General Premier League Thread 2020-21 - Mod Notes in 1st post. [Updated 17/12/20]

davemckenna25

yourdeadwright wrote: »

As i said i think it was a coming together not a foul, the ball hitting Robbo standing foot at the same time as the contact os the game changer for me

Kind of like when someone goes one and one and a keeper flys out to smother the shot and ball hits the keeper at the same time as the keeper comes in contact with the forward,

I wonder if Welbck didnt dive after it would it have even been checked

He didn't dive...he was kicked and went to ground.

Quazzie

yourdeadwright wrote: »

As i said i think it was a coming together not a foul, the ball hitting Robbo standing foot at the same time as the contact os the game changer for me

Kind of like when someone goes one and one and a keeper flys out to smother the shot and ball hits the keeper at the same time as the keeper comes in contact with the forward,

I wonder if Welbck didnt dive after it would it have even been checked

The ball was kicked onto Robertson foot, by the attacker at the same time as Robertson was making full on contact with the attacker.

It was a penalty all day long.

yourdeadwright

davemckenna25 wrote: »

He didn't dive...he was kicked and went to ground.

Ahh stop he 100% dived, there was contact yes but he then took about 3 steps before he decided to go down,
Thats a div
Watch the reply his right foot is hit he then places his left foot, right foot, left foot on the ground before diving

Rock77

yourdeadwright wrote: »

As i said i think it was a coming together not a foul, the ball hitting Robbo standing foot at the same time as the contact os the game changer for me

Kind of like when someone goes one and one and a keeper flys out to smother the shot and ball hits the keeper at the same time as the keeper comes in contact with the forward,

I wonder if Welbck didnt dive after it would it have even been checked

I know this one is hard to take if it’s against your team and I know what your trying to say (your just not doing a good job of saying it)

If there’s no var, there’s no pen. Nobody even noticed anything happened.

But there is var so these things get looked at, and when you slow it down and view it multiple times you can clearly see Robbo swing a kick at the ball, he misses the ball and makes contact with the player. When that happens, there is no reason whatsoever to not give a pen.

Nothing else matters, no contact on the ball, contact with the player= penalty

Rock77

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Ahh stop he 100% dived, there was contact yes but he then took about 3 steps before he decided to go down,
Thats a div
Watch the reply his right foot is hit he then places his left foot, right foot, left foot on the ground before diving

I agree, he dived after he was kicked

And if he doesn’t go down, var probably doesn’t even look at it.

fyfe79

Rock77 wrote: »

I agree, he dived after he was kicked

And if he doesn’t go down, var probably doesn’t even look at it.

I think Welbeck could've stayed on his feet - just like Salah last week in fairness. Just shows that both players were right... if they'd stayed on their feet, they'd get nothing. I suppose referee's need to start determining what level of contact constitutes a foul. Some fans will argue that both are penalties, other fans will argue that both are not. In my honest opinion, only biased fans (both Liverpool and non-Liverpool fans) will argue that one is a penalty and the other isn't.

I think VAR is a good idea but is not being used in the spirit of the game. To help correct it, I think the following needs to happen:

1. Slow-motion replays should not be used. Incidents should only be reviewed in normal motion, as it happened.
2. No more arbitary drawing of lines for offside. A simple free-frame at the point in question, to be viewed with the naked eye. If it looks level (Salah yesterday) allow it, if it looks off (Mane, yesterday), disallow it.

Yeah, some pedantics will still moan, but you can't make everyone happy. Right now, the current application is making a lot of people unhappy a lot of the time. It's distracting from the game.

Crash Bang Wall

davemckenna25 wrote: »

He didn't dive...he was kicked and went to ground.

It can be a foul and a dive......if the contact wasnt the cause of the fall, he dived....all this nonsense of entitled to go down is exactly that....nonsense

Refs need to start giving pens for players trying to stay on their feet to even have a hope of getting rid of diving

The pundits are also part of the problem.....thats a dive and hes entitled to go down are both views regularly expressed, yet are bot sides of the same coin

Crash Bang Wall

fyfe79 wrote: »

I think Welbeck could've stayed on his feet - just like Salah last week in fairness. Just shows that both players were right... if they'd stayed on their feet, they'd get nothing. I suppose referee's need to start determining what level of contact constitutes a foul. Some fans will argue that both are penalties, other fans will argue that both are not. In my honest opinion, only biased fans (both Liverpool and non-Liverpool fans) will argue that one is a penalty and the other isn't.

I think VAR is a good idea but is not being used in the spirit of the game. To help correct it, I think the following needs to happen:

1. Slow-motion replays should not be used. Incidents should only be reviewed in normal motion, as it happened.
2. No more arbitary drawing of lines for offside. A simple free-frame at the point in question, to be viewed with the naked eye. If it looks level (Salah yesterday) allow it, if it looks off (Mane, yesterday), disallow it.

Yeah, some pedantics will still moan, but you can't make everyone happy. Right now, the current application is making a lot of people unhappy a lot of the time. It's distracting from the game.

I seem to remeber a journo recently (Melissa Reddy I think but not sure), basically saying the media were shown how VAR works but were also pretty much told it wasnt 100% accurate, in terms of the very tight calls, so some level of "linesmans call" needs to be introduced

Get the linesaman to make a decision, and if the freeze frame requires the lines to come out, then you stick with the linesmans decision.....also saves time, because all the time wasted with VAR is not all added on

davemckenna25

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Ahh stop he 100% dived, there was contact yes but he then took about 3 steps before he decided to go down,
Thats a div
Watch the reply his right foot is hit he then places his left foot, right foot, left foot on the ground before diving

But it wasn't a dive.
He got a full force kick on the sole of his foot, momentum took him forward and he collapsed to the ground

How you don't see it as a penalty is beyond me.

DM_7

Fitz* wrote: »

I'd like to know why VAR used the right foot as the line, as opposed to the left foot or left shoulder.

It's hard to see from the one image what part of the defenders body is actually further back.

https://twitter.com/Watch_LFC/status/1332672769708994561?s=19

The image perspective gives a false impression to the naked eye. That is why they use software to determine where the line should be.

Below is helpful,

Note: Dale's comment on if people want to see or not is there as he tweeted same and is not intended by me to be a comment on posters here.

https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1332983700905222144?s=19

Crash Bang Wall

davemckenna25 wrote: »

But it wasn't a dive.
He got a full force kick on the sole of his foot, momentum took him forward and he collapsed to the ground

How you don't see it as a penalty is beyond me.

You are seeing what you want to see champ

I said it can be a foul and a dive.....if the contact didnt cause him to fall then its a dive

I never said it was or wasnt a pen, as more me the bigger issue is simulation. Salahs pen a few weeks ago....he got clipped slightly, but theres no way that level of contact caused him to fall the way he did, so therefore, he was arguably fouled, but definitely dived.

davemckenna25

Crash Bang Wall wrote: »

You are seeing what you want to see champ

I said it can be a foul and a dive.....if the contact didnt cause him to fall then its a dive

I never said it was or wasnt a pen, as more me the bigger issue is simulation. Salahs pen a few weeks ago....he got clipped slightly, but theres no way that level of contact caused him to fall the way he did, so therefore, he was arguably fouled, but definitely dived.

1st, my reply wasn't to you so I wasn't debating whether you called it a penalty or not. You have agreed it was a foul.

2nd, maybe he could have limped on but he decided not to. He decided to drop to the ground.
He didn't make it theatrical and didn't throw himself to the ground, he just went down.
He had been kicked as we agreed, on so I don't see how it gets labeled as a dive.

Girly Gal

DM_7 wrote: »

The image perspective gives a false impression to the naked eye. That is why they use software to determine where the line should be.

Below is helpful,

Note: Dale's comment on if people want to see or not is there as he tweeted same and is not intended by me to be a comment on posters here.

https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1332983700905222144?s=19

That image doesn't prove conclusively that White's right foot is furthest forward, especially with his body position it's unlikely his right foot is further ahead than his left shoulder, that blue vertical line doesn't look perpendicular to the pitch, also the image doesn't prove if the ball has already left the both or not, so, very difficult to conclusively prove tight decisions like this one are offside or not.

noodler

It's not really something I want to see given, in that the contract didn't really affect Welbeck (bar his dive).

But it's very difficult to argue with the simple premise of "Miss the ball but get the man" equates to a peno.

osarusan

I think there is conflation of two different questions which are "is that a penalty?" and "is it a clear and obvious error not to give that as a penalty?"

It is pretty much impossible for the ref to look at the monitor and think to themselves that while it was a penalty, it was not a clear and obvious error not to give it - no way the ref can make that decision by themselves.

Agent Coulson

So how do they determine when the ball leaves the player who passes the balls foot and when the player receiving the ball is offside.

The focus always seems to be on the goal scorer or player offside and not the passer of the ball and when it left their foot.


Also there a margin of error when it comes to VAR so when they are calling offside at the mm level what is the actual margin of error and is that margin of error taken into account.

noodler

osarusan wrote: »

I think there is conflation of two different questions which are "is that a penalty?" and "is it a clear and obvious error not to give that as a penalty?"

That's also true.

But the ref looked at it himself I'm personally satisfied on that score.

If it had been overturned purely on VAR say so then I would be querying why VAR suddenly grew a pair this week.

ShamoBuc

This still going on?

It was a penalty.......harsh, absolutely and needed slow mo to really see the foul, but a foul nonetheless by the letter of the law.
It was offside.....close? Absolutely, a split second earlier he was probably onside.

These decisions have gone more against Liverpool than any other team so far this season, there's no doubt about that, the stats are there for all to see.

But we are only at the end of November, I reckon things will even out as the season goes on. On the law of averages, they should.

Given Liverpools chronic injury list to key players, not playing particularly well, the VAR decisions etc they still find themselves top of the league, not a bad position all things considered.

It's a marathon, not a sprint.

Crash Bang Wall

davemckenna25 wrote: »

1st, my reply wasn't to you so I wasn't debating whether you called it a penalty or not. You have agreed it was a foul.

2nd, maybe he could have limped on but he decided not to. He decided to drop to the ground.
He didn't make it theatrical and didn't throw himself to the ground, he just went down.
He had been kicked as we agreed, on so I don't see how it gets labeled as a dive.

Not theatrical...he looked around, seen play was continuing, dropped to the ground, and had a wee roll over:rolleyes:

DM_7

Girly Gal wrote: »

That image doesn't prove conclusively that White's right foot is furthest forward, especially with his body position it's unlikely his right foot is further ahead than his left shoulder, that blue vertical line doesn't look perpendicular to the pitch, also the image doesn't prove if the ball has already left the both or not, so, very difficult to conclusively prove tight decisions like this one are offside or not.

The software and calibration of same has determined the foot is closest to the goal. It is far more accurate than how things 'look' to us. A question was asked yesterday and in my view the pictures and video explain the process that was/is followed.

I agree on the issue of determining when the ball is played. I don't think the extreme analysis of on/offside is in spirit of what the rule was meant to be. The attackers are not getting a clear advantage or defenders suffering a major disadvantage in these really close scenarios.

The suggestion of a freeze frame scenario without the calibrated lines would be great if a camera angle showing the true line was available. It is not though, so it would not be suitable either due to the limitations of seeing a true line on camera angle's without a set and calibrated process of determining the offside line.

yourdeadwright

davemckenna25 wrote: »

But it wasn't a dive.
He got a full force kick on the sole of his foot, momentum took him forward and he collapsed to the ground

How you don't see it as a penalty is beyond me.

Of course i can see how it was given, yes there was contact it was not black and white, i just have the same opinion as ex ref Walton that i dont think it was pen, but i can see why it was given and understand people wil lthink it was a pen

But he 100% still dived,

fyfe79

Agent Coulson wrote: »

So how do they determine when the ball leaves the player who passes the balls foot and when the player receiving the ball is offside.

The focus always seems to be on the goal scorer or player offside and not the passer of the ball and when it left their foot.


Also there a margin of error when it comes to VAR so when they are calling offside at the mm level what is the actual margin of error.

Very true. I work in calibration and there is something known as "uncertainty of measurement" which factors in the uncertainty of the measuring equipment being used. Generally speaking, if the uncertainty of measurement is big enough to bring the result of a reading in to doubt (ie if the error of reading + the uncertainty of measurement = greater than the tolerance), we would still consider the reading to be acceptable with an accompanying note that compliance cannot be proven or disproven. This is in a very heavily regulated pharma company.

With these tight offside calls, the PL are basically saying that the reading (goal) is not acceptable as compliance (onside) cannot be proven/disproven.
It's quite a negative way to approach what is a game of football!

If they approached it like the regulations governing pharma companies, the result in these tight calls would be a more positive outcome, ie. goal awarded.

Unearthly

super_furry wrote: »

Part or it too I think is all the staggered kick-offs. You'd miss the grouped Saturday 3pm games, it was nearly the focus of a weekend, now everything is all over the place.

Not for me. Maybe back in the 90's when you had at most 1 or 2 games moved for tv the Saturday 3pm games was seen as an event but it lost that feeling ages ago now.

RasTa

Since when did we starting talking/gloating about teams on top of the league in November?

Guy:Incognito

davemckenna25 wrote: »

He didn't dive...he was kicked and went to ground.

Choosing to fall on the ground in a dive.

Whether you're fouled or not doesn't change that. A player pushing their head against another player and that play dropping on the ground and rolling around is a dive. The fact you're not allowed touch you're head off another player and it's a sending off offence doesn't make it less of a dive imo.

Potential Underachiever

noodler wrote: »

That's also true.

But the ref looked at it himself I'm personally satisfied on that score.

If it had been overturned purely on VAR say so then I would be querying why VAR suddenly grew a pair this week.

That's all for show though isn't it? I think I've seen one incident (can't remember what) where the ref went to the monitor and then stuck to his decision. He's clearly being told to change the decision but go over and have a look so it makes it look a bit more like we're not reffing the match. He had zero intention of actually judging the incident himself, not to mention the slo-mo one angle they show refs are ridiculous too, Should be multiple angles in real time as well as slowed down if they like.



Prime example was the West Brom penalty recently against United, there was no chance that should have been over turned, I fail to see what the ref could have possibly seen in the replay to say, hold on I actually got that wrong.

DM_7

fyfe79 wrote: »

Very true. I work in calibration and there is something known as "uncertainty of measurement" which factors in the uncertainty of the measuring equipment being used. Generally speaking, if the uncertainty of measurement is big enough to bring the result of a reading in to doubt (ie if the error of reading + the uncertainty of measurement = greater than the tolerance), we would still consider the reading to be acceptable with an accompanying note that compliance cannot be proven or disproven. This is in a very heavily regulated pharma company.

With these tight offside calls, the PL are basically saying that the reading (goal) is not acceptable as compliance (onside) cannot be proven/disproven.
It's quite a negative way to approach what is a game of football!

If they approached it like the regulations governing pharma companies, the result in these tight calls would be a more positive outcome, ie. goal awarded.

These checks have two possible outcomes, offside or onside. Both teams have the right for the determination to be made in their favour. Any check has the potential to show the attacker or defender as closest to goal.

They are not going to change the rules to say a player is onside once within the margin for error and then check offsides are outside the margin. For example, player A goal awarded as 9mm offside, player B offside as 11mm offside.

Therefore the existance of a margin of error must be accepted at the outset and that the lines decide the decision.

Potential Underachiever

I couldn't be bothered to actually check it as fact but I'd be fairly certain there is serious hypocrisy going on from posters here regards Welbeck going down and Salah going down a couple of weeks ago.

RasTa

You could see both where offside yesterday without the lines. There was one for us in the CL I think with Greenwood that I was surprised wasn't overturned.

This one

Girly Gal

DM_7 wrote: »

The software and calibration of same has determined the foot is closest to the goal. It is far more accurate than how things 'look' to us. A question was asked yesterday and in my view the pictures and video explain the process that was/is followed.

I agree on the issue of determining when the ball is played. I don't think the extreme analysis of on/offside is in spirit of what the rule was meant to be. The attackers are not getting a clear advantage or defenders suffering a major disadvantage in these really close scenarios.

The suggestion of a freeze frame scenario without the calibrated lines would be great if a camera angle showing the true line was available. It is not though, so it would not be suitable either due to the limitations of seeing a true line on camera angle's without a set and calibrated process of determining the offside line.

As you say, VAR can't determine conclusively when the ball is played, so, in tight calls like this the attacking team should get the advantage, as was the case previously if the attacker was deemed level. VAR is going against the spirit of the game, there needs to be some leeway in how offside is implemented with VAR. The most ridiculous decision was the Bamford one where he was pointing where he wanted the ball played, it's decisions like that, that make the public lose faith in VAR. It's the implementation of VAR that's the issue, if common sense was used, VAR would be fine.

Father Hernandez

Father Hernandez wrote: »

In fairness, it's used whenever a United or Liverpool player wins a penalty to wind up the other fan base.

Was it a foul? Yes
Did Salah use a bit of theatrics to make sure the ref would see it as a foul? Yes
Was it a penalty? Yes

I said this previously about the Salah incident when Liverpool won a penalty v West Ham.

Fairly relevant after Welbeck yesterday.

Was it a foul? Yes
Did Salah Welbeck use a bit of theatrics to make sure the ref would see it as a foul? Yes
Was it a penalty? Yes

I don't necessarily agree with either decision that a player has to 'win' it but in this day and age and the way the rules are, it's a penalty. A harsh penalty but a penalty.

noodler

davemckenna25 wrote: »

1st, my reply wasn't to you so I wasn't debating whether you called it a penalty or not. You have agreed it was a foul.

2nd, maybe he could have limped on but he decided not to. He decided to drop to the ground.
He didn't make it theatrical and didn't throw himself to the ground, he just went down.
He had been kicked as we agreed, on so I don't see how it gets labeled as a dive.

Ah now he definitely dived.

Peno and all but he was clearly still on his feet after the contact but decided to go to ground.

DM_7

Potential Underachiever wrote: »

That's all for show though isn't it? I think I've seen one incident (can't remember what) where the ref went to the monitor and then stuck to his decision. He's clearly being told to change the decision but go over and have a look so it makes it look a bit more like we're not reffing the match. He had zero intention of actually judging the incident himself, not to mention the slo-mo one angle they show refs are ridiculous too, Should be multiple angles in real time as well as slowed down if they like.



Prime example was the West Brom penalty recently against United, there was no chance that should have been over turned, I fail to see what the ref could have possibly seen in the replay to say, hold on I actually got that wrong.

The ref should see why the VAR is making a recommendation a certain decision be made.

It is highly likely in all cases where replays are available that the ref will agree with the suggestion from VAR as VAR has had the benefit if replays.

Accoring to VAR: Bruno kicked the ball; Roberston did not kick the ball. Ref in each case agreed. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with that process.

noodler

Potential Underachiever wrote: »

That's all for show though isn't it? I think I've seen one incident (can't remember what) where the ref went to the monitor and then stuck to his decision. He's clearly being told to change the decision but go over and have a look so it makes it look a bit more like we're not reffing the match. He had zero intention of actually judging the incident himself, not to mention the slo-mo one angle they show refs are ridiculous too, Should be multiple angles in real time as well as slowed down if they like.



Prime example was the West Brom penalty recently against United, there was no chance that should have been over turned, I fail to see what the ref could have possibly seen in the replay to say, hold on I actually got that wrong.

I think that's in your head.

Nowhere near enough examples of the monitor being used in the PL to make that conclusion imo.

He saw the contact in the replay, I imagine.

Rock77

Father Hernandez wrote: »

I said this previously about the Salah incident when Liverpool won a penalty v West Ham.

Fairly relevant after Welbeck yesterday.

Was it a foul? Yes
Did Salah Welbeck use a bit of theatrics to make sure the ref would see it as a foul? Yes
Was it a penalty? Yes

I don't necessarily agree with either decision that a player has to 'win' it but in this day and age and the way the rules are, it's a penalty. A harsh penalty but a penalty.

Well said and 100% correct. The problem is Var, if you are going to use var for fouls in the box then you can’t say things like ‘he made contact, but I don’t think it was enough contact to go down’ sometimes the slightest contact get make u go down if your running at speed and sometimes a fairly good kick (like Robbo yesterday) probably isn’t enough to make u go down.

If your using slow motion replays for fouls then if the defender misses the ball and connects with the attacker it’s a pen.

In my opinion the game would be so much better if they drew the line at goal line tech (see what I did there)

Everything else is subjective and it’s still subjective after 10 slow motion replays.

I know the really big injustices are no more because of var but how often do they actually happen anyway? This micro managing of little fouls and offsides takes all the enjoyment out of the game.

I for one was always Allright having a marginal decision given against my team.. not so much anymore because I expect the correct decision every time now and I defo don’t trust the var offside lines! The Bruno pen given away against West Brom, seeing that in real time and even the replays looks a pen to me. If that was the other way around I’d be fuming...

fyfe79

RasTa wrote: »

Since when did we starting talking/gloating about teams on top of the league in November?

I'd imagine around the same time as others accusing Klopp of "losing it" for showing consideration for player welfare.

It's tit for tat nonsense, is all.

fyfe79

Father Hernandez wrote: »

I said this previously about the Salah incident when Liverpool won a penalty v West Ham.

Fairly relevant after Welbeck yesterday.

Was it a foul? Yes
Did Salah Welbeck use a bit of theatrics to make sure the ref would see it as a foul? Yes
Was it a penalty? Yes

I don't necessarily agree with either decision that a player has to 'win' it but in this day and age and the way the rules are, it's a penalty. A harsh penalty but a penalty.

A good summation.

marklazarcovic

Here's ole saying the same thing as klopp a few weeks back .. no hate though..


https://twitter.com/btsportfootball/status/1325087291048685568?s=19

yourdeadwright

Yeaterday to me fallsnin the same category as the penalty Salah looled for against Villa away, Where McGinn looled to have fouled him but to the ref and me it wasnt enough for a peno

Potential Underachiever

DM_7 wrote: »

The ref should see why the VAR is making a recommendation a certain decision be made.

It is highly likely in all cases where replays are available that the ref will agree with the suggestion from VAR as VAR has had the benefit if replays.

Accoring to VAR: Bruno kicked the ball; Roberston did not kick the ball. Ref in each case agreed. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with that process.

Not sure why the ref can't just view it again without any recommendations tbh. VAR tells him to look at it again and change his mind or VAR tells him it's fine don't look at it again you're correct, that's tantamount to VAR reffing these decisions.


VAR far from being always right either. I watched the super slo mo of the Fernandes non pen alot and from what I saw , it was shin to shin then Fernandes may have grazed the ball with his studs but contact was definitely first, that was after viewing it ALOT, ref runs over has a quick glance at it and changes his mind because he was obviously told to do so. There was nothing conclusive in the replay he saw and no way he could have saw anything in that quick of a time that was a clear and obvious error but sure enough he changed his mind, that is a flawed process imo, he gave the penalty, had a good view in real time, then changed his mind on a whim.

Lucas Hood

marklazarcovic wrote: »

Here's ole saying the same thing as klopp a few weeks back .. no hate though..


https://twitter.com/btsportfootball/status/1325087291048685568?s=19

I haven't seen the hate for Klopp but the situations for Utd and Liverpool were different.

Liverpool played at home on Wednesday evening

United played in Turkey the Wednesday evening before Oles interview

Girly Gal

Football is a contact sport, just because there's contact inside the box, doesn't automatically make it a penalty, that seems to have been lost in football now, any contact and a penalty is given, the context of the contact needs to be looked at, it's the same with handball, yet if the same type of incident happens outside the box, it wouldn't even be given a second thought.

https://twitter.com/talkSPORT/status/1331247432135544839?s=09

Interesting discussion on talksport

The treatment by Klopp towards BT was weird as a side note. They have a job to do like everyone else.

That happens to be asking the questions, that includes the difficult ones.

Klopps approach all wrong.

Rock77

Girly Gal wrote: »

Football is a contact sport, just because there's contact inside the box, doesn't automatically make it a penalty, that seems to have been lost in football now, any contact and a penalty is given, the context of the contact needs to be looked at, it's the same with handball, yet if the same type of incident happens outside the box, it wouldn't even be given a second thought.

And this is why VAR shouldn’t be used for fouls.. when you want to look at context of contact your in big trouble with slow motion replays

marklazarcovic

Lucas Hood wrote: »

I haven't seen the hate for Klopp but the situations for Utd and Liverpool were different.

Liverpool played at home on Wednesday evening

United played in Turkey the Wednesday evening before Oles interview

They are saying the same thing though ,about the same thing.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Waiting to see how Man U get a pen from Bednareks goal..

marklazarcovic

marklazarcovic wrote: »

Here's ole saying the same thing as klopp a few weeks back .. no hate though..


https://twitter.com/btsportfootball/status/1325087291048685568?s=19

Let's call a spade a spade. Ole and Utd aren't a threat in the league. Any manager/club in that position won't really make headlines.

Back in the day when it was Fergie or Wenger complaining I probably would have laughed at their complaints myself.

fyfe79

Lucas Hood wrote: »

I haven't seen the hate for Klopp but the situations for Utd and Liverpool were different.

Liverpool played at home on Wednesday evening

United played in Turkey the Wednesday evening before Oles interview

Ole had it worse but Klopp's point has always been that the sides playing in Europe on Wednesday evening shouldn't be playing at 12:30 on Saturday. Last season was acceptable because it was a rare event, but it's happening more frequently now because of the shorter season resulting in more CL/PL/CL/PL weeks without breaks.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Absolutely astounding pair of saves there, United dangerous and does not help if you give it to them in that situation.

DVDM93

Southampton Football Club 1-0 Manchester United Football Club.

Goal scored by Jan Kacper Bednarek.

For anyone interested he was born on the 12th of April 1996 which makes him 24.

He plays as a centre back.