Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1…150151153155156…326

Comments

  • #4562
    DM_7
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 18,758 Mod ✭✭✭✭DM_7


    Mod: Posts in relation to the resignation of Greg Clarke are now here: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058131367#


  • #4563
    Utopia Parkway
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,199 ✭✭✭✭Utopia Parkway


    Are people really trying to argue that it's Klopp's fault that his two first choice centre backs picked up two freakish long term injuries?

    And that the 3rd choice is only just came back from injury the last league game while the 4th choice is out with a short term injury.

    I mean Rhys Williams and Nat Phillips have been playing meaningful games for them. One kid and one journeyman.

    I was someone who thought they should have replaced Lovren at the time even allowing for the fact that Fabinho can play there but you can't legislate for those injuries all hitting the same position at the same time.


  • #4564
    RasTa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,111 ✭✭✭✭RasTa


    Thought Gomez was a back up myself. If Matip is an injury prone player why didn't Klopp have someone else lined up after selling Lovern?

    It's risky when you're going for the league and some accountability needs to be placed at his door.


  • #4565
    plibige
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 359 ✭✭plibige


    RasTa wrote: »
    You can plan for 2 injured CB's. Who did he replace Lovern with?

    I don't know why you keep dismissing Nat Phillips as a valid option at centre back. Yes he is not of the calibre of the other 3 (potentially 4 if you include Fabinho) but he is a valid option with a season in the German 2nd tier under his belt.

    Dismissing him and saying we only have 3 is the equivalent of saying Eric Garcia at City, Tanganga at Spurs or Tuanzebe at United don't count.

    Its a unique set of injuries Liverpool have, that can only be equated to when United were down to playing Fletcher, Carrick, Evra and De Laet as a back four. But I'm sure you were critiquing Sir Alex Ferguson's recruitment the summer before that happened just as you are critiquing Klopp now


  • #4566
    DM_7
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 18,758 Mod ✭✭✭✭DM_7


    Man City suffered last season from CB injuries and had no strikers for a while this season.

    With the volume of games required I would expect even more non muscle injuries than last season as players will make more mistakes from mental and physical fatigue. Not Premier League related but Kimmich injuring himself while tackling Haaland after a mess up may well have been a result of that (Never kick a Haaland).

    https://twitter.com/NORftbl/status/1325169877162799104?s=20


  • Advertisement
  • #4567
    RasTa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,111 ✭✭✭✭RasTa


    plibige wrote: »
    I don't know why you keep dismissing Nat Phillips as a valid option at centre back. Yes he is not of the calibre of the other 3 (potentially 4 if you include Fabinho) but he is a valid option with a season in the German 2nd tier under his belt.

    Dismissing him and saying we only have 3 is the equivalent of saying Eric Garcia at City, Tanganga at Spurs or Tuanzebe at United don't count.

    Its a unique set of injuries Liverpool have, that can only be equated to when United were down to playing Fletcher, Carrick, Evra and De Laet as a back four. But I'm sure you were critiquing Sir Alex Ferguson's recruitment the summer before that happened just as you are critiquing Klopp now

    That united scenario was for one game. We had John O'Shea, Rio, Vidic, Evans, Smalling, Brown out. That's a crisis.

    You have 2 cb's out.

    Your own fans said Phillips would have went out on loan. He has 1 PL game now so not sure why you rate him so highly.


  • #4568
    plibige
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 359 ✭✭plibige


    RasTa wrote: »
    That united scenario was for one game. We had John O'Shea, Rio, Vidic, Evans, Smalling, Brown out. That's a crisis.

    You have 2 cb's out.

    Your own fans said Phillips would have went out on loan. He has 1 PL game now so not sure why you rate him so highly.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2009/dec/06/manchester-united-wolfsburg-injury-crisis

    No it wasn't just one game, it might have been one with that exact but 4 but it was a series of games where Carrick and Fletcher were in the back 4, as was Giggs.

    Once again you are showing cognitive dissonance; how is Ferdinand, O'Shea, Vidic, Brown, Evans and Smallings a crisis. But Van Dijk, Gomez, Alexander Arnold, Fabinho and Tsimikas, Matip and Allison just recovered not? Never mind the fact that Thiago, Keita and Oxlade Chamberlain being gone from midfield leaves Klopp without the option Fergie had of using midfielders at the back.

    What does having one game and being planned to go out on loan prove? Someone can make there premier league debut at 30, they still exist!

    And a single premier league game that he got man of the match in? I think he counts


  • #4569
    Fitz*
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,858 ✭✭✭✭Fitz*


    RasTa wrote: »
    That united scenario was for one game. We had John O'Shea, Rio, Vidic, Evans, Smalling, Brown out. That's a crisis.

    You have 2 cb's out.

    Your own fans said Phillips would have went out on loan. He has 1 PL game now so not sure why you rate him so highly.

    Nice of you to try and fudge the numbers there alright. You're even including players that were contracted to Fulham and sitting on their bench as players than Man United were missing through injury!

    Liverpool are curently missing VVD, Gomez, Fabinho as players who are CBs this season currently out injured. Matip has played 1 game in the last 6. Seein as you also included full backs, TAA is also injured and Tsmikas missed 10 games. These injuries are all multiple weeks & games injuries, some even season long.


  • #4570
    RasTa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,111 ✭✭✭✭RasTa


    Fitz* wrote: »
    Nice of you to try and fudge the numbers there alright. You're even including players that were contracted to Fulham and sitting on their bench as players than Man United were missing!

    Liverpool are curently missing VVD, Gomez, Fabinho as players who are CBs this season currently out injured. Matip has played 1 game in the last 6. Seein as you also included full backs, TAA is also injured and Tsmikas missed 10 games. These injuries are all multiple weeks & games injuries, some even season long.

    Fabinho is not a CB imo. I dunno how many games he has played there. Lovern gone, Matip injury prone. No new CB's brought in to cover and no rotation. Hence some of the blame lies on KLopp

    The argument is over as we are just going to keep on repeating the same stuff. I googled the united squad for that season(2010,2011) and those are the players we had. Still came 2nd that year.


  • #4571
    plibige
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 359 ✭✭plibige


    RasTa wrote: »
    Fabinho is not a CB imo. I dunno how many games he has played there. Lovern gone, Matip injury prone. No new CB's brought in to cover and no rotation. Hence some of the blame lies on KLopp

    The argument is over as we are just going to keep on repeating the same stuff. I googled the united squad for that season(2010,2011) and those are the players we had. Still came 2nd that year.

    Fabinho not being a centre back is literally just an opinion, and a bad one as he only recently became a midfielder.

    And you don't even know what you are talking about as those injuries were in 2009.

    But most importantly losing a debate and refusing to accept the points against you does not make it a draw. None of your opinions are based in the reality of the situation. And when that is proven to you, you just ignore it


  • Advertisement
  • #4572
    ERG89
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,611 ✭✭✭✭ERG89


    RasTa wrote: »
    Fabinho is not a CB imo. I dunno how many games he has played there. Lovern gone, Matip injury prone. No new CB's brought in to cover and no rotation. Hence some of the blame lies on KLopp

    The argument is over as we are just going to keep on repeating the same stuff. I googled the united squad for that season(2010,2011) and those are the players we had. Still came 2nd that year.

    Well he played there in a champions league game up against Lewandowski and played there against Chelsea earlier this season when Gomez was out ironically enough. So yes he can play there.
    Saying there was no rotation when Liverpool played 4 different partnerships there in the last 4 games so yeah there has been rotation in that position.


  • #4573
    RasTa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,111 ✭✭✭✭RasTa


    plibige wrote: »
    Fabinho not being a centre back is literally just an opinion, and a bad one as he only recently became a midfielder.

    And you don't even know what you are talking about as those injuries were in 2009.

    But most importantly losing a debate and refusing to accept the points against you does not make it a draw. None of your opinions are based in the reality of the situation. And when that is proven to you, you just ignore it

    Must have missed all the games he played at RB and DM for Monaco then. Did he go straight in at CB when he joined? Was he bought as a CB?

    As I said how many games has he played at CB and was that as first choice or cover due to Klopp not having enough players for CB?

    Yes I don't remember much about my teams injuries from 11 years ago. No idea what you are on about with terms such as draw and losing a debate, we aren't playing football here.


  • #4574
    plibige
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 359 ✭✭plibige


    RasTa wrote: »
    Must have missed all the games he played at RB and DM for Monaco then. Did he go straight in at CB when he joined? Was he bought as a CB?

    As I said how many games has he played at CB and was that as first choice or cover due to Klopp not having enough players for CB?

    Yes I don't remember much about my teams injuries from 11 years ago. No idea what you are on about with terms such as draw and losing a debate, we aren't playing football here.

    Haven't a clue how many he's played there, but he has done.

    Believe it or not Kompany debuted for Man City as a defensive mid, Young and Valencia were wingers when they joined United. Kolo Toure played right mid before he came to Arsenal. Wayne Rooney didn't always played centre mid and as a forward. As did Alan Smith.

    My point being players aren't just one thing. And your opinion that Fabinho isn't a centre back is just that, an opinion. And not a very good one.

    And my point about winning or drawing the debate is, every point you make has been disproven. Every point made against you you dismiss


  • #4575
    8-10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭8-10


    RasTa wrote: »
    Your own fans said Phillips would have went out on loan. He has 1 PL game now so not sure why you rate him so highly.

    The point is you've argued that he's a youth player.

    He's not. He's older than Joe Gomez and has plenty of experience just not while at Liverpool.

    He would have gone out on loan because he's outside of the first 4 choices for CB. That's it. Like with most teams, 5th/6th/7th choice CB's is basically a toss up.

    We're talking about the best team in England and one of the best in the world. So the drop off from players like van Dijk, Thiago, Alexander-Arnold etc to their replacements or 2nd level replacements is more pronouced than mid to lower table teams who probably have a Nat Phillips-level at CB, a Nat Phillips as his backup, and a younger Nat Phillips as the 5th choice.

    He's a capable centre half, that's why he's been kept around as an option, but the point is unless you're a City/Chelsea/PSG playing with monopoly money, you're not going to have world class players at 5th or 6th choice.

    What's expected during a season is injuries and rotation, which Liverpool have done plenty of at CB. What's unexpected is losing the first choice pairing to season ending surgery by early November when the next 2 options have already been injured as well.

    That's unusual for any team. And it's unfortunate.


  • #4576
    RasTa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,111 ✭✭✭✭RasTa


    plibige wrote: »
    Haven't a clue how many he's played there, but he has done.

    Believe it or not Kompany debuted for Man City as a defensive mid, Young and Valencia were wingers when they joined United. Kolo Toure played right mid before he came to Arsenal. Wayne Rooney didn't always played centre mid and as a forward. As did Alan Smith.

    My point being players aren't just one thing. And your opinion that Fabinho isn't a centre back is just that, an opinion. And not a very good one.

    And my point about winning or drawing the debate is, every point you make has been disproven. Every point made against you you dismiss

    I'm dismissing points as they are irrelevant. Nobody has answered why Lovern wasn't replaced. If he is a CB, surely you could tell me how many games he has played there?
    8-10 wrote: »
    The point is you've argued that he's a youth player.

    He's not. He's older than Joe Gomez and has plenty of experience just not while at Liverpool.

    He would have gone out on loan because he's outside of the first 4 choices for CB. That's it. Like with most teams, 5th/6th/7th choice CB's is basically a toss up.



    That's unusual for any team. And it's unfortunate.

    Is Gomez really first choice CB?


  • #4577
    8-10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭8-10


    RasTa wrote: »
    Nobody has answered why Lovern wasn't replaced.

    I answered that, the club felt that Fabinho would be a better 4th choice than anyone they'd bring in.

    It's easy to criticise that in hindsight given that Fabinho got injured, Matip got injured and the 2 first choice had to go under the knife.

    And plenty of Liverpool fans were saying Lovren should have been replaced at the time. People said the same about Klavan when he left with no replacement.

    But if this was last season you'd have had that Lovren replacement playing a handful of games in all competitions (Dejan played less than 10, some as late subs), and between Fabinho, Williams, Koumetio and Phillips there looked like enough cover for those appearances and I'd be personally happy with any of those options over Lovren.

    The fact is that Liverpool don't have the kind of money to pro actively adequately prepare for this situation.

    And now the reality is they will spend in January, and the player they will bring in will be of better quality than Lovren


  • #4578
    plibige
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 359 ✭✭plibige


    RasTa wrote: »
    I'm dismissing points as they are irrelevant. Nobody has answered why Lovern wasn't replaced. If he is a CB, surely you could tell me how many games he has played there?



    Is Gomez really first choice CB?

    Bit more cognitive dissonance here. Questioning repeatedly why Lovern wasn't replaced while failing to accept Nat Phillips returning from loan is a valid option.

    And it depends on who you talk to as to whether Gomez is first or second choice, but why does that even matter?


  • #4579
    8-10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭8-10


    RasTa wrote: »
    Is Gomez really first choice CB?

    He was last season, played more games than Lovren and Matip put together


  • #4580
    Bruce Bald Sweeper
    Posts: 27,583 ✭✭✭✭ Bruce Bald Sweeper


    RasTa wrote: »
    I'm dismissing points as they are irrelevant. Nobody has answered why Lovern wasn't replaced. If he is a CB, surely you could tell me how many games he has played there?

    The fundamental point here. It's pretty straight forward. Klopp should have organised the replacement for him in the summer window. He didn't.

    Lovren was part of the core squad before he was sold.

    If you sell your CB then you replace him.


  • #4581
    Utopia Parkway
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,199 ✭✭✭✭Utopia Parkway


    RasTa wrote: »
    I'm dismissing points as they are irrelevant. Nobody has answered why Lovern wasn't replaced. If he is a CB, surely you could tell me how many games he has played there?



    Is Gomez really first choice CB?

    Yes, Gomez has been first choice for ages now. Matip had a good run in the team when he could stay fit but he's been unavailable for much of 2020.

    Personally I would have replaced Lovren but they gambled that Fabinho could cover as 4th choice centre back and he can but teams usually don't anticipate losing both first choice centre backs to early season ending injuries. And the 3th and 4th choices also picking up less severe injuries.


  • Advertisement
  • #4582
    Quazzie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 30,131 ✭✭✭✭Quazzie


    8-10 wrote: »

    The fact is that Liverpool don't have the kind of money to pro actively adequately prepare for this situation.
    This is bullshít. They just won the Premier League, and the Chamions League before that. The money from winning those alone would've bought a Lovren replacement.

    That's not even including the fact that ye got 47.9M from the sales of 3 players this year alone.


  • #4583
    8-10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭8-10


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Lovren was part of the core squad before he was sold.

    Suddenly everyone rates Lovren.

    He's awful. Phillips and Williams are in the core squad now and weren't last season.

    Lovren is being replaced in January. The gamble was on having Fabinho as 4th choice cover until then and it hasn't worked out, but there's still capable players at the club.

    This rose tinted view of Lovren isn't based in the reality of how far he'd fallen in the pecking order last season


  • #4584
    8-10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭8-10


    Quazzie wrote: »
    This is bullshít. They just won the Premier League, and the Chamions League before that. The money from winning those alone would've bought a Lovren replacement

    Remember, I'm saying it would need to be a replacement that would be better at CB than Fabinho.

    If you spend that sort of money on his replacement then maybe it's at the expense of Tsimikas or Jota. Then Robertson and Salah injuries would mean we're crying over why money wasn't spent on LB and Front 3 cover.

    I'm convinced we were holding off until January to sign a CB because of finances and that was the gamble that failed.


  • #4585
    plibige
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 359 ✭✭plibige


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    The fundamental point here. It's pretty straight forward. Klopp should have organised the replacement for him in the summer window. He didn't.

    Lovren was part of the core squad before he was sold.

    If you sell your CB then you replace him.

    Its been answered plenty of times, he just didn't like the answer. He even admitted he dismissed it.

    When a 23 year old returns from loan he becomes a first team player.

    Fabinho was the other option. You can refuse to accept those facts, doesn't mean they aren't true


  • #4586
    Bruce Bald Sweeper
    Posts: 27,583 ✭✭✭✭ Bruce Bald Sweeper


    8-10 wrote: »
    Suddenly everyone rates Lovren.

    He's awful. Phillips and Williams are in the core squad now and weren't last season.

    Lovren is being replaced in January. The gamble was on having Fabinho as 4th choice cover until then and it hasn't worked out, but there's still capable players at the club.

    This rose tinted view of Lovren isn't based in the reality of how far he'd fallen in the pecking order last season

    Saying he is part of the core squad has nothing to do with how he is rated or his ability.
    Phil Jones was part of the core Utd squad for years.
    Your point has nothing to do with what I said.


  • #4587
    Quazzie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 30,131 ✭✭✭✭Quazzie


    8-10 wrote: »
    Remember, I'm saying it would need to be a replacement that would be better at CB than Fabinho.

    If you spend that sort of money on his replacement then maybe it's at the expense of Tsimikas or Jota. Then Robertson and Salah injuries would mean we're crying over why money wasn't spent on LB and Front 3 cover.

    I'm convinced we were holding off until January to sign a CB because of finances and that was the gamble that failed.

    Nicely done leaving out the second sentence.


  • #4588
    Bruce Bald Sweeper
    Posts: 27,583 ✭✭✭✭ Bruce Bald Sweeper


    plibige wrote: »
    Its been answered plenty of times, he just didn't like the answer. He even admitted he dismissed it.

    When a 23 year old returns from loan he becomes a first team player.

    Fabinho was the other option. You can refuse to accept those facts, doesn't mean they aren't true

    By default. Which shouldn't have been allowed happen.


  • #4589
    plibige
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 359 ✭✭plibige


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    By default. Which shouldn't have been allowed happen.

    And then he got man of the match on his debut. What's your point?

    Alexander Arnold got his debut by default, countless others too. Doesn't mean he doesn't count.

    Like has been pointed out constantly you might not like the answer, doesn't mean its not true


  • #4590
    Bruce Bald Sweeper
    Posts: 27,583 ✭✭✭✭ Bruce Bald Sweeper


    plibige wrote: »
    And then he got man of the match on his debut. What's your point?

    Alexander Arnold got his debut by default, countless others too. Doesn't mean he doesn't count.

    Like has been pointed out constantly you might not like the answer, doesn't mean its not true
    Not about not liking your answer. You are entitled to your opinion.

    I think it's a deflection from the reality that Klopp should take some of the blame for not replacing Lovren, a core member of the squad when he was sold.

    Klopp took a risk and the risk didn't pay off.


  • Advertisement
  • #4591
    theoneeyedman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,468 ✭✭✭theoneeyedman


    8-10 wrote: »
    I'm convinced we were holding off until January to sign a CB because of finances and that was the gamble that failed.

    It hasn't failed (yet).


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement