Not because of all the fun the more creative picture editors had with Ian St John's hard but fair comment about Liverpool fans sitting through games like zombies. The real boot to the groin for Houllier was the news from Arsenal, where Arsène Wenger is being given a new contract, a new stadium and everything else he needs to carry on being the club's most popular manager for the foreseeable future and beyond.
The Highbury love-in points up the Liverpool situation sharply. The traditional rivalry in the North-West is with Manchester United and the challenge for any Anfield manager now is the reverse of the one faced by Sir Alex Ferguson when he arrived at Old Trafford in the mid-1980s, which he described as (expletives deleted) knocking Liverpool off the perch they had occupied so comfortably for over a decade.
Not only is Houllier still waiting to achieve that, his patient approach has been spectacularly undermined by the success of his fellow Frenchman at Arsenal. Houllier has a five-year plan and regularly points out that it took Ferguson at least that long to turn around United, yet Wenger won the double in his first full season. The former Monaco manager was relatively unknown in this country when he succeeded Bruce Rioch at Highbury, whereas Houllier had a higher profile as former manager turned technical director of France. But by the time the latter joined Liverpool, certainly by the time he emerged in sole control, Wenger had established the definitive template for overseas professorial types in charge of English football clubs.
Ferguson made the mistake of dismissing him as a 'guru' at first, although he soon changed his tune when Wenger knocked him off his perch, rolled out players such as Patrick Vieira, Thierry Henry and Robert Pires, and turned a startling profit in the transfer market by buying and selling Nicolas Anelka. Suddenly Houllier had all that to live up to, as well as breaking into the duopoly at the top of the Premiership, and although there are a few months left on the five-year plan, he has struggled on both counts.
The only time Houllier's Liverpool have put one over Arsenal was when Michael Owen pinched the 2001 FA Cup final, and Wenger made up for that by winning the next two. Houllier's overseas signings have failed to set Anfield alight, let alone the rest of the country. Arsenal have won friends everywhere with audacious attacking football, while Liverpool's conservatism has produced yawns, criticism and little progress in the league.
No wonder the natives are restless, although St John was right to observe that the majority of fans are too loyal and respectful to barrack the team or manager during a game. That is not the Liverpool way; nor, it must be said, is managerial questioning of the right of spectators and former players to an opinion.
Houllier constantly complains that a disproportionate number of former Liverpool players have media platforms from which to criticise. He should stop for a moment to consider why that might be the case. Partly it was because Liverpool were so successful 20 years ago that anyone who played for them for any length of time automatically became a household name. Partly it was because successive Anfield managers signed or produced players who were considered Liverpool material, ones who displayed a mix of ability, aggression, determination and individuality. That possibly explains why so many of them went on to become managers - the list begins with Kenny Dalglish, Graeme Souness, Kevin Keegan and John Toshack and carries on through Steve McMahon, Jan Molby and Phil Neal to the less celebrated efforts of Jimmy Case, John Barnes, Emlyn Hughes, Mark Lawrenson and St John.
Then there are the pundits, who number most of the above names plus Alan Hansen. Every club manager has to put up with former players on local radio, but many of Liverpool's old boys work at national level and Hansen, Lawrenson and St John did not make media careers for themselves by being shy.
The question Houllier ought to be asking is how many of his players will express themselves so eloquently when their playing days are over. On the pitch, at least, it appears the traditional Liverpool attributes of combativeness and character have been bred out of the team. Twenty years ago Roy Keane would have been a Liverpool player: now it is doubtful whether his outspoken style would fit in with the Anfield ethos. If Houllier is so touchy about criticism from outside, how would he cope with a captain who complains that standards are slipping? It was one thing to break up the Spice Boys culture, but by moving out Paul Ince, Dominic Matteo, Stephen Wright, Jari Litmanen and David Thompson, Houllier lost some strong voices, spirited fighters who understood perfectly what is required of a Liverpool player.
Whether that was intentional is a matter for another day, for despite all the public expressions of solidarity that followed the FA Cup exit and the Uefa Cup win in midweek, the club are at something of a confidence crisis.
What fans, former players and even one or two of the present ones want to see more than anything else is not the Uefa Cup or fourth place in the Premiership, but a demonstration that the old Liverpool pride and fighting spirit still courses through the team. Houllier needs to answer the charge that he has misplaced it.
Leeds United, who have little but spirit left to offer yet still managed to dent Manchester United's title hopes last week, will provide a stiff test this afternoon. It was against Leeds, of course, that Houllier was taken ill three years ago and it is debatable which club has changed most since. Leeds have lost three managers and no fewer than seven of the team that started at Anfield. Careless, but nothing compared to Liverpool without purpose and passion. That really would be unrecognisable.