• Liverpool Message Board

  • Loki Loki Jan 13, 2013 15:27 Flag

    We have to play with intensity for 90 mins!

    First half - a non-event. It no doubt was down to Sturridge coming on, but we have to play every game like we did the second half. There's always something missing isnt there?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Guys

      Give your team a little more credit.

      You've just been to OT and played competitively against a team who are 7 points clear.

      I thought your guys did okay today, if you played as well as that every week, you'd be looking at the top 6 or better.

      Yes, you have room to improve, but I saw a decent team turn up today.

    • True and today it was the stand off them, give the ball away and concede silly goals team in the first half. The team that played the second half are what we need for ninety minutes every match. Good teaming building up in borini, sturridge, Suarez .

      • 1 Reply to Miguel
      • I agree with both comments. Just simply not aggressive enough in the 1st half, a bit timid, which to be fair many teams do at OT, but we have to not be one of them..

        Completely different story second half, especially with Danny on, and the final 20" or so, probably more (though our resident editor will disagree), we were the better team in most aspects, AND had the 2-3 chances to tie/take the lead..

        This said, it looked very exciting and promising with Suarez, Danny and Borini on, only thing lacking, which to be expected, timing and an understanding between them.. If there's a way to get those 3 in sync together and with Sterling, that could be a very exciting prospect for us!

    • Should've played Sturridge from the start..

    • Oh well the game is over now.. We can't change the outcome.. Now onto the next game which I hope be bloody win.

      If we flounder in the Norwich game then Rodgers head must be for the block surely?

    • Well, considering (and you know this) I can be critical of everyone or anything that occurs on the pitch and during the games, I really didn't even consider it when happening live, and while seeing replays along with our commentary here, it was so marginal. If it was offsides because of hitting Vidic, then by the letter of the law, yes, no goal, BUT, even on replays it wasn't easy to see the slight deflection and they don't have the benefit of technology, which is something you and I have discussed and agreed upon many times.

      If it had been available, then sure, it would have been ruled off (presumably we think) and maybe ended 1-1, or perhaps 1-2, who knows? BUT, it was not "blatant" as Armchair persists, and in no way, shape or form did Howard Webb "give Utd a goal".. That's just simply not a fact, and making excuses, which is something I'll never do unless I feel there's a strong cause. I thought Webb was excellent on both sides, so while he's had his moments in this fixture, esp at OT, to craft up an idea where there is none, is just grasping at straws on top of being a sore loser. United won.. that's it.


      Backtracking now arent we d!ckhead
      YOu cant follow up anything, show ME where it states the goal was a ''blatant offside''..........show it for all to see

      you cant compute can you, stick to tiddlywinks and playing with ya c0ck


    • Jason, I don't anyone thought at the time it was offside, including me. But it does appear that when Evra headed the ball, Vidic was further forward than the ball and defenders and so the fact that it hit him and diverted into the goal makes it offside.

      It was close and the referee and linesman can't really be blamed as the ref was at the wrong angle and the linesman couldn't see Vidic through Evra, and probably no-one thought it hit Vidic anyway.. But it shouldn't really have been given. Rather like the United winner at Stamford Bridge a couple of months ago.


    • I guess my first question in response to that statement is, did you watch the match?

      If so, did you immediately feel that goal was offisdes, or just have a normal reaction like anyone when conceding a goal?

      No LFC player really showed any significant gesture or notation that it was offiseds, and what people might say elsewhere can/is often be very biased..

      The replays showed over and over and over that there was no offiseds, and further more, if there was, the side judge would have flagged it and advised Webb, so either way, it was not a Webb decision, who again, said by others too, had a flawless game.

      Howard Webb had 0.0 impact on this game. We didn't mark well on that 2nd goal, and in the second half were fare better side, and should have taken at least 1 chance to level it at 2.

      Webb is out of discussion.. he had nothing to do with it whatsoever, even showed leniency two-three times on potential red cards..

      We lost, they won, no excuses needed especially where they're inaccurate and wrong. End of..