Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

Mitch Connor · 23-02-2009 11:43AM

lint316 wrote: »

Yeah your right. There's a few players in the team that arent good enough to be in a top 4 squad.
Benny, Lucas, Kuyt, Dossena, Ngog. I like all these players but I think they'd do better for themselves elsewhere

I would say Benny, Kuyt and Dossena are fine for a top 4 squad. the issue is they are too important to liverpool, they really should just be squad players.

monkey9 · 23-02-2009 11:46AM

Weren't Villa the top spenders in the summer or close to it??

astrofool · 23-02-2009 11:47AM

I think if Benitez had been prepared to sell Alonso at his market value, then they would have got the money required to buy Barry.

As it was, they wanted to sell Alonso above what he's worth and buy Barry for less than his value.

eagle eye · 23-02-2009 11:47AM

lint316 wrote: »

Yeah your right. There's a few players in the team that arent good enough to be in a top 4 squad.
Benny, Lucas, Kuyt, Dossena, Ngog. I like all these players but I think they'd do better for themselves elsewhere

I won't comment on N'Gog because I haven't seen enough of him to have and opinion.
I certainly believe that all the others have big parts to play at Liverpool, I just think you need the two more players, they will still play a lot of football but you need those other players. Just compare them to United for a moment, you have Carrick, Hargreaves, Anderson, Scholes, Fletcher and a couple of others, but I've named fiver there and theres more. On the left you have Park to replace Ronaldo, Liverpool have nobody to replace Kuyt, you have Giggs, Nani and Evra who can play on the left side. Liverpool have nothing near that depth of talent, and the fact is that competition for places brings the best out of all the players as long as they get a fair shot.

kida · 23-02-2009 11:58AM

And the other week we played Wigan with Keane (£20m), Alonso (£10.5m), Kuyt (£10m), Riera (£8m), Dossena (£7m), Agger (£5.8m) and Cavalieri (£3.5m) on the bench, while a few days later Man Utd's bench against Everton consisted of Wellbeck (£0m), Eckersley (£0m), Brown (£0m), Giggs (£0m), Gibson (£0m), Kuszczak (£2.5m) and Fabio (fukc knows, but presumably nowhere near enough to make up the 60 odd million pound difference between our bench and theirs).

Taken from a Utd forum but apparently written by a pool fan. Shows money isn't everything

Mitch Connor · 23-02-2009 12:01PM

kida wrote: »

Taken from a Utd forum but apparently written by a pool fan. Shows money isn't everything

I'd take Alonso over Gibson anyway....

spockety · 23-02-2009 12:01PM

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Progression, no-one can deny that. IMO all they need is one or two acquisitions in the defence and one more centre mid and they will be legit Champions League material next season, if not contenders for the title.

They have definitely progressed, but I think that people sometimes really underestimate what it takes to overhaul United/Ferguson. Chelsea managed it by throwing an infinite transfer budget at one of the best young coaches in the world, but even he got undone by Ferguson after the two season 'blip'. Arsenal managed it by having an extremely special manager surrounded by what must be considered an exceptionally well put together squad in retrospect. Again, undone by Ferguson after the 'blip', normal service has resumed.

When Aston Villa start winning trophies, putting big european giants to the sword, and making European cup finals and semi finals regularly, maybe then we can start using them as a stick to beat Benitez with.

I think that the best opportunity that any top flight team may be handed in the quest to win the premiership is the slight chink that may appear in United's armour once Ferguson walks away. Until then, you are up against the team with arguably one of the best football managers in the history of the game, with some of the largest resources available in the history of the game.

1st is 1st, and second is nothing, but it's not that simple really, is it.......?

Mitch Connor · 23-02-2009 12:03PM

spockety wrote: »

They have definitely progressed, but I think that people sometimes really underestimate what it takes to overhaul United/Ferguson. Chelsea managed it by throwing an infinite transfer budget at one of the best young coaches in the world, but even he got undone by Ferguson after the two season 'blip'. Arsenal managed it by having an extremely special manager surrounded by what must be considered an exceptionally well put together squad in retrospect. Again, undone by Ferguson after the 'blip', normal service has resumed.

When Aston Villa start winning trophies, putting big european giants to the sword, and making European cup finals and semi finals regularly, maybe then we can start using them as a stick to beat Benitez with.

I think that the best opportunity that any top flight team may be handed in the quest to win the premiership is the slight chink that may appear in United's armour once Ferguson walks away. Until then, you are up against the team with arguably one of the best football managers in the history of the game, with some of the largest resources available in the history of the game.

1st is 1st, and second is nothing, but it's not that simple really, is it.......?

"If you ain't first, you're last":D

Handsome Bob · 23-02-2009 12:06PM

monkey9 wrote: »

Weren't Villa the top spenders in the summer or close to it??

The following are widely *reported* fees. It comes to £36.9M, that is a shock to me, I didn't think they spent that much. Surely some of those figures are wrong though, namely Young and Quellar. I would be skeptical of £12m for Milner too.

Carlos Quellar............£7.8M
James Milner.............£12M
Steven Sidwell..........£5M
Luke Young..............£5M
Nicky Shorey............£4M
Brad Friedel..............£2.5M
Brad Guzan................£600,000

whatawaster · 23-02-2009 12:08PM

Iang87 wrote: »

Villa didnt spend a whole lot of money so how do they do it.

I'm sorry, but do some research. Villa have spent a lot of money, particularly this year. I'm pretty sure O'Neill's average spend per summer is a bit higher than Rafas.

And how do they do what? We're in second place.

Iang87 · 23-02-2009 12:09PM

spockety wrote: »

Do what, exactly?

They're improving which is more than i can say about us.

Yes we're in second place but we've also thrown 20 points away with stupid draws. These draws are the mark of liverpool the last 2 or 3 years. Once again we're damn near unbeatable but have drawn 10 times out of 26 games, thats unacceptabe, if we'd drawn none and lost 7 we'd be better off.

Melion · 23-02-2009 12:15PM

Iang87 wrote: »

They're improving which is more than i can say about us.

Yes we're in second place but we've also thrown 20 points away with stupid draws. These draws are the mark of liverpool the last 2 or 3 years. Once again we're damn near unbeatable but have drawn 10 times out of 26 games, thats unacceptabe, if we'd drawn none and lost 7 we'd be better off.

No we wouldnt

Boggles · 23-02-2009 12:15PM

Iang87 wrote: »

They're improving which is more than i can say about us.

Both teams are the most improved this season of the top 5/6, soley on points at this stage with 26 played last season

Villa last season 44 now 51
Liverpool last season 47 now 55

Chelsea only 2 points worse off than they were at this stage last year.

Arsenal are 18 points worse off. :eek:

Iang87 · 23-02-2009 12:17PM

whatawaster wrote: »

I'm sorry, but do some research. Villa have spent a lot of money, particularly this year. I'm pretty sure O'Neill's average spend per summer is a bit higher than Rafas.

And how do they do what? We're in second place.

when will this get through peoples head 2nd might as well be 4th except with 2 extra pre season games. 2nd is nowhere.

So villa spent 40million or whatever, They had to build a team, we had a team apparently. Villas progress is undeniable no matter what any1 says. They have stability, and a young enough side to build with whereas we have Torres, Gerrard, Carra, Xabi. so in my opinion we're going backwards. if it wasn't for chelsea being a shambles and Arsenal constantly finding new ways to not win, we'd be prob 5th

Iang87 · 23-02-2009 12:18PM

Melion wrote: »

No we wouldnt

yes we would we'd be on 57 points instead of 55 points.

but whatever about our points tally. This liverpool side dont look good thats the improvement i'm talking about. they dont ever seem to play well with the exceptiopn of a few games

Melion · 23-02-2009 12:20PM

Iang87 wrote: »

yes we would we'd be on 57 points instead of 55 points.

10 draws = 10 points
3 wins, 7 losses = 9 points

What am i missing here?

PiE · 23-02-2009 12:20PM

Liverpool last season 44 now 55

That genuinely suprised me - how can that be argued with?

Melion · 23-02-2009 12:20PM

Boggles wrote: »

Both teams are the most improved this season of the top 5/6, soley on points at this stage with 26 played last season

Villa last season 44 now 51
Liverpool last season 44 now 55

Chelsea only 2 points worse off than they were at this stage last year.

Arsenal are 18 points worse off. :eek:

I wont be thanking the post because id feel too dirty but fair play Boggles, a bit of sense.

Melion · 23-02-2009 12:21PM

PiE wrote: »

That genuinely suprised me - how can that be argued with?

Oh people will find a way, dont worry about that.

spockety · 23-02-2009 12:22PM

Iang87 wrote: »

They have stability, and a young enough side to build with whereas we have Torres... so in my opinion we're going backwards.

:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:

spockety · 23-02-2009 12:23PM

PiE wrote: »

That genuinely suprised me - how can that be argued with?

Oh people will always find an argument, fear not.

Someone just above just said "sure whatever about points, we don't look good".

Emm.

mike65 · 23-02-2009 12:23PM

Melion wrote: »

I wont be thanking the post because id feel too dirty but fair play Boggles, a bit of sense.

I'll wash later. :pac:

Iang87 · 23-02-2009 12:24PM

Melion wrote: »

10 draws = 10 points
3 wins, 7 losses = 9 points

What am i missing here?

19 wins + 7 Losses = 57 Points. You know the way a win is worth 3 points and 19 times 3 = 57.
Therefore 57 being 2 greater than 55 makes it a bigger number. You know the way when numbers go upwards they get bigger. Such as 1 , 2 , 3, 4 ..... am i being clear here or do you want me to add audio

Iang87 · 23-02-2009 12:27PM

spockety wrote: »

:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:

Dude we couldn't beat City at home to go along with Fulham.
Between both those sides they have 1 away win in 26 games. You genuinely call that progression seriously sure i'll throw stoke in too making it 1 win in 39 games between the 3 of them

Melion · 23-02-2009 12:27PM

Iang87 wrote: »

19 wins + 7 Losses = 57 Points. You know the way a win is worth 3 points and 19 times 3 = 57.
Therefore 57 being 2 greater than 55 makes it a bigger number. You know the way when numbers go upwards they get bigger. Such as 1 , 2 , 3, 4 ..... am i being clear here or do you want me to add audio

Dont you just love when people like this are wrong. They put so much effort into trying to look funny and intelligent only to get shot down.

We have 15 wins in the league, 15 + your imaginary 3 = 18 wins.

whatawaster · 23-02-2009 12:27PM

Iang87 wrote: »

when will this get through peoples head 2nd might as well be 4th except with 2 extra pre season games. 2nd is nowhere.

So villa spent 40million or whatever, They had to build a team, we had a team apparently. Villas progress is undeniable no matter what any1 says. They have stability, and a young enough side to build with whereas we have Torres, Gerrard, Carra, Xabi. so in my opinion we're going backwards. if it wasn't for chelsea being a shambles and Arsenal constantly finding new ways to not win, we'd be prob 5th

Your argument doesn't hold up at all.
If Arsenal are finding new ways not to win, what are we doing?
You think Villa have a stronger base from which to build? Give me a break. The spine of our team - Reina, Carragher, Skrtel, Mascherano, Alonso, Gerrard and Torres - is absolutely world class. Stands up to the very best in Europe. We are, as another poster has said, devilishly difficult to beat. Unfortunately there's a very fine line between drawing and winning, and we're finding ourselves the wrong side of it a little to often.

Iang87 · 23-02-2009 12:29PM

Melion wrote: »

Dont you just love when people like this are wrong. They put so much effort into trying to look funny and intelligent only to get shot down.

We have 15 wins in the league, 15 + your imaginary 3 = 18 wins.

i was saying 26 played. If we won 19 and lost 7 we'd be better off

Melion · 23-02-2009 12:30PM

Iang87 wrote: »

Dude we couldn't beat City at home to go along with Fulham.
Between both those sides they have 1 away win in 26 games. You genuinely call that progression seriously sure i'll throw stoke in too making it 1 win in 39 games between the 3 of them

Beating Chelsea twice and United in the league is progress. If you're going to throw 3 pointless games around i can too.

Melion · 23-02-2009 12:30PM

Iang87 wrote: »

i was saying 26 played. If we won 19 and lost 7 we'd be better off

We've played 26 games, we've won 15. Stop digging, i can't see the top of your head anymore.

eagle eye · 23-02-2009 12:34PM

Boggles wrote: »

Both teams are the most improved this season of the top 5/6, soley on points at this stage with 26 played last season

Villa last season 44 now 51
Liverpool last season 44 now 55

Chelsea only 2 points worse off than they were at this stage last year.

Arsenal are 18 points worse off. :eek:

It was 47 for Liverpool after the same amount of games last season. But still an 8 point improvement.

Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

Comments