests.

Jose Mourinho, the master of pre-season conditioning, has demonstrated precisely how to handle a modern squad, able game after game to name the same team, give or take the inevitable odd strain and stutter.  Mourinho’s cunning use of rotating mid-season mini breaks – which John Terry, Willian and Eden Hazard will be indulging in during tonight’s dead rubber Champions League tie – is testament to the kind of sophisticated physiological approach which is available to all modern managers. But which some prefer not to adopt.

Yet, whatever the hapless nature of his backline, it will be Van Gaal who will approach Sunday in a more upbeat frame of mind. If he has been serially unlucky with his back line, unlike Rodgers he is at least blessed that his forwards can score him out of trouble. Which has meant that United, without ever looking remotely like the great sides of old, are clearly a team on an upward trajectory, stealthily moving into the top four even as they strengthen in confidence. As yet nobody takes them as serious title contenders. Which, psychologically, is not a bad position to be in. Under no pressure is a wholly beneficial place to be.

Liverpool, on the other hand, seem trapped in a wearisome downward spiral. While United supporters can point to Wayne Rooney, Robin van Persie and - when he returns from injury - Angel Di Maria, there is nothing remotely as optimistic at Liverpool, where the current team is mired in a listless inability to rise to the occasion. Much emotional energy is being expended on whether Steven Gerrard signs a new contract or not. When your future depends on the continued service of a 34-year old your horizon is not exactly bright.

So Liverpool go to Old Trafford with confidence at a new low. Which suggests Van Gaal is right to point up the inappropriateness of Neville's comparison with pub football. At least at the Dog and Duck you could phone in a few ringers for the big one against the Red Lion.

- Jim White