Pippa's a girl?
Pippa also thinks Thaigo Silva wipes the floor with Vidic.
I assumed with the name "Pippa" that the person behind the username was female. Could be wrong though.
Liverpool
- Thread starter Sally Cinnamon
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I assumed with the name "Pippa" that the person behind the username was female. Could be wrong though.
A full 90 minutes of the Liverpool 0 Chelsea 2 game.
This is a ridiculous conversation
Here are the days lost to injury this season by the way.
Chelsea are consistently amongst the lowest in this table over the past 6/7 decades, I wonder how they do it.
What I liked about the Thiago Silva debate was that he/she insisted on how Thiago Silva never made big mistake or errors. Shortly after this, Thiago Silva conceded a penalty at home against Chelsea in the CL (the game PSG won 3-1 but in the end lost on aggregate cos of... away goals).Pippa's a girl?
Pippa also thinks Thaigo Silva wipes the floor with Vidic.
Wouldn't it make more sense to just count the match days lost to injury?
Considering how attractive their physio is, it is amazing how little they get injured.
Here are the days lost to injury this season by the way.
Chelsea are consistently amongst the lowest in this table over the past 6/7 decades, I wonder how they do it.
Pippa's off her rocker.
https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blog...-unlucky-injuries-weren-t-only-185533568.html
This is where I found the table.
Have to say, maybe I'm being slow but I don't quite understand what the 2nd table means?
This is where I found the table.
Have to say, maybe I'm being slow but I don't quite understand what the 2nd table means?
I ran out of time on the first question. Apparently, "Are you f*cking joking?" wasn't an option.
Ahhh, 1 game. ONE. 1. ONE single game.
Let's draw conclusions from a single match and then use it to describe a player.
He's drawing conclusions from one game about that one game. He wasn't talking about Gerrard's season in general but that one game.
It was quite clear that once Gerrard made that mistake, he lost some of his discipline and started trying to make amends himself. Something which may have worked 7 or 8 years ago but not so much this season when he was supposed to be deep lying.
He became selfish after that mistake and it impacted on his performance in that game. Nobody is saying anything different. You're creating strawmen.
It was quite clear that once Gerrard made that mistake, he lost some of his discipline and started trying to make amends himself. Something which may have worked 7 or 8 years ago but not so much this season when he was supposed to be deep lying.
He became selfish after that mistake and it impacted on his performance in that game. Nobody is saying anything different. You're creating strawmen.
Scousers gonna scouse.
There were a plenty more where that came from, that is just the one we used as AN EXAMPLE. Calm down, calm down.
I've already stated that what Rodgers did in propelling Liverpool to the position they finished was a great achievement, my only gripe here is that he got it wrong at the most vital of times. Many good managers suffer this, it's human nature but to deny it even exists is bordering madness, yes Gerrard slipped but tactically Rodgers was undone by Mourinho. There's actually no real shame in that because we all know how difficult it is to get one over on Mourinho but it was the manner of how it happened rather the actual result and it was then compounded by the absolute bonkers decision to chase an unassailable goal difference against a very dangerous Palace side, even before Liverpool went 3 goals clear Palace looked very dangerous and as soon as goal one went in there was always a chance, tactically the door should have been closed not pushed ever wider as Liverpool tried to atone for the exact same tactical error in the previous game.
The big question for me is can he maintain this seasons achievements and above all learn from what happened at the close of the season, hopefully he's of the same mindset you yourself are because if he doesn't try to tighten up and realise that there's more than one way to skin a cat then Europe may well prove to be a very depressing place.
We can agree to disagree as we both seem to have our tinted specs on here but sometimes looking from the outside in gives a lot clearer picture.
I wouldn't be able to find that debate, but you did strongly suggest Thiago Silva never made any high profile mistakes, which made him better than Vidic in your opinion. And this was shortly before PSG's tie with Chelsea.I never did that. And I'm a guy.
(And I'm not a Liverpool fan)
I never did that. And I'm a guy.
(And I'm not a Liverpool fan)
You're a fruitcake.
Never did that. I actually pointed out one of his high profile mistakes (a crap clearance to Rosicky who scored in the 2011-12 Champions League)...
My mistake. You said goals conceded because of him were 'marginal', and then went on to point out one season in which he had, apparently, not done a single thing wrong.
To an extent but I think Liverpool were poor on the day too. Never got going. Now you could say it's because Chelsea were so disicplined but I just think Liverpool didnt fire that day. Your tactics don't matter if players don't perform to a decent standard.
Correct. The same season (2010-11) where Maldini compared his defensive influence to Baresi at his best, Inzaghi called him a once in a lifetime player, Tassotti said the only difference between Silva and Baresi was longevity, Allegri said he was three levels above any other defender, etc.
It's off topic anyways, but if you actually want to debate that you can do it in the Silva thread that is somewhere.
Perhaps, but even after just a few minutes the Chelsea gameplan became apparent and it actually suited Liverpool if they had just thought about it for a second. Had Liverpool just sat off then maybe they could have drawn Chelsea out but even if they couldn't and held onto a point it was job done, attacking them walked straight into Jose's trap and it's not like Chelsea made some big secret of this tactic throughout the season, they played exactly as expected but sadly for the scouse so did Liverpool
For which we give thanks of course.
We did, at the time!
I don't know. Yes, he scored in the games either side of that loss, but he only scored three in your last eight games. That's a lean spell considering his rate of scoring this year. This may be over looked, because prior to the Chelsea game you had won 11 in a row. But that would definitely be considered a lean spell considering the year he had. Now apart from the Chelsea game it didn't matter as you had other attackers grabbing goals.
Yeah, as I said, I don't think Brendan got it right against Chelsea, but I don't think he got it that wrong either. My point was that Gerrard let you down after his mistake by trying to be the saviour instead of doing what he does best and trying to unlock the Chelsea defense.
Also, if we had a player do what Gerrard did in the second half of the Chelsea game I would expect my manager to get word through to him to cut it out. So he could take some blame here. Although maybe I am just looking for a stick to beat him with.
you are going on as if Chelsea played like that most matches during the seasonPerhaps, but even after just a few minutes the Chelsea gameplan became apparent and it actually suited Liverpool if they had just thought about it for a second. Had Liverpool just sat off then maybe they could have drawn Chelsea out but even if they couldn't and held onto a point it was job done, attacking them walked straight into Jose's trap and it's not like Chelsea made some big secret of this tactic throughout the season, they played exactly as expected but sadly for the scouse so did Liverpool
For which we give thanks of course.
They had done that at Arsenal and us earlier that season, along with Atleti in the CL semi just a few days prior.
I said the tactic wasn't a secret, they played some key games against tough opposition exactly in that manner, they actually set up like that against Moyeschester United within the first 5 games too.
The game they played against City when they ran out 1-0 winners was an outstanding display of how to roll over an opponent against the odds.
I really dont see how Liverpool fans can say Rodgers and probably the players too messed up the Chelsea and Palace games. You can keep saying well we played the way we have all season because it has bought the rewards, why change it? But when it really mattered it came back to bite you in the butt. They simply didnt need to do it, everyone knew what Chelsea were going to do and Liverpool played into their hands, all they had to do was sit there, keep the ball and bring Chelsea out. If they didnt want to come out then fine, play out a boring 0-0 draw take the point and the league is all but won. A mistake cost the a goal yes, Gerrards control lets him down before he slipped but he was the last man only just in his own half, why have all your defenders in front of him? There was simply no need to push everyone on. It was tactically naive, its as simple as that.
The palace game was the same, fair enough try and score a couple more goals but dont go gung ho thinking you are going to get 6-7-8, it was unlikely. But once Palace got a goal they should have thought hold what we have and just win, put the pressure back on City, they should have shut up shop when they got a 2nd but Rodgers decided to bring Moses on instead of a defender. Again he was naive or just believed his own hype.
End of the day they had a brilliant season and they deserved to be where they are/was but they failed when it really mattered because IMO they thought they had already won the league and would win because they are so good.
The palace game was the same, fair enough try and score a couple more goals but dont go gung ho thinking you are going to get 6-7-8, it was unlikely. But once Palace got a goal they should have thought hold what we have and just win, put the pressure back on City, they should have shut up shop when they got a 2nd but Rodgers decided to bring Moses on instead of a defender. Again he was naive or just believed his own hype.
End of the day they had a brilliant season and they deserved to be where they are/was but they failed when it really mattered because IMO they thought they had already won the league and would win because they are so good.
Managers can never win. Had he brought on a defender and it backfired he'd have been criticised for doing that too. Moyes got abused on here for doing similarly earlier on in the season.
Moyes did it when it was unnecessary and did not change the game, damage limitation when we should have been going for the win. Rodgers gets the flack because he got his tactics wrong and was very arrogant in the way he got them wrong.
Had he played Chelsea at their own game and still lost then maybe there would have been criticism but it would be largely glossed over as Rogers would have been deemed to have gotten it right.
Had he shored it up against Palace and still failed then this wouldn't be a discussion, instead he brought on the rather useless Moses whilst Agger and Toure warmed the bench, amazingly Moses had a golden opportunity to win the game at the last. It was a script you couldn't even think to write, "this does not slip" oopsie daisy me, sorry lads !
Oh and managers do win, Ferguson managed it more often than not.
This.
Moyes has always been a defend what we have kind of manager. United have always tried to win, Moyes went out not to lose and managed to drag us through our worst PL season. Completely different things. Rodgers had 3-4 games left with the league in their own hands and threw it away because he thought he was above everyone and got his tactics when it mattered wrong.
it was unlikely that just a 3-0 win and a city loss would be probable enough to win the league.. honestly I find it not that criticism worthy his decisions, Liverpool were running that match and had the momentum to do significant damage, and if they could put in 5-6 goals, it put them in a genuine position to contest city's gd. just a 3-0 win wouldn't have been enough. It was just a fergie, 'rather risk conceding more goals going for the draw/win then settle for what I have' mentality, which wasn't completely wrong, it just didn't work out, Johnson wasn't good enough in covering his flank, and Liverpool underrated bolasie, who was always the more impressive player then zaha going back to the championship imo.
inexperience of the players, and a bad slip that has nothing to do with decisions. that's all that cost Liverpool.
Sorry but i ave to disagree with you there, and i think there are many others that will too (unless they are Liverpool fans of course). They did not need to play the way they did against Chelsea, its as simple as that. They did not need to push everyone up trying to score and break Chelsea down when all they needed to do was sit and take a boring approach to it. The slip was just a consequence of the way they set out, thinking they were the best and will play their way no matter what. There is no way fergie would have done that.
You are missing the point about the Palace game. I said yes fair enough go for extra goals but dont discount the other team and go gung ho. Liverpool looked shattered/spent in that game towards the end anyway. The point is once Palace scored they should have changed back to their normal game and made sure they got the win, even more so when Palace got a 2nd. Bringing on Moses when you have 2 defenders on the bench was madness. A win, no matter how small would have been better than a draw and would have put more pressure on City. Liverpool were never likely to score 8-10 goals against newcastle anyway. Oh and Johnson should have bought bolasie down or dropped back towards goal, but just sold himself, he wasnt good enough but Liverpool shouldnt have been all out attacking and leaving him 1 on 1 with him and all the space in the world. Rodgers decisions cost them the title really, he is the manager it was upto to him but he thought they were better than everyone and were just too good and would win if they carried on playing the way they have. There was no need to.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/mental-football-forum-posts.371419/
I've just replied (kind of) in another forum - Page 9.
It's probably the only real disappointment with his time, which is hard to say because it just sounds ridiculous to feel any disappointment with a man who won as much as he did. If there was a missed opportunity it was probably between 99 and 02. The reasons for why that side didn't win another CL have already been mentioned, (the crazy introduction of 2 group stages still pisses me off) but Leverkusen in 2002 felt like a massive defeat. ...actually thinking about it, 2004 was a big miss with Porto and Monaco getting to the final. Even though it was a Utd side in transition, a Paul Scholes goal wrongly ruled off-side could have seen us go onto win the whole thing. But that's cup competitions for you. So many if's and but's.
So in short, 2 in 20 years sounds very poor and you have to look into it to see it's not poor but then, not exceptional either. No manager has won more CL's than Ferguson. Ancelotti might do it this Saturday and if he does, it will be an amazing achievement. But it doesn't mean he's a better manager than Ferguson either
Edit: So I guess what the last couple of pages have really been about is the context of achievements. And my annoyance at the general observation that 3 EC's has never been matched by Ferguson, therefore Fergie is a poorer manager. It's more to do with that, than trying to prove black and white that he's better than Paisley. Liverpool fans are always going to say Paisley or Shankley. Utd fans Ferguson (or even Busby)
anyway, I'm waffling now so will leave it there!
Well that cuts both ways doesn't it ? When you get someone, who probably wasn't even about at the time, referring to the teams we played as 'Norwegian fisherman', & then state it as fact that Ferguson would have won 5 or 6 European Cups had things been differently. Then it's hardly surprising that such arrogant & dismissive statements keeps bringing me back to the debate. You see, I suspect a lot of the United fans arguing Fergie's case probably fall into a similar category. They've more than likely only lived through, & remember, the Ferguson era. They see we beat sides who are nowhere the top of their respective leagues anymore, & assume that because they're crap now, they've always been crap.
When we won the league in 1980, United finished runners-up, just 2 points behind. Being champions meant that we entered into The European Cup, whereas your side went into the UEFA Cup. The following season we went on to winning The European Cup, disposing of the likes of Bayern Munich & Real Madrid in the process (anyone remember them ?). United however, fell at the first hurdle to a side called Widzew Lodz in the UEFA Cup. No doubt had we faced them in Europe, today's United fans would label them as nothing more than Polish farmers.
There is no set criteria to ascertain the relevant qualities of different managers from different era's, & then to say exactly who was the best. FIFA announced Rinus Michels as coach of the century in 1999. This wasn't because he won a shit-load of trophies & had stayed at the same club for twenty odd years. It was because he was a great thinker of the game & he introduced the concept of total football. Where Paisley & Ferguson differ is that your man build some great sides, played some great football, & won a lot of silverware. However, whilst the personnel might have changed over the years, Fergie's United teams played pretty much the same way right throughout his time at the club. He never really evolved them to a point whereby they could claim the right to be classed as Europe's top club in the same way that Barcelona did recently, & Liverpool did in the 70's & 80's. Bob Paisley on the other hand totally changed our style of football. He did away with our wing play, & created a side that became more fluid, more technical, & more tactically aware. He built a side that was adaptable to the different type of opposition we faced at home & abroad. His success in Europe had nothing to do with the relevant strengths & weaknesses of the competition, or the format of the CL v The European Cup. To suggest otherwise is simply clutching at straws.
I can see why Michels would be voted as the best ever, for sure. But to claim Ferguson and Utd never evolved and played the same way is completely wrong and quite a lazy assesment. It can easily be argued that Fergie, while not brilliant tactically, was always flexible and modern in his system. Watch the way we played in the early 90's, even though it was always labelled as 442 it was either a 4411 or 433. Then around 2006/07 we were the first side (or at least one of the first to my knowledge) to play a 4-6-0 formation against Roma.
A manager who doesn't evolve his team would never last at the top for as long as Ferguson did. Simple as that. I are probably just thinking Ferguson = Gung ho and thats always been his style. But it's just not true.
We were officially Europe's top club twice under Ferguson, in the most competitive era in the history of the game. Both triumphs in 99 and 08 saw us go undefeated in Europe and look genuinely like the best side. We never retained it, but no one has ever retained the CL. Utd set records in terms of consistency in Europe & undefeated runs etc. We reached 3 finals in 4 years. And we won a treble.
Also Ferguson may not have reached Barcelona heights of 2009-11 but Paisley's Liverpool didn't either. Sorry to break it to you.
Yes I agree if Liverpool had've sat back and relied on their defence to absorb Chelsea play and try to draw them out then that could have worked but the main criticism on the boards this year of Liverpool has been their defensive frailties. Who is also to say that Mourinho couldn't have changed his set up slightly and looked to dominate Liverpool as his side were well capable of that too should we have conceded the ball and ground to them. Yes Chelsea played as expected but a lot of folk on here have Mourinho down as a tactical genius so he could have easily changed his sides play to suit the situation but the fact is that Rogers doesnt have a big enough squad to change things around. He played to his strengths that worked most of the season and unfortunately it didnt work out. Had he changed a formula that worked and lost anyway then he'd have been hammered for moving away from that formula. It's catch 22. I hope he develops the squad though and can get in players that will allow us to park the bus and switch between pacey attacking as required.Perhaps, but even after just a few minutes the Chelsea gameplan became apparent and it actually suited Liverpool if they had just thought about it for a second. Had Liverpool just sat off then maybe they could have drawn Chelsea out but even if they couldn't and held onto a point it was job done, attacking them walked straight into Jose's trap and it's not like Chelsea made some big secret of this tactic throughout the season, they played exactly as expected but sadly for the scouse so did Liverpool
For which we give thanks of course.
To say that Ferguson didn't evolve throughout his United time is so absurd I can't explain it. It's not even a lazy statement, it's simply braindead. He could have used 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 4-5-1 and as sb rightly pointed out, even something close to 4-6-0. And more often than not he got it right with each formation.
That's before going into details like buying, promoting, playing and finally - replacing his players with footballers of different characteristic, styles and personalities. Let alone mentioning how open to innovations and football science he's always been.
That's before going into details like buying, promoting, playing and finally - replacing his players with footballers of different characteristic, styles and personalities. Let alone mentioning how open to innovations and football science he's always been.