The first Merseyside derby of the new season.

DeadSkin

gixerfixer wrote: »

Isnt it amazing each and every time Liverpool play well and get a result the only reason is because the other team where poor :rolleyes: Laughable. Nothing to do with Liverpool actually being a good team themselves. Rafa was just lucky again today then.

But Everton were poor.

jesus_thats_gre

DeadSkin wrote: »

But Everton were poor.

No they weren't.......

gixerfixer

DeadSkin wrote: »

But Everton were poor.

I disagree. Liverpool played them off the the park because they are a better footballing side. If that was Chelsea or Man U today playing Everton it would not be Everton playing poor it would be because they are just a better side(which they are) This crap about
Liverpool only winning because the other side played rubbish is just not true.

mike65

Both can be true - Everton are leaking like a sieve, Reina had how mnay shots to save?

Mike

jesus_thats_gre

0

riflehunter77

DeadSkin wrote: »

Everton were poor today.
The ref was brutal today.

Liverpool looked comfortable and there was only goin' to be one result today after watchin' the first 15/20 mins imo.

Great to see Torres scoring away in the League this season

Im an everton fan and would have to agree with the above, everton were very poor today not a shot on target all game says it all really. Liverpool looked very comfortable today, torres took his goals well not a man of the match performance better liverpool players out there to day. Im upset with the loss but more upset with mike riley AGAIN he did not let the game flow was blowing every mintue or so, todays game was not a dirty game and riley still wants to be the center of attention. Cahills tackle was never a straight red and I hope everton appeal it.

DeadSkin

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

No they weren't.......

Oh yes they were :pac:

Seriously though, watchin' that game today I didn't once feel Everton were gonna win that game.

gixerfixer wrote: »

I disagree. Liverpool played them off the the park because they are a better footballing side. If that was Chelsea or Man U today playing Everton it would not be Everton playing poor it would be because they are just a better side(which they are) This crap about
Liverpool only winning because the other side played rubbish is just not true.

I never said Liverpool only won because Everton were poor.
Liverpool played some lovely football today but at times Liverpool did struggle with the final ball.

Lads get off it, Everton were rubbish today. Looked limp as bedamned going forward and their defending was brutal. Leaving probably the most clinical striker in world football unmarked inside the box with no player within 5 yards of him is unforgiveable.

Liverpool ALSO played quite well today. The first half was more of last week at Stoke, loads of control, some nice stuff but NO cutting edge. Once Torres got the goal the shackles were off and Liverpool could have had 3 or 4.

Torres third goal for me was legit and should have stood....and an EXCELLENT finish may i add.

Riley proving again that he has no business reffing this league, the sending off was a joke. Never a straight red. Had Cahill have been sent off for a second bookable then I wouldnt have complained but no way it was a straight red.


Good win for Liverpool, keeping up their early season momentum and bouncing back from last weeks slip up.

jesus_thats_gre

Everton weren't poor!!!

jesus_thats_gre

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Everton weren't poor!!!

Look i know you think that by saying Everton were poor it takes away from liverpools performance but it doesnt. Like i said Liverpool were also very good especially later on in the game Keanes assist for Torres was excellent. Both torres' finishes (actually, all 3) were excellent and Liverpool dominated the midfield. A significant part of the reason Everton were poor stems from Liverpool winning the midfield battle but a large part of it is the continuation of the same problems they've been having since the season started. Everton were sh1te. They NEVER looked like scoring, never threatened to score and looked shakey at the back. Is that a good performance in your book? Would you be happy if the roles were reversed about the game? No. you'd be giving out yards about the defending, the lack of penetration and the lack of discipline.

jesus_thats_gre

Deleted User wrote: »

Look i know you think that by saying Everton were poor it takes away from liverpools performance but it doesnt. Like i said Liverpool were also very good especially later on in the game Keanes assist for Torres was exceellent. both torres' finishes (actually, all 3) were excellent and Liverpool dominated the midfield. part of the reason Everton were poor stems from Liverpool winning the midfield battle but a large part of it is the continuation of the same problems they've been having since the season started. Everton were sh1te. They NEVER looked like scoring, never threatened to score and looked shakey at the back. is that a good performance in your book?

Read the last 2 or 3 pages..


I think that Liverpool played ok. Everyone done exactly what they should have and we kept it tight. There was no outstanding performance I though.

On the other hand, I thought Everton were well below par. For me, that equals are poor performance.

Aquos76

Goals from todays game
0-1
0-2

x in the city

Everton were cack, who ever thinks otherwise needs a lobotomy

Boggles

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

There was no outstanding performance I though.

I honestly thought Torres was excellent, he had to force himself into but he didn't give up.

~Rebel~

Boggles wrote: »

I honestly thought Torres was excellent, he had to force himself into but he didn't give up.

indeed. he looked like he was close to attacking riley not long before he scored with all the fouls on him, coupled with fouls given against him when he just used his strength (like when he would have been 1 on 1 with keeper). So absolute credit to the guy for keeping going, looking at exactly what was happening and making the perfect runs at the right time, when it counted.

Thanx 4 The Fish

~Rebel~ wrote: »

indeed. he looked like he was close to attacking riley not long before he scored with all the fouls on him, coupled with fouls given against him when he just used his strength (like when he would have been 1 on 1 with keeper). So absolute credit to the guy for keeping going, looking at exactly what was happening and making the perfect runs at the right time, when it counted.

agreed, was a cracking run for the first, delayed it and Keane picked him out very well.

The Rooster

Deleted User wrote: »

Everton were sh1te. They NEVER looked like scoring, never threatened to score and looked shakey at the back. Is that a good performance in your book? Would you be happy if the roles were reversed about the game? No. you'd be giving out yards about the defending, the lack of penetration and the lack of discipline.

While Liverpool were by far the better team, Everton had three great chances during the game. After 2 minutes Cahill had a superb chance from a corner when the ball fell to him 8 yards out, but he missed his kick. Fellani missed a sitter when he hit Carra with the ball, albeit the ref wrongly gave Liverpool a free anyway. And with about 15 mins left, Lescott hit a ball in from the left that was heading straight for Yakabu to tap in from two yards, when Felliani stuck out his arm to deflect it away from Yak and wide.

Very good result for Liverpool, but still don't create enough from the possession gained. The first half highlights on Match of the Day didnt show one Liverpool attack, because there wasn't one worth showing, despite having probably 60% possession.

Gelio

Okay
Im going to settle this now.

Everton weren't at their very best but they still weren't poor

Fair?

woodyg

agreed,
did everton lodge an appeal over Cahill's tackle?
It wasnt the best tackle i have ever seen but seemed a little harsh to get a red.

Malice

woodyg wrote: »

agreed,
did everton lodge an appeal over Cahill's tackle?
It wasnt the best tackle i have ever seen but seemed a little harsh to get a red.

He should have been given a yellow for the tackle and then a yellow for turning his back on the referee. It'll be another nail in the Respect the Refs campaign if they do appeal and it gets overturned.

citytillidie

I read somewhere he was sent off for foul and a abusive langauge.

Boggles

malice_ wrote: »

He should have been given a yellow for the tackle and then a yellow for turning his back on the referee. It'll be another nail in the Respect the Refs campaign if they do appeal and it gets overturned.

http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8652_4224502,00.html

Red Cards Stands