A little more than seven months have elapsed since Liverpool beat Tottenham Hotspur in the Champions League final but for both teams, particularly Spurs, it feels like light years ago.

On Saturday evening, the chasm between the sides was as big as it has been in years.

For most of Mauricio Pochettino's reign the Londoners held the ascendancy in what seemed like an annual battle between the two for bragging rights in the Premier League. Quite how the pair – not exactly historical rivals - found themselves pitted against each other is anyone's guess but it's probably a safe bet to say social media had a part to play.

Fast forward to the Champions League and fans of both sides joined hands in a collective, figurative rendition of Kumbaya My Lord as they all kissed and made up in Madrid last summer.

And, so to this season, and while the previous meeting at Anfield went the way of Liverpool, Pochettino's Spurs had looked on course for an unlikely result when Harry Kane gave them an early lead only for Jordan Henderson and Mo Salah to turn things around. But that was old Spurs. This was Mourinho's chance to produce one of his trademark tactical masterclasses. Instead new Spurs turned out to be same as the old Spurs. Here's what we learned . . .

Mourinho already feels like a mistake

The consensus afterwards was that Spurs' head coach had got his tactics spot-on and, yes, he probably did. Faced with an injury crisis that has robbed him of Harry Kane and Moussa Sissoko for the best part of the season, Mourinho set-up his side in a shape so very reminiscent of his past teams. Pragmatism has always been a watchword with Mourinho but there is a suspicion that the injury to Kane, in particular, might be an excuse to retreat to old ways. The 56-year-old made big noises about how he had taken his time away from the game to find a new mode of playing but this was everything we have seen before with Spurs set up to occupy passing lanes, cut off Liverpool's width and spring the counter. Too often, though, they lacked coherence and remained too passive when out of possession. Thus large passages of play consisted of Liverpool's back four knocking the ball about between themselves. It required a patience from the Spurs players that was not matched by the Tottenham supporters, who showed their disquiet early on. Only when Tottenham went on the front foot following the second-half introduction of Giovani Lo Celso and Erik Lamela did the fans come to life. They could have nicked a point had either Lo Celso or Heung-min Son converted from close range but so, too, they could have been rolled over as the game started to open up. And, when you set up in a manner that only provides two very good chances over the course of 90 minutes, you absolutely have to take one of them.

The feeling is that the Portuguese is now in “painful rebuild” mode which is what Mauricio Pochettino had been calling for repeatedly over the past two years. Except now there is a whole tactical overhaul to introduce as well. Already, the nagging suspicion is that Daniel Levy, generally poor at recruiting managers – notwithstanding Harry Redknapp and Pochettino himself – has got it wrong again. On the evidence so far, the overwhelming conclusion is that Spurs need a clear-out. Under a similar manager to Pochettino that could have been evolutionary as it was when Jurgen Klopp replaced Brendan Rodgers at Anfield, now it requires a revolution.

So what did Liverpool learn?

Not much that they did not already know. In the aftermath of the 1-0 win, a downbeat Klopp expressed his disappointment that his side had not scored more but he also accepted that Spurs had played in a manner that had made it more difficult for his side. So much depends on Klopp's front three remaining compact and allowing Andy Robertson and/or Trent Alexander-Arnold to provide overlaps but often Serge Aurier, playing in right midfield but almost as an auxiliary right-back, and to a lesser extent Heung-Min Son, on the other side, were tasked with meeting forward thrusts high up the pitch.

The champions-elect, who in winning made the best top-flight start ever, still managed to carve out countless clear-cut opportunities and might have won by more had Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain not hit the inside of Paulo Gazzaniga's right-hand post after two minutes or Virgil Van Dijk had not uncharacteristically headed straight at the Argentine keeper when unmarked inside the Spurs' six-yard box. Similarly, and this might explain some of Klopp's frustration, it could so easily have been a match Liverpool dropped points in had Lo Celso and Son not wasted those glorious opportunities.

Afterwards, Klopp feigned ignorance over when Manchester City were due to play Aston Villa, asking “Is it tonight, is it tomorrow, I don't know.” In case you missed it, Jurgen, City/Villa won x-x and the gap at the top is back to/now at xx points.

No-one does more to sow confusion over the rules in football than old pros

When it came to a review of Robertson's tackle on Japhet Tanganga in the second half at the Tottenham Stadium, Jermaine Jenas suggested on Match of the Day that the Scotland captain had got the ball first, then pointed out that it was the side of his foot and not his studs. It was the ultimate in pub-style analysis.

The ruling on serious play reads thus: “Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.”

Quite simply: did Robertson lunge? Yes. Did he endanger Tanganga's safety? Yes.