Liverpool (H) Post Match Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agree. If anyone, I think the guilty party for their goal was Raheem who failed to track the full back.[/QUOTE]

Nope, it was actually Sane being a pussy and turning his back when he thought Arnold was going to initially cross it.

Funnily enough, it was Sane who stupidly lost the ball in the middle and caught us on the counter before Eddie came racing out to pass to Danilo and up the other end we go to score.

Sane had an average game barring his goal.
 
squirtyflower said:
Well that and hauling him to the ground with a tackle that Dylan Hartley would be proud of

However let’s not forget that Taylor had an excellent game.
Click to expand...
That too, but the penalty offence was impeding him long enough for a teammate to get to the ball, before the rugby tackle.

Taylor was fine in the first half and a disgrace in the second, same levels of physicality shown by both sides yet double the fouls awarded against us and multiple big decisions in their favour (penalty on Sterling, Van Dijk elbow, double foul before the Salah chance).
 
Just watched it again for the 4th time, twice each in english and spanish narration because the missus wouldn't let me pump up the volume to eleven at three in the wee hours. The two english narrators (dunno who the fuck are they, btw) were amazed at the noise level and said City fans needed to keep it for the whole 90+ minutes, which the blue faithful did with flying colours.

Blue fans, you were mega, you created out of your blue guts an incredible atmosphere (though I hate the term due to dippers) relentless and hostile towards those cheating diving cúnts. It was totally spontaneous, what a difference compared to that choreograph bollocks and karaoked dirge those red ponces built their self deluded myth on. And, to top it off, no traffic beaters nor early leavers this time, you stood till the very fucking end. Bravo.
Meanwhile the Liverpool Flatearthers Cult, unsurprisingly have produced the assorted excuses out of their a hundred and twelve millimetres collective conscious, stoked by the media roaches, fuck them pool lifeforms.
 
aguero93:20 said:
That too, but the penalty offence was impeding him long enough for a teammate to get to the ball, before the rugby tackle.

Taylor was fine in the first half and a disgrace in the second, same levels of physicality shown by both sides yet double the fouls awarded against us and multiple big decisions in their favour (penalty on Sterling, Van Dijk elbow, double foul before the Salah chance).
Click to expand...
I’m inclined to think he started off ok but he certainly changed as the game wore on. It seems that some people are unable to see the subtle things that are allowed for one team but not the other. It obviously changes the way both play.
If you know you can challenge from behind quite physically without impunity you stop one avenue for the forward to build up play.
 
Machiavelli said:
Did you fall asleep on the bus?
Click to expand...

Ha ha no bit of a trick post really , no drove to poulton le flyde after the game, stayed at a mates house , stayed last night too cos it was his 50th.
So unfortuately I wasn't wandering the streets going from pub to pub.
Was a Liverpool fan there but not really a die-hard one he thought it was a good game and the best team won
 
deafmanstevo said:
Ha ha no bit of a trick post really , no drove to poulton le flyde after the game, stayed at a mates house , stayed last night too cos it was his 50th.
So unfortuately I wasn't wandering the streets going from pub to pub.
Was a Liverpool fan there but not really a die-hard one he thought it was a good game and the best team won
Click to expand...

Did you piss in his drink?
 
squirtyflower said:
I’m inclined to think he started off ok but he certainly changed as the game wore on. It seems that some posters ignore the subtle things that are allowed for one team but both the other. It obviously changes the way both play.
If you know you can challenge from behind quite physically without impunity you stop one avenue for the forward to build up play.
Click to expand...
This is the thing that annoys me most about the refereeing in general when we play Liverpool, with pressing and when we played Lyon away this season and Barca in the past.
If our players shield the ball when receiving it, they barge straight through their backs at full speed, if our players turn them, their hands are all over shoulders, if we look like getting away, ankles get tapped.
According to the referees, this is all fine and we should overcome it. Honestly, that's fine in itself by me, even though we're at a slight disadvantage in a physical game.
But if we do any of the above, the fuckers throw themselves to the floor and get a free kick Every. Fucking. Time. and the refs dish out yellows to discourage us. If we want to win the ball back, it has to be a non contact tackle from 12:00 or an interception.
It's bent as fuck, it artificially extends every phase of possession they have and gives them the option of creating chances through turnovers high up the pitch while denying that option to us and it has a huge influence on the game. It's never about the big decisions.
 
squirtyflower said:
That’s really useful. Shame Taylor didn’t apply the laws as they are shown there as I saw firminho and mane regularly charge into our defenders with Henderson and Milner regularly grabbing shirts as players went past them.
Click to expand...
Reading the laws proves pundits & managers alike (especially Klopp) have no ideas on the laws of the game when they discuss specific incidents.

Take a look at the serious foul play & you’ll laugh about Klopp saying Van Dyk shouldn’t have been sent off vs Napoli. His challenge epitomised serious foul play. After seeing the serious fouls play, you’ll also find it most amusing that Klopp said that Mane’s face kick on Ederson was like Vinny’s challenge.

Klopp’s an excellent manager but is definitely deluded!!!
 
aguero93:20 said:
This is the thing that annoys me most about the refereeing in general when we play Liverpool, with pressing and when we played Lyon away this season and Barca in the past.
If our players shield the ball when receiving it, they barge straight through their backs at full speed, if our players turn them, their hands are all over shoulders, if we look like getting away, ankles get tapped.
According to the referees, this is all fine and we should overcome it. Honestly, that's fine in itself by me, even though we're at a slight disadvantage in a physical game.
But if we do any of the above, the fuckers throw themselves to the floor and get a free kick Every. Fucking. Time. and the refs dish out yellows to discourage us. If we want to win the ball back, it has to be a non contact tackle from 12:00 or an interception.
It's bent as fuck, it artificially extends every phase of possession they have and gives them the option of creating chances through turnovers high up the pitch while denying that option to us and it has a huge influence on the game. It's never about the big decisions.
Click to expand...
Exactly how I see. It illegally stops us from playing whilst the other way round it stops us from defending. It then has to change the way we play.
But we’ve also suffered some big decisions in games against Liverpool over the last few months.

Better stop before we’re accused of being bitter or ‘tin foil hat types’
 
cleavers said:
As he's the nearest to Robertson, he should have been looking at it, and doing something about it.

I'm not having a go at Sterling here either, I expect it from an attacking player (same with Sane), I'm defending the blame being heaped onto Danilo, who had a very good game. I can see why he's getting the blame from seeing replays, but he was doing another job at that moment, he saw the danger, and tried to get there back peddling, he was just unlucky.
Click to expand...

I thought Danilo had a very good game too mate.. as did Laporte in what isn't his usual position.
It was a deep cross that went over Danilo head.. Shit happens.. And like you say its wrong to heap blame on him
 
squirtyflower said:
Haven’t a clue what you said, as I was agreeing with your post, maybe badly
Click to expand...

And I'm agreeing with you.

The media, as we know, set the "talking points" and it is noticeable, that almost as one, they choose the same talking point at the same time.

So when the game finished on Thursday the immediate post match analysis, on all channels and media, was generally that City were the better team. After Klopp's post match interview it switched to 50/50, fine margins and Vinny's tackle, all channels and all media.

There was hardly a comment on the Sterling penalty incident and very little mention of the late Aguero, Bernardo and Sterling near misses.

If one buys in to these uniform talking points, then there can be no balanced debate, because the debate hinges on a manufactured presumption, for want of a better phrase, the media line. So the balanced view on the debate "was Vinny guilty or not guilty" cannot be balanced at all, because the presumption/talking point on which it is based is a confection, or, at the very least, it is a presumption that needs to be justified in the light of all the other potential, but over looked talking points.

The balanced debate argument reminds me of one of my favourite quotes.....

If You Want to Get There, I Wouldn't Start From Here.
 
Last edited:
Maly Wilson said:
Reading the laws proves pundits & managers alike (especially Klopp) have no ideas on the laws of the game when they discuss specific incidents.

Take a look at the serious foul play & you’ll laugh about Klopp saying Van Dyk shouldn’t have been sent off vs Napoli. His challenge epitomised serious foul play. After seeing the serious fouls play, you’ll also find it most amusing that Klopp said that Mane’s face kick on Ederson was like Vinny’s challenge.

Klopp’s an excellent manager but is definitely deluded!!!
Click to expand...
The tackle on Mertens was a disgrace. Going with force at the ankle of a standing leg. He could easily have fractured his ankle.

Compare that to the flying Salah leaping over Kompany in order to try and get the man sent off following a touch on his toe after the ball had gone.

Another way the pundits have changed things is now players with no hope of getting the ball under control strain every sinew to get a touch on the ball before the defenders and then swan dive to earn a foul.
 
squirtyflower said:
Exactly how I see. It illegally stops us from playing whilst the other way round it stops us from defending. It then has to change the way we play.
But we’ve also suffered some big decisions in games against Liverpool over the last few months.

Better stop before we’re accused of being bitter or ‘tin foil hat types’
Click to expand...
Oh last season in the Champions League they just chucked all pretence of impartiality in the bin before kickoff in the first leg of the quarter final. That was proper Carta Blanche down to giving Klopp his buddy as ref in both the quarter and the semi. Watch the first 15 minutes of the final again though and you'll see the Liverpool players repeatedly warned by the ref about illegal physicality in the tackle.
 
The perfect fumble said:
And I'm agreeing with you.

The media, as we know, set the "talking points" and it is noticeable, that almost as one, they choose the same talking point at the same time.

So when the game finished on Thursday the immediate post match analysis, on all channels and media, was generally that City were the better team. After Klopp's post match interview it switched to 50/50, fine margins and Vinny's tackle, all channels and all media.

There was hardly a comment on the Sterling penalty incident and very little mention of the late Aguero, Bernardo and Sterling near misses.

If one buys in to these uniform talking points, then there can be no balanced debate, because the debate hinges on a manufactured presumption, for want of a better phrase, the media line. So the balanced view on the debate "was Vinny guilty or not guilty" cannot be balanced at all, because the presumption/talking point on which it based is a confection, or, at the very least, it is a presumption that needs to be justified in the light of all the other potential, but over looked talking points.

The balanced debate argument reminds me of one of my favourite quotes.....

If You Want to Get There, I Wouldn't Start From Here.
Click to expand...
Good post, sorry for my confusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top