Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours 2016, Mod Warning in OP, 10/7

Kerrigooney · 23-04-2016 05:26PM

whatawaster wrote: »

I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to blame Sturridge for their second goal.

Attackers have license to take risks in the opposition third and sometimes they will make mistakes or make poor decisions and lose the ball. It happens to every striker. It's the job of the midfield and defense to stop counter attacks in those instances.

This Mr Glass stuff is fairly pathetic at this stage too.

Sturridges goal return since his return from injury has been exceptional but I reckon there are some who would rather Benteke starting up front for us

I don't think there's a single poster in this thread that would rather Benteke starting. Don't know how you've jumped to that conclusion.

whatawaster · 23-04-2016 05:31PM

Kerrigooney wrote: »

I don't think there's a single poster in this thread that would rather Benteke starting. Don't know how you've jumped to that conclusion.

When people are saying he cost us points today it's hard to know what to think

Turtyturd · 23-04-2016 05:32PM

Kerrigooney wrote: »

I don't think there's a single poster in this thread that would rather Benteke starting. Don't know how you've jumped to that conclusion.

You won't get any sense out of them where Mr Glass is concerned.

whatawaster · 23-04-2016 05:38PM

Turtyturd wrote: »

You won't get any sense out of them where Mr Glass is concerned.

You think sense is blaming a striker for losing a ball in the opposition third of the pitch and absolving the entire midfield and defense of any responsibility?

Agent Coulson · 23-04-2016 05:44PM

The first line of defense starts with your strikers especially when you play a high pressing game like we do now under Klopp.

jcsoulinger · 23-04-2016 05:47PM

Agent Coulson wrote: »

The first line of defense starts with your strikers especially when you play a high pressing game like we do now under Klopp.

Yep first not last

whatawaster · 23-04-2016 05:49PM

Agent Coulson wrote: »

The first line of defense starts with your strikers especially when you play a high pressing game like we do now under Klopp.

When you don't have the ball.

When you do have the ball you have to allow attackers the freedom to lose the ball.

Firmino is constantly losing it in the attacking and midfield thirds of the pitch. Most times these don't lead to goals for the opposition. When they do it is invariably because of further errors by the defense

Agent Coulson · 23-04-2016 05:55PM

whatawaster wrote: »

When you don't have the ball.

When you do have the ball you have to allow attackers the freedom to lose the ball.

Firmino is constantly losing it in the attacking and midfield thirds of the pitch. Most times these don't lead to goals for the opposition. When they do it is invariably because of further errors by the defense

Firmino tracks back chases down balls after loses he it or misplaces a pass Sturridge stands and sulks or looks to blame someone else most of the time instead of working for the rest of his team mates.

mormank · 23-04-2016 05:58PM

whatawaster wrote: »

I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to blame Sturridge for their second goal.

Attackers have license to take risks in the opposition third and sometimes they will make mistakes or make poor decisions and lose the ball. It happens to every striker. It's the job of the midfield and defense to stop counter attacks in those instances.

This Mr Glass stuff is fairly pathetic at this stage too.

Sturridges goal return since his return from injury has been exceptional but I reckon there are some who would rather Benteke starting up front for us

Agreed on the Mr Glass stuff. Is it supposed to be funny or something? I dunno.
Anyway we all know about Sturridge's goal contribution, it is precisely for this reason that his consistent lenghtly absences are so frustrating. You don't often hear people complain much when Benteke is injured.

NukaCola · 23-04-2016 06:01PM

Kerrigooney wrote: »

Had he passed it instead of trying to do it all himself as usual,he wouldn't have lost it,we might have scored and there would have been no defending to do. A lot of ifs and buts but he can be incredibly frustrating at times. Yes he scores goals and the one he got was brilliant but in my opinion it doesn't give him a free pass on everything else.

I agreed that he lost it needlessly, he does tend to do that and I do give him a lot of stick for it and very rarely if ever give him a free pass, but if any of your attacking players lose the ball while attacking and you concede from it the way we did I could not put the blame on the attacker for the goal. He lost it 80 yards from goal with 8 players behind the ball. I'm not saying I'm right or anything but I just believe it would be very harsh to blame him for the goal.

mormank · 23-04-2016 06:01PM

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Firmino tracks back chases down balls after loses he it or misplaces a pass Sturridge stands and sulks or looks to blame someone else most of the time instead of working for the rest of his team mates.

True but Firminho loses it sooooo much more often than Sturridge so if he didn't track back after losing it he would be dropped.

Agent Coulson · 23-04-2016 06:06PM

mormank wrote: »

True but Firminho loses it sooooo much more often than Sturridge so if he didn't track back after losing it he would be dropped.

And if Origi was fit Sturridge would more than likely be dropped as well.

NukaCola · 23-04-2016 06:07PM

As disappointing as the result was I thought Allen and Stewart did very well today, as did Milner and Lallana......we fell apart in the second half but the first half was an almost perfect performance, maybe lacked an extra goal that our play deserved.......I can see us as a team getting better and more consistent, but there is a weakness there, and it might sound harsh, but replacing our GK will fix a lot of it....

mosstin · 23-04-2016 06:10PM

NukaCola wrote: »

As disappointing as the result was I thought Allen and Stewart did very well today, as did Milner and Lallana......we fell apart in the second half but the first half was an almost perfect performance, maybe lacked an extra goal that our play deserved.......I can see us as a team getting better and more consistent, but there is a weakness there, and it might sound harsh, but replacing our GK will fix a lot of it....

It isn't remotely harsh.

54and56 · 23-04-2016 06:15PM

machiavellianme wrote: »

Surely they'd check both samples before coming out with allegations?

It's only an allegation until the results of the blood tests are available. After that it's fact.

The B sample (as I understand it) is a control sample which the athlete can request be tested to ensure there wasn't a problem with contamination etc with the A sample. The protocols followed by the testing authorities these days mean there is a very very slim chance (excuse the pun

) that testing the B sample will exonerate Sakho.

LiamoSail · 23-04-2016 06:16PM

Gutted about Sahko. Should be effed out of the UEFA Cup if found guilty. Irrespective of the club not being involved, the tie was still won with a player using a banned substance.

dfx- · 23-04-2016 06:18PM

Ok, the Mr Glass joke stops now. It's irritating posters, call players by their names.

Everyone in general and Augeo, Turtyturd in particular: be civil to each other or face cards and bans. Stop sniping and bitching.

Harry Palmr · 23-04-2016 06:21PM

LiamoSail wrote: »

Gutted about Sahko. Should be effed out of the UEFA Cup if found guilty. Irrespective of the club not being involved, the tie was still won with a player using a banned substance.

Wut? Do you beat yourself up for fun?

Washington Irving · 23-04-2016 06:22PM

LiamoSail wrote: »

Gutted about Sahko. Should be effed out of the UEFA Cup if found guilty. Irrespective of the club not being involved, the tie was still won with a player using a banned substance.

So was every other tie in Europe this season more than likely.

54and56 · 23-04-2016 06:23PM

Deleted User wrote: »

On your second point. Why terminate ? Seems a very 'end of' scenario.

If you don't terminate his contract for Gross Misconduct or whatever clause taking banned substances breaches then the club has to keep paying his wages even though he'll be banned from playing for a very long time if not the rest of his remaining contract period should it turn out to be premeditated abuse using Human Growth Hormone or similar.

Turtyturd · 23-04-2016 06:26PM

Good to see calm heads prevail on the Sakho thing now that a bit of time has passed. :rolleyes:

Pyjamarama · 23-04-2016 06:38PM

Players will make mistakes every game and Sturridge, Moreno and Kolo all made mistakes this game which lead to goals. Only one person on the pitch however made a mistake that you wouldn't see in conference football (hyperbole but the point stands). Mignolet is a calamity and he needs to go. I don't actually need him to leave the club but he can't be the starter this year. Once we conceded today we were terrified. No confidence in the back 4 at all and it stems from the guy behind them.

Look at DDG in that semi today. Unreal performance as usual, now we don't need someone that good but Mig is in the bottom 10 keepers in the prem not the top.

54and56 · 23-04-2016 06:40PM

LiamoSail wrote: »

Gutted about Sahko. Should be effed out of the UEFA Cup if found guilty. Irrespective of the club not being involved, the tie was still won with a player using a banned substance.

Why just the UEFA cup? If you follow your logic we should be effed out of every competition Sakho played in since the failed blood test on March 17.

If he was participating in a solo sport like running or tennis your logic would hold some water but to punish an entire club and squad of 25 players because one does something wrong isn't AFAIK how UEFA dish out punishment.

LiamoSail · 23-04-2016 06:40PM

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Wut? Do you beat yourself up for fun?

No, but I'd feel the same if it was another club so shouldn't be different for Liverpool. If Sahko was taking a banned substance,then it wasn't a level playing field in any game he participated in.

Washington Irving wrote: »

So was every other tie in Europe this season more than likely.

You're probably right, but I'm referring only to players Found guilty

23-04-2016 06:43PM

dfx- wrote: »

.. the Mr Glass joke stops now. .........

240x360px-LL-4f86d8b3_Your_logic_is_flawless_I_tip_my_hat_to_you_sir_RE_6DIG6_Question_of_The_Week_5-s240x360-138603.jpeg

LiamoSail · 23-04-2016 06:46PM

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Why just the UEFA cup? If you follow your logic we should be effed out of every competition Sakho played in since the failed blood test on March 17.

If he was participating in a solo sport like running or tennis your logic would hold some water but to punish an entire club and squad of 25 players because one does something wrong isn't AFAIK how UEFA dish out punishment.

I see your point, and obviously the question is where do you stop. Personally I wouldn't be against a rule that saw all a clubs results nullified for any game the player participated in that season.

Regarding a whole club being punished for the actions of one, it's probably fairer than the opposition being punished for the error of one, which is essentially what has happened, as opponents have faced a player, possibly improved, through the use of a banned substances.

Liverpool failed to put out a side in certain ties that were within the laws of the competition. There should be repercussions IMO

Edit: to clarify, I realise that's not the rule, and hence that's not what should happen in this instance, however I believe that's what the rule should be

54and56 · 23-04-2016 06:54PM

LiamoSail wrote: »

I see your point, and obviously the question is where do you stop. Personally I wouldn't be against a rule that saw all a clubs results nullified for any game the player participated in that season.

Regarding a whole club being punished for the actions of one, it's probably fairer than the opposition being punished for the error of one, which is essentially what has happened, as opponents have faced a player, possibly improved, through the use of a banned substances.

Liverpool failed to put out a side in certain ties that were within the laws of the competition. There should be repercussions IMO

Edit: to clarify, I realise that's not the rule, and hence that's not what should happen in this instance, however I believe that's what the rule should be

If a club facilitated or even had knowledge of the fact a player was taking banned substances then IMO the club should be relegated at least one division, dumped out of any cup competitions they are in, all employees and management involved sacked and a new Board of Directors including CEO appointed i.e. a total clear out of those who permitted a medically dangerous cheating culture to emerge and embed itself.

I would be astounded however if this was anything other than one bloke either making an "honest" i.e. stupid/lazy mistake or at worst going on a personal solo run and taking a banned substance to improve his performance.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 23-04-2016 06:57PM

LiamoSail wrote: »

I see your point, and obviously the question is where do you stop. Personally I wouldn't be against a rule that saw all a clubs results nullified for any game the player participated in that season.

Regarding a whole club being punished for the actions of one, it's probably fairer than the opposition being punished for the error of one, which is essentially what has happened, as opponents have faced a player, possibly improved, through the use of a banned substances.

Liverpool unknowingly failed to put out a side in certain ties that were within the laws of the competition. There should be repercussions IMO

Edit: to clarify, I realise that's not the rule, and hence that's not what should happen in this instance, however I believe that's what the rule should be

The bit in bold there is key.

So everyone associated with the club should be punushed...?

5starpool · 23-04-2016 07:03PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The bit in bold there is key.

So everyone associated with the club should be punushed...?

If the club were complicit in it then absolutely, but there is no indication that this is the case at all, so not sure why liamo is getting carried away.

23-04-2016 07:10PM

It's an awful reflection on Sakho, he's working for a PL club with a full fitness team & presumably dieticians etc etc.

For any player not to consult with the club before taking supplements etc is totally daft. To take something marketed to be a "fat burner" is severely misguided and completely unprofessional.

I think he's not that glum so I fear there's more bad news to come out, I have no doubt the club are 100% uninvolved but I struggle to believe the poor ole gnomey Sakho didn't realise you shouldn't be taking this story.

Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours 2016, Mod Warning in OP, 10/7

Comments