Liverpool (A) Post Match Thread.

[kippaxchris]

No because Mangala is poor. Always has been always will be. Liverpool would have been all over him like a rash.

I understand that but I think certain games suit certain players. Don't get me wrong I don't think yesterday was a game for Mangala but having watched Stones especially on the second goal i just feel it wouldn't have happened if it was Mangala? If we avoid that second goal we don't collapse.

 

[stan bowles]

If it works, why change it? Seems like a sensible move to me. If I was sat there I really couldn't be arsed booing every time someone touched a ball but the scousers seem to like that sort of stuff

Me neither but it gave me a new insight into why they still call him. Always prefer to get behind City rather than booing the opposition.

 

[kippaxchris]

Exactly how i saw it!

Since he returned from injury he's looked a bit off it. Sliced clearence to let Burnley score, horrendous challenge to give a penalty away Vs Bristol then yesterday for the game changing goal he read it wrong, then got outpaced and out muscled. Should have probably eased him back in.

 

[madden150]

Anybody think Mangala would have been a better option instead of Stones yesterday? Was clumsy against Bristol but so was Stones. Mangala may have made a difference with his pace & Strength? Can't see Firmino troubling Manga for strength & pace on the second goal.

Can you imagine how Mangala would cope under the pressure of the high press and trying to play the ball out? To me Mangala is a decent defender in a side that has to sit back and defend, ie breaking up play and winning headers. Thats why he coped well against Utd in the second half. Ultimately though he's never gonna be suited to this City team as his passing, technical ability and general football brain just isn't there. Might sound harsh but its how I see it.

 

[blue order]

Exactly how i saw it!

Agreed and yet at the other end, Mariner would have whistled the place down, given a free kick and maybe a yellow!

 

[Blue Mooner]

How anyone can say Stones wasn't fouled for the second goal is beyond me. It's a clear push in the back which was more than enough to give Firmino the chance to nip in. Without that push stones deals with the situation. It wasn't not a shoulder to shoulder challenge which would have been enough.

Firmino even finished it like he was expecting a foul to be given.

Anyone questioning it go have a look at the penalty given against Sterling versus Stoke last season.

It frustrated the hell out of me, as that goal changed the whole complexion of the game.

Shame we didn't keep our heads as we could have got something.

 

[meltonblue]

A foul is a foul. There's no such thing as a soft foul just a foul - an infringement of the rules which is penalised by the referee giving a free kick. As I said in a post yesterday we have reached the stage where we accept the incompetence of referees as normal and try to explain it away with expressions such as 'soft foul' or 'out muscled'.

To all intensive purposes, a foul isn’t a foul, that’s why we have the laws of the game that we do that allow for interpretation - they have to. A lot of the time, people aren’t arguing about a refereeing mistake, they are arguing the interpretation, which is also why VAR doesn’t have a particularly wide scope.

It certainly wasn’t a mistake from the ref. He allowed a fair bit of leniency for Firmino, but we have benefitted a few times this year from Otamendi getting a foul when the opposition have been in dangerous positions that I have thought have been very innocuous challenges.

The root issue really wasn’t the foul, it was Stones getting himself in a bad position that created an opportunity that should never have presented itself.

 

[Metalartin]

If you notice, Stones actually misreads the whole situation and gets attracted to the ball then realises he has over committed by about half a yard, which gives Firmino the opportunity.

Not a push for me, not strong enough from Stones.

He misjudged the run of the ball, could have been better placed, kind of created a situation for Firmino to pressure in the first place but you can't tell me that wasn't a push because video evidence says otherwise there was a push in the back, without it he would not have stumbled and Firmino doesn't have such an easy task of taking the ball. Why would he stumble and not hit the deck if he was playing for it? He still had a lot to do to get it to safety but that's neither here nor there he was favourite for that ball. Not the worst decision we've had go against by a long shot considering though, sometimes you get them sometimes you don't.

I don't like the "should be stronger" argument either, when you see what defenders have to put up with in the reverse it's not fair, they concede freekicks for looking at attackers.

 

[Blue Mooner]

To all intensive purposes, a foul isn’t a foul, that’s why we have the laws of the game that we do that allow for interpretation - they have to. A lot of the time, people aren’t arguing about a refereeing mistake, they are arguing the interpretation, which is also why VAR doesn’t have a particularly wide scope.

It certainly wasn’t a mistake from the ref. He allowed a fair bit of leniency for Firmino, but we have benefitted a few times this year from Otamendi getting a foul when the opposition have been in dangerous positions that I have thought have been very innocuous challenges.

The root issue really wasn’t the foul, it was Stones getting himself in a bad position that created an opportunity that should never have presented itself.

He got in a bad position because he was fouled.

 

[meltonblue]

No, the error came the minute he started his run. I can guarantee that is what Guardiola will focus on. Bear in mind his reaction too - he thought that Danilo should have got back in time to clear the ball - he didn’t look at the ref to see if a foul had been given.