If Anfield staged a moshfest last night, then the San Siro put on an exhibition of footballing ballet tonight. Not so much Manchester United, of course: they were generally shabby and confused. But Milan were magnificent, displaying all the commendable energy and discipline of Liverpool, but also finesse, invention and beauty.
For all that, they are probably inferior to the Milan side that lost in Istanbul two years ago, whereas Liverpool, as Rafael Benitez keeps telling us, have improved since then. Logically, therefore, Liverpool should soon be crowned European champions for the second time in three years. Given the ramshackle squad Benitez inherited when he arrived at Anfield, and how much more difficult the modern Champions League is to win than the old European Cup (apart, um, from the fact that you don't actually have to be champions to take part) that feat will arguably surpass anything achieved by the great Bob Paisley.
But of course, if football was only about logic, then technocratic former school-teacher Gérard Houllier would be a managerial genius. But it's not, and he's not. Indeed, the 2005 final didn't really turn on logic - true, Liverpool's second-half improvement was partially down to the introduction of Dietmar Hamann, who solidified a midfield that, like United for much of tonight's game, was bamboozled by the movement, control and enterprise of the wholly divine trinity of Clarence Seedorf, Andrea Pirlo and Kaka; but for the most part Liverpool's victory was down to unquantifiable qualities such as desire, faith and fortune. That was what enabled Liverpool to beat a side that were manifestly more skilful than them. And it is precisely because we know that Liverpool are somehow capable of summoning those powers with more frequency than most that it would not be outlandish to make make them favourites in Athens. But it would not be logical.
Because the second paragraph doesn't tell the whole story. Milan were so much better on paper and, for most of the match, on the pitch than Liverpool in 2005 that the fact they have been weakened while Liverpool have been strengthened does not lessen their chances of victory. Yes, Liverpool have dramatically enhanced their striking options: Peter Crouch, Dirk Kuyt and Craig Bellamy may frequently be exposed as embarrassingly limited, but they're still a darn sight more menacing than Djibril Cissé and Milan Baros - yet Milan, though shorn of Jaap Stam, still have sufficient quality to contain them comfortably.
Liverpool have also improved their defence, most obviously by ditching Djimi Traoré, but also by replacing Jerzy Dudek with Jose Reina. And Milan have been weakened up front: indeed, the departures of Hernan Crespo and Andriy Shevchenko have forced them to change their shape in Europe - with Ronaldo cup-tied, they simply no longer have two genuinely dangerous strikers. Yet, as Milan, showed tonight, and in the previous round in Munich, they don't need more than one striker: because most of their menace comes from midfield. That's the one area where Milan have not been weakened and where Liverpool have not significantly strengthened (Javier Mascherano and Momo Sissoko may go on to be better than Hamann, but they're not there yet; and - shocking though it sounds - neither Jermaine Pennant nor Bolo Zenden are better than Harry Kewell and Vladimir Smicer). Chelsea ran Liverpool's midfield ragged when they bothered to try to play through them rather than over them, and Milan should do likewise. Benitez surely won't give them as much space as Sir Alex Ferguson afforded them tonight (it was as if the United manager had forgotten all about the first half of the first leg at Old Trafford), but Kaka, Pirlo and Seedorf only need an inch. They should beat Liverpool by miles. Which, of course, is what we said last time, too.
