Liverpool v Manchester United, k/o 14.05 Jan 17th

Flint Fredstone

magentis wrote: »

Looking at some of the comments here,I reckon some did not even see the game.They possibly listened to it on the radio......in arabic.

I watched it. It was great because United won.

NIMAN

I remember when this used to be a big game.

StringerBell

Klopp is pretty lucky to have a team with such low expectation tbh, all the fanfare with his arrival and he has been very underwhelming overall so far. Maybe it will be different next year?

RobertKK

magentis wrote: »

Looking at some of the comments here,I reckon some did not even see the game.They possibly listened to it on the radio......in arabic.

Both sides wanted to win so whatever happened on the field was secondary to the result.

Utopia Parkway

StringerBell wrote: »

Klopp is pretty lucky to have a team with such low expectation tbh, all the fanfare with his arrival and he has been very underwhelming overall so far. Maybe it will be different next year?

I'd like to give a new manager a chance to get at least one of his own players in before rushing to judgement. Not to mind having to manage during the worst run of injuries at the club in years.

StringerBell

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

I'd like to give a new manager a chance to get at least one of his own players in before rushing to judgement. Not to mind having to manage during the worst run of injuries at the club in years.

His new striker Caulker?

PhlegmyMoses

Agreed with Fred. Not sure that DDG was anything special today. Made some saves I would expect a good keeper to make but that was it. Having watched games were DDG kept us in it singlehandedly, this was not close to one of those.

deaddonkey15

Darkglasses wrote: »

I didn't mean or say deserving of the goal, I meant the result. When I think of a team deserving a win, I generally think of them having played better or at least matched their opponents, which I think for most of the game United did not do.

But what really matters though is the score. United didn't concede any and scored 1. Liverpool, for all their shots, couldn't score any and failed to defend United's only real chance. Who's the more deserving of 3 points there?

Canadel

StringerBell wrote: »

Klopp is pretty lucky to have a team with such low expectation tbh, all the fanfare with his arrival and he has been very underwhelming overall so far. Maybe it will be different next year?

You could say the same for Van Gaal, relatively speaking at least. The rest of your assessment definitely applies as well.

J. Marston

StringerBell wrote: »

Klopp is pretty lucky to have a team with such low expectation tbh, all the fanfare with his arrival and he has been very underwhelming overall so far. Maybe it will be different next year?

It'll still be Rodgers fault when they're 9th in February next year.

https://twitter.com/Footy_Jokes/status/688751966965600257

adox

Canadel wrote: »

You could say the same for Van Gaal, relatively speaking at least. The rest of your assessment definitely applies as well.

Van Gaal is probably the luckiest manager in top flight football at the moment.

Speak Now

J. Marston wrote: »

It'll still be Rodgers fault when they're 9th in February next year.

K

monkey9

Canadel wrote: »

You could say the same for Van Gaal, relatively speaking at least. The rest of your assessment definitely applies as well.

But Van Gaal has lowered that expectation himself. The summer of 2014, Van Gaal was a tactical genius to some folks, who subbed a keeper for a penalty shootout. Now those same folks don't like him.

NIMAN

Mickeroo wrote: »

Hopefully football will be the real winner today.

... and it wasn't.

Darkglasses

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

But what really matters though is the score. United didn't concede any and scored 1. Liverpool, for all their shots, couldn't score any and failed to defend United's only real chance. Who's the more deserving of 3 points there?

Like I said, I don't think the most deserving team always wins, and I don't think it happened today. I'm only repeating myself at this stage so I'll leave it there. And I won't just stick to the cycling

monkey9

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Agreed with Fred. Not sure that DDG was anything special today. Made some saves I would expect a good keeper to make but that was it. Having watched games were DDG kept us in it singlehandedly, this was not close to one of those.

In a game like that, all you can do was give MOTM to De Gea. He kept Man U in it.

quarryman

J. Marston wrote: »

It'll still be Rodgers fault when they're 9th in February next year.

Nope it's moved onto the squad now. They're the ones to blame these days apparently.

monkey9

quarryman wrote: »

Nope it's moved onto the squad now. They're the ones to blame these days apparently.

Who's to blame for what now?

sReq | uTeK

monkey9 wrote: »

In a game like that, all you can do was give MOTM to De Gea. He kept Man U in it.

Isn't that what he's paid to do?

monkey9

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Isn't that what he's paid to do?

Em...yeah? You get what you pay for.

PhlegmyMoses

monkey9 wrote: »

In a game like that, all you can do was give MOTM to De Gea. He kept Man U in it.

I just don't remember many clear cut chances where he pulled off a great save. Henderson put it straight at him first half and it nearly squirmed under him, but he managed to save it. Other than that, the Can shot was decent but jeepers should be saving that.

monkey9

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I just don't remember many clear cut chances where he pulled off a great save. Henderson put it straight at him first half and it nearly squirmed under him, but he managed to save it. Other than that, the Can shot was decent but jeepers should be saving that.

I'm not saying it was a good quality game, but De Gea was Man U's best player. For me, Lucas was MOTM, but once Man U scored, the MOTM award had to go to one of their players, hence De Gea.

For example, if Brad Jones was in goal for Man U, Liverpool would have won.

Flint Fredstone

monkey9 wrote: »

I'm not saying it was a good quality game, but De Gea was Man U's best player. For me, Lucas was MOTM, but once Man U scored, the MOTM award had to go to one of their players, hence De Gea.

For example, if Brad Jones was in goal for Man U, Liverpool would have won.

Why use a terrible keeper that Liverpool got rid of as an example? I reckon Mignolet would have kept a clean sheet in goal for United today.

monkey9

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Why use a terrible keeper that Liverpool got rid of as an example? I reckon Mignolet would have kept a clean sheet in goal for United today.

I'm really not sure what the debate here is, to be honest. The Man U goalkeeper was kept very busy and he pulled off some good saves. What's the problem?

Flint Fredstone

monkey9 wrote: »

I'm really not sure what the debate here is, to be honest. The Man U goalkeeper was kept very busy and he pulled off some good saves. What's the problem?

No problem at all. I think some people are overstating the performance of De Gea in a bid to console themselves on the defeat.

It's par for the course with Liverpool fans though. They seem to always be talking about the blinders that keepers play against them, even the poor keepers, when most of the time it's just poor shooting, straight at the keeper.

PhlegmyMoses

monkey9 wrote: »

I'm really not sure what the debate here is, to be honest. The Man U goalkeeper was kept very busy and he pulled off some good saves. What's the problem?

I think it's the narrative. For me, the United keeper made some routine saves with only really one chance where I thought he may have had trouble.

I kind of get what you are saying, I just think that this was not a vintage DDG performance and an indictment of a terrible match that he got MOTM for simply being competent, rather than outstanding.

monkey9

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

No problem at all. I think some people are overstating the performance of De Gea in a bid to console themselves on the defeat.

It's par for the course with Liverpool fans though. They seem to always be talking about the blinders that keepers play against them, even the poor keepers, when most of the time it's just poor shooting, straight at the keeper.

I'm not overstating the performance at all. It was a poor game in which Liverpool were the better side and De Gea was MOTM. That's not saying Liverpool were unlucky or anything, that's why De Gea was bought and gets his game, that's just what happened in today's match.

Again, i don't see the problem in those sentiments.

monkey9

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I think it's the narrative. For me, the United keeper made some routine saves with only really one chance where I thought he may have had trouble.

I kind of get what you are saying, I just think that this was not a vintage DDG performance and an indictment of a terrible match that he got MOTM for simply being competent, rather than outstanding.

I agree. I'm really not saying otherwise. Look, Man U won so nothing else matters in this particular fixture.

Flint Fredstone

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

No problem at all. I think some people are overstating the performance of De Gea in a bid to console themselves on the defeat.

It's par for the course with Liverpool fans though. They seem to always be talking about the blinders that keepers play against them, even the poor keepers, week most of the time it's just poor shooting, straight at the keeper.

Well said, De Gea as motd was the only hype sky could generate in what was honestly an awful game.
Has given Liverpool fans something to latch on to but at the end of the day utd just about deserved the win

monkey9

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Well said, De Gea as motd was the only hype sky could generate in what was honestly an awful game.
Has given Liverpool fans something to latch on to but at the end of the day utd just about deserved the win

What are we latching on to?

rob316

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Well said, De Gea as motd was the only hype sky could generate in what was honestly an awful game.
Has given Liverpool fans something to latch on to but at the end of the day utd just about deserved the win

Scratches head.....United deserved the win?

Kirby

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Well said, De Gea as motd was the only hype sky could generate in what was honestly an awful game.
Has given Liverpool fans something to latch on to but at the end of the day utd just about deserved the win

Based on what? If you base deserving the win on who scored the goals than sure. But if you base it on any number of other criteria like attacking play, chances, etc there is no way United "deserved" to win.

That often doesn't matter in football but don't act like the better team won Mick. Liverpool were poor today. United were awful.

Speak Now

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Well said, De Gea as motd was the only hype sky could generate in what was honestly an awful game.
Has given Liverpool fans something to latch on to but at the end of the day utd just about deserved the win

There is no latch, we were poor.

monkey9

monkey9 wrote: »

What are we latching on to?

Some dumfounded notion that you should have got a result and De Gea was the only person that prevented it

He made one or two goods saves and that was about it, but considering how poor the game was its being over highlighted and Sky pundits haven't helped the situation

Utd deserved the win, they limited Liverpool who were at home and utd capitalised on there defensive frailties, especially from cornors

Van gaal got his tactics right

Even blind copped on as his cornor delivery was so poor. Passing it for a short cornor to mata was a good move

deaddonkey15

Kirby wrote: »

Based on what? If you base deserving the win on who scored the goals than sure. But if you base it on any number of other criteria like attacking play, chances, etc there is no way United "deserved" to win.

That often doesn't matter in football but don't act like the better team won Mick. Liverpool were poor today. United were awful.

How significant are chances unless they are converted? They were all either easily saved by United's goalkeeper or just off target. You don't automatically deserve something from a match just for racking up a large number of sh*t shots.

Kirby

Its fair to say the weekend games were rubbish compared to the mid-week ones. Only midweek games from now on please. :P

Flint Fredstone

The best bit was when the ball went in the net.

Kirby

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

How significant are chances unless they are converted?

More significant than the team that created virtually no chances.

I have no horse in this race. I saw it for what it was. United were really, really poor and were lucky to win the game. I find notions of either team, let alone United, "deserving" to win that game preposterous. Both played poorly. United more so as they created nothing and never looked like doing so.

deaddonkey15

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

How significant are chances unless they are converted? They were all either easily saved by United's goalkeeper or just off target. You don't automatically deserve something from a match just for racking up a large number of sh*t shots.

Funny thing is Liverpool must have been forced to shoot about 7+ times from 40 yards out.

Henderson was guilty of it multiple times

But sure hey that apparently means Liverpool should have won

deaddonkey15

Kirby wrote: »

More significant than the team that created virtually no chances.

I have no horse in this race. I saw it for what it was. United were really, really poor and were lucky to win the game. I find notions of either team, let alone United, "deserving" to win that game preposterous. Both played poorly. United more so as they created nothing and never looked like doing so.

That's just blatantly incorrect. United's "virtually no chances" resulted in a goal, a win and 3 points. How is that of less significance than Liverpool hitting lots of shots wide or giving the ball to De Gea?

Liam McPoyle

A draw would have been the fair result.

It's a stretch to say we deserved it, aside from we had a striker that can actually strike, albeit with the help of some shocking defending.

On another note, are the LFC players taking shooting lessons from Coutinhio?

Some outrageously bad / wasteful shots from a number of players.

Rayne Wooney

To be fair the Liverpool fans saying they were the better team only makes it a billion times sweeter

Mr.Crinklewood

Another poor performance from United again. Stoke caught Utd on a similar day, thankfully Liverpool could not benefit.


Been a strange league so far.

chopperbyrne

Kirby wrote: »

Based on what? If you base deserving the win on who scored the goals than sure. But if you base it on any number of other criteria like attacking play, chances, etc there is no way United "deserved" to win.

That often doesn't matter in football but don't act like the better team won Mick. Liverpool were poor today. United were awful.

Every football organisation in the world bases it on who scores most goals and nothing else matters.

Liverpool failed to score. No way they could be called the better team.

jayo26

Its ok the pool are top of the deserved to win league table may find them a trophie or badge.

Overall tho it wasn't a great performance from united it was a very good result and we got the job dob and nice to see rooney carry on his goal scoring form he has vardys consecutive game records in his sights. De gea put in a stellar performance again.

Rayne Wooney

Klopp got the better of Van Gaal today

It was just the score line that went against him

Nerdlingr

Poor game from two average teams saved only by Liverpools consistent inability to defend set pieces.

monkey9

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Some dumfounded notion that you should have got a result and De Gea was the only person that prevented it

He made one or two goods saves and that was about it, but considering how poor the game was its being over highlighted and Sky pundits haven't helped the situation

Utd deserved the win, they limited Liverpool who were at home and utd capitalised on there defensive frailties, especially from cornors

Van gaal got his tactics right

Even blind copped on as his cornor delivery was so poor. Passing it for a short cornor to mata was a good move

Liverpool were the better side, but Man U won the game. That's the main thing for you's, isn't it. That's why you's bought a quality goalkeeper.

monkey9

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Funny thing is Liverpool must have been forced to shoot about 7+ times from 40 yards out.

Henderson was guilty of it multiple times

But sure hey that apparently means Liverpool should have won

I don't think so....Man U scored more goals didn't they?