Man U Vs Liverpool

[sweetyhoney]

I'm Liverpool fan maybe weird because I'm girl

sit at home and watched the game...almost nice game and I think both team are nervous but Liverpool's goal keeper more nervous

[mattias33]

I'm Liverpool fan maybe weird because I'm girl

sit at home and watched the game...almost nice game and I think both team are nervous but Liverpool's goal keeper more nervous

Good for you, sounds great. Ohh, and i case you didn´t know, you are on thaivisa, koh samui forum. (Sorry, i just had to do it ).

[TopperHarley]

Wrong forum pal... Liverpool suck anyway.

[bkkjames]

I'm Liverpool fan maybe weird because I'm girl

sit at home and watched the game...almost nice game and I think both team are nervous but Liverpool's goal keeper more nervous

I agree almost a nice game except for the result. A female LP fan you say? There are plenty on here - you won't be lonely.

[MSingh]

I'm Liverpool fan maybe weird because I'm girl

sit at home and watched the game...almost nice game and I think both team are nervous but Liverpool's goal keeper more nervous

Good for you, sounds great. Ohh, and i case you didn´t know, you are on thaivisa, koh samui forum. (Sorry, i just had to do it ).

This Fella, sadly, makes my <deleted> blood boil on a regular basis..

[mattias33]

I'm Liverpool fan maybe weird because I'm girl

sit at home and watched the game...almost nice game and I think both team are nervous but Liverpool's goal keeper more nervous

Good for you, sounds great. Ohh, and i case you didn´t know, you are on thaivisa, koh samui forum. (Sorry, i just had to do it ).

This Fella, sadly, makes my <deleted> blood boil on a regular basis..

Who me? Sorry, i don´t intend to.

[Mossfinn]

I'm Liverpool fan maybe weird because I'm girl

sit at home and watched the game...almost nice game and I think both team are nervous but Liverpool's goal keeper more nervous

You are welcome on any sub-forum sweety

This Fella, sadly, makes my <deleted> blood boil on a regular basis..

Crikey Singha's, where did that come from?

Moss

[bkkjames]

Interesting story in the Guardian (rag newspaper according to Stevie)

Rotating Rafa will pay for not running Liverpool the Bob Paisley way

Thirty years ago, when Liverpool won their 11th league title under Bob Paisley, the most successful manager in the history of the club, they achieved it using 15 players.

Four of them (Ray Clemence, Kenny Dalglish, Ray Kennedy and Phil Neal) played all 42 league games in a season when they lost just four times in the league, scoring 85 goals and conceding just 16.

Of those 15 players, some barely got a look in as Paisley sent out the same team, winning the league in old money by eight points.

Super sub David Fairclough made just 10 appearances and Sammy Lee, now back at Anfield as a coach, two.

Squad rotation had not been invented back then and the idea of Liverpool employing nearly 70 professional footballers in order to choose seven for the substitutes' bench would have been absurd.

Despite an early exit from the European Cup (knocked out by Nottingham Forest in the first round), they played 54 competitive matches (42 in the league, seven in the FA Cup, two in the European Super Cup, and one in the League Cup) using only 16 players. Of those, Sammy Lee and goalkeeper Steve Ogrizovic made just one start each.

To put Liverpool's achievements under Paisley into context, a season when they also lost an FA Cup semi-final against Manchester United after a replay, the maximum number of games they will play this season is 58.

There was no such thing as fixture congestion, with five friendlies arranged during the season against Saudi Arabia (where Dalglish scored the only goal), Swansea City at Anfield, Werder Bremen, Bangor and Borussia Moenchengladbach.

When Paisley retired in 1983, he had captured six league titles and three European Cups, boasting a 56 per cent win record that was the envy of modern football.

Today, Rafael Benitez complains that Liverpool do not have the resources to compete with Manchester United at the top of the Barclays Premier League.

Why then, does he argue for 11 substitutes instead of seven, something that will only benefit the club with the biggest pull.

According to Benitez, who incidentally has the same 56 per cent win record at Anfield as Paisley, Liverpool's best XI can match United's best XI, a statement given credence with their fabulous 4-1 victory at Old Trafford last Saturday.

One of the problems is that Benitez rarely plays his best team, making 90 changes in just 29 league games this season. He will inevitably reach a century before the close of play.

Since he arrived in English football, Benitez has used 30 players in the Premier League in 2004/05, 24 in 2005/06, 29 in 2006/07, 28 in 2007/08 and 23 so far this season. He has kept the same team just twice in the league this season, for games against Stoke and Everton in January, just as Liverpool's title challenge was beginning to fade.

Hardly the model of consistency.

The majority of the 60 odd professionals will never get a look in at Anfield, not nearly good enough for a team still waiting for their first league title since 1990.

Benitez complains that they cannot compete with United, the team who spent £30m on Dimitar Berbatov last summer as Sir Alex Ferguson made improvements to a team who were already champions at home and abroad.

Those constraints did not stop Benitez spending £24m on Fernando Torres, hailed the best striker in the world by Steven Gerrard last weekend, or £17m on Robbie Keane.

United spent £12.5m on Cristiano Ronaldo when they signed him from Sporting and he went on to become the best player in the world.

In previous eras, under the old boot room mentality of Bill Shankly, Bob Paisley, Joe Fagan and Dalglish, the league was always the bread and butter, with the belief that if they are consistent over 42 matches other trophies will follow.

When Dalglish was asked why Liverpool were so consistent, he replied: 'Because we are playing better more often.'

They were unstoppable. One impressive win in the Premier League against United last weekend and now there is talk again of Liverpool catching them.

Before last week's game, Gerrard claimed that if he only won one more trophy in his career, then he would willingly sacrifice all his medals for the league title. Jamie Carragher, scandalously sent to play right back at times this season because of injuries, speaks in similar vein: 'It is time we won it.'

That will never happen, not while Benitez continues to change his team according to the opposition. There is no continuity at the club, with frequent changes another accident waiting to happen, as they were when they lost 2-0 at Middlesbrough on Feb 28.

In times gone by, Liverpool allowed the opposition to worry about them, picking the strongest available team and winning league titles year in, year out. Under Benitez that is no longer the case.

It has certainly been a good week for Liverpool's manager, earning the right to have another crack at it again next season following the 4-0 demolition of Real Madrid in the Champions League and a spectacular win at Old Trafford.

They have a world class training facility at Melwood, a trophy cabinet that is envy of most clubs in Europe and a team that is capable of winning big matches.

United have the greater financial resources, but the traditions and history of Liverpool should still count for something.

[thaimiller]

Exactly the same story in the Daily Mail also. They have a point, but surely football has changed a lot since the 80's, its more alot faster now, but then again in the 80's it was also a contact sport not like now. My dad used to take me to watch Liverpool at least 5 times a season during the early/mid eighties (the rest of the year i watched Rotherham, so this was a treat) and some of the players i watched then were amazing and you could always seemed to see the same players ( Dalglish, Rush, Hansen, Souness) they never seemed to get injured, today the injuries seem to happen every other week, must be something wrong with the training or the equipment or indeed the mentality of the players.

Edited March 18, 2009 by thaimiller

[StevieH]

james, you really are fuc_king useless lad. . . .at least try and pay attention once in a while eh? the guardian is my favourite newspaper as it goes, though like any other paper it has good journos and poor ones. who wrote that piece? i'll guess at either dan taylor or rob smyth, both man united fans. in fact, having read it properly i don't think that it's a] from the guardian or b] written by a journalist. it reads like a fan blog piece and it's full of inaccuracies.

Edited March 18, 2009 by StevieH

[bkkjames]

james, you really are fuc_king useless lad. . . .at least try and pay attention once in a while eh? the guardian is my favourite newspaper as it goes, though like any other paper it has good journos and poor ones. who wrote that piece? i'll guess at either dan taylor or rob smyth, both man united fans. in fact, having read it properly i don't think that it's a] from the guardian or b] written by a journalist. it reads like a fan blog piece and it's full of inaccuracies.

will ignore the personal insult (for now) but the story was reported in that other rag - the daily mail ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...aisley-way.html

[StevieH]

james, you really are fuc_king useless lad. . . .at least try and pay attention once in a while eh? the guardian is my favourite newspaper as it goes, though like any other paper it has good journos and poor ones. who wrote that piece? i'll guess at either dan taylor or rob smyth, both man united fans. in fact, having read it properly i don't think that it's a] from the guardian or b] written by a journalist. it reads like a fan blog piece and it's full of inaccuracies.

will ignore the personal insult (for now) but the story was reported in that other rag - the daily mail ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...aisley-way.html

sorry james, wasn't meant to be insulting, just that you seem to get the newspaper wrong every time you post a story aimed at taking the piss out of liverpool. if it's any help to you i can tell you that the majority of the sports desk staff at associated news, the home of the daily hatemail and the evening standard, are chelsea fans.

that piece completely ignores the fact that last season and the season before liverpool actually made less player changes than both man united and chelsea did. it ignores the fact that rafa benitez only has funds to make one big money signing each summer while united can spend 35m on anderson and nani and 19m on hargreaves and then hardly play them and not notice a financial hit. it lumps torres and keane together versus the signing of berbatov when torres and keane were signed 12 months apart. it ignores the fact that last season united made 90m GBP more than liverpool. and the stupidest thing it does is compare benitez with bob paisley, who managed in an entirely different era of football, they're simply not comparable.

in short it's an utter abortion of an article from a really shit newspaper.

[MSingh]

This Fella, sadly, makes my <deleted> blood boil on a regular basis..

Crikey Singha's, where did that come from?

Moss

Only joking, he is my nemesis on the Samui Forum but we have mutual respect for each other don't we Mattias ??

[bkkjames]

james, you really are fuc_king useless lad. . . .at least try and pay attention once in a while eh? the guardian is my favourite newspaper as it goes, though like any other paper it has good journos and poor ones. who wrote that piece? i'll guess at either dan taylor or rob smyth, both man united fans. in fact, having read it properly i don't think that it's a] from the guardian or b] written by a journalist. it reads like a fan blog piece and it's full of inaccuracies.

will ignore the personal insult (for now) but the story was reported in that other rag - the daily mail ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...aisley-way.html

sorry james, wasn't meant to be insulting, just that you seem to get the newspaper wrong every time you post a story aimed at taking the piss out of liverpool. if it's any help to you i can tell you that the majority of the sports desk staff at associated news, the home of the daily hatemail and the evening standard, are chelsea fans.

that piece completely ignores the fact that last season and the season before liverpool actually made less player changes than both man united and chelsea did. it ignores the fact that rafa benitez only has funds to make one big money signing each summer while united can spend 35m on anderson and nani and 19m on hargreaves and then hardly play them and not notice a financial hit. it lumps torres and keane together versus the signing of berbatov when torres and keane were signed 12 months apart. it ignores the fact that last season united made 90m GBP more than liverpool. and the stupidest thing it does is compare benitez with bob paisley, who managed in an entirely different era of football, they're simply not comparable.

in short it's an utter abortion of an article from a really shit newspaper.

Fair enough...but out of interest and to avoid future cock ups, can you list for me the media outlets / journalists you think are 'up to standard' so when I quote something out of one of them in the future that is not Pro Liverpool, we can qualify your remarks? Thanks.

[StevieH]

Fair enough...but out of interest and to avoid future cock ups, can you list for me the media outlets / journalists you think are 'up to standard' so when I quote something out of one of them in the future that is not Pro Liverpool, we can qualify your remarks? Thanks.

sure thing mate, i always forget that you don't really know the uk press like people who lived there do. like i said, they all generally have someone alright writing for them, at least one, the mail has martin samuel and that's it. the rest of their stuff is shockingly bad. in fact, the express doesn't have anyone. nor does that horrible rag the s*n. the mirror has oli holt and brian reade who are good, the guardian has kevin mccarra who is excellent, andy hunter and a bunch of other reasonable ones, the observer has amy lawrence, the telegraph has the excellent henry winter, the times has oli kay, gabriele marcotti and now patrick barclay, the independent has sam wallace and nick harris. . . .those lot are always worth a read.

and it's nothing to do with 'pro-liverpool' james, if an article is critical of LFC and it's justified, i've no problem with that. i've just got fed up with shit, uninformed, lazy journalism this season which is ill-researched if researched at all, is usually agenda driven and gets trotted out by fans as received wisdom without even a little bit of scrutiny.

[bkkjames]

Just been browsing some of the stories from the journalists you mention - no wonder you like them. Take a look at Oliver Kay's last 5 stories and you will see a trend (same with Mr Barclay and the rest in your list).

quoting stevie : "is usually agenda driven" (I guess you mean the one's below are different)

Manchester United fall into Liverpool's trap

Patrick Barclay: Ferguson's European rivals can take heart from Liverpool's plan

Oliver Kay

Humiliated Sir Alex Ferguson laments scheduling

Oliver Kay

16 March 2009 The Times

How Bill Shankly helped rise of Manchester United

14 March 2009 The Times

Sir Alex Ferguson laughs off outburst from Rafael Benitez

14 March 2009 The Times

TheGame Podcast: How Liverpool won the mind games at Old Trafford

16 March 2009 Times Online

Rivals can take heart from Manchester United setback

16 March 2009 The Times

Liverpool aim to make European pedigree pay amid strife at home

..

[StevieH]

we'd just beaten you 4-1 at old trafford james, it's likely that the bulk of articles that week are going to be somewhat complimentary to liverpool, yes? yet go back ten days when we'd lost to middlesbrough and you'll get something of a different flavour.

paddy barclay has no love for liverpool, if anything he's pro-arsenal more than anything.

[bkkjames]

we'd just beaten you 4-1 at old trafford james, it's likely that the bulk of articles that week are going to be somewhat complimentary to liverpool, yes? yet go back ten days when we'd lost to middlesbrough and you'll get something of a different flavour.

paddy barclay has no love for liverpool, if anything he's pro-arsenal more than anything.

piers morgan?

[StevieH]

we'd just beaten you 4-1 at old trafford james, it's likely that the bulk of articles that week are going to be somewhat complimentary to liverpool, yes? yet go back ten days when we'd lost to middlesbrough and you'll get something of a different flavour.

paddy barclay has no love for liverpool, if anything he's pro-arsenal more than anything.

piers morgan?

eh? what are you on about?

[bkkjames]

we'd just beaten you 4-1 at old trafford james, it's likely that the bulk of articles that week are going to be somewhat complimentary to liverpool, yes? yet go back ten days when we'd lost to middlesbrough and you'll get something of a different flavour.

paddy barclay has no love for liverpool, if anything he's pro-arsenal more than anything.

piers morgan?

eh? what are you on about?

Pro Arsenal? anyways, I thought WH were the media darlings - are you suggesting it has changed to Arsenal? Migsy will be very happy.

[StevieH]

we'd just beaten you 4-1 at old trafford james, it's likely that the bulk of articles that week are going to be somewhat complimentary to liverpool, yes? yet go back ten days when we'd lost to middlesbrough and you'll get something of a different flavour.

paddy barclay has no love for liverpool, if anything he's pro-arsenal more than anything.

piers morgan?

eh? what are you on about?

Pro Arsenal? anyways, I thought WH were the media darlings - are you suggesting it has changed to Arsenal? Migsy will be very happy.

piers morgan isn't a journalist. he's a fraudulent gobshite masquerading as a football pundit.

west ham? since when? arsenal are this season's media darlings, yeah. . . .arsene wenger gets away with murder from the press and too many journos are sucked in by this 'beautiful football' crap.

[MiG16]

too many journos are sucked in by this 'beautiful football' crap.

now now...dont shoot the messengers!

it IS beautiful football!

just no trophies to grace the beauty (of late...)

[StevieH]

too many journos are sucked in by this 'beautiful football' crap.

now now...dont shoot the messengers!

it IS beautiful football!

just no trophies to grace the beauty (of late...)

oh don't get me wrong mig, some of the stuff arsenal play is a delight to watch. i do think that wenger's put the aesthetic ahead of the important though. no trophies since 2005 and not one player in the squad with any grit or leadership qualities about them. if you lose fabregas and adebayor in the summer. . .

[sweetyhoney]

I'm Liverpool fan maybe weird because I'm girl

sit at home and watched the game...almost nice game and I think both team are nervous but Liverpool's goal keeper more nervous

You are welcome on any sub-forum sweety

This Fella, sadly, makes my <deleted> blood boil on a regular basis..

Crikey Singha's, where did that come from?

I am Thaigirl,,,from BKK but work and live in Samui

Moss

[bkkjames]

Moss sweet honey, pay no attention to our local "hammerhead" he is naturally defensive, so many years as unfulfilled WH devotee, he mistakened your name 'sweet honey" for that samui bloke with the nice legs called "nomoney nohoney"

Anyways, time for u to reveal, who do you support?

[MiG16]

its a well known fact who Moss supports

[Mossfinn]

its a well known fact who Moss supports

Obviously does read many of my posts

I shall give him a clue soon

Moss

[MiG16]

I miss Jude

(off topic...but......)