Liverpool

PickledRed said:
The decision to attack Chelsea was a poor one? Liverpool who had broken goal scoring records, demolished top sides at home and had players all over the park that can do damage. A poor decision...what hindsight garbage. A classic example of shoe-horning a point to embolden an argument. Liverpool's climb up the table after Christmas was due to attacking brilliance. Why stop the key thing you're good at? A single player error led to the defeat, not tactics. Not attacking the opposition. Liverpool were comfortable. To argue differently is simplistic chicanery.
Click to expand...
The decision to attack Chelsea was a poor one, yes.
A decision made in hindsight it wasn't, not for me certainly, I was expecting a tight game seeing as a draw would suit Liverpool more and playing for a draw would sum Mourinho up. As the game began and Liverpool pressed into the Chelsea half it became evident that Liverpool had decided to throw caution to the wind. It was the wrong decision and that's backed up by what happened next, Rodgers got it wrong either by hindsight or otherwise.
 
Pippa said:
Alex99 just said that his proof for nothing existing was that nothing was on UEFA's website, and that Wikipedia linked to the site he used. Two websites, literally. UEFA, Wikipedia. If he spent hours searching through historical archives finding nothing, you could assume that. But he looked up two websites.

Surely you can see where you are overreacting?
Click to expand...

Proving something doesn't exist is virtually impossible. It's why people believe in religion, ghosts, fairies etc.

For instance, Alex99 could scour 99% of the internet and he still couldn't prove without some degree of doubt that it didn't exist.

Alternatively, it seems like a relatively easy thing to prove existence of. One well sourced website would do it.

In any case the debate is being sidetracked by existential arguments.

Alex99's logic is sound, whether another system exists or not. Even if there is another offical system the chances it differs wildly from the system Alex99 found is slim to none.
 
Pippa said:
Alex99 just said that his proof for nothing existing was that nothing was on UEFA's website, and that Wikipedia linked to the site he used. Two websites, literally. UEFA, Wikipedia. If he spent hours searching through historical archives finding nothing, you could assume that. But he looked up two websites.

Surely you can see where you are overreacting?
Click to expand...

And what I've googled only returns results from that site, or pointless pages from UEFA or Wikipedia. Also, why would I spend hours searching for something that, if it was available, would likely be very easy to find?

You're off your rocker.
 
Alex99 said:
The calculation is official because it is the official calculation that UEFA use now. The website it is used on may not be official, but it is still the official UEFA calculation. I've explained now, multiple times, in very simple terms, why it can be used with the European Cup, but it appears that this is beyond you.
Click to expand...
It's official now. Was it official in 1977? Quick yes or no answer to that question, please.

Alex99 said:
Why? I'm not inclined to upload a messy excel document with no explanation of what it's showing when there's a website showing the same thing but far more comprehensively.
Click to expand...
So you're not inclined. Fair enough, I won't insist that you post that data that you insist is correct.

Alex99 said:
How exactly am I supposed to prove that there wasn't an official system, short of failing to find one?
Click to expand...
You're the one who is adamant that there was absolutely nothing in place. I'm not sure if I am judging this correctly, but you are so certain that there is no system because you could not find anything on UEFA and Wikipedia.

Alex99 said:
So it wasn't "literally the only reason"
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Alex99 said:
That nothing was in use? Again, how do you prove that something doesn't exist short of failing to prove that it does?
Click to expand...
Try looking at more than two websites?

Alex99 said:
Or, as I said, I misunderstood you. You asked why I would use my calculation when "there is already a calculation in place." Said calculation is the UEFA calculation. Therefore, I assumed that you were asking why I hadn't used the UEFA calculation.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, you made a mistake.

Alex99 said:
In doing so, you've essentially ended up claiming that we cannot possibly determine which clubs and leagues were stronger in the past because there was no official ranking system back then. I guess we should just accept that playing Crusaders from Northern Ireland was just as difficult as playing Borussia Monchengladbach from West Germany. One came from a country that barely ever made it past the first round, and one came from a country where the champions were regular winners of the EC, but as they weren't ranked, there's no way to tell which was the tougher game.
Click to expand...
Are you serious?
 
Jesus wept.

Pippa said:
It's official now. Was it official in 1977?
Click to expand...

No, because it didn't bloody exist in 1977. However, it's official now, and can be easily transferred. It is a UEFA calculation being used to rank performance in UEFA competition. It doesn't matter when the competition took place because it transfers extremely well to other formats.

Pippa said:
So you're not inclined. Fair enough, I won't insist that you post that data that you insist is correct.
Click to expand...

I'll happily admit that my data is irrelevant. I found a far more comprehensive source, but unfortunately for you, all that this source has done is support my point further.

Pippa said:
You're the one who is adamant that there was absolutely nothing in place. I'm not sure if I am judging this correctly, but you are so certain that there is no system because you could not find anything on UEFA and Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

UEFA rankings for performances in UEFA competitions are not available on the UEFA website. They are also not available on Wikipedia, one of the biggest online encyclopedias. I Googled it, and all that came up was the site that I used, and irrelevant pages from UEFA's site and Wikipedia. If the official UEFA rankings were a thing, I imagine that they'd be very easy to find.

Pippa said:
Exactly.
Click to expand...

Again, congratulations, you pedant. I used literally when I didn't quite mean literally.

Pippa said:
Try looking at more than two websites?
Click to expand...

I did. Try not being insane.

Pippa said:
Are you serious?
Click to expand...

Are you?
 
After 10 (?) minutes of a google search, who knows if this is reliable. It's probably just as reliable as the other site you've used.

http://www.europeancuphistory.com/euro68.html

The 1967/68 competition saw the introduction of two new regulations. Firstly, a seeding system would ensure that the teams from countries that had already supplied finalists would be kept apart until the later stages of the competition. Secondly, a new ruling that sought to separate two evenly matched teams without the need for playing a replay was introduced. It was decided by UEFA that ties in the first round that finished level after two legs would be decided by doubling the value of goals scored away from home.
Click to expand...

I can only assume that 10 years later, there were more new regulations in place.
 
PickledRed said:
Why?
Click to expand...
This is why.
SolidState said:
So let me get this straight.....some people would choose a manager who has won precisely nothing and got close with Liverpool to his first trophy over a man who has 20 years experience of winning titles at europes elite clubs....I dont know what to say to that.
Click to expand...
There are probably some people, but they are best ignored. If someone is trying to convince you that they wanted Brendan Rogers at this club then it's time to question their mental health.
 
Pippa said:
After 10 (?) minutes of a google search, who knows if this is reliable. It's probably just as reliable as the other site you've used.

http://www.europeancuphistory.com/euro68.html



I can only assume that 10 years later, there were more new regulations in place.
Click to expand...

Right, so they had a rudimentary seeding system in place, that meant that Spanish, French, Italian, West German, Portuguese, Yugoslavian, and Scottish clubs couldn't play each other in the first round. That's literally all it did. No ranking, just a rule that meant clubs from countries that had produced finalists couldn't play each other in the first round.
 
Christ, what has happened in here? I've not looked at this thread since this morning. Thought their might be some news relating to us. Pippa you mentalist.
 
Alex99 said:
Right, so they had a rudimentary seeding system in place, that meant that Spanish, French, Italian, West German, Portuguese, Yugoslavian, and Scottish clubs couldn't play each other in the first round. That's literally all it did. No ranking, just a rule that meant clubs from countries that had produced finalists couldn't play each other in the first round.
Click to expand...
Yes, UEFA included a seeding system in 1967, so the major clubs wouldn't face other major clubs in the first round -- something that had happened in the 1960-61 European Cup. A regulation to distinguish a select group of leagues (7) from the rest (25). A rule that was changed by 1978.

Do you still think no system existed in the late 1970s?
 
Ramshock said:
These scousers are in for a rude awakening next season. There won't be a perfect storm for Rodgers to take advantage of (all credit to him) and there will be much more to contend with for him. If Van Gaal gets us firing and Arsenal progress I can see Liverpool dropping out of the top 4 easily.
Click to expand...

There it is, thought I missed it but there it is. :)

I shall also be preparing to call my aunty "Uncle" next season, you know, IF she grows a pair of balls or so the analogy goes. :cool:
 
Alex99 said:
Liverpool, had they won the league, would have also broken goals conceded records. They'd also displayed somewhat of a habit of tailing off in the second half of games. They were playing a team with almost zero ambition in attack, yet they left themselves wide open at the back. Yes it was player error, but it was an error that occurred whilst Liverpool were in possession on the halfway line, not whilst defending on the edge of their box. There was no reason for the defensive line to be as high as it was.
Click to expand...
In the context the defensive line was reasonable. You watch any match and a very similar shape is established with a team in possession. You're being wilfully insincere to suggest otherwise. It was an error not a tactical mistake.
 
gasmanc said:
The decision to attack Chelsea was a poor one, yes.
A decision made in hindsight it wasn't, not for me certainly, I was expecting a tight game seeing as a draw would suit Liverpool more and playing for a draw would sum Mourinho up. As the game began and Liverpool pressed into the Chelsea half it became evident that Liverpool had decided to throw caution to the wind. It was the wrong decision and that's backed up by what happened next, Rodgers got it wrong either by hindsight or otherwise.
Click to expand...

No they really didn't. That goal was due to a slip. What total rubbish. Classic agenda driven "analysis"
 
goldenstatesplash said:
This is why.
There are probably some people, but they are best ignored. If someone is trying to convince you that they wanted Brendan Rogers at this club then it's time to question their mental health.
Click to expand...
Hodgson, AVB, Sven, Capello have all achieved more than 41 year old Rodgers.

One word defines the value of a manager: currency. Rodgers has it in spades. He's improved a team in decline, he's here for the long haul and understands the PL.

Van Gaal is not a PL manager yet, he's not had a great past decade in club management.

It's incredibly glib to dismiss Rodgers on the back of trophies won in relation to van Gaal.
 
There's no doubt that Liverpool team dropped off badly in the second half of matches. Man City and Norwich nearly took advantage of that and Crystal Palace took advantage of that completely. With the Increased match load, it'll be interesting to see how Rodgers copes up with that, I do think he'll find a solution to it but I don't think Liverpool will mount up a serious title challenge next season.
 
With a better defence they might. The attack is so top heavy and probably the best in the league but as has been mentioned, they tire. It's then up to the defence and they are not up to it. Trouble is now to balance the team and that will mean losing some of the potency up front.
 
Brightonian said:
Anyone care to sum up what the hell's been going on in this thread?
Click to expand...
Bin dipper in traditional inability to understand simple concepts that result in their "glorious history" being denigrated. We've also discovered a whole new branch of Scouse logic, pippanomics.
 
PickledRed said:
No they really didn't. That goal was due to a slip. What total rubbish. Classic agenda driven "analysis"
Click to expand...
It really wasn't just due to a slip, you were camped inside the Chelsea half when it came. You yourself have already stated that the decision to attack Chelsea was off the back of a terrific run of attack based football, which is fine but that day called for more subtlety and it was the wrong call. I would actually love to blame Gerrard alone but Liverpool as pointed out by many simply had no plan B, either at 0-0 v Chelsea or 1-3 or 2-3 against Palace.
Whether you can face the truth or not Rodgers still had a hand in the title slipping away and that for me brings about a question mark over his ability, he may have a massive capacity for learning from his mistakes but it does seem very much the Liverpool way to deny any mistakes even exist.
Or in simple terms, keep him ;)
 
PickledRed said:
In the context the defensive line was reasonable. You watch any match and a very similar shape is established with a team in possession. You're being wilfully insincere to suggest otherwise. It was an error not a tactical mistake.
Click to expand...

But you didn't score either. For all your attacking prowess, you failed to do the most important thing in football. And, if you had kept a tighter ship, you wouldn't even have needed to score. A draw would have done. But you conceded. Twice. Against a team that wasn't even trying to score. One mistake, yes, so I'm not putting it completely down to tactics. I see that it was an individual error. But the point remains that you had the best attack in the league, but when it really mattered, they failed you. Suarez's goals dried up when you needed him most. Gerrard tried to score from 40 yards every time he got the ball. Someone is to blame there. Whether it's the players or the management, but your Ace in the hole for the entire season, failed miserably, when it was needed most.
 
gasmanc said:
It really wasn't just due to a slip, you were camped inside the Chelsea half when it came. You yourself have already stated that the decision to attack Chelsea was off the back of a terrific run of attack based football, which is fine but that day called for more subtlety and it was the wrong call. I would actually love to blame Gerrard alone but Liverpool as pointed out by many simply had no plan B, either at 0-0 v Chelsea or 1-3 or 2-3 against Palace.
Whether you can face the truth or not Rodgers still had a hand in the title slipping away and that for me brings about a question mark over his ability, he may have a massive capacity for learning from his mistakes but it does seem very much the Liverpool way to deny any mistakes even exist.
Or in simple terms, keep him ;)
Click to expand...

I totally disagree with your analysis of that game. So we can agree to disagree on that.

As for your wilful attempts to denigrate Rodgers on the back of what was essentially 1 defeat in 16 games, I find that both amusing and blinkered in equal measure. The manager of the year takes a club from 7th that had spent half a decade out of the top 4, hadn't challenged for a title properly in 24 years, couldn't score goals two years ago, had a squad of misfits and turns them into the second best team in the country (only to be bettered by the best paid team in the history of world sport)...but hold on, his captain slipped when his team were in comfortable possession so that raises BIG QUESTIONS!!
Look, Rodgers is imperfect but his role in Liverpool’s emergence indicates that his “overall ability” is impressive. A defeat to Chelsea at home (which City also suffered) should not be the determining factor when drawing conclusions about his ability.
 
RexHamilton said:
One mistake, yes, so I'm not putting it completely down to tactics.
Click to expand...
Thank you.


RexHamilton said:
Suarez's goals dried up when you needed him most. .
Click to expand...

Why did we need Suarez's goals when Liverpool were winning all their games - 11 in a row? The whole team were scoring so Liverpool were not reliant on Suarez's goals. He was still scoring some goals and creating them as well. His goal rate slowed but that had no bearing on the results apart from the Chelsea game. Are you saying Liverpool failing to score in 1 match in their last 28 games was down to Suarez's goals drying up. That is extraordinary - and rubbish!

RexHamilton said:
Gerrard tried to score from 40 yards every time he got the ball.
Click to expand...
More rubbish. Have you got anything to back this up? All I know is that Gerrard had more assists than anyone in the whole league during the season - 13 (Suarez was second with 12). But rather than focusing on that you're happy to create a false argument about always shooting from 40 yards.
 
PickledRed said:
I totally disagree with your analysis of that game. So we can agree to disagree on that.

As for your wilful attempts to denigrate Rodgers on the back of what was essentially 1 defeat in 16 games, I find that both amusing and blinkered in equal measure. The manager of the year takes a club from 7th that had spent half a decade out of the top 4, hadn't challenged for a title properly in 24 years, couldn't score goals two years ago, had a squad of misfits and turns them into the second best team in the country (only to be bettered by the best paid team in the history of world sport)...but hold on, his captain slipped when his team were in comfortable possession so that raises BIG QUESTIONS!!
Look, Rodgers is imperfect but his role in Liverpool’s emergence indicates that his “overall ability” is impressive. A defeat to Chelsea at home (which City also suffered) should not be the determining factor when drawing conclusions about his ability.
Click to expand...
But the score in the Chelsea was two nil with Chelsea scoring a carbon copy goal in each half. Liverpool concede easy possession, slip/stray pass, on half way, defense pushed up and the quick counter wins out, in the context of the game, two nil didn't matter but it shows the slip wasn't the only factor, unfortunately!

Going balls out attack and your captain losing his head shooting from everywhere rather than playing in Suarez in the area is what lost the game.

As gasmanc said, this cost you in the palace game too, and nearly the city and the Norwich game too.

Credit Rodgers were it's due, Liverpool played exciting football, it was Keegan's Newcastle like but he's not the cream of Europe just yet.
 
PickledRed said:
Thank you.
Click to expand...

You're Welcome



PickledRed said:
Why did we need Suarez's goals when Liverpool were winning all their games - 11 in a row? The whole team were scoring so Liverpool were not reliant on Suarez's goals. He was still scoring some goals and creating them as well. His goal rate slowed but that had no bearing on the results apart from the Chelsea game. Are you saying Liverpool failing to score in 1 match in their last 28 games was down to Suarez's goals drying up. That is extraordinary - and rubbish!
Click to expand...

His goal rate slowed and that had no bearing on the results apart from Chelsea. Agreed. But it was the Chelsea result I was talking about. Of course he can't be expected to score in every single game. But it was one you needed to score in, once Gerrard slipped. Those situations need players to step up. Everyone was looking to him. I don't think I slated him here, just that it was unfortunate in the game you needed a piece of his magic most he failed to deliver.


PickledRed said:
More rubbish. Have you got anything to back this up? All I know is that Gerrard had more assists than anyone in the whole league during the season - 13 (Suarez was second with 12). But rather than focusing on that you're happy to create a false argument about always shooting from 40 yards.
Click to expand...

Again, you're confused. I was simply talking about the Chelsea game. What I have to back it up, is the Chelsea game and the fact that once he made the mistake, Gerrard lost his cool and tried to make up for it himself by taking on crazy shots for the entire second half. You're actually making my argument for me. He had more assists than anyone in the league. He is fantastic at creating goals. But instead of doing what he does best he took it on himself to try and win the match and instead of creating a goal, (possibly setting up Suarez, which would have made my first point moot) which is what he proved this year he is good at, he bottled it and tried to score from 40 yards every time he got the ball, as I said in my original point. (Before you get pedantic, I know they weren't 40 yard efforts, but he was trying shots that were never on instead of trying to break Chelsea down.)
 
Pippa said:
Yes, UEFA included a seeding system in 1967, so the major clubs wouldn't face other major clubs in the first round -- something that had happened in the 1960-61 European Cup. A regulation to distinguish a select group of leagues (7) from the rest (25). A rule that was changed by 1978.

Do you still think no system existed in the late 1970s?
Click to expand...

Seeding =/= ranking. They literally just went "you lot have had at least one team in the final so we'll make sure you can't play each other in the first round." That was it. They didn't rank anyone. They just prevented a handful of teams meeting in the first round. The rule was also only in place for that one season, and as far as I can tell, nothing replaced it. From what I can tell, they didn't start using rankings again until the CL era, which is when they introduced the coefficient system. A system that when initially implemented, had to be applied to past competitions.

Your assumption regarding new regulations "10 years later" was only right in that they abandoned the very basic seeding system after one year, and didn't appear to implement another one until the CL era, and even then it was in 97-98 when they first allowed non-Champions into the competition.

Are you going to continue making a fool of yourself by desperately clinging onto this weird idea that we can't possibly rank the nations using UEFA's very simple system, or are you going to accept that using such rankings is actually a fairly good way of proving how strong the respective competitions were?
 
RexHamilton said:
You're Welcome





His goal rate slowed and that had no bearing on the results apart from Chelsea. Agreed. But it was the Chelsea result I was talking about. Of course he can't be expected to score in every single game. But it was one you needed to score in, once Gerrard slipped. Those situations need players to step up. Everyone was looking to him. I don't think I slated him here, just that it was unfortunate in the game you needed a piece of his magic most he failed to deliver.




Again, you're confused. I was simply talking about the Chelsea game. What I have to back it up, is the Chelsea game and the fact that once he made the mistake, Gerrard lost his cool and tried to make up for it himself by taking on crazy shots for the entire second half. You're actually making my argument for me. He had more assists than anyone in the league. He is fantastic at creating goals. But instead of doing what he does best he took it on himself to try and win the match and instead of creating a goal, (possibly setting up Suarez, which would have made my first point moot) which is what he proved this year he is good at, he bottled it and tried to score from 40 yards every time he got the ball, as I said in my original point. (Before you get pedantic, I know they weren't 40 yard efforts, but he was trying shots that were never on instead of trying to break Chelsea down.)
Click to expand...

Cheers for the reply. Firstly, talking about goals drying up and using a single game as evidence is a bit odd to me. He didn't score in that match but scored in the one before and the one after, so not really a lean spell. Maybe your term "goals dried up" was just a poor choice.

As for Gerrard, I am sure his levels dipped after that mistake but my earler point was that player error was primary in that defeat rather than tactical flaws. The fact that Gerrard went onto have a poorer game after the errors backs this up. Rodgers' tactics were not really the issue. However, some are keen to way overstate the tactics as a means to beat Rodgers with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.