Match Thread: Liverpool V Manchester United [All Pre/During/Post Match Discussion]

Tusky

zAbbo wrote: »

I'd like Rafa to keep the 4-4-2 formation and use Kuyt up front, and SG in centre mid.

That means dropping either Alonso or Mascherano...who were probably our best players yesterdays. It also means dropping Keane.

This would be my team.

---

Reina

---

Arbeloa----Carragher

---

Skrtel----Aurelio

---

Alonso

---

Masch

---

----Gerrard

---

Keane

---

Babel----

---

Torres

With Riera, Benayoun, N'gog, Agger, Dossena, Kuyt & Lucas being regular players also.

gixerfixer

Mr Alan wrote: »

this made me chuckle this morning......



and Trilla-Utd fans give out plently of stick when they win too. dont kid yourself otherwise

Brilliant stuff. Lol. Mash took a lot of stick for OT last season but holy god did he make up for it yesterday. Totally owned the utd midfield yesterday. Well done lad.

zAbbo

Mr Alan wrote: »

who would you drop Zabbo? Keane and Alonso/Mascherano?????

Tusky wrote: »

That means dropping either Alonso or Mascherano...who were probably our best players yesterdays. It also means dropping Keane.

We just got our best performance of the season in a 4-4-2, with some actual balance across the whole midfielf and attack

Gerrard needs to play CM, it's evident it's where he wants and probably needs to play.

I'd like to see players play in their natural positions, Kuyt up front if anything, if we go 4-2-3-1 then put Benny RWF

copacetic

zAbbo wrote: »

We just got our best performance of the season in a 4-4-2, with some actual balance across the whole midfielf and attack

Gerrard needs to play CM, it's evident it's where he wants and probably needs to play.

I'd like to see players play in their natural positions, Kuyt up front if anything, if we go 4-2-3-1 then put Benny RWF

answer the question! who are you dropping??

ibh

zAbbo wrote: »

We just got our best performance of the season in a 4-4-2, with some actual balance across the whole midfielf and attack

Gerrard needs to play CM, it's evident it's where he wants and probably needs to play.

I'd like to see players play in their natural positions, Kuyt up front if anything, if we go 4-2-3-1 then put Benny RWF

I don't agree with that at all. I think Gerrard is better when he's not in a rigid 442 but in a 4-2-3-1 instead. Alonso and Mascherano both excel as the 2 holding MF's in a 4-2-3-1.

I think Gerrard has to play either in the centre or on the right of the 3 man support behind Alonso.

Benayoun is nowhere near good enough to play regularly for us. When he was at WH he was inconsistent and was inclined to play a couple of good games followed by a sucession of poor performances. I don't see any change in that trend here. He is a useful squad member both should rarely be a starter.

zAbbo

copacetic wrote: »

answer the question! who are you dropping??

Jeez relax, I'd drop Alonso.

Gerrard not playing CM makes us a better team, but it's evident he's unhappy not playing CM

LuckyLloyd

Yeah, Gerrard is significantly less effective when playing center mid as part of an orthodox 4 - 4 - 2. I think this has been proved time and time again - and cemented when one considers his struggles playing alongside Lampard for the English set - up.

He has been at his best under Benitez either playing on the right side with a license to roam - or linking behind Torres last year when he turned in some mesmerizing performances playing as an attacking midfielder with two holding behind him.

It's actually tiring that people constantly forget these facts. Luckily, it doesn't seem that Benitez will have amnesia on this point any time soon.

copacetic

zAbbo wrote: »

Jeez relax, I'd drop Alonso.

Gerrard not playing CM makes us a better team, but it's evident he's unhappy not playing CM

maybe I should have put in a smiley? obviously that didn't come across
how I meant it.

dropping keane too then?

slingerz

zAbbo wrote: »

Jeez relax, I'd drop Alonso.

Gerrard not playing CM makes us a better team, but it's evident he's unhappy not playing CM

It'll be 4-2-3-1 when everyone is fit. Riera will be wide left with Babel on the bench. Keane behind Torres with Gerrard on the right. You cant leave some of your best players out.

Mascherano Alonso

Gerrard Keane Riera

Torres


Babel, Benyaoun, Lucas, Kuyt all on the bench. Agger should get a few more games too cant believe he wasnt in the squad yesterday i didnt hear if he was injured?

Sizzler

Seems like a few people have got carried away on the back of this result! Dont get me wrong Utd deserved fcuk all out of the game for their lethargic attitude and non existent midfield showing but the reality is they lost with 2 goals that I would have been ashamed to be involved in playing 5 a side on a rainy November night.

I dont remember Van der Sar making save after save Yes Liverpool had a LOT of the ball in the 2nd half and dominated possession, Utd just couldnt keep it on the floor for more than 3 passes but I do think the result was perfectly avoidable from Utd's perspective imho.

The hoodoo had to end sometime and it was never going to be nice when the day came

Getting used to Utd's slow starts after the last few years so maybe its a good thing for them to get this loss out of the way now and at the bridge next wkend (dont expect a corner kick there tbh). Plenty of time to make it up so when Pool / Arse and Chelsea all have to play each other at least Utd can sleep a little easier knowing their defeats are 'out the road' as Fergie would say

PHB

zAbbo wrote: »

Gerrard not playing CM makes us a better team, but it's evident he's unhappy not playing CM

I'd like to play central midfield for United, if I'm not good enough, tough ****. Gerrard isn't good enough to play central midfield for Liverpool anymore. He's lost his ability to play there. He is like Rooney. It would be like playing Rooney in central midfield because he wants to.

Liverpool were good yesterday because they had actual balance in their team. How they will get that balance with Gerrard Keane and Torres is the big question, but the answer might be, that they can't. Just like United oddly enough. Both teams may have been in a better position right now if they had bought a top class winger instead?

I think one thing yesterday highlighted is how much Carrick contributes to Uniteds play. SOOOOOO many people say he does fcuk all etc but look what happened when he went off.

Mr Alan

in fairness neil, Utd were against the ropes before Carrick went off.

PHB

Mr Alan wrote: »

in fairness neil, Utd were against the ropes before Carrick went off.

True, but there's no denying that we were significantly worse after he went off. Couldn't string two passes together and Scholes was getting dominated while Anderson couldn't impose himself.

Mr Alan

Mr Alan wrote: »

in fairness neil, Utd were against the ropes before Carrick went off.

Al, u guys deserved to win the match, no doubt about that but please stick to the facts.

United were all over Liverpool for the 1st 20 mins, then it evened out then the complexion of the game changed with the OG. Uniteds best play was when Carrick was fit. The whole game changed from when he got the knock then went off. It was a 50-50 game until half time and the second hand there was only 1 team gonna win. But carrick played the last 20 mins of the 1st half with a limp.

Giggs came on and that was the end of us, we had nothing in midfield after that.

Mr Alan

I'll need to rewatch PHB, but i didnt notice any drop in Utds play tbh. we dominated the midfield after the first 10 mins, not too sure if Carricks departure made it much worse

Mr Alan

Deleted User wrote: »

United were all over Liverpool for the 1st 20 mins, then it evened out then the complexion of the game changed with the OG. Uniteds bets play was when Carrick was fit. The whole game changed from when he got the knock then went off. It was a 50-50 game until half time and the second hand there was only 1 team gonna win. But carrick played the last 20 mins of the 1st half with a limp.

Giggs came on and that was the end of us, we had nothing in midfield after that.

wouldnt say 20 myself, closer to ten.
if carrick was injured the last 20 mins of the first half, when then he should have been replaced earlier.

ntlbell

Mr Alan wrote: »

I'll need to rewatch PHB, but i didnt notice any drop in Utds play tbh. we dominated the midfield after the first 10 mins, not too sure if Carricks departure made it much worse

had little to do with carrick tbh

Mr Alan

Mr Alan wrote: »

wouldnt say 20 myself, closer to ten.
if carrick was injured the last 20 mins of the first half, when then he should have been replaced earlier.

Jesus talk about nitpicking. It was about 15 or 20 mins. Either way, point is, best play came when he was fit.

Absolutely agree he should have been replaced. Thats not the point I was making. The point I was making was highlighting his importance despite people constantly under rating him. Thats all.


A lot of things were done wrong yesterday. Hargreaves should have come on instead of Giggs for one.

ntlbell

ntlbell wrote: »

had little to do with carrick tbh

Are u for real?

Watch the first 15 (ill compromise with Al) mins and then the whole second half and the difference is outrageous. Main difference is Carrick went off. Not saying he would have seen us through to win the game, given that 90% of the team didnt turn up its unlikely he would have but the difference in the standard of Uniteds play after he picked up the knock was drastic. The front 3 got no service, the other 2 disappeared, and we had to rely on defence after that.

ntlbell

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus talk about nitpicking. It was about 15 or 20 mins. Either way, point is, best play came when he was fit.

Absolutely agree he should have been replaced. Thats not the point I was making. The point I was making was highlighting his importance despite people constantly under rating him. Thats all.


A lot of things were done wrong yesterday. Hargreaves should have come on instead of Giggs for one.

There was no balance in the midfield and brining on gigs was an attempt to restore some putting.

I can't belive fergie hasn't learned his lesson on rooney on the right it's f*cuking ridic..

if you're going to play rooney/berbs/tevez then you have to play 433 or just play two of them and keep the balance..

park/nani/ or giggs with scholes and harg's and two of the 3 up front

this rooney on the right nonsense has to end

and at anfield it was a crime..

ntlbell

Deleted User wrote: »

Are u for real?

Watch the first 15 (ill compromise with Al) mins and then the whole second half and the difference is outrageous. Main difference is Carrick went off. Not saying he would have seen us through to win the game, given that 90% of the team didnt turn up its unlikely he would have but the difference in the standard of Uniteds play after he picked up the knock was drastic. The front 3 got no service, the other 2 disappeared, and we had to rely on defence after that.

did carrick have a word with 9 players and tell them all to drop off in the 11th minute?

if he didn't what happened from the 11th minute had nothing to do with carrick...

Mr Alan

the change in play Neil, was because Liverpool didnt start the game with the intensity that they developed after they went 1 down, i dont think Carrick remaining fully fit would have made any real difference although i cant say for sure....i just dont think that the way Alonso and Mascherano were playin Carrick would have been able to deal with it.

dont think his injury was of any great relevance to the upturn in Liverpools play. this is carrick we are talking about after all!

ntlbell

ntlbell wrote: »

There was no balance in the midfield and brining on gigs was an attempt to restore some putting.

I can't belive fergie hasn't learned his lesson on rooney on the right it's f*cuking ridic..

if you're going to play rooney/berbs/tevez then you have to play 443 or just play two of them and keep the balance..

park/nani/ or giggs with scholes and harg's and two of the 3 up front

this rooney on the right nonsense has to end

and at anfield it was a crime..

It was an attempt but a blind man could see it was the wrong decision. i was with my mates and I was going apesh1t when Giggs came on, i said that we'd be lucky to get 40% possession with that many attacking players on the pitch. Hargreaves was the man to come on. When he eventually did come on it was for Scholes meaning we still had only one real ball winner on the pitch.

rooney on the right was due to the fact that an out and out 433 in any match between the top 4 is suicide. And Rooney has been brutal as of late so better having Tevez and Berbatov up front. If it were down to me Rooney would have been on the bench and Fletcher would have been on the right.

Atm Rooney on the pitch is a crime, he's played up front in the other games so far and been equally as crap. And yet by all accounts (didnt see it) he was dynamite for England midweek. In all the time he;s been at united he;s never been dropped, I think it would do him good.

Mr Alan

Mr Alan wrote: »

the change in play Neil, was because Liverpool didnt start the game with the intensity that they developed after they went 1 down, i dont think Carrick remaining fully fit would have made any real difference although i cant say for sure....i just dont think that the way Alonso and Mascherano were playin Carrick would have been able to deal with it.

dont think his injury was of any great relevance to the upturn in Liverpools play. this is carrick we are talking about after all!

I never once said that we lost cos he went off. We lost cos we were sh1t. But the level of how sh1t we were got hugely worse after Carrick went off.

ntlbell

Deleted User wrote: »

rooney on the right was due to the fact that an out and out 433 in any match between the top 4 is suicide. And Rooney has been brutal as of late so better having Tevez and Berbatov up front. If it were down to me Rooney would have been on the bench and Fletcher would have been on the right.

433 is indeed suicide against the top 4 but if you're going to play them 3 you MUST play 433 or don't play the three. I just don't understand how manager of alex's class can't see it or why he's so stubborn to keep trying it when he had fit wingers on the bench it's absolute nonsense.

The main reason carrick wouldn't of mattered much is simple fact is he's pretty useless going backwards imo and as soon as liverpool decided to start to put in a few tackles we had no midfield this was before carrick got the knock he can't spread the ball if we can't win it and there was just no one in there to win the ball.

scholed can't tackle carrick can't tackle rooneys out in no mans land and anderson looked like he it was his first time playing profesional football..

the result liverpool dominating possesion united not winning any tackles and rooney scratching his balls

the whole thing was a shambles! as eamon would say

Mr Alan

ntlbell wrote: »

the whole thing was a shambles! as eamon would say

I thought it was great

ntlbell

Mr Alan wrote: »

I thought it was great

You don't go getting ahead of yourself young man...

we scored both goals for you...

some thanks would be nice..:D

Mr Alan

babels was an OG too now?! you mancs are so mean

ntlbell

Mr Alan wrote: »

babels was an OG too now?! you mancs are so mean

well there was an assist

Mr Alan

by Kuyt? yea i know,clever ball back

Nalz

Mr Alan wrote: »

you mancs

lol We all might as well move to England at this rate!

Waster

Mikeyt086 wrote: »

Oh and Xavi, that Anderson comment. He is 19 years old. You will eat those words.

Don't want to get pedantic but he's 20 and has been for a good few months.

Melion

Just back from Liverpool this morning, what a fúckin amazing atmosphere on Saturday in Anfield. How many people banned? Im going for a sleep, ill post opinion later.

ParkRunner

I know it's still early days and at this time last year United were in the bottom half of the table too but Fergie needs to freshen up the team a bit after that performance at the weekend.

If I were him I would give Foster a chance in goals. Van Der Saar has been average since Easter last season. Rooney didn't look interested in the first half, he made a few very dangerous passes back without making any effort to go past a player. I would have put Fletcher on from the start after his displays in the early matches and left Rooney as a sub.

Anderson doesn't look half the player he did at Porto but it looks like Ronaldo will be back soon so he should be kept for the home games I reckon. Have to agree too I am a big Carrick fan, he can make some fantastic passes and is a great defensive midfield player also.

Giggs has lost his legs too, i dont know much about the new guys Possebon, Rafael etc but I would give one of them a few games, at least introduce some competition for the big names.

Karmafaerie

A friend of mine, who's a UTD supporter, still insists that VDS is the best keeper in the world!

Talk about rose tinted glasses.

prendy

Karmafaerie wrote: »

A friend of mine, who's a UTD supporter, still insists that VDS is the best keeper in the world!

Talk about rose tinted glasses.

he hasnt been the best keeper in the world in years if he ever was

i would have him outside my top 6 in the PL alone.

LuckyLloyd

Melion wrote: »

How many people banned?

Wish I'd booked my bet.

Karmafaerie

prendy wrote: »

he hasnt been the best keeper in the world in years if he ever was

i would have him outside my top 6 in the PL alone.

I know.
He was always good, but never really stood out for me.
Back in his Ajax/Juve days he was always dependable if not spectauclar.
Now he's lost that.

To be honest, if he was so great, he wouldn't have been at Fulham for so long.

Boggles

prendy wrote: »

i would have him outside my top 6 in the PL alone.

Wud be interesting to know who the top 6 would be that you have ahead of him?

Van Der Sar is 38 next month, he may not be the best in the world but he is still a top experienced goal keeper. He made 2 bad mistakes on Saturday and was punished fully for one. He played for Man United in one of the most watched games in the world, his mistakes therefore would be highlighted to the full extent.

Off the top of your head can you name any more glaring mistakes he has made since he joined United, Goalkeepers like defenders are prone to mistakes, they are human. All players make mistakes, it is just more serious when you are a defender or goalkeeper.



People saying Given is the best goal keeper in the league, etc. It is alot easier be on your toes when most of the time your team is under pressure, signs of a top goalkeeper is when they are called upon maybe once or twice in a match and they can step up.

Not excusing Van Der Saar, he was shocking. But perspective is needed.

Karmafaerie wrote: »

To be honest, if he was so great, he wouldn't have been at Fulham for so long.

That sort of football snobbery really bugs me and is pure idiocy to think that a player is not great unless he plays for a top side. Really grinds my gears.

Karmafaerie

Boggles wrote: »

That sort of football snobbery really bugs me and is pure idiocy to think that a player is not great unless he plays for a top side. Really grinds my gears.

How is it snobbery?
It's a simple fact.

Any really good player can play at a decent, or even bad team, but not over a perlonged time, unless they're not motivated (Le Tissier) or in love with the club (Given).

It's a simple fact.
All the big clubs, buy the big players.

Could you see Messi playing with Fulham for 5 or 6 years?!!
No.

Calling it snobbery is a pointless argument.
And makes no sense at all.

Boggles

Karmafaerie wrote: »

How is it snobbery?
It's a simple fact.

It's a fact because you say so?

So in your opinion if you play for a team that doesn't win the league in any country you cannot be considered a great player?

What utter nonsense.

Doesn't really apply to Van Der Saar, I suppose because he does play for the best team in Europe.

Mr Alan

Van Der Sar makes mistakes too regularly to be regarded as one of the top goalies around.

He always has, its not his age, its something that he has always done.

Karmafaerie

Boggles wrote: »

It's a fact because you say so?

So in your opinion if you play for a team that doesn't win the league in any country you cannot be considered a great player?

What utter nonsense.

Did you even read my post Boogles?
I clearly said....in fact, I'll quote myself.

Karmafaerie wrote: »

Any really good player can play at a decent, or even bad team, but not over a perlonged time, unless they're not motivated (Le Tissier) or in love with the club (Given).

It's a simple fact.
All the big clubs, buy the big players.

Could you see Messi playing with Fulham for 5 or 6 years?!!
No.

Calling it snobbery is a pointless argument.
And makes no sense at all.

There, maybe you can not "overlook" it this time.

Any great player can play for a not great club.
But then they're bought!

Torres at Atletico
Berba/Keane at Spurs
Rio at Leeds

etc

etc

etc

Name all the really top class players that spent 4 years in a relegation battling club?

None.
Lots spent a season or two there.
Not 4!

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

Van Der Sar makes mistakes too regularly to be regarded as one of the top goalies around.

Examples???

And to be fair compare him to who you consider the top goalkeepers in the league, all players can be picked apart.

Boggles

Karmafaerie wrote: »

Did you even read my post Boogles?
I clearly said....in fact, I'll quote myself.





There, maybe you can not "overlook" it this time.

Any great player can play for a not great club.
But then they're bought!

Torres at Atletico
Berba/Keane at Spurs
Rio at Leeds

etc

etc

etc

Name all the really top class players that spent 4 years in a relegation battling club?

None.
Lots spent a season or two there.
Not 4!

So now they only have to play for a relegation club not to be considered great? Where is your cut off point?

Did Fulham not have one of there most successful seasons ever with Van Der Saar between the sticks?

So your point is a great player will hang around a not so great club before being picked up by a big fish, is that not what happened Van Der Saar?

Karmafaerie

Boggles wrote: »

So now they only have to play for a relegation club not to be considered great? Where is your cut off point?

Did Fulham not have one of there most successful seasons ever with Van Der Saar between the sticks?

So your point is a great player will hang around a not so great club before being picked up by a big fish, is that what happened Van Der Saar?

What.

You think that all fish mongers go to hell?!

Really?!!!




(See what I did there Boggles.
I tried following your example, and just ignoring what you said and made something up.)

Boggles

Karmafaerie wrote: »

What.
(See what I did there Boggles.
I tried following your example, and just ignoring what you said and made something up.)

I think what you actually did was realise you were talking nonsense and then decided to talk jibberish to deflect from the fact you were talking nonsense.

Didnt Maradona play for Napoli for a while? Stupid argument tbh.

Neither Reina nor VDS are world beaters.

Pyjamarama

Well imo James, Green, Reina, Cech, Friedel and Howard are all better than VDS...

He's dodgy, he was dodgy last season aswell. You have to also take into consideration he has probably got the best defence in Europe in front of him. It's not like he has a lot to do most of the time.