Football 2010-2011

[eFestivals]

Chelsea had over 20 shots on goal, one of which was on target. I've never seen so many unforced errors in one match. You're talking utter bullshit.

I'm talking them not having the space the play!

But anyway, I really shouldn't bother talking to someone who knows so little about football they don't even know the name of the club they pretend to support.

The two of note are Turner and Bardsley. There are others too.

Really? It seems strange that you know that Liverpool wanted Bardsley but that the papers don't.

And Rafa only considered Turner due to injuries to other players. And it was Rafa. Nuff said.

Edited February 7, 2011 by eFestivals

[strummer77]

How is the Sunderland team in any way shape or form better? We had some outstandingly poor performances and results under Hodgson and are still ahead? We've also had Gerrard out for a decent chunk of the season. I'd say Sunderland are a good side, but if Kenny had been given since the summer like he should have been, we'd be comfortably ahead of you.

I hope Kenny keeps it up. The club looks in general to be in the healthiest state it has been in for years. Seemingly committed and ambitious owners, a popular and successful manager, and a good XI.

Special shout out for Lucas too, who has been brilliant this season. Very underrated.

Edited February 7, 2011 by strummer77

[TheGayTent]

And it was Rafa. Nuff said.

[worm]

I'm talking about them not having the space the play!

[strummer77]

This is the same 'Rafa' that has 2 European trophies as a manager compared to Daglish's none?

Think of how many he may have won were it not for the 'supporters' that hail him King...

[TheGayTent]

Wolfburg have sacked McClaren

[strummer77]

But that isn't why Liverpool won. Liverpool won because Chelsea made far too many unforced errors.

[TheGayTent]

Heysel dig a bit unnecessary though eh?

[worm]

How is the Sunderland team in any way shape or form better?

[strummer77]

In the context I didn't think so.

Obviously you did. Ho hum.

[worm]

No they didn't. Liverpool won because Chelsea weren't allowed to create a single clear-cut opportunity except maybe the Torres blocked shot.

They had 20 shots, mainly from stupid angles/distances because Liverpool frustrated them. Liverpool in contrast had very few shots but had proper opportunities- like the Maxi one which was a sitter.

Edited February 7, 2011 by worm

[strummer77]

Look at the unforced errors. Just look at them. There was a telling one near the start. Fact facts, you played very well defensively, but rode your luck to beat a better side on a very off day.

Newcastle did something similar to Arsenal earlier this season, when Arsenal were playing like a bag of shit.

[worm]

Every side "rides their luck" to beat a top team. Newcastle did beat Arsenal yes, when they got their tactics right and focussed correctly on their weaknesses- like their keeper. Newcastle made Arsenal poor that day.

Edited February 7, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

This is the same 'Rafa' that has 2 European trophies as a manager compared to Daglish's none?

Think of how many he may have won were it not for the 'supporters' that hail him King...

I'm not the quickest in the world to slate Rafa. As far as I'm concerned the jury is still out on him. One day things might become clear about what were his doings and what weren't.

But that aside he did make more than a few dodgy purchases, and seemed to have the 'Arry buying addiction where he'd buy shit just so he was buying something.

[eFestivals]

You're missing the point. Had Chelsea not been so off then Liverpool would not have won. Therefore, a strong defenisive display from Liverpool beat a piss poor Chelsea team. But that's not to acredit Liverpool with that side being piss poor. It's to credit Liverpool with being able to beat a piss poor Chelsea side.

Had Chelsea played well I'd have given Liverpool all the praise, but they didn't. Ergo, it's not very convincing.

Bring back Andy Gray - his sexism talks more sense than this.

[ampersand]

but I'd take Wellbeck over Carroll.

Edited February 7, 2011 by ampersand

[eFestivals]

But that isn't why Liverpool won. Liverpool won because Chelsea made far too many unforced errors.

which reminds me, I must get to the opticians.

[TheGayTent]

Yeh, I did. My dad was in the neutral section that day and got out alive. Knowing a fair bit about the subject (more than you I'd guess) I'm not sure it is needed to be thrown around in such a flippant way.

Ho hum...

[strummer77]

You're missing the point. Had Chelsea not been so off then Liverpool would not have won as their winning goal depended on it. Therefore, a strong defenisive display from Liverpool beat a piss poor Chelsea team. But that's not to acredit Liverpool with that side being piss poor. It's to credit Liverpool with being able to beat that piss poor side.

Had Chelsea played well I'd have given Liverpool all the praise, but they didn't. Ergo, it's not very convincing.

[worm]

lay off the crack man!

blatant bias on your part. from an outsiders point of view, there's only one choice.

[strummer77]

I'm glad he did get out.

I wouldn't say I'm an expert on the subject, but I've both read about it and heard first hand accounts, so I have some limited knowledge. You can dress it up whichever way you like, but the fact remains there were a large number of Liverpool 'supporters' there that were hell bent on having a tear up. You can argue that the ground wasn't up to standard and you can argue that the 'neutral' sections were an accident waiting to happen. However, it doesn't disguise the fact that had Liverpool fans not charged through their section to get at the Juve fans it wouldn't have happened.

[strummer77]

That 35 million gone to your head? I'm not convinced by Carroll at all at present whereas I am by Wellbeck. As I said though, no point comparing until they've all had a bit of action.

[worm]

You are blinkered. Just saw your Wellbeck comment... Unreal.

Edited February 7, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

That 35 million gone to your head? I'm not convinced by Carroll at all at present whereas I am by Wellbeck. As I said though, no point comparing until they've all had a bit of action.

How about Sunderland losing 5-1 and drawing 1-1 with Newc? Didn't they do any convincing for you?

Fact is that Sunderland make Spurs look a solid team. And they're as flakey as f**k.

Liverpool were of course even worse than that, but not now. They're about the most organised team in the league all season, how they're playing now. They need some fire-power up front tho, and hopefully Betty & Mavis will have that sorted.

[worm]

They have. Carroll has 11 goals this season. And he's been out for a fair bit of it.