Liverpool Dire yet Again

RasTa

Ladies Ladies who cares about some other teams preformance just worry about your own
on a side note i got a united jersey for 39 quid today bloody rip off

PiE

For the love of god Ubah... just... stop... posting... drivel.

smemon

Originally posted by PiE
[OT][/OT]

To be fair, without Gerrard & Hamann in midfield and Henchoz not starting, Liverpool were always gonna struggle. I think it's completely unfair to draw conclusions of either team after one match.

i never heard any liverpool fan saying liverpool were gonna struggle BEFORE the match. once they lost it was down to injuries. they should have lost 2-0. the penalty came from a throw in which was clearly chelsea's and then re-taking the peno was a joke.

no keeper stays on his line. its impossible to do, every keeper, if they are going to dive has to come off the line a few inches to make the dive, otherwise they cant get a good enough reach.

the refs are already off to a dreadful start this year.

PiE

No, nobody mentioned it here before the match because we were... wait for it... "hoping for the best", like most fans do instead of endlessly mouthing off about other teams.

smemon

hoping for the best, sums up liverpool.

if your a good team you dont need to hope for the best, you do your best.

the problem with liverpool is that they concentrate on exploiting the opponents weaknesses instead of focusing on their own strengths.

The Muppet

Thankx for the fish

Funny, I got a similar impression pete, some good football, end to end stuff,

Are we talking about the same match. In The on i saw Livepoll had ZERO shots on target in the second half. Except for the penno they missed and were allowed take again. I think it was s ympathy vote by the officials becaus i have never seen a decision like that before and will be very interested in seeing if it is going to be a common occurance in the future.

Maybe your entertained by watching players run aimlessly from end to end but it does nothing for me.

smemon

cuidicini was no more 2 feet of his line! there was barely a gap between his feet and the line. once the ball had gone wide, yes he was 2 feet of his line but not when the ball was first hit.

that was just cruel on chelsea. they would have been robbed if it had of stayed 1-1. and on the re-take, players had made runs into the area, isnt that breaking the rules??? why wasnt it taken a 3rd time??

the linesman probably had owen in his fantasy ftball team.

GuanYin

Originally posted by The Muppet
Are we talking about the same match. In The on i saw Livepoll had ZERO shots on target in the second half.

You don't seem to be talking about the same match I saw. Liverpool were putting chelsea under some pressure when Djiouf came on. I still thought Liverpool were woeful going forward, but for a change they did go forward. Perhaps the corner count is a better indication of the pressure Liverpool put on Chelsea. It was pretty even.

UbahOne

Exactly all Liverpool can do is hope...

As soon as Owen missed the whole team didn't complain about it....they got on with it. Owen put his head in his hands and basically said "****". Its an instinctive reaction for the keeper and i dont think it should be enforced.

And besides that, i cant believe how the linesman didnt see that it was Chelsea ball!!!

The Muppet

You don't seem to be talking about the same match I saw. Liverpool were putting chelsea under some pressure when Djiouf came on. I still thought Liverpool were woeful going forward, but for a change they did go forward. Perhaps the corner count is a better indication of the pressure Liverpool put on Chelsea. It was pretty even.

I suggest you read the thread there is plenty of Neutral opinion
to gather what really happened In The Match. If you really need to convince someone that it was an even match I suggest you find somone who didn't see it.

StickyMcGinty

about the peno retake... whats all this bs about keepers have to come off their line its instinct, and that we should scrap that rule??

thats like saying get rid of the offside trap, because its the strikers instinct to run towards the goal!!

it should have been re-taken. thats the rule. simple as that. whatever about the throw in, thats not liverpools fault. decisions go for and against you in a game. deal with it.

one thing that i do agree with though is the FACT that Houllier must go. his tic tacs are all over the gaff, and i'm sick and tired of the long ball approach. first ayala rejects us, if we dont improve it'll be kilbane next.

villa next sunday. houlliers last game will be in the next 5 games if he doesnt get 12 points

UbahOne

thats like saying get rid of the offside trap, because its the strikers instinct to run towards the goal!!

Well no...its not because its only being enforced this season. they were told to look out for it more than they would. ****en ridiculous decision if ya ask me.

GuanYin

Originally posted by The Muppet
I suggest you read the thread there is plenty of Neutral opinion
to gather what really happened In The Match. If you really need to convince someone that it was an even match I suggest you find somone who didn't see it.

I suggest you read the thread and perhaps my post properly.
I am a neutral, I never said thematch was even, I said that just because Liverpool didn't have a shot on goal doesn't mean they weren't attacked Chelsea. The corner count (which is also a way of looking at attacking play, you don't concede corners if you don't have to) was prett even.

Stop being such an arrogant self righteous twat all the time. You opinions aren't gospel coz you say so. Is your life so empty and meaningless?

Thanx 4 The Fish

Originally posted by UbahOne
Well no...its not because its only being enforced this season. they were told to look out for it more than they would. ****en ridiculous decision if ya ask me.

Firstly nobody did ask you.

Secondly as has been said again and again in this thread, a rule is a rule, if you break the rule and are caught you will get punished for it. That is all there is to it. Whether or not you think it is ridiculous is neither here nor there.

The Muppet

Secondly as has been said again and again in this thread, a rule is a rule, if you break the rule and are caught you will get punished for it.

Henry broke a rule in his goal celebration but didnt get punished(rightly so IMO). Every commentator i have seen comment on the decision have said it was very harsh. Give up the devils advocate role its getting boring.

posted by sykeirl
Stop being such an arrogant self righteous twat all the time. You opinions aren't gospel coz you say so. Is your life so empty and meaningless?

smemon

some of the rules are stupid ie. going off the pitch after receiving treatment when your perfectly fine and healthy.

keepers moving a few inches off their lines, last man getting sent off and the opposition getting a penalty aswell, players fending off opposition to let the ball run out of play.

there all stupid, dont make any sense and just cause havoc and debate.

UbahOne

Originally posted by Thanx 4 The Fish
Firstly nobody did ask you.

Secondly as has been said again and again in this thread, a rule is a rule, if you break the rule and are caught you will get punished for it. That is all there is to it. Whether or not you think it is ridiculous is neither here nor there.

Well I am entitiled to say what i want and will continue to do so. It was a **** decision. The linesman was blind and it should not have been a retake. If the rest of the refs/linesmen are goinfg to be that strict about it, well then thats stupid. Liverpool deserved to lose based on their performance and were damn lucky to get that goal.

Thanx 4 The Fish

And yet they are the rules and nothing you or I say will change it. The backpass rule was hailed a folly but it got in anyway, I am sure there was alot of people up in arms when the offside rule came in too, yet they are all still rules and if they are broken then the punishment for each would apply.

I am not playing devil's advocate Muppet, I am repeating myself because alot of people seem to be missing the point. The reason Owen retook the penalty was that there was an infringement on the rules. It is not because of a biased linesman or referee.

As for Henry breaking a rule, so did JFH and he hasn't been punished either. If the referee chooses not to punish an infringement that is their prerogative and they are answerable to the FA. If a referee makes a wrong decision they are answerable to the FA and these FA actions are fully accessible by the public, there is no action being taken against the referee, a sure sign then that the FA back the decision and that it was not biased by any Liverpool support on behalf of the assistant.
Whether or not liverpool deserved a win or not is not at issue, it is the assertion by a Man United fan of all people that a referee was biased in somebody else's favour.

jongore

Originally posted by Thanx 4 The Fish
Firstly nobody did ask you.

Secondly as has been said again and again in this thread, a rule is a rule, if you break the rule and are caught you will get punished for it. That is all there is to it. Whether or not you think it is ridiculous is neither here nor there.

Syksports just showerd all the penos from the weekend and in every one the goalkeeper moved forward from his line, Liverpools was the only one retaken. Rules are all well and good but enforcement is the real issue

BTW taking off your shirt is no longer a yellow card offence, Henry is in trouble for gesturing (the kiss) to the crowd.:D

UbahOne

Thats exactly my point. Why bother enforceing it so strictly?

smemon

if u know so much about 'the rules' could you tell me why van nistlerooy's penalty wasnt re-taken after jaaskalinen was in the exact same position as cuidicini?

if the rules stand for one player, why dont they stand for another?? biast linesman, thats an understatement. he 1 st gave liverpool a chelsea throw and then gave them another peno.

refs have to be consisitent with the rules. all keepers, all, dive slightly off their lines. you watch every keeper, they all do it if they dive.

UbahOne

Is that directed at me Smemon?

Thanx 4 The Fish

I have no idea why the penalty was not retaken, nor do I care. Perhaps it should have been retaken, perhaps not, I did not see where the keeper was standing for that penalty. If there was a case for a retake then so be it. The fact that it wasn't has no bearing on whether or not the Liverpool one was a bad decision and just highlights the inconsistency of refs..

UbahOne

but it was a bad decision...two ridiculous bad decision. The throw in and the retake...ridiculous.

smemon

no, directed at thnx 4 d fish. well the bottom line is, liverpool lost. nothing anybody does or says can change that. houllier has a 100% record so far. keep it up gerard.

The Muppet

it is the assertion by a Man United fan of all people that a referee was biased in somebody else's favour.

This comment shows the real reason for your post. I have not not seen 1 soccer pundit agreeing with the decision. Andy Gray discribed it as unbelievably harsh. Andy Townsend said it was a bad decision because even if the keeper had moved Owen still missed the target so the keeper movement had no bearing on the resulting penalty.

I believe the offficals name was Mr Badski (I jest not) Badski by name and badski by nature.

StickyMcGinty

Originally posted by jongore
Syksports just showerd all the penos from the weekend and in every one the goalkeeper moved forward from his line, Liverpools was the only one retaken.

that just means that liverpools match was well refereed then...

its only your poinion that it is a stupid rule. do you play professional soccer? are you in an opinion to comment on the rule. you ask van nistelrooy, hery, owen etc. if they think it is a stupid rule.

if a keeper moves off his line, he is narrowing down the angle for which the player taking the peno can score. you are saying that the keepershould be given this unfair advantage??

you talkin crazy boy!

BKtje

all i want is a bit of consistancy. Perhaps the rules should be worded differently. ie keepers can't make a conscious effort to come off their line. Cudicini did but he was diving and thats why he came off it. So he dived forward a bit but i don't think consciously stepped forward.
Rules need to be looked at imo but by the letter of the law it was a retake.

UbahOne

We will be talking about this again next week probably...i want to see if this is a consistent thing. PS: what was the name of the chelsea - liverpool referee?

Thanx 4 The Fish

And how can a ref decide whether or not it was a conscious decision to come off the line ?? How about they introduce something similar into the offside rule, if ya make a conscious decision then it's a free, if ya do it by accident then play on ???

:rolleyes:

BKtje

sigh i knew my wording would cause people to miss my point.

It is however fairly easy to judge if someone takes a couple of steps out then dives (ie conscious decesion) or if he comes forward a bit through diving. (diving accross the goal mouth without moving off it at all is very difficult) All they are tryign to do is to stop a repeat of the champions league final. I think however they are trying to kill the deer but burning down the forest (or sommet equally stupid )

I don't see what kind of advantage Cudicini had by coming off his line by that amount. Each year however they bring in new rules thata re strictly enforced for a couple weeks then the refs can't be bothered any more (for lack of a better word). Happened with tackles from behind = insta red no matter if you got the ball or not. Red cards everywhere then slowly people forgot about it. I imagine same will happen with this.
To enforce it that strictly is just asking for trouble tho imo, at least without TV replay's.

AthAnRi

It was a stupid decision. Before Liverpool were gives that decision I was actually hoping that they would get a draw. After it I was happy that Chelsea took full points. The linesman must be an ABC cause not only did he give a line throw to the wrong team in the attack building up to the penalty, he then went and decided that Gudicini came off the line early. What a crock.

Bannor

Sorry I haven't been around to part-take of the latest Liverpool bashing effort.

It was interesting to see Chelsea line-up so defensively considering how under strength the Liverpool midfield was for the game. 4-5-1 - who would have thought eh?? Boring, boring Chelski!!

I was surprised to see Cheyrou start and Diouf on the bench - Houllier paid them too much respect. They were there for the taking and look far from being the finished product.

Up until the opening goal, Liverpool were quite positive and were unlucky not to have taken the lead - Cudicini made a great save from Murphy after Heskey had held the ball up for him and Cudicini also made a great recovery after spilling a shot from Murphy to prevent Owen getting an easy tap in. As I've said before, Liverpool's greatest problem is that the players aren't clinical in front of goal and this proved to be the case yet again last Sunday. Biscan was at fault for the goal, he allowed himself to be pulled out of position tracking Gronkjaer with Riise which left Veron free. The goal settled Chelsea down and they started to pass the ball around - looked nice, but they didn't go anywhere with it. Gudjohnsen should have doubled their lead when he was one on one with Dudek. The other notable chances from the first half were Hyypia's header from Riise's corner and Kewell going for glory with a volley past the far post when Owen was unmarked and available for a pass.

The second half was a strange one - Chelsea swapped Gronkjaer and Duff on the wings, maybe Ranieri thought Duff would be more effective attacking Riise as Carragher proved to be more than a match for him in the first half. They then proceeded to regularly attack down their left wing. Diouf's replacement of Cheyrou restored the balance of the game. And the replacement of of the defensive midfielder and central defender with a striker and an attacking fullback was distinctly un-Liverpool. For the last 20 minutes of the game Liverpool played with a one man midfield. :eek: The team have been criticised for playing long balls to the forwards when the reality of the situation was that Chelsea played with a five man midfield which Murphy wasn't going to be able to play through on his own.

As for the penalty - I honestly think that it was ordered to be retaken because the officials ruled a few earlier decisions against Liverpool. A cross from Diouf struck Bridge on the arm after it bounced in the penalty area. When Diouf was running rings around Johnson he was wrestled off the pitch - Johnson made no contact or attempted contact with ball. If the incident had involved an award winning actor such as Van Nistelrooy then it would have resulted in a booking and penalty.

Overall I have no complaints about the result - It wasn't likely that Liverpool could contain Chelsea after scoring the equaliser because of the personnel on the pitch. Credit must be given to Ranieri, he setup the team to be hard to beat and to play on the break and it got him the result.

The Muppet

As for the penalty - I honestly think that it was ordered to be retaken because the officials ruled a few earlier decisions against Liverpool.

Is this a new rule change tha the fa are keeping quiet about or are you admitting that the official cheated in favour of liverpool.

Bannor

Did I suggest that the officials cheated? No - If Steve Bennett had awarded an earlier penalty then I don't think the rule would have been applied.

Cudicini stepped forward off his line before Owen struck the ball - if he hadn't done so and the officials had ordered the penalty to be retaken after Owen had missed then your witch hunt might have a case.

The fact is that Cudicini did move off his line and the officials chose to apply the letter of the law. I don't think that Steve Bennett has set "a dangerous precident" to quote that numbskull Townsend. The rule is there to give an advantage to the attacker and it's at the discretion of the officials. It won't be applied in every incident.

AthAnRi

Posted by Bannor

It was interesting to see Chelsea line-up so defensively considering how under strength the Liverpool midfield was for the game. 4-5-1 - who would have thought eh?? Boring, boring Chelski!!

Pots and Kettles Bannor. A liverpool fan saying that Chelsea are boring. Also liverpool are going to have to get used of being under strength at midfield cause Hamann could be out till Xmas. I don't think you can criticise Chelsea for being defensive considering their record at Anfield.

Johnson made no contact or attempted contact with ball. If the incident had involved an award winning actor such as Van Nistelrooy then it would have resulted in a booking and penalty.

This kind of incident occurs every day in football. I agree that there should definately be an indirect freekick given for obstruction but that should only occur when the incident happens not 10 minutes later. And as for your snide remark about Van the Man. Michael Owen is not a bad actor either. He is also well capable on winning an oscar in the future. How come Van Nistlerooy wasn't allowed to retake his penalty? Jussi was just as far of the line as Gudicini was. The answer, because the linesman at Old Trafford had cop on. Ruud penalty was saved fair and square just like Owens was missed.

Bannor

Originally posted by AthAnRi

It was interesting to see Chelsea line-up so defensively considering how under strength the Liverpool midfield was for the game. 4-5-1 - who would have thought eh?? Boring, boring Chelski!!

Pots and Kettles Bannor. A liverpool fan saying that Chelsea are boring. Also liverpool are going to have to get used of being under strength at midfield cause Hamann could be out till Xmas. I don't think you can criticise Chelsea for being defensive considering their record at Anfield.

The "Boring, boring Chelski!!" comment was sarcasm in case you didn't pick up on it.

Regarding the understrength midfield - while Hamann is out two from Biscan, Diao, Gerrard and Welsh will make up the central midfield for the big games. From these four only Biscan was available due to suspensions and lack of match fitness.

And if you take the time to read the last line of the post again you'll see that I complimented Ranieri on his approach to the game.

The Muppet

The fact is that Cudicini did move off his line and the officials chose to apply the letter of the law.QUOTE]


So officials can " choose " weather or not they want to enforce the rules. Interesting . Is that an FA Directive?

AthAnRi

Posted By Bannor
The "Boring, boring Chelski!!" comment was sarcasm in case you didn't pick up on it.

As you may know already Bannor, Writing Sarcasm is not always a wise thing. You can oly really 'pick up' sarcasm from the tone of a persons voice. Either way its the lowest for of wit.

And Yes i did read your post, and I found it quite interesting, as I do with most of your posts. Your knowledge of football and in particular Liverpool is most admiral. However It would concrete your argument if you weren't so defensive and except bad decisions for what they are.

I will agree that Liverpool were unlucky. But it may again have been a poor managerial selection that ultimately cost Liverpool

Bannor

Originally posted by AthAnRi
This kind of incident occurs every day in football. I agree that there should definately be an indirect freekick given for obstruction but that should only occur when the incident happens not 10 minutes later. And as for your snide remark about Van the Man. Michael Owen is not a bad actor either. He is also well capable on winning an oscar in the future. How come Van Nistlerooy wasn't allowed to retake his penalty? Jussi was just as far of the line as Gudicini was. The answer, because the linesman at Old Trafford had cop on. Ruud penalty was saved fair and square just like Owens was missed.

The Johnson incident was the most blatant seen in the Premiership. Usually defenders shadow the ball to the goal line for a goal kick - they don't wrestle the attacker off the pitch while the ball is rolling almost parallel to the goal line.

The decisions that referees and officials make are influenced by the decisions they made earlier in a game. Saying it shouldn't happen is all well and good but in reality that is never the case. If the letter of the law was to be applied in every incident then football/soccer would become like American Football. One of the great things about the game is that it's dynamic, the officials are only human and don't have the benefit of instant replays, or watching the incidents from ten different angles. Their decisions can lead to dispute and controversy as in this case and that adds to the atmosphere of a game.

There was nothing snide about the comment on Van Nistelrooy - he has perfected the art of milking 'contact' incidents to gain advantage over his opponent. And I certainly made no reference to the Oscars.

Regarding Van Nistelrooy's penalty as I've already said it's at the discretion of the officials - take it up with Paul Durkin.

AthAnRi

Usually defenders shadow the ball to the goal line for a goal kick - they don't wrestle the attacker off the pitch while the ball is rolling almost parallel to the goal line.

So by your rational its ok to 'Shadow' the ball while its running out of play, but if the ball is going to stay in play then it should be a Free/penalty depending. Thats a load of horse sh1t. Its still obstruction no matter where the ball goes or how blatant it is. And as I have already said, It should be an Indirect free for Obstruction. Once Diouf realised that he wasn't going to get a free( which he should have), it became 6 of one and 1/2 a dozen of another. Thats when the wrestleing began.

Regarding Van Nistelrooy's penalty as I've already said it's at the discretion of the officials - take it up with Paul Durkin.

Selective reading eh bannor. Please feel free to read that section of my post again.

Bannor

I never said it was okay to obstruct a player.

As for selective reading - it was Steve Bennett who ordered the penalty to be retaken, the lines man brought it to his attention. He could have ignored him if he chose to do so.

Because the lines-man at that Man Utd game didn't signal doesn't mean an infringement didn't occur. Ultimately the decision that counts is that of the referee, Paul Durkin in this case.

AthAnRi

What i meant by selective reading was that you chose to read the section where I mentioned the Van Nistlerooy Penalty but failed to note the part where I said that it was the correct decision by the linesmen, and the Ref(Durkin), the best in the land IMO

StickyMcGinty

Originally posted by Bannor


Regarding the understrength midfield - while Hamann is out two from Biscan, Diao, Gerrard and Welsh will make up the central midfield for the big games. From these four only Biscan was available due to suspensions and lack of match fitness.

Stevie Gerrard IS a defensive midfielder, so putting in Le Tallac would seem a wise option to keep the fans of houlliers back. We have a rigid defence, so putting in more attacking options would seem the brainy thing to do. houllier has 5 games to get it right

The Muppet

so putting in Le Tallac would seem a wise option to keep the fans of houlliers back.

has he go the ability to turn the team into an attacking force. I have not seen him yet but have seen some posts praising him.

As for Gh having 5 games i dont see him going until the end of the season. Liverpool just dont sack managers.

p.pete

Originally posted by The Muppet
has he go the ability to turn the team into an attacking force. I have not seen him yet but have seen some posts praising him.

As for Gh having 5 games i dont see him going until the end of the season. Liverpool just dont sack managers.

Hopefully he is that good but it's probably enough the make any 18 year old crack to be expected to turn around Liverpools style of play.

I agree with GH having more than 5 games. If we don't do well it isn't a case of us getting relegated or the whole club falling appart so he will be given at least the season. If we are crap all the way up until Christmas the pressure from the fans could cause him to resign earlier but hopefully it won't come to that.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Originally posted by AthAnRi
So by your rational its ok to 'Shadow' the ball while its running out of play, but if the ball is going to stay in play then it should be a Free/penalty depending.

That was not said and shadowing the ball out of play is not obstruction. Even shadowing the ball while it is running down the line is not obstruction, ya can shadow the ball where the f*ck ya like and it is not obstruction.


as for Le Tallac, he won the player of the tournament at the youth championships a couple of years ago, a competition which included the likes of C ronaldo et al. He has plenty of ability and can certainly make iverpool's attacking threats more potent.

p.pete

Originally posted by Thanx 4 The Fish
as for Le Tallac, he won the player of the tournament at the youth championships a couple of years ago, a competition which included the likes of C ronaldo et al. He has plenty of ability and can certainly make iverpool's attacking threats more potent.

And the other lad, Sinama Whatever was the top scorer of said tournament:D

Thanx 4 The Fish

Pongolle, he came second in the player of the tournament comp aswell, I would love to see him get a run but I would probably not put him in ahead of Baros. And I would certainly not be starting Heskey...

p.pete

Luckily Heskey took a knock last night for engerland. Hopefully Baros gets on and grabs a hat-trick and if Djiouf puts in another good game on the left he will hopefully be squeezed out.