Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

machiavellianme

The Rooster wrote: »

Oh my God, this is genuine:

By Dan Silver
You might think that Liverpool players would think twice about rapping in public following their abysmal 1988 FA Cup final single ‘The Anfield Rap’ – not to mention John Barnes’ excruciating cameo on New Order’s ‘World In Motion’.
It’s a shame nobody told Ryan Babel, then. The Dutchman might be a hit on the pitch – see his winner against Manchester United last weekend for proof – but he’s not exactly Jay-Z on the mic, as this clip of a freestyle session recorded for Dutch radio station 101Barz proves.

Ryan’s rapping in Dutch, which means you might not catch cutting edge lyrics like “no caviar for us, Surinamers eat chicken’ and “I can’t even spend all my money/
Keep your daughter in sight or you will be my family”, so thankfully we’ve included a translation below.

Warning: this contains some very bad language. And some even worse rapping…


Translation:
Rapping is my hobby
Rappers don’t want trouble
I'm the Liverpool star those bitches are loving
I know what time it is - I've just bought a new watch
I’ll give you a punchline: eight seconds, you’ll be knocked down
Towel in the ring
My family in the V.I.P
No caviar for us, Surinamers eat chicken
Ya'll know nothing: this is the Premier League
Representing the G
You can see this n***a with number 19
Ya'll can f*** off, I f*** with a whole team
Ya'll can talk, but you don’t get anything with it
Ya'll can't be like me, my status is too high
If rappers come to close, I have to take space
People watch YouTube to learn my actions
I have those skills, try some tricks
I was a poor n***a
Now I make f***ing money
I went from the Euro to the English pound
I put money in my pocket, now I spend money on nothing
I like it this way, I'm sure you like it
If somebody want beef, well come on
I like it with some pepper, homie
I'm sure in my life
Give me the f***ing ball, you lose both legs
And now my competition is past
If you hate me because of that, I say you’re right
If I was you, I would hate me too
I have the s**t homie
I can’t even spend all my money
Keep your daughter in sight. or you will be my family
I’ll take your daughter and let her make clean
101 Barz - this is the first time but I came hard!
I came alone, I don't have a back-up
I came because I mean it
Check it

Maybe it got lost in translation but WTF?:eek:

Jazzy

please stop ryan babel rapping. please

~Rebel~

Jazzy wrote: »

please stop ryan babel rapping. please

Not just Babel, all footballers need to learn that they're famous for one thing, and one thing only - Football. Leave the rest alone.

Karmafaerie

Hey, I liked Eeyeeyo.

It's the B to the A to the B E L!

Although Soumia helps too.;)

DeadSkin

Someone please make it stop

Right

Off out for the game! Come on the pool!

This is going to be a very very messy day.

~Marky~

Liverpool have been drawn with Spurs in Carling cup

mike65

Could be fun.

Mike

~Rebel~

Poor Kuyt must be wondering what the hell's going on.

Thats 2 prem games in a row where the team has been denied a goal because of his involvement, when he's done nothing wrong either time!

scruff321

good result for pool,pity keano didnt score,although give him a 6/10 played decent and set up a goal

Kimbot

Have to say I was impressed with Torres after he scored. Wanted to try anything and Riera is looking decent on the left.

Tusky

Joint top of the league with the best defensive record in the league. Only 2 goals conceded. One game played and won in both the Carling Cup & in Europe. Unbeaten over all.

Things are going quite well considering we haven't hit top form yet. However, over the next 4 or 5 weeks there are some really tough fixtures in the league. including Chelsea & Man city away.

jesus_thats_gre

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Poor Kuyt must be wondering what the hell's going on.

Thats 2 prem games in a row where the team has been denied a goal because of his involvement, when he's done nothing wrong either time!

Kuyt had nothing to do with the goal against Stoke being disallowed. It was due to Torres being offside when the free kick was struck by Gerard and Torres jumping at the ball in front of the keeper but missing.

I couldn't believe that Sky were still on about this week! Was close to pulling my hair out listening to the idiots.

LIVERPOOL WERE NOT DENIED A GENUINE GOAL AGAINST STOKE. IT WAS OFFSIDE!!!!

jesus_thats_gre

Tusky wrote: »

Joint top of the league with the best defensive record in the league. Only 2 goals conceded. One game played and won in both the Carling Cup & in Europe. Unbeaten over all.

Things are going quite well considering we haven't hit top form yet. However, over the next 4 or 5 weeks there are some really tough fixtures in the league. including Chelsea & Man city away.

It certainly looks good on paper. I am not wholy convinced though.

Guy:Incognito

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Kuyt had nothing to do with the goal against Stoke being disallowed. It was due to Torres being offside when the free kick was struck by Gerard and Torres jumping at the ball in front of the keeper but missing.

I couldn't believe that Sky were still on about this week! Was close to pulling my hair out listening to the idiots.

LIVERPOOL WERE NOT DENIED A GENUINE GOAL AGAINST STOKE. IT WAS OFFSIDE!!!!

Do you honestly think there was enough in it for the linesman to call it 100% offside havign only seen it once , in real time, as it happened and from where he was? Cos if he did the man is superhuman. f he didn't then he shouldn't be calling it.

copacetic

Tusky wrote: »

Joint top of the league with the best defensive record in the league. Only 2 goals conceded. One game played and won in both the Carling Cup & in Europe. Unbeaten over all.

Things are going quite well considering we haven't hit top form yet. However, over the next 4 or 5 weeks there are some really tough fixtures in the league. including Chelsea & Man city away.

big week this week, beat psv and city, stay joint top and then 14 day break for internationals. would be happy then. Not convinced yet. Good to see Keane create something even if he didn't score himself. Torres was a different player after the goal. Possibly it is the start for him.

copacetic

Stekelly wrote: »

Do you honestly think there was enough in it for the linesman to call it 100% offside havign only seen it once , in real time, as it happened and from where he was? Cos if he did the man is superhuman. f he didn't then he shouldn't be calling it.

agreed, my understanding of the rule is that Torres wasn't offside. There has to be a clear gap and either way, advantage to be given to attacking side.

jesus_thats_gre

Stekelly wrote: »

Do you honestly think there was enough in it for the linesman to call it 100% offside havign only seen it once , in real time, as it happened and from where he was? Cos if he did the man is superhuman. f he didn't then he shouldn't be calling it.

copacetic wrote: »

agreed, my understanding of the rule is that Torres wasn't offside. There has to be a clear gap and either way, advantage to be given to attacking side.

The clear gap stuff is complete nonsense.. It is if a part of the players body that can score is ahead of the second last player, you are offside. For the goal against Stoke, the head of Torres is clearly ahead of the last defender. He then tries to score a headed goal right in front of the keeper but misses.. This is the interfering with play - hence the offside!



http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/laws_of_the_game_0708_10565.pdf

Page 38 wrote:

In the definition of offside position, “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of his head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent. The arms are not included in this defi nition.

gixerfixer

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Kuyt had nothing to do with the goal against Stoke being disallowed. It was due to Torres being offside when the free kick was struck by Gerard and Torres jumping at the ball in front of the keeper but missing.

I couldn't believe that Sky were still on about this week! Was close to pulling my hair out listening to the idiots.

LIVERPOOL WERE NOT DENIED A GENUINE GOAL AGAINST STOKE. IT WAS OFFSIDE!!!!

Have viewed the goal several times now and Fernando is NOT offside. The rules state that there must be clear daylight between the players to be considered offside. This is NOT the case last Saturday and Liverpool where denied a perfectly legal goal IMO.

Guy:Incognito

Regardless of the rule of whether there has to be clear daylight or not, theres just no way the linesman can say he knew 100% that he was offside. The fact alone that he has to watch the ball at the same time for when it's kicked means he cant be watching both and has to flick to Torres just as he sees the ball being kicked.


It was too close to call without video evidence so it shouldn't have been called. They are supposed to be giving attackers the benefit in really close cases like this.

jesus_thats_gre

gixerfixer wrote: »

Have viewed the goal several times now and Fernando is NOT offside. The rules state that there must be clear daylight between the players to be considered offside. This is NOT the case last Saturday and Liverpool where denied a perfectly legal goal IMO.

The rules do not state that there must be clear daylight. Link me to anything official that states that.

jesus_thats_gre

Stekelly wrote: »

Regardless of the rule of whether there has to be clear daylight or not, theres just no way the linesman can say he knew 100% that he was offside. The fact alone that he has to watch the ball at the same time for when it's kicked means he cant be watching both and has to flick to Torres just as he sees the ball being kicked.


It was too close to call without video evidence so it shouldn't have been called. They are supposed to be giving attackers the benefit in really close cases like this.

Ok, maybe the linesman didn't know 100%.. But I have watched the replay 20 times at this stage and I am happy that he made the right decision. 3 of the lads I live with have also watched it countless times and we all came to the same decision.

I am not saying that that is conclusive proof but the decision was reasonable enough in my opinion. For pundits and fans to still be going on about it a week later is grasping at straws.


As for the game today. Kuyt's goal was defo out of play. The third Torres goal probably should have stood but Kuyt this have his hands around the Everton defenders waist and appeared to be holding him. Again, soft enough but not baseless..

I can live with 50:50 decisions. Can we leave the week of bitching or whatever to complete injustices?

gixerfixer

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

The rules do not state that there must be clear daylight. Link me to anything official that states that.

I've no links. It's common knowledge. The defenders always get the benefit of the doubt.Liverpools goal was perfectly legal and should have stood

Guy:Incognito

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

As for the game today. Kuyt's goal was defo out of play.

Dont think anyone is disputing that one. The one from the resulting corner was a good un mind(imo) . Just as well it wasn't at 0-0 , don't think I could take dropping points 2 weeks in a row with highly contentious goals being chalked off.

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Can we leave the week of bitching or whatever to complete injustices?

I would have thought dropping 2 points to Stoke in such circumstances fell right into that category.

It certainly cant be OUR fault.:)

copacetic

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

I can live with 50:50 decisions. Can we leave the week of bitching or whatever to complete injustices?

possibly we could, but you were bitching and moaning about sky as if there was no doubt about the decision. The linesman was looking at the back of Torres, he couldn't see whether he was level or if his head was slightly ahead of the defender was Torres was blocking the view. It was a bad decision.

~Rebel~

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Kuyt had nothing to do with the goal against Stoke being disallowed. It was due to Torres being offside when the free kick was struck by Gerard and Torres jumping at the ball in front of the keeper but missing.

I couldn't believe that Sky were still on about this week! Was close to pulling my hair out listening to the idiots.

LIVERPOOL WERE NOT DENIED A GENUINE GOAL AGAINST STOKE. IT WAS OFFSIDE!!!!

Apologies if i was wrong, i was away for the week in Rome for a wedding so didn't see the match or any highlights. Just read the match report on 3's sports section on the phone, and that said it was wrongly ruled out due to Kuyt. Kuyt the following day had his own little story on it saying he didn't think he'd done anything to warrent it being offside. Never saw anything mentioned anywhere about Torres or about it being legitimately not a goal.

Though from what i read it was a direct goal from a free kick. I thought the controversy was that Kuyt touched it when offside. Again, i haven't seen it, but it doesn't make much sense that Torres could have ruled it offside if the rumours were that kuyt touched it, as if torres didn't touch it he could be as offside as he liked once he didn't become 'active'.

<Edit>
Ok, searched out the clip for it. I cant for the life of me see how Torres was offside
Pause this link at 7seconds http://www.101greatgoals.com/videodisplay/1580846/
or this link at 5 http://indonewyork.com/contents/Berita/Olahraga/sepakbola/highlights/epl/week4-liverpool-stoke.html

Torres looks onside with yellow shirts playing him on to the right of the screen. The first clip in particular is particularly clear, as Nando runs in, a Stoke player actually matches his run, slightly closer to goal, keeping him on the whole way. This is the only place i've seen any mention of Torres in relation to the incident..

SantryRed

gixerfixer wrote: »

I've no links. It's common knowledge. The defenders always get the benefit of the doubt.Liverpools goal was perfectly legal and should have stood

You're wrong.

If ANY part of the attacking player's body which can play the ball is ahead of the defender, IT IS OFFSIDE.

Don't be blaming the referee for yous not being able to put a game away.

bUILDERtHEbOB

MOTD2 proved that no one was offside for Gerrard's goal against Stoke.

FACT.

jesus_thats_gre

gixerfixer wrote: »

I've no links. It's common knowledge. The defenders always get the benefit of the doubt.Liverpools goal was perfectly legal and should have stood

Common knowledge means little or nothing. The rules are the only thing that counts. I have linked to an official document on the FIFA website.

jesus_thats_gre

Stekelly wrote: »

I would have thought dropping 2 points to Stoke in such circumstances fell right into that category.

It certainly cant be OUR fault.:)

It sucked balls but I genuinely don't believe that it was an injustice..

~Rebel~

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

It sucked balls but I genuinely don't believe that it was an injustice..

It does seem like all the analysts and writers do think its an injustice, and having watched the clips i posted above, i can't see any reason whatsoever for it to be ruled offside..

if someone else has other angles or something i'd appreciate it, but from watching the above, at the second of gerrard striking the ball, Torres certainly appears to be onside. Also from what BuilderBob says, MotD went over this too and came to the conclusion the goal should have stood..

Guy:Incognito

~Rebel~ wrote: »

It does seem like all the analysts and writers do think its an injustice, and having watched the clips i posted above, i can't see any reason whatsoever for it to be ruled offside..

if someone else has other angles or something i'd appreciate it, but from watching the above, at the second of gerrard striking the ball, Torres certainly appears to be onside. Also from what BuilderBob says, MotD went over this too and came to the conclusion the goal should have stood..

That was kind of my main issue with it tbh. If it takes this much debate and technology to decide, then theres no way the linesman can be certain it was off at the time.

Dont be at yourself

It's swings and roundabouts. We were lucky enough to come through games earlier in the season, and no doubt we'll get our share of dodgy decisions in our favour over the coming months, so I won't lose sleep over the Stoke result.

We're sitting pretty at the moment. Joint top of the table, unbeaten. Torres has found his scoring touch, Riera looks sharp and we've got no real injury concerns. We've beaten United, and are top of the big four mini league as it stands. If we can win our games before the upcoming international break, I'll be as happy as I could have hoped.

SantryRed

bUILDERtHEbOB wrote: »

MOTD2 proved that no one was offside for Gerrard's goal against Stoke.

FACT.

Sky clearly showed Torres was

bUILDERtHEbOB

SantryRed wrote: »

Sky clearly showed Torres was

Did they change the screen into a 3D animation and use a big yellow line though?

mayordenis

I'm pretty sure that the FA (possible even fifa) spoke and said that there needs to be daylight ( I actually don't think this should be the rule, but that's what the official bodies said it should be)

~Rebel~

they did indeed say it. same as they have new directives every year which never get put down in print, but which they say they will be enforcing/changing their thinking on. They said they'd give the initiative to the attacker and allow clear daylight before calling offside. Never actually stuck to it though.

They did the same bringing in new directives on cracking down on diving, 2 footed tackles, pulling shirts in the box etc, some they actually stick to, some they dont.

<edit>

Actually, it seems I'm completely wrong. Did a little searching on "The FA" website, and it seems it was a myth that got spread by the commentators and pundits for some reason, which naturally meant that everyone listening assumed there was something to it.
http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Refereeing/NewsAndFeatures/Postings/2002/08

FA's Head of Refereing puts the record straight


The FA's Head of Refereeing has moved to clarify recent suggestions that there has been a change in the offside law for this season. You may have heard people talking about the 'need for daylight' between an attacker and defender in order for an offside decision to be given this season but The FA's John Baker is keen to put the record straight here.

"Absolutely nothing has changed with the offside law. It has been the same since 1992," he told TheFA.com this morning.

"For some reason I have already heard three television commentators referring to a 'new directive' this season but the situation is exactly the same - if players are level, they are onside. But as soon as an attacker becomes closer to the goalline than the second last defender, he is in an offside position.

"So an attacker can still be in front of a defender without 'daylight' appearing and there still be an offside."

PHB

I don't know why people keep focusing on bad decisions. If I'm not mistaken, Everton were screwed over twice last year against them. Chelsea and United often don't get loads of decisions, but the key is, that they win anyway. There's no prize for 'shoulda won'.

Chardee MacDennis

PHB wrote: »

United often don't get loads of decisions, but the key is, that they win anyway. There's no prize for 'shoulda won'.

like today:rolleyes:

PHB

BastardPrince wrote: »

like today:rolleyes:

The hilarity of that post is that in the selective quoting, you ignore the bit that I'd just say in response to that. But, ya know

jesus_thats_gre

Sooo, anyway.. The whole light of day stuff for offside is complete nonsence. It is no where in the official rules and it seems to have been made up by Andy Gray..

I have checked the replays again, specifically the camera from the sideline, and I am adament that Torres' head is ahead of the defender.

Anyway, I know some of ye have strong opinions and they differ from mine so I will leave it at that.

mike65

Argument/bald men/comb tbh

Mike

Gelio

~Rebel~ wrote: »

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Refereeing/NewsAndFeatures/Postings/2002/08
FA's Head of Refereing puts the record straight
if players are level, they are onside. But as soon as an attacker becomes closer to the goalline than the second last defender, he is in an offside position.

Hold on now, thats wrong. Its when the attacker passes the second last defender. He doesn't have to be closer to the goalline than the second last defender.

Erin Go Brath

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

It's swings and roundabouts. We were lucky enough to come through games earlier in the season, and no doubt we'll get our share of dodgy decisions in our favour over the coming months, so I won't lose sleep over the Stoke result.

We're sitting pretty at the moment. Joint top of the table, unbeaten. Torres has found his scoring touch, Riera looks sharp and we've got no real injury concerns. We've beaten United, and are top of the big four mini league as it stands. If we can win our games before the upcoming international break, I'll be as happy as I could have hoped.

You are technically incorrect to say Liverpool are joint top of the table. They are not! Liverpool are 2nd, and if todays table were the final standings Liverpool would finish 2nd. If the goal that wasn't against Stoke was given then Liverpool would be top of the table! Such decisions can be the difference between winning the league and not.

Gelio

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

You are technically incorrect to say Liverpool are joint top of the table. They are not! Liverpool are 2nd, and if todays table were the final standings Liverpool would finish 2nd. If the goal that wasn't against Stoke was given then Liverpool would be top of the table! Such decisions can be the difference between winning the league and not.

Thanks for that;)

spockety

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

You are technically incorrect to say Liverpool are joint top of the table. They are not! Liverpool are 2nd, and if todays table were the final standings Liverpool would finish 2nd. If the goal that wasn't against Stoke was given then Liverpool would be top of the table! Such decisions can be the difference between winning the league and not.

Oh please.

Erin Go Brath

spockety wrote: »

Oh please.

Oh please what? What have i said thats untrue?

spockety

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Oh please what? What have i said thats untrue?

Nothing. But what was the point of your post? It is one of the most anal nit picking posts i have seen here in a long time. It is six games in for crying out loud, and liverpool have a start to be happy about.

Erin Go Brath

spockety wrote: »

Nothing. But what was the point of your post? It is one of the most anal nit picking posts i have seen here in a long time. It is six games in for crying out loud, and liverpool have a start to be happy about.

My point is refereeing decisions can cost games, and a team league points, which in turn can make a difference when the league season is over. Nothing anal or nitpickity about it all actually.

Dont be at yourself

My point is refereeing decisions can cost games, and a team league points, which in turn can make a difference when the league season is over. Nothing anal or nitpickity about it all actually.

The point of my post still stands though. We've come through a patch of bad form, we've beaten the league champions and our players are beginning to hit form. And we are equal points with the league leaders. We've had a good start, and a lot to be positive about.