Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours 2018

BorneTobyWilde

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Alisson has the No 1 shirt for those who fret about this sort of thing. Karius is now No 99 (a bit flakey)

We got 99 problems but a keeper ain't one.

SuperTortoise

RoboKlopp wrote: »

We look tight on options at CB for the opening game?

Klaven/Matip injured. Lovern probably not ready.

Gomez & VVD ?

Fabinho for Milner but aside from that i'd expect no changes from the team that started against Napoli.

noodler

Agent Coulson wrote: »

I kind of like that Karius went with 99 fair play to him.

Prob cos he's a bit flakey

colly10

Been very happy with our signings this summer and for once feel no disappointment leading into the season.

We should be capable of at least third, obviously with nothing guaranteed but we’re definitely a stronger side this year and it’s just a case of whether the likes of Salah and Firmino can maintain close to the same form this year.

I’m wondering how big of a loss Buvac will be. Klopp has refered to him as the brain and they’ve been together for so many years. Could be nothing but the loss I can’t quantify is the only thing putting a bit of a damper on things

martyos121

Karius might be our 99, but you can’t forget who the flake has always been.

~Rebel~

Agent Coulson wrote: »

I kind of like that Karius went with 99 fair play to him.

Gonna need to rebrand!

#LK99

gimli2112

Agent Coulson wrote: »

I kind of like that Karius went with 99 fair play to him.

Literally, could not be further from being Liverpool's number one, as far as jerseys are concerned.

marklazarcovic

What number did mig get,and kellegher

Harry Palmr

So then Silent Stan moves to take over Arsenal and values the club at 1.8 billion. FSG must be very happy with that!

8-10

Agent Coulson wrote: »

I kind of like that Karius went with 99 fair play to him.

Yeah that's bull****. Can't have a number that high in the PL.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Unluckiest club in the league should have finished second...No surprise who was the luckiest!!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45087444

Would VAR have fixed it???

garra

Agent Coulson wrote: »

I wonder what odds you would get on Sturridge, Lallana & Henderson all getting injured this season and miss large chunks of games.

Rotation and lots of bench time might be the way to stop that happening

Would be unusual for a club's fans to seek odds on their own players to suffer injuries.

It's great to have a squad of players with a depth of quality to choose from, Klopp rotated his team most frequently last season and now can expand on that policy.

gimli2112

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Unluckiest club in the league should have finished second...No surprise who was the luckiest!!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45087444

Would VAR have fixed it???

So I'm not just paranoid? Glad to see this has been scientifically proven once and for all, you can't argue with science.

Mr.H

8-10 wrote:

Yeah that's bull****. Can't have a number that high in the PL.

Why not? What number is woodburn? While we have a lot of players i doubt the numbers 1-57 are all taken.

garra

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Unluckiest club in the league should have finished second...No surprise who was the luckiest!!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45087444

Would VAR have fixed it???

ESPN sponsored the research. They would love a bit of VAR to lengthen games and provide more break opportunities I'm sure.

5starpool

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Unluckiest club in the league should have finished second...No surprise who was the luckiest!!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45087444

Would VAR have fixed it???

It started on the opening day with that offside goal for Watford in injury time. Hopefully we'll be on the other end of things when a similar study is done next year.

5starpool

garra wrote: »

ESPN sponsored the research. They would love a bit of VAR to lengthen games and provide more break opportunities I'm sure.

Even in America (where ESPN don't show premier league) they don't have breaks during games.

murpho999

garra wrote: »

ESPN sponsored the research. They would love a bit of VAR to lengthen games and provide more break opportunities I'm sure.

In a way I prefer the way it went.

To finish with 87 points and not win the league would have been awful

Harry Palmr

And in a different season Liverpool may have been the luckiest, I'm not going to get excited by this. That said I was hoping it was City who were luckiest so lucky they would have finished second to Liverpool!

Agent Coulson

So will the starting 11 for the West Ham game start tonight's game?

ebbsy

Think we should sell our most expensive player for truppence and get 2 duds from Barca instead.

dogbert27

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Unluckiest club in the league should have finished second...No surprise who was the luckiest!!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45087444

Would VAR have fixed it???

Doesn't go far enough in the research. It says that Liverpool should have been awarded a penalty against United at Anfield and based on that it changes the scoreline to a 1-0 win.

To conclude a penalty should have been awarded it then would have to go further and analyse the penalty take versus the keeper and the probabilities of a goal or a save/miss.

Same with wrongful offsides. There's not guarantee that a player would have gone on to score a goal.

54and56

dogbert27 wrote: »

Doesn't go far enough in the research. It says that Liverpool should have been awarded a penalty against United at Anfield and based on that it changes the scoreline to a 1-0 win.

To conclude a penalty should have been awarded it then would have to go further and analyse the penalty take versus the keeper and the probabilities of a goal or a save/miss.

Same with wrongful offsides. There's not guarantee that a player would have gone on to score a goal.

You're spot on. It would have been easy to apply the PL average penalty conversion rate of 70% and a similar but lower (30%?) estimate for how often a wrongly flagged off side would have been converted. That would have made the conclusions a bit more realistic but it's all mute anyway. Wrong decisions are part of the game, the best way to avoid them having a negative impact on you is to ensure you have at least a two goal cushion!!!

Ardent

VAR is badly required in the Premier League. It has been plagued by incompetent referees for many years now. And Liverpool has been more affected than most, for whatever reason.

5starpool

Agent Coulson wrote: »

So will the starting 11 for the West Ham game start tonight's game?

Depends who he wants to risk. van Dijk and Gomez are our match fit centre backs, so he might not want to risk both or either tonight. I suspect both will play a part, but not the whole game. We might end up with Wijnaldum and Philips as a CB partnership for a chunk of the game I suspect if Klavan isn't fit enough to play.

Milner will probably miss out, but might be ok for Sunday, and unless Henderson is deemed match ready on Sunday I'd expect Milner to start then if he can. Same with Lovren and Gomez. I'm not convinced Klopp will start the season with Fabinho unless he is half forced to because Milner/Henderson are unavailable.

Clyne/TAA is the one that I don't know how he'll go for Sunday, no matter who he starts with tonight. I don't think RB is clear yet and I suspect that over the season, barring injury, there won't be someone who plays almost all games there. Gomez likely to be 3rd choice RB, or even 4th maybe in Klopp decides to play Fabinho there if needed. Gomez will either be 3rd or 4th choice CB too. Big season ahead for him though. If he ends the season having not been a regular or impressed in either position he might get a bit antsy, and it'd be hard to blame him. A starting CB is what he aims to be, and if he can't be it at Liverpool, he might start to look elsewhere depending on his priorities.

marklazarcovic

Ardent wrote: »

VAR is badly required in the Premier League. It has been plagued by incompetent referees for many years now. And Liverpool has been more affected than most, for whatever reason.

Only because we watch most of our games I'd say,if we seen every game there would be shed loads we have not seen.

ERG89

Starting to get the feeling nobody wants Origi, Markovic or Ings. Palace seem to be buying Lucas Perez off Arsenal instead.

5starpool

ERG89 wrote: »

Starting to get the feeling nobody wants Origi, Markovic or Ings. Palace seem to be buying Lucas Perez off Arsenal instead.

At the prices quoted I can see why.

rob316

ERG89 wrote: »

Starting to get the feeling nobody wants Origi, Markovic or Ings. Palace seem to be buying Lucas Perez off Arsenal instead.

Looking for very big fees reportedly. They'll go on loan to buy deals before the window closes, I'd imagine.

The prices seemed to be a bit nuts alright.

I can see deadline day being crazy this time around.

garra

murpho999 wrote: »

In a way I prefer the way it went.

To finish with 87 points and not win the league would have been awful

Well if luck doesn't balance itself out over the course of a season, maybe it needs 2 seasons to find equilibrium. Our year!

5starpool

Ardent wrote: »

VAR is badly required in the Premier League. It has been plagued by incompetent referees for many years now. And Liverpool has been more affected than most, for whatever reason.

I'm not convinced. Without VAR there are incorrect decisions, that is not being disputed, but VAR is not perfect. Some of my problems with it are:
- Some decisions still don't seem to be given correctly (especially handballs)
- It can take minutes at times to sort something out.
- It makes assistants far more reluctant to make decisions in terms of offsides, etc. as they think that goals will be given offside if they were rather than them risk being wrong.
- Players and coaches implore the ref to use VAR far too often. There are rules to say they can't, but people aren't punished for it.
- There are decisions that the ref doesn't refer to VAR in the general run of play for penalties, etc. which would be given if reviewed, but to have a video ref interject and tell the ref to give a penalty (or review) 30 seconds later would be farcical. We'd still have to listen to idiot pundits talk about it as if VAR should be used 30 times a game.

I think on balance VAR could be good in certain situations, but overall I prefer football without it. Fans cheering a goal only for it to be disallowed 30 seconds later for an offside in the build up, while correct, ruins part of the game. It isn't perfect the way it is, and goal line tech is great, and not open to interpretation, but I think it is better than the alternative. Rugby, cricket, tennis lends itself to VAR far more than football does. It is far too flawed to be used in football imo, and I'd rather live with the wrong decisions than live with those flaws.

It seems sadly inevitable though that it will be introduced, but short of introducing challenges from managers (3 per game each or something, like tennis) and otherwise only checking goals scored for offsides, it will change the game too much. I may well be in a minority here, but it's what I think having seen it in action.

5starpool

RoboKlopp wrote: »

The prices seemed to be a bit nuts alright.

I can see deadline day being crazy this time around.

Origi and Markovic might still go abroad so have until the end of the month. Ings probably not, so if he isn't gone by Thursday night he'll stay put.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

dogbert27 wrote: »

Doesn't go far enough in the research. It says that Liverpool should have been awarded a penalty against United at Anfield and based on that it changes the scoreline to a 1-0 win.
.

... or that united would have come back strongly and beaten us 2-1, in whcih case we were actually saved a point by the wrong decision.

joe_99

5starpool wrote: »

I'm not convinced. Without VAR there are incorrect decisions, that is not being disputed, but VAR is not perfect. Some of my problems with it are:
- Some decisions still don't seem to be given correctly (especially handballs)
- It can take minutes at times to sort something out.
- It makes assistants far more reluctant to make decisions in terms of offsides, etc. as they think that goals will be given offside if they were rather than them risk being wrong.
- Players and coaches implore the ref to use VAR far too often. There are rules to say they can't, but people aren't punished for it.
- There are decisions that the ref doesn't refer to VAR in the general run of play for penalties, etc. which would be given if reviewed, but to have a video ref interject and tell the ref to give a penalty (or review) 30 seconds later would be farcical. We'd still have to listen to idiot pundits talk about it as if VAR should be used 30 times a game.

I think on balance VAR could be good in certain situations, but overall I prefer football without it. Fans cheering a goal only for it to be disallowed 30 seconds later for an offside in the build up, while correct, ruins part of the game. It isn't perfect the way it is, and goal line tech is great, and not open to interpretation, but I think it is better than the alternative. Rugby, cricket, tennis lends itself to VAR far more than football does. It is far too flawed to be used in football imo, and I'd rather live with the wrong decisions than live with those flaws.

It seems sadly inevitable though that it will be introduced, but short of introducing challenges from managers (3 per game each or something, like tennis) and otherwise only checking goals scored for offsides, it will change the game too much. I may well be in a minority here, but it's what I think having seen it in action.

At the very least it should be used for offsides. Can't remember an incorrect offside decision at the WC.

TitianGerm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

... or that united would have come back strongly and beaten us 2-1, in whcih case we were actually saved a point by the wrong decision.

Ah here, you need to attack to score.

Dickerty

ERG89 wrote: »

Starting to get the feeling nobody wants Origi, Markovic or Ings. Palace seem to be buying Lucas Perez off Arsenal instead.

And Migs! Apparently couldn't get £12M for him, not surprising when Hart goes to Burnley for £4M?? I guess Pope will get sold off when he gets back from injury.

garra

5starpool wrote: »

I'm not convinced. Without VAR there are incorrect decisions, that is not being disputed, but VAR is not perfect. Some of my problems with it are:
- Some decisions still don't seem to be given correctly (especially handballs)
- It can take minutes at times to sort something out.
- It makes assistants far more reluctant to make decisions in terms of offsides, etc. as they think that goals will be given offside if they were rather than them risk being wrong.
- Players and coaches implore the ref to use VAR far too often. There are rules to say they can't, but people aren't punished for it.
- There are decisions that the ref doesn't refer to VAR in the general run of play for penalties, etc. which would be given if reviewed, but to have a video ref interject and tell the ref to give a penalty (or review) 30 seconds later would be farcical. We'd still have to listen to idiot pundits talk about it as if VAR should be used 30 times a game.

I think on balance VAR could be good in certain situations, but overall I prefer football without it. Fans cheering a goal only for it to be disallowed 30 seconds later for an offside in the build up, while correct, ruins part of the game. It isn't perfect the way it is, and goal line tech is great, and not open to interpretation, but I think it is better than the alternative. Rugby, cricket, tennis lends itself to VAR far more than football does. It is far too flawed to be used in football imo, and I'd rather live with the wrong decisions than live with those flaws.

It seems sadly inevitable though that it will be introduced, but short of introducing challenges from managers (3 per game each or something, like tennis) and otherwise only checking goals scored for offsides, it will change the game too much. I may well be in a minority here, but it's what I think having seen it in action.

You have precisely articulated my thoughts on VAR too, would much prefer to live with games current flaws than introduce new flaws which have the added demerit of slowing the game down and breaking it's flow / entertainmnent value.

I don't think you are in the minority either.

Gbear

The issue with VAR in the world cup was that tournaments are a poor vehicle for introducing it.

It was a massive success in Italy despite some early hiccups.

https://soccer.nbcsports.com/2018/04/24/errors-down-penalty-kicks-up-after-introduction-of-var-in-italy/

But overall, Gazzetta found that in the VAR era, referee errors only amounted to 0.98 percent during a match, as opposed to 6.03 percent in the past. In addition, fouls are down 8.8 percent, red cards are down 6.4 percent, and yellow cards are down 14.7 percent. On the flip side, penalty kicks are called 4.3 more percent of the time.

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11295403/has-var-worked-statistics-behind-worldwide-use-show-positives

VAR has taken an average of about 55 seconds per game, and has increased offciating accuracy to nearly 99%.

There seems to be some errors in how it was implemented in Germany.

As with anything, it's about doing it properly, but even bad VAR is probably better than no VAR at all.

One thing that was made clear from the World Cup, and was already clear given some of the penaltiy decisions that went against us towards the end of last season, is that there needs to be either better training, clearer rules or a rule change for some fouls, most notably for handball.

yourdeadwright

I seen somewhere yesterday where Jurgen was speaking about Fabhino having a hard time in preseason with the intensity,
To me it sounded like he was getting people softened up to the idea that he won't be first choice at the start of the season, I wonder is he finding it harder to adapt to our high energy game after coming from a pretty crap French league

yourdeadwright

I see Chelsea have got Kovacic on loan ,
In my opinion he is possibly the most overrated midfielder on the planet

Cyrus

best thing about var is the cutting out of the pulling and pushing pre corners and frees and also sly off the ball digs.

Dickerty

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I seen somewhere yesterday where Jurgen was speaking about Fabhino having a hard time in preseason with the intensity,
To me it sounded like he was getting people softened up to the idea that he won't be first choice at the start of the season, I wonder is he finding it harder to adapt to our high energy game after coming from a pretty crap French league

He's not a naturally high energy guy. He was the first to drop out of the first-day run tests (that Milner won). Keita, Milner, Wijnaldum are. So he'll definitely need to adapt. Otherwise, he'll get bypassed by our other players...

gimli2112

Cyrus wrote: »

best thing about var is the cutting out of the pulling and pushing pre corners and frees and also sly off the ball digs.

I agree but not sure this was down to VAR. Refs seemed to be more on top of it although I did think there were some very soft penalties awarded. Think that's to be expected. Some of the pushing and pulling at corners is/was ludicrous.

BullBlackNova

Dickerty wrote: »

He's not a naturally high energy guy. He was the first to drop out of the first-day run tests (that Milner won). Keita, Milner, Wijnaldum are. So he'll definitely need to adapt. Otherwise, he'll get bypassed by our other players...

To me, those quotes sounded like Klopp just trying to ease the pressure on Fabinho about being an immediate starter. Oxlade-Chamberlain and Wijnaldum were slow enough to become regulars iir, so it wouldn't be unusual for high profile signings to be slow to bed in here.

Plus, adding Keita and Fabinho to the midfield at the same time may completely throw off the rhythm of some of the players around them so could be one at a time, or some rotation.

Thanx 4 The Fish

dogbert27 wrote: »

Doesn't go far enough in the research. It says that Liverpool should have been awarded a penalty against United at Anfield and based on that it changes the scoreline to a 1-0 win.

To conclude a penalty should have been awarded it then would have to go further and analyse the penalty take versus the keeper and the probabilities of a goal or a save/miss.

Same with wrongful offsides. There's not guarantee that a player would have gone on to score a goal.

I am guessing you did not read all of it. They do go on to explain how they worked out whether penalties would have been converted as well. And they only counted up for wrongly disallowed offside goals, not offsides that were given that would result in a chance to get a goal.

De Bhál

I was at the game in Lansdowne Rd. Saturday evening...why couldn't they use the big screens to show the game or at the very least show replays of the goals?

Dickerty

De Bhál wrote: »

I was at the game in Lansdowne Rd. Saturday evening...why couldn't they use the big screens to show the game or at the very least show replays of the goals?

I think the coverage/recording was only by LFCTV, maybe not got the facility to do immediate replays, edits, etc...

yourdeadwright

Dickerty wrote: »

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I seen somewhere yesterday where Jurgen was speaking about Fabhino having a hard time in preseason with the intensity,
To me it sounded like he was getting people softened up to the idea that he won't be first choice at the start of the season, I wonder is he finding it harder to adapt to our high energy game after coming from a pretty crap French league

He's not a naturally high energy guy. He was the first to drop out of the first-day run tests (that Milner won). Keita, Milner, Wijnaldum are. So he'll definitely need to adapt. Otherwise, he'll get bypassed by our other players...

That's a worry paying that money we did

TitianGerm

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I seen somewhere yesterday where Jurgen was speaking about Fabhino having a hard time in preseason with the intensity,
To me it sounded like he was getting people softened up to the idea that he won't be first choice at the start of the season, I wonder is he finding it harder to adapt to our high energy game after coming from a pretty crap French league

Monaco play a completely different style than we do. It's similar to Robertson and Ox been given time to adapt.