Liverpool thread 2018/19

[Blue_Rossy]

Lets get past burnley 1st :) IF we do beat burnley its back over to them wirh barca inbetween. I just hope the players are switched on for it.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

" Liverpools history, once you scratch below the surface , over the last 100 years is woefully deficient, and I defy anyone to argue otherwise. " Ok I will have a go, 16 leagues, 7 FA Cups, 8 Football League Cups, 5 Champions League, 3 UEFA Cups. If that is deficient please supply me with the teams that have done well in that time.

You are overwhelmingly referring to a 26 year period over the course of significantly more than a century, within which Liverpool were unquestionably imperious. My point, although arguably deficiently advanced in my previous post, is that over the course of that 100 years, for the vast majority of that time, 60 years at a guess, you’ve been ordinary, and lacking any real, or meaningful threat.

I state this not to belittle your club’s achievements, which were incredible from the mid-sixties to the late eighties, but to serve as a reminder that success, status and influence in football can be fleeting, and anyone who ascribes the title “nothing club” to a football institution that was formed in 1894, and has as much a story to tell as any other club, not only defiles that club, but every committed fan of any other club that just wants the club they support to be everything it can.

When Liverpool fans describe City in those terms (not saying you do btw) they defile so many other clubs by implication, which goes some way to explain why so many ‘neutrals’ want City to win the league.

History isn’t ultimately about trophies, it’s about people feeling that what they’ve invested in the past provides some sort of reward in the future; and there are no set of supporters in football who invested more in their club, relatively speaking, than Cty fans of a certain vintage.

We’ve got the stripes, and deserve every minute of what we’re now experiencing; and no Liverpool ‘fan’ from Bedford, who’s been to Anfield three times, and never had to properly dig deep as a supporter, can even begin to tell me otherwise.

 

[lasereyes]

Not to mention the small fact of their substantial financial advantage over those 26 years, even though the Anfield annals will have you know they were all academy-bred

 

[inchy14]

You are overwhelmingly referring to a 26 year period over the course of significantly more than a century, within which Liverpool were unquestionably imperious. My point, although arguably deficiently advanced in my previous post, is that over the course of that 100 years, for the vast majority of that time, 60 years at a guess, you’ve been ordinary, and lacking any real, or meaningful threat.

I state this not to belittle your club’s achievements, which were incredible from the mid-sixties to the late eighties, but to serve as a reminder that success, status and influence in football can be fleeting, and anyone who ascribes the title “nothing club” to a football institution that was formed in 1894, and has as much a story to tell as any other club, not only defiles that club, but every committed fan of any other club that just wants the club they support to be everything it can.

When Liverpool fans describe City in those terms (not saying you do btw) they defile so many other clubs by implication, which goes some way to explain why so many ‘neutrals’ want City to win the league.

History isn’t ultimately about trophies, it’s about people feeling that what they’ve invested in the past provides some sort of reward in the future; and there are no set of supporters in football who invested more in their club, relatively speaking, than Cty fans of a certain vintage.

We’ve got the stripes, and deserve every minute of what we’re now experiencing; and no Liverpool ‘fan’ from Bedford, who’s been to Anfield three times, and never had to properly dig deep as a supporter, can even begin to tell me otherwise.

I want to like this post a thousand times, doffs cap!!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Not to mention the small fact of their substantial financial advantage over those 26 years, even though the Anfield annals will have you know they were all academy-bred

They were unquestionably advantaged, but they bought well, had (for the time) a progressive style of football and were dominant in a way that cannot be ignored. They made the most of their advantage.

They may not have produced many superstars from within, but anyone who saw them come to Maine Road in the 80’s cannot dismiss their influence on the English game back then, as somehow inferior to City’s right now. They were on another planet.

They were a machine, but in the modern era, since football was redefined and recalibrated with the backpass rule, they’ve been nothing short of a inefficacious shambles, who have zero right to pontificate.

Let’s all hope that continues. The alternative doesn’t bear thinking about.

 

[Metalartin]

Is it even 26 years of being the dominant force also? I worked out there were 7 different winners from 1965–66 to 1974–75(10 seasons).

Derby and Leeds won just as many titles as Liverpool in that time. City had a great team as we all know, who were only one behind, as were United(edit: actually won in 1964–65 as well, but lets keep it at 10 seasons) Everton and Arsenal. I wasn't around but it seems like it was a very competitive era up until that point.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

You are overwhelmingly referring to a 26 year period over the course of significantly more than a century, within which Liverpool were unquestionably imperious. My point, although arguably deficiently advanced in my previous post, is that over the course of that 100 years, for the vast majority of that time, 60 years at a guess, you’ve been ordinary, and lacking any real, or meaningful threat.

I state this not to belittle your club’s achievements, which were incredible from the mid-sixties to the late eighties, but to serve as a reminder that success, status and influence in football can be fleeting, and anyone who ascribes the title “nothing club” to a football institution that was formed in 1894, and has as much a story to tell as any other club, not only defiles that club, but every committed fan of any other club that just wants the club they support to be everything it can.

When Liverpool fans describe City in those terms (not saying you do btw) they defile so many other clubs by implication, which goes some way to explain why so many ‘neutrals’ want City to win the league.

History isn’t ultimately about trophies, it’s about people feeling that what they’ve invested in the past provides some sort of reward in the future; and there are no set of supporters in football who invested more in their club, relatively speaking, than Cty fans of a certain vintage.

We’ve got the stripes, and deserve every minute of what we’re now experiencing; and no Liverpool ‘fan’ from Bedford, who’s been to Anfield three times, and never had to properly dig deep as a supporter, can even begin to tell me otherwise.

The way Liverpool fans go on about history, you would think they have a monopoly on it. What most of them don't understand or don't want to admit is that their golden era came off the back of a significant investment from the Moores family. They bought success; the very thing they're constantly accusing us of doing since the takeover.

 

[lasereyes]

They were unquestionably advantaged, but they bought well, had (for the time) a progressive style of football and were dominant in a way that cannot be ignored. They made the most of their advantage.

They may not have produced many superstars from within, but anyone who saw them come to Maine Road in the 80’s cannot dismiss their influence on the English game back then, as somehow inferior to City’s right now. They were on another planet.

They were a machine, but in the modern era, since football was redefined and recalibrated with the backpass rule, they’ve been nothing short of a inefficacious shambles, who have zero right to pontificate.

Let’s all hope that continues. The alternative doesn’t bear thinking about.

Hmm, there's a certain club today that fits that description to a tee.

 

[chester57]

You are overwhelmingly referring to a 26 year period over the course of significantly more than a century, within which Liverpool were unquestionably imperious. My point, although arguably deficiently advanced in my previous post, is that over the course of that 100 years, for the vast majority of that time, 60 years at a guess, you’ve been ordinary, and lacking any real, or meaningful threat.

I state this not to belittle your club’s achievements, which were incredible from the mid-sixties to the late eighties, but to serve as a reminder that success, status and influence in football can be fleeting, and anyone who ascribes the title “nothing club” to a football institution that was formed in 1894, and has as much a story to tell as any other club, not only defiles that club, but every committed fan of any other club that just wants the club they support to be everything it can.

When Liverpool fans describe City in those terms (not saying you do btw) they defile so many other clubs by implication, which goes some way to explain why so many ‘neutrals’ want City to win the league.

History isn’t ultimately about trophies, it’s about people feeling that what they’ve invested in the past provides some sort of reward in the future; and there are no set of supporters in football who invested more in their club, relatively speaking, than Cty fans of a certain vintage.

We’ve got the stripes, and deserve every minute of what we’re now experiencing; and no Liverpool ‘fan’ from Bedford, who’s been to Anfield three times, and never had to properly dig deep as a supporter, can even begin to tell me otherwise.

I watched my first game when we were in the second division, and I stuck with them By your reckoning we can say the same about Man Utd. I believe that people support whoever, City, Lpool, Huddersfield etc and that is their club and they stick with them whatever. I believe I am lucky I went to Rome in 77 and have seen some great games, same as Utd, Leeds yourselves etc etc, even Everton (maybe). I think we should always argue over footy and leave it there, when it gets personal....and I will leave that there as well. If you are City great, I am a scouser of the red variety, just arguing about footy.

 

[Metalartin]

The way Liverpool fans go on about history, you would think they have a monopoly on it. What most of them don't understand or don't want to admit is that their golden era came off the back of a significant investment from the Moores family. They bought success; the very thing they're constantly accusing us of doing since the takeover.

I think the reason there is no documentation of just when they bought into the club, is because one of them already owned a majority share in Everton and it probably wouldn't have been allowed by the football league.

Back then it was piss easy to hide these things, the fact that it does seem like it's been erased from history, probably does say "under the table financial doping" to me.