Gary Neville hailed Virgil van Dijk for not âwhingeingâ in his post-match interview but having avoided that typical trope of his the Liverpool captain still managed to pin the blame on one of his teammates in what might be a very subtle dig at Mohamed Salah but is more likely just him unnecessarily calling out a Reds youngster.
Van Dijk was at the centre of what has been billed in the aftermath as a great injustice which could have changed the course of the game, though in fairness, not by either him or his manager Arne Slot, both of whom accept that while they believe his goal should have stood it wasnât the defining moment of a clash in which they were outplayed by Manchester City.
READ:Â 16 Conclusions from Man City 3-0 Liverpool: Champions slip to eighth and out of title race
After Andy Robertson was deemed to be in an offside position when ducking out of the way of Van Dijkâs header past Gianluigi Donnarumma, Liverpool âraised serious concernsâ to the PGMOL after âcontacting refereesâ chief Howard Webbâ, claiming the âreasoningâ for disallowing the goal âdoesnât stack upâ.
Asked about the goal after the game, Van Dijk said: âI think the goal should have stood, that is all I will say. But I am not the one who is making the decisions.â
His decision not to comment further was praised by Gary Neville.
âFrom what van Dijk just said on here, he said he doesnât really want to talk about it,â he said on his podcast.âThatâs the right approach. When youâve lost 3-0 and youâve been well beaten, donât whinge about a refereeing decision.â
But Neville did also criticise Van Dijk for his role in Nico Gonzalezâs goal for City, when the Liverpool skipper made no real attempt to block his goal-bound shot, but shifted his foot to âkillâ Giorgi Mamardashvili behind him.
âVirgil van Dijk was really strange for Man Cityâs second,â Neville said. âHe was just standing there and lets it hit him. Thereâs a little movement from his right leg and it kills his goalkeeper.â
MORE LIVERPOOL COVERAGE ON F365âŠ
đ Premier League winners and losers: Villa, Konate, Soucek, Newcastle, Brentford, Ugarte, Frank and more
đ What did Alexander Isak see during Liverpool defeat as âcrucial reminderâ issued?
đ How Guardiola solved Liverpool ânightmareâ and accidentally signed potential âbestâ right-back in the world
Van Dijk predictably made no reference to that error in a post-match interview in which he failed once again to âlook in the mirrorâ, as Roy Keane suggested he might do after his shocker vs Manchester United, instead picking out Conor Bradley as the Liverpool player to blame for this latest harrowing defeat.
âThe first half was difficult and they were much more comfortable on the ball and it was difficult for our guys to put pressure on them,â Van Dijk said.
âI donât think there was a lot of danger, but Doku had a good game and it was difficult for Conor [Bradley] in the one on one at times. I donât think we were much in trouble but we could have done better.â
Itâs by no means a slam of Bradley, but whatâs the point of naming and shaming him? And in doing so why did he not then insist that it was on the rest of the team to help him out against Doku? Was it in fact quite a thickly-veiled dig at Mohamed Salah for not bothering to defend at all on his side?
As has been widely suggested this season, Salah is a problem if heâs not scoring and assisting not just because of the lack of attacking contributions but because he refuses, or at least fails, to do anything to help out his right-back.
You may also have noticed that when referring to Liverpoolâs failure to press City effectively, Van Dijk referred to âour guysâ rather than us. Youâre a part of the team even when youâre losing, Virg.
