Were Liverpool lucky to win the CL?

Take it

this is so funny man yoo fans giving out crap about the amount of threads to do with liverpool winning the CL then they set up an insulting thread hahahaha you just have to laugh

didnt bother searching but no doubt when united came back from 3-0 down against spurs at half time and came back to win it(or was it 4-0) that it was skill

JUST TAKE IT

***** CHAMPIONS OF EUROPE 2005 ******

Say what ever you want to it wont change that fact!

Jivin Turkey

Kingp35 wrote:

Please point out where i said winning that particular game was "lucky"? I said it took a last minute goal(ok a very late goal) to win.

Ok so that game wasnt lucky. So why mention the "last minute goal"? What relevance did it have? The Depor games by your own admission weren't lucky. The Monaco game in Anfield, where they ran amok on them, wasn't lucky by any stretch. The dire game in Monaco, which it took a handball goal to win, obviously was not lucky.

Yet they were lucky to get out of the groups. Which game was lucky? Im seriously confused.

Kingp35 wrote:

Maybe its a little clearer to you now there Jivin. Notice the part "bar the depor games".

But you are quoting me out of context.

I also highlighted they were not lucky in either Monaco game. You have since indicated they were not lucky against Olympiakos in Anfield.

So which game were they lucky in? Olympiakos away? Where they lost? We are running out of options here.

Kingp35 wrote:

Yes I did because every team has luck to win a trophy and that includes your beloved Liverpool. Other teams had luck too but so did Liverpool. If you think they had no luck then there is something seriously wrong with you. Nobody could possibly be that biased. they had some luck at times hence I voted yes.

Lads could you do me a favour and read my post first before posting. Makes things a whole lot easier. Or do liverpool fans just choose to ignore every part of a post that doesnt mean their team is perfect. They got lucky at times just like other teams. End of Story

Ive said before in this thread, but Ill say it again. Im sure every LFC fan would admit to having some luck along the way.

But the main reason they won the trophy was not luck, like has been made out by some posters on this thread.

Could you answer me one question? Do you think the main reason that Liverpool won the trophy was luck?

Perhaps the poll title should be edited to "did Liverpool have luck on their side at times to win the CL?". Im sure it would be a landslide.

TheMonster

Were Liverpool lucky to win the CL?

Did Liverpool have luck on their side at times to win the CL?

Says it all about really :rolleyes:

redspider

Kingp35 wrote:

Whichever way you view that shot it wasnt anything special and should have been saved. To me that means there was luck involved. Maybe your right about the maldini goal but I am only talking about pieces of luck liverpool had, I have already mentioned other teams also were lucky.

There was very limited contact between the two players and Gerrard flung himself to the ground. Many a time a decision like that is not given. This to me means he was fortunate to get the penalty

Your right the overall champions league win itself can not be considered lucky but Redspider realise this is not only to do with the Milan game where liverpool did have luck. (you have already pointed out a piece of Milan luck). I was pointing out the various times throughout the competition where liverpool had a slice of luck. I never said they has more than any otehr team and I also said that the luck they had was reletive to every other team. If anything i'm actually backing up the fact that Liverpool were not lucky to win the entire tournament. Every team has luck to win a tournament. Liverpool had it and because of that a "yes" vote was the only answer. They had luck just like every other team. Do you not agree with this statement and realise the points I am making?

ok. I think I understand your viewpoint now. You are saying that Liverpool had luck in their CL matches but no more than other teams. Thats fair enough but the 2nd half of that sentence is very important.

You state: "i'm actually backing up the fact that Liverpool were not lucky to win the entire tournament". ok, so we are in agreement. However, you voted Yes and I voted No. So how is that? It stems perhaps from the way the question is posed and how people interpret the word luck.

You believe that Liverpool had luck in games but no more than other teams, so when the question is asked "Were Liverpool lucky to win the CL?" you answered yes, becuase they had some luck.

However, to perhaps most people, when the same question is asked, they will only answer yes if they perceive that Liverpool had MUCH MORE luck in the matches they played. The question should really be re-stated:

"Do you think Liverpool had much more luck than the teams they played on route to winning the CL?"

My answer to that is No. My answer to that even just for the CL Final itself is also No, and of course I do know that the Shevchenko double save at the end by Dudek was fortuitous. But the whole game in context was not a case of Liverpool having much more luck.

If the "Do you think Liverpool had much more luck than the teams they played on route to winning the CL?" question was asked, would you say Yes or No?

I'm not saying your viewpoint is wrong, and you did take the time to explain it, but when people talk about luck in general they talk about injustices and steals. For example, the Liverpool 2-1 FA Cup Final win over Arsenal in 2001. That was a steal imo. I think Liverpool on that day were lucky to win it. If say, Owen's 2nd goal would have come off the post and stayed out and the game ended as a draw, that would have been a fairer result imo and a more accurate reflection of the game, the chances that were created, etc.

I still have a feeling that many people remember the Shevchenko chance at the end, and that sticks in the mind yet they forget or didnt even see the luck that Milan had.

Football, as Giles rightly says, is a percentages game. eg: 10 crosses come in from the same player, 10 different results. To a certain extent its a bit like pinball, there are many players on the pitch, many things happening. Football experts come out with the standards "you make your own luck, luck evens itself out", etc. They cant measure it.

I dont know if people want to change their votes now ....

Judging luck is very subjective, measuing luck objectively is very difficult. Changing peoples perceptions of games can be even more difficult, horses to water and all that.

If anyone hear's of a luckometer, let me know!

Redspider

Jivin Turkey

TheMonster wrote:

Were Liverpool lucky to win the CL?

Did Liverpool have luck on their side at times to win the CL?

Says it all about really :rolleyes:

Yes, two different questions.

Question for you, do you think luck was the predominant reason that Liverpool won the CL?

alfie

Kingp35 wrote:

Please point out where i said winning that particular game was "lucky"? I said it took a last minute goal(ok a very late goal) to win.

You voted yes in the poll,so if you didn't think it was lucky what relevance does a last minute goal(as you put it)to get out of the group stages have in this discussion??? I mean why mention it at all in a thread about being lucky if you don't think it was either lucky or unlucky?

Kingp35 wrote:

Also point out where I said winning the whole competition was lucky? If you actually read my post(which you obviously didnt) i said you cant say winning the whole thing was lucky

Again i'm confused here you voted yes but say here winning the whole thing wasn't lucky.My interpetation of the question Were Liverpool lucky to win the CL? is that did liverpool win the cl primarily down to luck.I accept you may have interpretated as did they have a bit of luck along the way which i would agree with you that they did but no more than any other team e.g Milan were lucky Shevchenkowas allowed to play in the semi-final and final as he should have been sent off for a blatant head butt on an inter milan player.

Kingp35

No

alfie wrote:

Again i'm confused here you voted yes but say here winning the whole thing wasn't lucky.My interpetation of the question Were Liverpool lucky to win the CL? is that did liverpool win the cl primarily down to luck.I accept you may have interpretated as did they have a bit of luck along the way which i would agree with you that they did but no more than any other team

I guess it comes to our interpretation of the poll title. I took it "lucky" as being liverpool having some luck throughout the competition which they had and thats why I voted yes.

No I dont agree with the statement that it luck was the main reason they won it. No it wasnt quite clearly it wasnt. Do I think liverpool had more luck than the teams thay played against? I guess that depends on what you mean. In some peoples eyes it was a stroke of luck that they were awarded the goal against chelsea so you could argue they were lucky in that game as the goal changed the course of the game(however I already pointed out that I think it was perhaps unlucky on liverpool not getting a penalty and keeper off), but chelsea were very lucky in previous games with countless deflected goals etc. so no I couldnt say they were more lucky than chelsea. In fact as you can see from this example I think all the luck is reletive in that different teams had luck in different games.

Anyway my point here is that it was the way I interpreted the poll title that made me vote yes It should have stated do you believe luck was the main factor they won and then it was an easy no.

I hope that clears the situation up

Jivin Turkey

But you still claimed they were lucky to get out of the groups. Which game were they "lucky" in?

Emmo

No(Liverpool fans)

did they have luck? yes

How much?

Not enough we didnt have a ball ricochet off the ref and spin into the goal after breaking Frank Lampards nose and skull.

1% Luck
95% Hard work and Preparation
4% Magic

100% Manc annoying moments in history.

All together,

5 times, we've only won it 5 times, we've only won it 5 times, we've only won it 5 times.

Here come the champions, champions of Europe.
Here come the champions, champions of Europe.

etc etc etc,

Emmo

mada999

champions league?? you're havin' a laugh

Kingp35

No

Emmo wrote:

5 times, we've only won it 5 times, we've only won it 5 times, we've only won it 5 times.

What a team did twenty or so years ago has no bearing on the team now.
I thought Man Utd fans were the only guilty ones for doing this."We have won the premiership more times than anyone so we have to be a good team". Rubish. What you won years ago has no bearing on your team now.

Live in the present and enjoy the win now is what I say.

Jivin Turkey

No chance of an answer yet as to how Liverpool were "lucky" to get out of the group stages?

Emmo

No(Liverpool fans)

well in that case,

Here come the Champions, Champions of Europe.

Besdies we are very much living in the present. This whole thread is about Liverpool being lucky to win the Champions league.

They where not. They had some luck with them. Everyteam that wins has an element of luck but the win was not solely based on luck.

I dont accept that a goal scored in the last few mins of a game is lucky. Is a goal scored in the first few mins of a game lucky too?

If I score with 10 mins left is that lucky, what 11 or 12. Where is the threshold.

I would say that we were unlucky to lose in Monaco to a cheating hand ball. I would also say that we were without luck against Monaco at home when some how the ball stayed out of the net.

Anyway back to the orginal point about us living in the past.

That win resulted in us keeping the trophy, (from winning it 5 times) hence the 5 times song.

HERE AND NOW, EUROPEAN CHAMPIONS

Emmo

Bard

No

Of course they were lucky. They were hardly UNlucky. They didn't win it because they were lucky ... they were lucky to win it.

There's always an element of luck involved in winning a football game (nevermind a tournament) - whether it be "damn we were lucky the opposition were so sh*t" or "damn we were lucky our dancing arsebandit of a goalie put the striker off when he was taking the peno" or "damn we were lucky AC Milan went to sleep in the second half - they could have pulverised us if they remained on form" or "damn we were lucky to get here in the first place, an airplane might have crashed into our team bus..."

colster

Yes(Liverpool fans)

As a United fan I think this is a stupid thread. Any sport has the element of luck but to say that Liverpool are Champions of Europe purely because of luck is absolutely ridiculous.

redspider

Kingp35 wrote:

I guess it comes to interpretation. No I dont agree with the statement that it luck was the main reason they won it. No it wasnt quite clearly it wasnt. It should have stated do you believe luck was the main factor they won and then it was an easy no. I hope that clears the situation up

yes, that clears it up for me.

In terms of the poll so far:

Yes
applehunter, Aristotle, astrofool, B-K-DzR, Bard, Big Nelly, bohsman, Boro, Cianan2, DapperGent, David19, DoctorEdgeWild, Draupnir, eirebhoy, ErinGoBrath, FatherTed, Gangsta, Gileadi, Iago, Juan Pablo, kaids, Keano_sli, KevIRL, Kingp35, MisterAnarchy, PHB, Ping Chow Chi, quarryman, qwertyup, RuggieBear, seansouth, Serbian, Slash/ED, smemon, The Muppet, vorbis, yop
37 50.00%
No
Big Ears, CrowdedHouse, Dublin's Finest, ianomccabe, Kulgan, meditraitor, mr_angry, Pigman II, super_furry, The Rooster, treefingers
11 14.86%
Yes(Liverpool fans)
Emmo, jesus_thats_gre, p.pete, tel922001, uberwolf
5 6.76%
No(Liverpool fans)
alfie, Bacchus, BrookieD, byte, cruiserweight, Dcully, egan007, Jivin Turkey, Johnny_the_fox, mada999, NekkidBibleMan, PiE, redspider, rkm, Shamrok, spockety, Stekelly, Take it, Thanx 4 The Fish, yom 1, ~Rebel~



There are several Yes voters who it seems really meant to vote No.

I have a question for the Liverpool voters that voted Yes. How did you come to that conclusion? Emmo, didn't you state in your posts that Liverpool weren't lucky, yet you voted Yes? ?

Anyway, as people have said, this thread probably should have been locked at the start. Luck is very subjective and it can and is discussed until the cows come home. As someone hinted at, Liverpool were lucky the plane didnt crash on the way! Yes, I am lucky at this very moment, and hopefully for the next few moments, that I am not struck down dead by lightning.

One final thought, we are all lucky to be born!

Redspider

Draupnir

No

If I win the lotto on Saturday, Id say "Damn, I was lucky there, nice one, who wants a pint". But really, it wouldnt be luck that won it for me, it would be because I picked the right numbers. But I would still be a lucky S.O.B.

Liverpool won the games so they won the cup. They are still lucky in my eyes. But they deserved it all the same.

p.pete

No(Liverpool fans)

Draupnir wrote:

If I win the lotto on Saturday, Id say "Damn, I was lucky there, nice one, who wants a pint". But really, it wouldnt be luck that won it for me, it would be because I picked the right numbers. But I would still be a lucky S.O.B.

What about if you won the lotto for your fifth time?

Bard

No

p.pete wrote:

What about if you won the lotto for your fifth time?

Then there'd be an official inquiry of some sort... and he'd probably be prosecuted for fraud

Poor analogy though... THIS Liverpool team has only won the Champions League ONCE.

Emmo

No(Liverpool fans)

I voted yes because Liverpool had an element of luck about their entire win. They where lucky that Shevshenko's goal was dissallowed cause it was onside.

They where unlucky when Garcia skipped into the box and it was dragged back by Nesta's hand it wasnt given as a penalty.

I though that because the thread was started by a Moderator it might be less partizan than this forum can be.

If I could add another option I would, because to say luck is soley responsible for Liverpool winning would be incorrect but to say they where not lucky at all is also wrong.

I answered before I read the entire thread. For this I am wrong. My answer is out of context in light of the general thrust of the thread.

Apologies if this made me seem like an arguementitive fool.


Emmo

kaimera

Bard wrote:

Poor analogy though... THIS Liverpool team has only won the Champions League ONCE.

How about 'yer extended family winning the lotto 4 times and you once?'

Bannor

Was just sent this...

Dear Rafa...

Dear Rafa,

Well done you jammy bloody b***ard.

No, really I mean that. Really, really well done. I'd say 'congratulations' but it's too difficult to make myself understood through gritted teeth. Come to think of it, it's just too difficult to make myself understood.

No, really well done. Or at least Milan were.

Let me just say that one more time in case you don't believe me - well done you lucky thieving b***ards.

There was nothing I wanted more than to see you cheat, sorry Rafa of course I mean 'beat' AC Milan. I had a drink straight after the final whistle and, to be honest, I haven't stopped drinking since...

I think that sums up exactly how I feel about your 'victory'.

(Sorry, by the way, about the red wine stain).

Anyway, Rafa, because I'm a knight of the realm and because I have half a bottle to finish before Cathy wants me in bed, I thought I'd treat you to my tactical analysis of each of your Champions League matches...


15-Sep-04 H Monaco W 2-0
Verdict: Youse were lucky.

28-Sep-04 A Olympiakos L 0-1
Verdict: A fair result.

19-Oct-04 H Deportivo D 0-0
Verdict. More than youse deserved. Lucky.

03-Nov-04 A Deportivo W 1-0
Verdict: Youse only won with an own goal so that doesnae count.

23-Nov-04 A Monaco L 0-1
Verdict: Result reflected the play. Except youse were lucky to get nil.

08-Dec-04 H Olympiakos W 3-1
Verdict: Youse lucky b***ards. That Gerrard goal was a mis-hit (he's rubbish, BTW, but I'll take him off your hands because I like you).

22-Feb-05 H Bayer Leverkusen W 3-1
Verdict: Youse were lucky there.

09-Mar-05 A Bayer Leverkusen W 3-1
Verdict: Youse were very lucky there.

05-Apr-05 H Juventus W 2-1
Verdict: Youse lost the second half 1-0. Lucky.

13-Apr-05 A Juventus D 0-0
Verdict: Who are Juventus anyway? I've never heard of them. Who have they
ever played?

27-Apr-05 A Chelsea D 0-0
Verdict: We would have beaten them.

03-May-05 H Chelsea W 1-0 (1-0)
Verdict: Youse were lucky. That Luis Garcia 'goal' was like the one at OT from that Mendes chap - not over the line.

My memory of the final is a wee bit blurry but I do know that youse were lucky.

You'd never see the great Manchester United winning a Champions League final after being outplayed by the opposition and making a sneaky comeback.

But you're only Liverpool, so I suppose youse have different standards to us. Did I mention that we've won the Premiership eight times? And with the referees conspiring against us (not like youse lot - when was the last time anyone got a penalty at Anfield?).

I also noticed that all your goals came from set-pieces. The only one that didn't was a mis-hit. So that doesnae count.

There's no way my Manchester United would win a Champions League final in such an undignified manner against superior opposition. No way at all.

I also liked your canny trick of starting with Harry Kewell. Aye, clever that. He's not your player so you thought you'd demonstrate on the biggest stage of all what a complete waste of money he was. Youse a f***ing genius, Rafa.

I bet Gerard Houllier feels stupid for signing him now. I said as much at the time.

I hope I've been some help - and remember, I'll take that boy Gerrard off your hands in exchange for Kleberson. He's a World Cup winner, you know...

Sir Alex Ferguson (you can call me Sir Alex)

PHB

No

I love that last line, you can call me Sir Alex

Seaneh

No

They bored Europe to death.

Jivin Turkey

Seaneh wrote:

They bored Europe to death.

Liverpool? Ha!

No one scored more goals than them in the knockout stages. The only times they ground out results were away in Turin and against Chelsea.

jesus_thats_gre

No(Liverpool fans)

Seaneh wrote:

They bored Europe to death.

Just like you are and this thread is boring me to death...

Just to confirm, you thought the final was boring so?

Seaneh

No

only one team actually played in the final.
Liverpool only showed up for 15 minutes, the other 115 minutes of football they sta back and showed exactly how much they were out classed.
Jamie Caragher was the only Liverpool player on the pitch who played a level worthy of winning any compitition.

and to aoo to that, the last year and a bit have proved that negitive ugly football is the way to go if you are an unskilled team.

Porto, Greece and Liverpool have proved that.

Jivin Turkey

Seaneh wrote:

only one team actually played in the final.
Liverpool only showed up for 15 minutes, the other 115 minutes of football they sta back and showed exactly how much they were out classed.
Jamie Caragher was the only Liverpool player on the pitch who played a level worthy of winning any compitition.

and to aoo to that, the last year and a bit have proved that negitive ugly football is the way to go if you are an unskilled team.

Porto, Greece and Liverpool have proved that.

Liverpool delivered performances that were class, cavalier and cautious in the knockouts.

They blitzed Leverkusen home and away. Juve at home, and Milan in parts of the final.

The ground out results in Turin and Stamford Bridge, that if Milan or Juve had done they would have been lauded for being "typically Italian". They scored so early against Chelsea at Anfield that it changed the entire make up of the game, but still ground out a "typically Italian" result.

How can you say that they proved negative football is the way to go when no one scored more goals in the knockouts? Not even your beloved AC Milan (is that the reason that you are bitter?).

TheMonster

Scored more goals in knockout stages - let me guess why? Played more matches would it be?

Bannor

TheMonster wrote:

Scored more goals in knockout stages - let me guess why? Played more matches would it be?

In knockout competition the team that scores the most goals wins!

jesus_thats_gre

No(Liverpool fans)

TheMonster wrote:

Scored more goals in knockout stages - let me guess why? Played more matches would it be?

Did they play more than AC Milan?

alfie

this is getting ridicoulos how can people be so bitter??

Lets look at Everton in the premiership -- which people think was an absolutely brillant achievement which it was, however they won most of their matches 1 - 0 and finished with a negative goal difference, this clearly indicates a boring team but there is no bitterness towards their achievement, Liverpool won the champions league scored 3 goals in the final 3 goals in both Leverkusen games and you class them as boring, so what do you class Everton as, or what did u class Chelsea as at the beginning of the season when they snook a lot of 1 - 0 wins?

Dublin's Finest

Yes(Liverpool fans)

alfie wrote:

this is getting ridicoulos how can people be so bitter??

Lets look at Everton in the premiership -- which people think was an absolutely brillant achievement which it was, however they won most of their matches 1 - 0 and finished with a negative goal difference, this clearly indicates a boring team but there is no bitterness towards their achievement, Liverpool won the champions league scored 3 goals in the final 3 goals in both Leverkusen games and you class them as boring, so what do you class Everton as, or what did u class Chelsea as at the beginning of the season when they snook a lot of 1 - 0 wins?

Damn good point.

jesus_thats_gre

No(Liverpool fans)

The same people do not like Chelsea either as they have bought the PL, play defensive football, have an arrogant manager, tap up players and are generally better in every position than their closest competitors..

This thread should have been closed from the very beginnning as it is a pointless argument. Every team is blessed with an element of luck no matter what they win..

To suggest that the main factor in Liverpool's success was luck, is quite simply, moronic.

Ardent

No(Liverpool fans)

Liverpool were lucky to win the CL in the sense that most people still don't know how Dudek made THAT double save against Schevchenko in the final minutes of extra time.

Other than that they were not lucky. I've watched the game a few times since and Liverpool had a right go at Milan from the start of second half and ultimately deserved to equalise.

Jivin Turkey

TheMonster wrote:

Scored more goals in knockout stages - let me guess why? Played more matches would it be?

Nah I would say the eight they bagged in their first three knock-out matches was probably a more influencing factor, wouldnt you agree?

redspider

Seaneh wrote:

only one team actually played in the final. Liverpool only showed up for 15 minutes, the other 115 minutes of football they sta back and showed exactly how much they were out classed.

There are just some people who will have a perception of the CL final and Liverpool's win like the above viewpoint, and you wont change them, at least not easily. Their blinkered and biased view is not worth discussing. You will meet people like these for years to come. They will have a big chip on their shoulder about this match and Liverpool's CL win. Most of them will probably be a fan of another team that we all know well.

In general, it is not worth the effort and time to outline to them any case of reasoning, as it will be a waste of time. They live in their own universe. One year in the future they may "wake up", it may be next year or a year in the next decade perhaps, or in some cases, perhaps not.

Redspider