Gary Neville praised Virgil van Dijk for not “whining” in his post-match interview, but while avoiding the usual Liverpool captain Virgil van Dijk cliché, it may have been a very subtle attack on Mohamed Salah, but it’s more likely that he just unnecessarily abused the Reds’ youngster and managed to shift the blame onto one of his team-mates.
Van Dijk was at the center of what was later accused of gross misconduct that could have changed the course of the match, but to be fair neither he nor manager Arne Slott believed that, and while they believe Van Dijk’s goal should have been saved, they both admit it was not the decisive moment in the loss to Manchester City.
Read: 16 takeaways from Man City 3-0 Liverpool: Champions drop to eighth and out of title contention
After Andy Robertson was deemed to be in an offside position when he evaded Gianluigi Donnarumma without getting in the way of Van Dijk’s header, Liverpool “expressed serious concerns” to PGMOL after “contacting referee-in-chief Howard Webb” and claiming the “reasons” for disallowing the goal were “not stacked up”.
Asked about the goal after the match, Van Dijk said: “I think it should have been scored. That’s all I’ll say. But I’m not the one making the decisions.”
His decision not to comment further was praised by Gary Neville.
“Van Dijk said here that he doesn’t want to talk too much. That’s the right approach. When you’re 3-0 down and you’re losing enough, you can’t complain about the referee’s decisions,” he said on the podcast.
However, Neville also criticized Van Dijk for contributing to Nico Gonzalez’s goal for City. Instead of trying to block the goal-bound shot, the Liverpool captain moved his foot to “kill” Giorgi Mamadashvili, who was behind him.
“Virgil van Dijk was a really strange second for Man City,” Neville said. “He just stood there and let it hit. His right foot moved a little bit and that killed the goalie.”
More Liverpool coverage on F365…
👉 Premier League winners and losers: Villa, Konate, Soucek, Newcastle, Brentford, Ugarte, Franck and more
👉 What did Alexander Isaac see during Liverpool’s defeat when the ‘important warning’ was given?
👉 How Guardiola solved Liverpool’s ‘nightmare’ and accidentally signed potential world’s best right-back
Predictably, Van Dijk did not mention his mistake in failing to “look in the mirror” again in his post-match interview, as manager Roy Keane suggested he might do after the shocker against Manchester United, and instead singled out Conor Bradley as the Liverpool player to blame for this latest heartbreaking defeat.
“The first half was difficult, but they were much more comfortable on the ball and it was difficult for our players to put pressure on them,” said Van Dijk.
“I don’t think there were too many dangerous situations, but Doc played a good game and there were some difficult moments for Conor (Bradley) one-on-one. I don’t think we were in too much trouble, but we could have done better.”
I’m not criticizing Bradley in any way, but what’s the point in naming and shaming him? And in doing so, why didn’t he insist to Doc that it was up to the rest of the team to help him?Indeed, was it quite veiled that Mohamed Salah did not try to defend his side at all?
It would be a problem if, as has been widely suggested this season, Salah is not only lacking in attacking contributions, but is unable to score or assist because he refuses, or at least fails, to do anything to help the right-back.
You may also have noticed that Van Dijk referred to “our players” rather than us when referring to Liverpool’s failure to press City effectively. Even if we’re losing, we’re still part of the team, Virg.
