Liverpool FC Forum

[Igor Zidane]

Did we win today











Because i could have sworn we beat our local rivals and got 3pts away from home. Some of the comments on this and the match thread are feckin shameful . So what gerrard got subbed , he's not feckin god and if it was a tactical sub it was the right one ,cos WE FECKIN WON TODAY believe it or not. I'm seriously starting to believe that there is some sort of conspiracy to get the manager the boot . Would we all have taken 3pts before the game ,so what's the problem . Why is it impossible for gerrard to be subbed why ,someone tell me. If lucas had of scored would rafa be hailed as some sort of tactical genius again , probably not by the sack rafa brigade. Fine have the opinion that the manager shouldn't have subbed gerrard , but the lad who came on was in the position to win us the pen , if gerrard had of stayed on would we have won anyway ,maybe ,maybe not. We won 2-1 at the end of the day and that's what everyone wanted, THE MANAGER GOT IT RIGHT end of.

I'll bet you weren't thinking like this when we were 1-0 down or at 1-1. Be honest. You weren't.

I'll tell you what i was thinking when we were 0-1 down . How the feck are we 1 down ,because these are sh!te and we should be putting our chances away. When we went 1-1 up after a brilliant run by our captain i was thinking these are here for the taking. When rafa subbed gerrard i thought he must be injured or rafa was happy with the 1-1 and was saving gerrard for Besiktas. When lucas won us the pen i thought well in lad for being in the right position. When kuyt scored(just) i thought feckin right 3pts away from home and against the bitters awell ,made my week. Now at no point did i think rafa you feckin luney ,you've lost the plot , if we don't win this now you should be sacked , fecking ridiculous.

Those thoughts went through my head too. I just had to remind myself that apart from big Sami shanking the ball into the back of our own net, we didn't really do much wrong. The only thing I did think was wrong, though, was obvious: our right side. The bitters probably wouldnt have even been a threat to get that OG if the gap would have been patched up. Either way, we were away from home, didn't play that well but could have scored more goals at least from open play, and still won. Even if Rafa did go a bit nuts. We just can't afford to have those kind of mistakes in big games against the likes of Arsenal. It's slightly worrying is all.

we didnt do anything wrong but we didnt do anything right either...by not passing properly, scoring the other end..its worry for sure for cominng matches

So winning the game 2-1 equates to we did nothing right, good shout.

[parchpea]

We won inspite of Rafa and his decision to sub Gerrard was a shocker.

I dont think words could describe how poor Sissoko was yesterday but no doubt he will be wheeled out again soon enough.

Despite the managers efforts to stuff up the game we won and we should be very happy with that, however its clear we still have a lot of sorting out to do if we are to mount a challenge for the title.

Gerrard did have a word with the ref but I am no doubt that Stubbs or another blue would have been asking him to show a red if one of their players had been taken out when in on goal.

We live in hope that Benitez is a genius and his strange methods and decisions are simply too brilliant for another mortal to understand and we will run out champs at the finish.

Hope in the heart with more than a touch of doubt.

Onwards and upwards!

[redtrader74]

So you're a qualified lip reader, or you're Jon Arne Riise?

Which is it?

You're confident Gerrard didn't say something along the lines of 'I was about to shoot'?


.....or 'I was in on goal'.

Statement of fact, there is nothing wrong with that.

It's up to Clattenburg to make his own decision. Gerrard was not pleading with the ref, he spoke to him in the passing.

Only an idiot would accuse Gerrard of unsportsmanlike behaviour in this case, given that a) we don't actually know what he said to the ref, and b) it's perfectly plausible that Gerrard made a statement of fact about his position.


Now Jon, are you about to call my bluff?

The fact of the matter is, Gerrard should not have been anywhere near the referee, he approached the referee which is unacceptable behaviour, it might be a coincidence that Clattenburg replaced a yellow with a red, bit it’s not the first time Gerrard has persuaded the referee.

Only in football can a player approach the referee and persuade him, in any other sport the player would have been reprimanded. Gerrard influenced Clattenburg’s decision and if I was the FA, I’d make an example out of Gerrard. It’s unsportsmanlike like in every manner.

Whos the the three defensive midfielders left on?

Just beacuse on football manager it says Lucas is a defensive midfielder, dosnt mean he is. 

Sissoko, Mascherano and Lucas are all what is known as defensive midfielders and Lucas is one, I know that because I have been on a few Brazilian forums and the members on there say Lucas is a defensive minded player who will one day play behind Kaka for Brazil.

Gerrard can speak to the referee whenever he wants, he is the one player who could because that is how the referees wanted it, because he is captain. He is allowed to query any decision, his postion allows that, but infact he said whatever he said only in passing, as he walked by, he did not pull out and imaginary card, nor remonstrate.

Every advantage counts, and if it is proven that he asked for a red, then even that mildest form of manipulation could be the deciding factor in a title win. It was after all the correct card. I would infer from your disgust that should we win the title by two points you will not be celebrating.

[LFC2007]

So you're a qualified lip reader, or you're Jon Arne Riise?

Which is it?

You're confident Gerrard didn't say something along the lines of 'I was about to shoot'?


.....or 'I was in on goal'.

Statement of fact, there is nothing wrong with that.

It's up to Clattenburg to make his own decision. Gerrard was not pleading with the ref, he spoke to him in the passing.

Only an idiot would accuse Gerrard of unsportsmanlike behaviour in this case, given that a) we don't actually know what he said to the ref, and b) it's perfectly plausible that Gerrard made a statement of fact about his position.


Now Jon, are you about to call my bluff?

The fact of the matter is, Gerrard should not have been anywhere near the referee, he approached the referee which is unacceptable behaviour, it might be a coincidence that Clattenburg replaced a yellow with a red, bit it’s not the first time Gerrard has persuaded the referee.

Only in football can a player approach the referee and persuade him, in any other sport the player would have been reprimanded. Gerrard influenced Clattenburg’s decision and if I was the FA, I’d make an example out of Gerrard. It’s unsportsmanlike like in every manner.

So players should not be allowed to make any of their representations felt known to referess during matches?


Not even the captain of the side should speak to the referee?

There should be no communication made between the referee and the captain of the side at any time during or after a decision has been taken?

What a ridiculous suggestion.

You say 'Gerrard influenced the referee'. Therefore you must have known what was said?

What you really mean is: Gerrard's comments appeared to influence which card was shown to Hibbert.

Gerrard briefly spoke to the ref in the passing, and it's more than plausible that what Gerrard said was a statement of fact. Please explain how a statement of fact is unsportsmanlike?

Gerrard is not responsible for what Clattenburg decides to do, if he felt influenced by something Gerrard had said, he shouldn't be refereeing the Merseyside Derby, and he should have booked Gerrard.


If Gerrard said 'I was about to shoot' to Clattenburg - a statement of fact, whether the intent is to influence his decision on which card to show is existant or not, is completely irrelevant.


If, at the highest level of football, a ref needs one sentence from a player to influence his decision, HE SHOULD NOT BE REFEREEING AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. This assumes Gerrard actually intended to influence which card was shown, which isn't a given anyway, and is an example of your seemingly mystic powers.

You would make an example out of Gerrard, simply because you're a self righteous prig who would act on first impressions without giving an ounce of considered thought to the possibilities of what actually occurred.

'only in football'......


How about find a different sport to follow?

Croquet and Pimms do?

[bigmick]

I'm sorry I don't get this bit about Gerrard not speaking to the ref. Feck me if it had been Man Utd or Chelsea they would have surrounded him and demanded the red card. What next are we going to stop appealing for throw ins?

My suspicion is he didn't say "I was going to shoot", or "he was the last man". He most probably said "He's got to fecking go obviously" and fair play to him. If the ref was wobbling and needed a nudge, then the captain is totally within his rights so to do. Had he not said feck all and Hibbert had stayed on, I would have been the first one winging about it. This is professional football and while I don't condone diving and the like, trying to influence the referee (particularly in a calm, polite and brief way as did Gerrard) is absolutely part and parcel.

Hibbert absolutely had to go and the referee was considering bottling it. Fair play to Gerrard for giving him a nudge. Had we surrounded the referee and really got on his case, he's probably have given the Lescott one at the end to even things up (which I'm absolutely amazed he didn't to be fair).

[Wilhelmsson]

The fact remains, Gerrard should not have gone over to the referee, the penalty had been awarded and the referee was about to punish Hibbert. If Gerrard was a rugby player, he would have had ten minutes in the sin bin for that, only in football can the players intimidate the match officials and go unpunished.

Gerrard had no business speaking to the referee in that situation and I accept the view that if Clattenburg was indeed persuaded by Gerrard than he shouldn’t be refereeing, but being a football referee isn’t an easy job, not when one of England’s finest puts pressure on you to send a player off.

I can remember when Garcia used wave the imaginary card after being fouled, he used to get slated, but for some reason it’s acceptable for Steven Gerrard to demand a player is sent off? This is the same player who told Torres not to dive, yet dives himself when it suits him.

Why should I follow another sport? That said, I do, I follow Rugby Union.

[Leonmc0708]

The fact remains, Gerrard should not have gone over to the referee, the penalty had been awarded and the referee was about to punish Hibbert. If Gerrard was a rugby player, he would have had ten minutes in the sin bin for that, only in football can the players intimidate the match officials and go unpunished.

If you are going to post rightous comments I suggest you get the things right.

The captain can discuss with the ref in rugby.

[bigmick]

Going off topic a bit Wills but this nonsense that rugby and all things associated with it being the panacea of all things sporting and fantastic really is a heap of you know what (I know you don't like swearing) IMHO. Years of running boozers in posh areas, dealing with Rugby Club celebrations "Ah they're alright Mick, just high jinx, they're rugby lads" dispells that myth once and for all. getting their dix out in the bar and lots of stories you wouldn't believe. If it was a football club you wouldn't stand it for a second, cos they're "rugby lads" and lawyers for a living it's OK.

That the rules of rugby allow for the ref penalising a team by ten yards (because it's a territorial, attritional game by nature) is all well and good, but there's plenty of talking and trying to influence the referee goes on in there too. It's professional sport and thats the way it is.

[Wilhelmsson]

The fact remains, Gerrard should not have gone over to the referee, the penalty had been awarded and the referee was about to punish Hibbert. If Gerrard was a rugby player, he would have had ten minutes in the sin bin for that, only in football can the players intimidate the match officials and go unpunished.

If you are going to post rightous comments I suggest you get the things right.

The captain can discuss with the ref in rugby.

Yes, he can, but a rugby player can’t demand anything from the referee like Gerrard did with Clattenburg. Gerrard went out to make sure the referee sent Hibbert off, but we’ll ignore Steven Gerrard’s antics, I forgot he was Liverpool FC.

[redtrader74]

The fact remains, Gerrard should not have gone over to the referee, the penalty had been awarded and the referee was about to punish Hibbert. If Gerrard was a rugby player, he would have had ten minutes in the sin bin for that, only in football can the players intimidate the match officials and go unpunished.

Gerrard had no business speaking to the referee in that situation and I accept the view that if Clattenburg was indeed persuaded by Gerrard than he shouldn’t be refereeing, but being a football referee isn’t an easy job, not when one of England’s finest puts pressure on you to send a player off.

I can remember when Garcia used wave the imaginary card after being fouled, he used to get slated, but for some reason it’s acceptable for Steven Gerrard to demand a player is sent off? This is the same player who told Torres not to dive, yet dives himself when it suits him.

Why should I follow another sport? That said, I do, I follow Rugby Union.

There is no fact that remains........had Gerrard been a boxer and stopped to speak to the ref he'd have been knocked out ffs, this is football not rugby, there isn't a sin bin, so the comparison is pointless. HE IS ALLOWED TO SPEAK TO THE REFEREE, aslong as he is not abusive. He can query any decision, again his position, he did not wave an imaginary card, so why compare him to someone who did?

You do not know what he said. Therefore calling a few passing words as intimidation is rediculous, unless ofcourse you think he said 'your pet rabbits head will be cut off and put in your bed unless you red card him'

He did not dive, hibbert made contact with Gerrards right leg with his left knee in the box, Gerrard fell, that is a penalty, now that fact remains.

[Leonmc0708]

The fact remains, Gerrard should not have gone over to the referee, the penalty had been awarded and the referee was about to punish Hibbert. If Gerrard was a rugby player, he would have had ten minutes in the sin bin for that, only in football can the players intimidate the match officials and go unpunished.

If you are going to post rightous comments I suggest you get the things right.

The captain can discuss with the ref in rugby.

Yes, he can, but a rugby player can’t demand anything from the referee like Gerrard did with Clattenburg. Gerrard went out to make sure the referee sent Hibbert off, but we’ll ignore Steven Gerrard’s antics, I forgot he was Liverpool FC.

Thats a ridiculous comment.

He spoke to the ref in passing.

[Wilhelmsson]

Going off topic a bit Wills but this nonsense that rugby and all things associated with it being the panacea of all things sporting and fantastic really is a heap of you know what (I know you don't like swearing) IMHO. Years of running boozers in posh areas, dealing with Rugby Club celebrations "Ah they're alright Mick, just high jinx, they're rugby lads" dispells that myth once and for all. getting their dix out in the bar and lots of stories you wouldn't believe. If it was a football club you wouldn't stand it for a second, cos they're "rugby lads" and lawyers for a living it's OK.

That the rules of rugby allow for the ref penalising a team by ten yards (because it's a territorial, attritional game by nature) is all well and good, but there's plenty of talking and trying to influence the referee goes on in there too. It's professional sport and thats the way it is.

Where have I said that Rugby is pristine clean sport? My point is that if Rugby players conducted themselves in the manner in which the likes of John Terry, Steven Gerrard, Wayne Rooney for example, they’d spent most of their careers in the sin bin and serving six month suspensions.

It’s about time referees in football took no prisoners; if I was Clattenburg I’d have booked Gerrard on the spot. Gerrard went over to Clattenburg to influence his decision, whether it worked or not, I cannot say, but players should not conduct themselves in such a manner.

[JBG]

I don't know what the big deal is. Carra went absolutely mental with the ref in Istanbul when he didn't send off Gattuso for the foul on Gerrard for the penalty. I don't remember people saying Carra was a disgrace that night.

[redtrader74]

Going off topic a bit Wills but this nonsense that rugby and all things associated with it being the panacea of all things sporting and fantastic really is a heap of you know what (I know you don't like swearing) IMHO. Years of running boozers in posh areas, dealing with Rugby Club celebrations "Ah they're alright Mick, just high jinx, they're rugby lads" dispells that myth once and for all. getting their dix out in the bar and lots of stories you wouldn't believe. If it was a football club you wouldn't stand it for a second, cos they're "rugby lads" and lawyers for a living it's OK.

That the rules of rugby allow for the ref penalising a team by ten yards (because it's a territorial, attritional game by nature) is all well and good, but there's plenty of talking and trying to influence the referee goes on in there too. It's professional sport and thats the way it is.

Where have I said that Rugby is pristine clean sport? My point is that if Rugby players conducted themselves in the manner in which the likes of John Terry, Steven Gerrard, Wayne Rooney for example, they’d spent most of their careers in the sin bin and serving six month suspensions.

It’s about time referees in football took no prisoners; if I was Clattenburg I’d have booked Gerrard on the spot. Gerrard went over to Clattenburg to influence his decision, whether it worked or not, I cannot say, but players should not conduct themselves in such a manner.

And how long would a footballer be banned for if in every game he chinned someone....the comparison is foolish.

[LFC2007]

The fact remains, Gerrard should not have gone over to the referee, the penalty had been awarded and the referee was about to punish Hibbert. If Gerrard was a rugby player, he would have had ten minutes in the sin bin for that, only in football can the players intimidate the match officials and go unpunished.

Rugby players do speak to ref's, during the game and at the most controversial of times. They don't get sent to the sin bin for simply communicating with the referee(s).

Gerrard had no business speaking to the referee in that situation and I accept the view that if Clattenburg was indeed persuaded by Gerrard than he shouldn’t be refereeing, but being a football referee isn’t an easy job, not when one of England’s finest puts pressure on you to send a player off.

So captains, let alone players, have no right to speak to the referee in any situation involving refereeing decisions?

That's absolutely ridiculous.

I can remember when Garcia used wave the imaginary card after being fouled, he used to get slated, but for some reason it’s acceptable for Steven Gerrard to demand a player is sent off? This is the same player who told Torres not to dive, yet dives himself when it suits him.

So you know what Gerrard said to the ref then?
There's a great deal of difference between what Garcia did, remonstrating, pleading with the ref to award a card, and to what Gerrard did, walking past the ref and uttering a sentence or a few words. So walking past the ref, and uttering a few words constitutes Gerrard 'demanding' a player is sent off? You therefore must have known what was said!

Why should I follow another sport? That said, I do, I follow Rugby Union.

Croquet would suit you.