The veteran centre-half has looked unusually vulnerable in recent weeks, but he remains the most influential defender in the Premier League

Virgil van Dijk stopped to talk to reporters after Liverpool's Premier League loss at Fulham earlier this month. For the umpteenth time this season, he was quizzed about his future. On his occasion, he actually had an update.

"There is progress," Van Dijk said in response to a question about a possible contract extension. When asked if that meant he was saying beyond the end of the season, Van Dijk replied, "I don't know, we’ll see. Listen (laughs), these are internal discussions and we'll see."

Van Dijk hadn't given away much, yet it still felt like a lot in the circumstances. Liverpool supporters have been kept completely in the dark throughout the club's ongoing contract talks with not only Van Dijk, but also Mohamed Salah and Trent Alexander-Arnold. So, the mere mention of the word "progress" came as a massive boost to an increasingly anxious fanbase – particularly as it came after a bitterly frustrating defeat.

However, the fact that Van Dijk had contributed to a dreadful defensive display at Craven Cottage prompted some pundits to question whether giving the 33-year-old a bumper new deal would really be a good idea. After all, Fulham wasn't the first time Van Dijk had looked vulnerable during Liverpool's first real wobble of the 2024-25 campaign…

Getty Images Sport'Too good for the highest level'

When Liverpool routed Tottenham on February 6 to overcome a first-leg deficit and progress to the final of the Carabao Cup 4-1 on aggregate, Arne Slot's side were still competing on four fronts, which once again sparked talk of a historic quadruple. The Reds were undeniably in a strong position, with the Premier League leaders having finished top of the Champions League league phase and drawn Championship strugglers Plymouth Argyle in the fourth round of the FA Cup.

Salah's record-breaking attacking goals-and-assists numbers were unsurprisingly dominating the headlines, but it was Van Dijk's seemingly effortless excellence that Jamie Carragher felt compelled to flag after the 4-0 win over Spurs.

"He’s too good for the highest level of football," the former Liverpool defender said in thestudio at Anfield. "It’s almost like it’s still too easy for him. It almost feels like there should be another level above that for Van Dijk because he plays the game with such ease.

"I watched him here recently against [Erling] Haaland – the best goal-scorer around, a big, powerful lad who’s got pace – and it doesn’t even feel like Van Dijk is trying. Did he even sprint in the game tonight?!"

AdvertisementGetty Images Sport'It's a joke'

Carragher has, of course, long been accused of being biased towards his former club – a claim that he addressed again only last week – but it's worth remembering that ex-Tottenham defender Michael Dawson was just as effusive in his praise of Van Dijk.

"He never gets dirty; he looks immaculate at the end of [a game] because he cruises through," Dawson told . "He gets people [into position], he’s always talking. He plays in front of him. He is calm and everything about him just oozes class."

Carragher was just warming up, though, as he then went on to claim that when it comes to the finest defenders the Premier League has ever seen, Van Dijk is in a class of his own.

"He is the best," the Scouser said, "and it's not even a debate. This nonsense about all the other defenders who are great defenders, and I've played with a lot of them, he's so far above them. It's a joke."

Getty Images SportSigns of decline?

Of course, many fans of Liverpool's rivals are now arguing that the joke is on Carragher, as Van Dijk has looked anything but comfortable in recent weeks.

There were times during both legs of the Champions League last-16 loss to Paris Saint-Germain that Van Dijk appeared unsure which hole to plug, as Ousmane Dembele & Co. took it turns to torment Liverpool's full-backs, while Alexander Isak, one of the few forwards to consistently cause the Netherlands international problems over the past couple of years, scored the crucial second goal for Newcastle in the shock the Carabao Cup final defeat at Wembley on March 16.

In fairness to Van Dijk, he was arguably let down by those around him in those instances, but there's simply no denying that he was seriously troubled by both Beto and Rodrigo Muniz against Everton and Fulham, respectively, before he put in arguably his worst display of the campaign against West Ham last Sunday.

Beto missed a glorious chance to put Everton 1-0 up in the midweek Merseyside derby at Anfield after leaving Van Dijk trailing in his wake, while Muniz muscled the Reds skipper off the ball before getting away from him with a sublime first touch and then slotting home. Against the Hammers, meanwhile, the ex-Celtic star routinely missed his kick when attempting clearances and looked flustered all afternoon even before his mix-up with Andy Robertson that led to the Scot putting through his own goal late on.

Van Dijk, of course, ensured that the mistake wouldn't lead to Liverpool dropping points, as he popped up at the other end three minutes later to power home a header and secure a 2-1 victory, but there is no doubt that he hasn't been at his best from a defensive point of view in the past couple of months.

AFP'I don't worry about Virgil'

It was telling in itself that Slot had to address his on-field leader's alleged dip in form after the 3-2 at Craven Cottage that preceded the West Ham win.

"If you look at Beto, Virgil wasn’t the first defender to find it hard to play against him as he chases for every ball, pushes you just before you get the ball," the Reds boss said in his post-match press conference. "The one who played there today, Muniz, you have to give a lot of credit to him as well.

"I still see a lot of things that Virgil does really well. If you play 50 to 60 games a season, even for Virgil, there will be one or two moments where he could have done better. I don't worry about Virgil."

Slot is right, too: there's certainly no need for panic – or to question the willingness to give the 33-year-old a new deal.