Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours 2017/2018

NukaCola

Anybody without an agenda can see the guy didn't mean it. A comon sense approach would be a 1 match ban. Nothing more IMO. Not sure how these hearings go though so wouldn't be surprised with the 3 match ban anyway.

Crash Bang Wall

NukaCola wrote: »

Anybody without an agenda can see the guy didn't mean it. A comon sense approach would be a 1 match ban. Nothing more IMO. Not sure how these hearings go though so wouldn't be surprised with the 3 match ban anyway.

Common sense.......are you well?? That doesnt exist in football

NukaCola

Crash Bang Wall wrote: »

Common sense.......are you well?? That doesnt exist in football

Yea, they'll more than likely read directly from the rulebook which probably means a 3 match ban.

Crash Bang Wall

NukaCola wrote: »

Yea, they'll more than likely read directly from the rulebook which probably means a 3 match ban.

Rule book is clear as mud

54and56

NukaCola wrote: »

Yea, they'll more than likely read directly from the rulebook which probably means a 3 match ban.

Depends what the appeal committee has authority to do.

If they have discretion then they can take lot's of factors into consideration (absence of intent albeit intent isn't a factor in whether it dangerous play or not, previous track record, impact or otherwise on the opponent albeit that also isn't supposed to be a factor in dangerous play) and amend the automatic 3 game ban to a length they feel is more appropriate which may be less or more than the standard 3 match ban.

If however they are limited to either rescinding the red card or upholding it the outcomes are restricted to no ban at all or an increase from 3 games to 4 for wasting their time and to act as a deterrent to others who bring appeals which had little hope of success. Without such a deterrent clubs would appeal every single red card as there would be no negative consequence to doing so.

J Mysterio

Palace fire De Boer.... 'set to appoint Hodgson'!

:pac: :pac: :pac:

J Mysterio

5starpool wrote: »

Klopp out, bring back Hodgson.

Hard luck

Mumha

5starpool wrote: »

Do people honestly think that it has just never occurred to Klopp or the lads to bring in a defensive coach? They obviously feel they are happy with the current coaching setup. Lads on a forum saying to bring in a coach will fix stuff is just mad.

I don't know what the root of the problem is, but I'm sure those lads are better placed than anyone here to evaluate things.

No one is expecting Klavan, Moreno etc to be turned into world class defenders, HOWEVER, what should be expected is that someone coaches basic defending into them. Clearly that hasn't happened, and should be addressed by Klopp.

MD1990

Loan Watch

Van Dijk starts for our feeder club Southampton u23s tonight.

corwill

NukaCola wrote: »

Anybody without an agenda can see the guy didn't mean it. A comon sense approach would be a 1 match ban. Nothing more IMO. Not sure how these hearings go though so wouldn't be surprised with the 3 match ban anyway.

Hopefully, the club solicitor will have considered and advised as to the likelihood of a reduced ban. Matic had a 3 match ban reduced to 2 in 2015, Gabriel had a 3 match ban entirely rescinded, but that was a bit more clear cut.

Lack of intent may not be enough to have Mane's ban reduced though, per the rules I expect they'll be measuring the degrees of recklessness and resulting danger. The latter could only have been more severe if Ederson suffered something truly life-threatening/-changing.

I hope the club solicitor will have advised the appeal is well founded. If they're looking to deter similar dangerous play and frivolous appeals at the same time, they're in a position to do so here in a really unwelcome way, from our point of view.

~Rebel~

Tusky wrote: »

Has anyone been disappointed with Salah's final ball/finishing? Great pace and positioning but rarely seems to do the right thing. Hopefully he's still finding his feet.

I think he does try to do the right thing most of the time, it just doesn't come off - usually a bit under-powered.

I kind of wonder if it's just a case of having to catch up to peak fitness. Most of these poor final shots or passes come in the aftermath him doing some lung busting sprint. I just wonder if he just doesn't quite have the legs for both right now, to sprint at full pelt, and still have enough power to dink the ball around the keeper, or beat the keeper crossing across goal.

He's getting into the right positions at least. Hopefully just a bit more time and he'll have something left in the tank after his runs.

~Rebel~

corwill wrote: »

Hopefully, the club solicitor will have considered and advised as to the likelihood of a reduced ban. Matic had a 3 match ban reduced to 2 in 2015, Gabriel had a 3 match ban entirely rescinded, but that was a bit more clear cut.

Lack of intent may not be enough to have Mane's ban reduced though, per the rules I expect they'll be measuring the degrees of recklessness and resulting danger. The latter could only have been more severe if Ederson suffered something truly life-threatening/-changing.

I hope the club solicitor will have advised the appeal is well founded. If they're looking to deter similar dangerous play and frivolous appeals at the same time, they're in a position to do so here in a really unwelcome way, from our point of view.

I wonder if they can point to the expectation of the keeper being there too... where if it happened in the box, you would expect the keeper to have been there, and should act accordingly, but perhaps since the collision occurred out past the D beyond the edge of the box, a striker running in could argue that the keeper appearing there having charged out of the box was a surprise.

We can already see that he had his eyes locked on the ball all the way, so while he could probably see the looming shape with his peripheral vision, from the position he was in on the pitch, he could argue that experience told him he had more time. And it all happened so fast, Ederson really charging out, and Mane himself at full pelt.

Definite red card of course, but a sending off and 1 game ban seems fair.

Buford T. Justice XIX

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I wonder if they can point to the expectation of the keeper being there too... where if it happened in the box, you would expect the keeper to have been there, and should act accordingly, but perhaps since the collision occurred out past the D beyond the edge of the box, a striker running in could argue that the keeper appearing there having charged out of the box was a surprise.

We can already see that he had his eyes locked on the ball all the way, so while he could probably see the looming shape with his peripheral vision, from the position he was in on the pitch, he could argue that experience told him he had more time. And it all happened so fast, Ederson really charging out, and Mane himself at full pelt.

Definite red card of course, but a sending off and 1 game ban seems fair.

So a 3 match ban and an extra game for a frivolous appeal is what you're saying they will settle on?

Only half joking but I can see them throwing the book at him!

(presumably it will hit Edelson first, he's very quick off his line:pac:)

kingshankly

Who was the lad Saturday that said he was milking it 😂

~Rebel~

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

So a 3 match ban and an extra game for a frivolous appeal is what you're saying they will settle on?

Only half joking but I can see them throwing the book at him!

(presumably it will hit Edelson first, he's very quick off his line:pac:)

Ha, yeah, wouldn't be surprised at all to see it upheld. Fingers crossed we'll at least just get the same punishment anyway, under the circumstances. If we were asking for it to be rescinded, I think an extra game ban for claiming complete innocence would be fair, but admitting dangerous play and only arguing the ban length should be ok hopefully.

Buford T. Justice XIX

kingshankly wrote: »

Who was the lad Saturday that said he was milking it ��

You really have to hand it to Mane, he even had time to colour in the emoji as well:rolleyes:

Turtyturd

The FA opened themselves to stupid appeals when they reduced Matic's ban after he assaulted the Burnley (???) player a few years back and they said it was ok because he'd been on the end of a bad tackle.

Kerrigooney

I know it's easy in hindsight but I can't help thinking if Mane had been a bit cuter he could have just let the keeper clatter into him. He'd probably have been sent off. They were as reckless as each other imo.

NukaCola

kingshankly wrote: »

Who was the lad Saturday that said he was milking it ��

Fanny IMO.......sure in my day etc etc

Nasty though in fairness, didn't think it was that bad.

54and56

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I wonder if they can point to the expectation of the keeper being there too... where if it happened in the box, you would expect the keeper to have been there, and should act accordingly, but perhaps since the collision occurred out past the D beyond the edge of the box, a striker running in could argue that the keeper appearing there having charged out of the box was a surprise.

No chance IMO, if he wasn't expecting a challenge from the keeper who was he trying to knick it from/over? Why would any player try and control a ball so high with his foot if he wasn't expecting an opponent to challenge for it?

~Rebel~ wrote: »

We can already see that he had his eyes locked on the ball all the way, so while he could probably see the looming shape with his peripheral vision, from the position he was in on the pitch, he could argue that experience told him he had more time. And it all happened so fast, Ederson really charging out, and Mane himself at full pelt.

Definite red card of course, but a sending off and 1 game ban seems fair.

I think you need to watch the video again. He ran onto the ball over the top and if he was looking at the ball (which he obviously was) then there's no way he couldn't have seen the on rushing keeper, it was in his direct line of vision. At the moment he stretched for the ball he only had eyes on the ball but the reason (and only possible reason) he lifted his leg so high to control the ball is because he knew the keeper was about to challenge for it.

54and56

Kerrigooney wrote: »

I know it's easy in hindsight but I can't help thinking if Mane had been a bit cuter he could have just let the keeper clatter into him. He'd probably have been sent off. They were as reckless as each other imo.

I thought this too but the way the ball bounced and the timing etc made it just likely that unless Mane went for the ball as he did Edison would have gotten to it with his head first and then it would have ended up with Maneeither getting clattered and possibly injured (with Edison getting no punishment as he got the ball first and well, he's a "keeper") or Edison could have come off worse with Mane getting an even longer ban as in that instance he wouldn't have even gotten the ball first.

It turned into a no win situation for Mane unless he ducked out of the tackle all together and we'd then be into a whole different debate about his bravery/commitment etc etc.

Let's hope for a reduction in the ban and that it won't happen again for either Edison or Mane's sake. Let's not forget Edison has ended up with a couple of scars on his face!!

~Rebel~

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

No chance IMO, if he wasn't expecting a challenge from the keeper who was he trying to knick it from/over? Why would any player try and control a ball so high with his foot if he wasn't expecting an opponent to challenge for it?



I think you need to watch the video again. He ran onto the ball over the top and if he was looking at the ball (which he obviously was) then there's no way he couldn't have seen the on rushing keeper, it was in his direct line of vision. At the moment he stretched for the ball he only had eyes on the ball but the reason (and only possible reason) he lifted his leg so high to control the ball is because he knew the keeper was about to challenge for it.

I think you've slightly misinterpreted what I meant - not that he didn't know the keeper was there at all, but that you could perhaps argue that he didn't realise the keeper was quite as close as he was. That he thought he had an extra half second to nick the ball around the keeper, who he would have expected to meet 5 or 6 yards further in at the edge of the box.

I mean, this would seem to be the obvious case - we can see exactly what he's trying to do, and watching with the benefit of replays we can obviously see that he had no chance of actually accomplishing what he was trying, given the speed the keeper came out. Keeping in mind that we're dealing with a difference of just a few yards between where he expected the keeper to be and where he actually was, and that they're probably running at a combined speed of 30mph... it's very fine margins.

As for the high touch - running in on goal like that, and knowing the keeper is coming out, any early touch will automatically beat the keeper as you'll be past him before it even touches the ground, so it makes perfect sense that he would try to get that touch as early as possible.

super_furry

Another kick in the face in the West Ham game with Reid on Mounie. Not even a booking this one. So that's a red card, a yellow card and just a free-kick in the space of three days for the same foul. Should help with making the argument that Mane's ban should be reduced.

https://twitter.com/GNev2/status/907330927449305089

54and56

~Rebel~ wrote: »

As for the high touch - running in on goal like that, and knowing the keeper is coming out, any early touch will automatically beat the keeper as you'll be past him before it even touches the ground, so it makes perfect sense that he would try to get that touch as early as possible.

And that is exactly why it was dangerous. With the speed both were travelling there was no room for error so raising his boot as he did, albeit he didn't mean to injure the GK, meant he put the GK in danger and that is what he got the red card for.

Rebel had said "We can already see that he had his eyes locked on the ball all the way" but it's clear he knew the GK was rushing out to challenge for the ball.

54and56

super_furry wrote: »

Another kick in the face in the West Ham game with Reid on Mounie. Not even a booking this one. So that's a red card, a yellow card and just a free-kick in the space of three days for the same foul. Should help with making the argument that Mane's ban should be reduced.

https://twitter.com/GNev2/status/907330927449305089

There's a couple of significant differences here IMO.

Reid is leaning/falling back so may not have been as in control of what he was doing as Mane was.

Mounie has leaned down into the ball so his head is at a height that feet are commonly used to control a ball.

Just sayin......

noodler

Red for me.

Accidental or not wasn't really the point imo.

~Rebel~

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

And that is exactly why it was dangerous. With the speed both were travelling there was no room for error so raising his boot as he did, albeit he didn't mean to injure the GK, meant he put the GK in danger and that is what he got the red card for.

Rebel had said "We can already see that he had his eyes locked on the ball all the way" but it's clear he knew the GK was rushing out to challenge for the ball.

I don't think there's any argument about it not being dangerous. This is purely a case of arguing for 1 or 3 match ban. A red card and a ban is required, and correct, all I'm discussing is the case to be made for a 1 match ban.

Also, you keep posting only the beginning of my comment - the rest is;
"We can already see that he had his eyes locked on the ball all the way, so while he could probably see the looming shape with his peripheral vision, from the position he was in on the pitch, he could argue that experience told him he had more time. And it all happened so fast, Ederson really charging out, and Mane himself at full pelt."

I've always acknowledged that he was aware of the keeper's existence - but at the speed both are moving, and the fact that he's sprinting with a very clear defined goal in mind, it's not unfair to argue that he could easily misjudge how far he was from the keeper. I mean, it's pretty normal to be effectively tunnel-visioned when you're sprinting for a ball. I'm just suggesting that between the speed it all happened, the keeper being farther out than a keeper normally would be in this situation, and the clear lack of intent from the attacker, that a one match ban would suffice.

ThunbergsAreGo

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

There's a couple of significant differences here IMO.

Reid is leaning/falling back so may not have been as in control of what he was doing as Mane was.

Mounie has leaned down into the ball so his head is at a height that feet are commonly used to control a ball.

Just sayin......

Not in control arguably makes it more dangerous

Agent Coulson

I wouldn't be surprised if DS15 starts against Burnley with Mane out.

5starpool

Agent Coulson wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if DS15 starts against Burnley with Mane out.

I think we'd have rotated a few for that game anyhow, coming 3 days after Sevilla. Milner, Sturridge, Robertson, Klavan would have started that anyhow I reckon.

Utopia Parkway

Mumha wrote: »

No one is expecting Klavan, Moreno etc to be turned into world class defenders, HOWEVER, what should be expected is that someone coaches basic defending into them. Clearly that hasn't happened, and should be addressed by Klopp.

You could coach Klavan all you like but it wont change the fact that he is

A. Slow as a month in jail
B. Has zero athleticism

Moreno actually has all the attributes to be a decent full-back. Apart from a functioning brain. Which is kinda important.

Ultimately and for different reasons neither are good enough.

shamrock55

Agent Coulson wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if DS15 starts against Burnley with Mane out.

or maybe solanke

willowthewisp

Agent Coulson wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if DS15 starts against Burnley with Mane out.

Ahead of PC10?

charolais0153

What about BW58??:D

~Rebel~

willowthewisp wrote: »

Ahead of PC10?

I'd say he'll have a few bench appearances first before he's starting again.

Could start with Sturridge, and bring on Coutinho with 20 or 30 minutes to go.

Though I wouldn't be surprised to just see Ox start in Mane's spot, with the same role. Could actually even see both, Ox starting in place of Mane, and Firmino swapped out for Sturridge to give him a break after almost certainly playing 90 minutes against Seville.

Agent Coulson

willowthewisp wrote: »

Ahead of PC10?

I think so Burnley have been able to soak up our press over the last few games.

DS15 not being able to press might just throw them off there game.

murpho999

Mumha wrote: »

No one is expecting Klavan, Moreno etc to be turned into world class defenders, HOWEVER, what should be expected is that someone coaches basic defending into them. Clearly that hasn't happened, and should be addressed by Klopp.

The matter is quite simple.

Moreno, Klavan and Lovren are not good enough defenders for a club like Liverpool who have aspirations of winning trophies.

It is nothing to do with coaching.

brevity

I don't think they are bad defenders just the wrong defenders.

BullBlackNova

I think it's remarkable how much blame is afforded to our defenders for just about everything that is wrong with the club. It really boils down to the system, not the personnel as far as I'm concerned.

My thoughts...

1) Klavan and Lovren aren't good enough to be automatic starters for any side hoping for Champions League football every year. I haven't made my mind up on Matip but I think he can be improved on. Our full backs are very hit and miss too, for what its worth.

2) The number of CBs we have is a real issue, especially as both Matip and Lovren missed so many games through injury last season. At some point this season, we will have Klavan and Gomez or (even worse) James ****ing Milner in the centre of defence, I guarantee it.

3) A major issue with our defence is our system. We commit so many men forward to create pressure on the opposition that in the case of a counter, etc, we don't have a midfield shielding our defence. Compare that to Man Utd, Spurs, Chelsea, Southampton, etc who all have dedicated defensive midfield players. It's not hard to figure out and it shows in our players - just look at the difference in Lovren with zero DMs vs Lovren with two.

4) I genuinely believe that we could sign Paulo Maldini in his prime and we'd still concede stupid goals because of that system but that's not to say we can't improve somewhat - more players in those positions, for a start, would be nice. I'd be happy with Matip and a new CB, with Klavan, Lovren, Gomez as back up. I don't know who but I refuse to believe that it's Van Dijk or nobody. Manolas? Koulibaly? Even if Klopp rates Lovren, couldn't Mawson, Gibson or Cook come in as competition/back-up?

5) Our reliance on ultra-attack is exciting, thrilling and near unstoppable when it works. But we are utter garbage when it doesn't because we have weaknesses elsewhere that go unresolved. And the real issue I have is that they have been unresolved for years. How many years have we argued that our defence is too weak? That our midfield needs more steel? That our team lacks natural leaders? It's frustrating and could be the difference between good and great seasons, cup wins and final defeats, etc. It's a league of immense competition at the top and slim margins will be the difference - our attack puts us on the right side of the margin but our defence (and our system) wrenches us right back to the other. Klopp's task is to keep us more on one side than the other. Last season he managed it but this season we have extra games etc so the task becomes harder.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

willowthewisp wrote: »

Ahead of PC10?

Agent Coulson wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if DS15 starts against Burnley with Mane out.

charolais0153 wrote: »

What about BW58??:D

I'm pretty sure you're going to have to give the full postcodes before any of your **** gets delivered.

dogbert27

BullBlackNova wrote: »

I think it's remarkable how much blame is afforded to our defenders for just about everything that is wrong with the club. It really boils down to the system, not the personnel as far as I'm concerned.

My thoughts...

1) Klavan and Lovren aren't good enough to be automatic starters for any side hoping for Champions League football every year. I haven't made my mind up on Matip but I think he can be improved on. Our full backs are very hit and miss too, for what its worth.

2) The number of CBs we have is a real issue, especially as both Matip and Lovren missed so many games through injury last season. At some point this season, we will have Klavan and Gomez or (even worse) James ****ing Milner in the centre of defence, I guarantee it.

3) A major issue with our defence is our system. We commit so many men forward to create pressure on the opposition that in the case of a counter, etc, we don't have a midfield shielding our defence. Compare that to Man Utd, Spurs, Chelsea, Southampton, etc who all have dedicated defensive midfield players. It's not hard to figure out and it shows in our players - just look at the difference in Lovren with zero DMs vs Lovren with two.

4) I genuinely believe that we could sign Paulo Maldini in his prime and we'd still concede stupid goals because of that system but that's not to say we can't improve somewhat - more players in those positions, for a start, would be nice. I'd be happy with Matip and a new CB, with Klavan, Lovren, Gomez as back up. I don't know who but I refuse to believe that it's Van Dijk or nobody. Manolas? Koulibaly? Even if Klopp rates Lovren, couldn't Mawson, Gibson or Cook come in as competition/back-up?

5) Our reliance on ultra-attack is exciting, thrilling and near unstoppable when it works. But we are utter garbage when it doesn't because we have weaknesses elsewhere that go unresolved. And the real issue I have is that they have been unresolved for years. How many years have we argued that our defence is too weak? That our midfield needs more steel? That our team lacks natural leaders? It's frustrating and could be the difference between good and great seasons, cup wins and final defeats, etc. It's a league of immense competition at the top and slim margins will be the difference - our attack puts us on the right side of the margin but our defence (and our system) wrenches us right back to the other. Klopp's task is to keep us more on one side than the other. Last season he managed it but this season we have extra games etc so the task becomes harder.

I think we should just pick the U-23s defence. They're doing much better than the first team!!

Buford T. Justice XIX

TAW did an analysis of results when a one of the top 6 goes down to 10 men against 11. They reckon most teams struggle badly when a man down.

https://twitter.com/TheAnfieldWrap/status/907314114636210176

Jesus Wept

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

You could coach Klavan all you like but it wont change the fact that he is

A. Slow as a month in jail
B. Has zero athleticism

Moreno actually has all the attributes to be a decent full-back. Apart from a functioning brain. Which is kinda important.

Ultimately and for different reasons neither are good enough.

Some sort of Frankenstein hybrid of the two?

corwill

Jesus Wept wrote: »

Some sort of Frankenstein hybrid of the two?

Klavrenostein would end up slow, weak and bat****.

chupacabra

Mane is the victim is he? 3 match ban not long enough imo, needs to be made an example of.

darced wrote: »

Update on the keeper- F0ck all wrong with him.

Shame on you.

Crash Bang Wall

chupacabra wrote: »

Mane is the victim is he? 3 match ban not long enough imo, needs to be made an example of.



Shame on you.

You having a laugh??? 3 match ban is fine if all high feet are red cards but thats not the case. High feet are wreckless and dangerous .....full stop. The fact that there was contact and the keeper is injured is unfortunate. The fact that there was contact is irrelevant.....you cant change the colour of a card, where the player is clearly going for the ball, because the other guy gets injured.

Grayditch

Who even says shame on you in 2017?!

5starpool

Michael Beale starting back at the academy next week after his stint in Brazil.

Knex*

Grayditch wrote: »

Who even says shame on you in 2017?!

Its all the rage with people who opt for the aul faux outrage.

Can often be heard mixed in with other over-the-top phrases such as, "Reprehensible behaviour", "Disgusting", "Disgraceful", and the closing statement, "I hope you're proud of yourself".

You could actually play bingo to these types of people.

Knex*

chupacabra wrote: »

Mane is the victim is he? 3 match ban not long enough imo, needs to be made an example of.



Shame on you.

Clearly Mane was just trying to tattoo another smiley face onto Ederson's jaw. Its all a misunderstanding.