What's rare is wonderful, so there was a strange double at Anfield on Sunday night.
Jurgen Klopp hectoring match officials – and actually getting booked for it.
Jurgen Klopp actually admitting that the opposition actually deserved to take something from the match. After them (West Brom) actually doing so.
Any manager doing that is unusual, for that matter, but particularly the Liverpool boss, although to be fair to him he has got used to winning at home.
Usually such an admission is only made in victory, with the pretence of magnanimity by the winning boss. A grin, a shrug, acting the nice guy when you're only handing out platitudes, not any points.
Let's be honest: I dislike Sam Allardyce. Our sensitive (and, probably, sensible) sub-editors refuse to print the epithet with which I prefer to prefix his name.
Yet credit where it's due to the new West Bromwich Albion manager.
His team came to Anfield with a smart game-plan and it worked out for them.
Sure, their 6-4-0 first half formation was hard to watch but Radio 5 Live pundit Pat Nevin was right to describe those as 'rope-a-dope' tactics.
The (punch) Baggies soaked up some punishment – although not a lot, in truth – and then attacked, or at least counter-attacked, when they could in the second half.
A clever corner kick routine, a magnificent header (albeit with an element of 'luck' with the header hitting a post then spinning out before going in) and they had, indeed, earned a point.
Liverpool had eight days between games, which is basically a month in old money, but they were sloppy and complacent in the second half. They got what the deserved just as much as West Brom did.
As did Klopp with his yellow card.
Both that booking and his measured post-match comments were probably a consequence of the previous match at Anfield – and the post-match comments from Spurs boss Jose Mourinho.
It would be great if more bosses were booked for their histrionics on the sidelines, as Klopp was. Especially when they're going buck mad about a free kick awarded in the middle of the pitch.
Showing more respect to match officials might improve their performances. Who knows? Anything's worth a try.
It would be better still if managers didn't devote most of their post-match interviews to trying to spin why the result narrowly didn't go their way.
Manchester United boss Ole Gunnar Solskjaer is one of the few who's regularly honest in this regard.
While I'm still in holiday mood and dispensing credit, at least Klopp had the decency and dignity to give West Brom their due.
Flash back to that previous match at Anfield, when the Reds snatched a late winner against Tottenham, and it was rich, priceless in fact, to hear the beaten Mourinho yamming on about his team having had the better chances.
The Spurs manager has spent more than a decade saying, by word and deed, that the result is all. He has a lengthy show-reel of post-match interviews pointing out, with a smirk, that 'We took our chance(s)'.
The biter bit.
This column is extremely interested in analysis, in concepts such as 'expected goals', possession stats, 'big chances', all of which are elements towards understanding how a game went.
Having been seriously outplayed by, and fallen behind to, the Reds early on, Spurs then completely out of the blue scored a superb counter-attacking goal, brilliantly finished by Son Heung-min. So it goes.
They then carved out some even clearer chances, but…they didn't take them.
The arguments raged about which team had played better overall, although it's worth pointing out that Spurs were up against a central defence consisting of a midfielder and a teenager making his Premier League debut, so, shrugs.
But here's how it is: the scoreboard might not tell the full story, but it doesn't often lie.
Occasionally – although far less frequently than managers and supporters may try to make you believe – the outcome of a match is significantly influenced by a bad decision by the match officials, be they those on the pitch or the VAR in Stockley Park. Or both.
Mostly, though, the result is fair enough.
If your team 'had the better chances' but didn't win, then blame your players for their finishing. It's not illegal for opponents to make blocks and saves (referring to the goalkeeper here).
Discussions about 'playing the better football' are entering the realm of 'musical preferences'.
The 'better football' debate is one which can, perhaps, be had about a match between teams of a similar level, especially when it comes to income and expenditure.
Cast your mind back to some of the muck Mourinho's Manchester United produced, for example, compared to the flowing football of their cross-city rivals Manchester City.
However, as Klopp accepted at the weekend it's up to the wealthier, more talented Liverpool side to do more, do better, against a well-organised, industrious WBA.
Pretty passing and plenty of possession doesn't cut open defences, never mind the mustard.
Supporters always want it their way, especially those of the top teams. They'll gladly accept a fortunate win, then moan when a little luck helps out an opponent.
Expecting consistency from fans is akin to expecting it from right-wing politicians (although that's harsh on many decent, honourable fans). Then again, given how supporters demand that quality from match officials…
One wish for the new year, though, would be for more grace and acceptance from bosses. But such statements will probably remain rare wonders.
/////////////////////////////////////////
Back in the distant past when I went pub quizzing, there was one regular team named 'AMF YOYO'. A group of doctors, they explained/ claimed it was something written on the notes of an annoying patient when they were being signed out of hospital.
The 'A' stood for 'Adios'; the 'YOYO' for 'You're on your own'. The rest you can work out for yourself.
That's my message to 2020: AMF YOYO. Bring on a better 2021.
