Liverpool FC Forum

[taff]

Roasting in a sexual content is when you drop napalm on a village hence roasting them then send in the rednecks to finish them off

[Bam]

Then following an obvious roasting at half time (from Sammy Lee I heard) we saw

I looked for the context of roasting in urbandictionary.com and it's related to sex. I guess it means he was very angry and shouted the players?

If so, that's interesting, because I always found the ex Liverpool and Osasuna player as the fella who would tap the player's back to compensate Rafa's "coldness".

never in my life have I heard of roasting in a sexual context.

this is what I think of when I think of roasting :

Full Metal Jacket

roasting can also be when a bunch of people get together at a banquet type event and all make fun of one person in order to "honor" them. This was made famous by the New York Friars Club. You couldn't become a member until all the current members roasted you (mostly comedians and other entertainer types).

I am guessing the "sexual" stuff comes from a synnonym synonym for roasting which would be "rip (him) a new @rsehole/(one)"  but that really doesn't have anything to do with sex, its just a figure of speech.

Forget it Joe.

[Roger Red Hat]

nah, it comes from the term 'spit roasting'.   (you at one end, ya mate at the other, woman (the pig) in middle

"corr mate , I wouldn't mind spit roasting her with the big t!ts" - kind of thing

[Leonmc0708]

Stay off topic on this one please - and post pics.

Thanks

[Bam]

Stay off topic on this one please - and post pics.

Thanks

Nah, I'd prefer woman on woman pics thank you very much.

Edited the last part, disgusting.

[account deleted by request]

I am still trying to get over the fact that everyone is talking about sex........ and Judge made a football post

[Leonmc0708]

I am still trying to get over the fact that everyone is talking about sex........ and Judge made a football post

[Bam]

I am still trying to get over the fact that everyone is talking about sex........ and Judge made a football post

[Fo Dne]

i see you didnt mention torres glaring missed chance which was easier than kuyts .

No it wasn't as far as I recall it

I don't like slagging Kuyt eh?, but the required technical gesture in Torres action was more difficult, the ball came after a bounce and fast, in Kuyt's ball the ball from Riera just came to Kuyt's foot. In fact Torres did well the most difficult part of attacking the ball but failed in the touch.

Fact is Sabre they were both sitters mate, one gets cut alot more slack due to the fact he consistently does things that are simply out of this world and he scores goals which no player has a right to score. Torres often does things that leave you scratching your head in disbelief at how good he is so when he does miss the odd sitter, people turn a blind eye as its a suprise rather than the norm.

Kuyt misses the most basic of chances on a regular basis (when he gets them) and only seems to score goals due to woeful defending, luck or excellent play by someone else. Kuyt is a nothing more than a decent player, Torres is one of the worlds best and only a complete and utter fool really needs to ask such a question.

Its like with Mascherano and Lucas, people will turn a blind eye when Javier plays an average or poor game because he's usually excellent where as Lucas is simply a pile of every timehe pulls on the shirt and people get fed up with it.

[andy_g]

I am still trying to get over the fact that everyone is talking about sex........ and Judge made a football post

funniest thing for ages

 

[Fo Dne]

i see you didnt mention torres glaring missed chance which was easier than kuyts .

No it wasn't as far as I recall it

I don't like slagging Kuyt eh?, but the required technical gesture in Torres action was more difficult, the ball came after a bounce and fast, in Kuyt's ball the ball from Riera just came to Kuyt's foot. In fact Torres did well the most difficult part of attacking the ball but failed in the touch.

torres had the net wide open in front of him with no one else around , they were both glaring misses but as usual one gets highlighted. ie the one from kuyt

And why do you think that is?

[Fo Dne]

FFS Torres had already scored 2 goals (in the game..... not this year!) so I think any leeway he was given for missing that chance was quite reasonable ? Kuyt missed a decent chance early in the game, played poorly for the rest of the match but got the winner. Maybe if he KEEPS on getting the winner, people will start giving him a little more leeway too!

More winners will come mate, or at least more goals.

Kuyt does something well as of late compared to Pennant, when Riera reaches the bottom and crosses, he normally occupies a position somewhere in the second post. So, ok, he missed it, but at least he was in the right place to miss it , and, with Riera those crosses will be more frequent. I wouldn't be surprised if Kuyt had much better numbers this season.

Apart from the goal, I think he was made a clear penalty (he was him no?). I know GBYS has gone a bit too far in some comparisons in the past, but when he says the people only focus on his mistakes, I think that's a fair shout. In fact mate, we always had a scapegoat these seasons, Zenden, Kuyt, Traoré...

Sabre, what do all the "scapegoats" have in common mate?

Think about it...

Sod it I'll just tell you, none of them were good enough for LFC! Traore, Zenden and the likes. Kind of says it all that you are putting Kuyt's name next to Zenden and Traore for me and not Gerrard and Torres.

[Fo Dne]

1. To you it might have seemed sensible, to Keane and a few other players in the team, awell as some supporters, it would probably seem stupid. Changing your best players position, dropping a striker who's just scored in order to give a midfielder a game is plain stupidity. It was only the fact he realised how stupid a mistake it was then decided to correct it we won the game.

Yeah, so stupid to employ TACTICS and change formation to counter the opposition's ATTACKING THREAT by playing cover in midfield, to try and control possession and nullify said threat. Much better to play two strikers, because one has scored in the last game, ignoring completely the fact that with two up front we'd have lost our midfield advantage and the two strikers would quite possibly been stood upfield starved of supply.

As for the latter sentence, ballacks. The starting XI turned the game, Keane nearly contributed to the comeback but didn't turn the game around as you're suggesting. Even if the starting tactics hadn't worked it wouldn't make the decision incorrect.

Of course had it been a home game then keeping the same XI would have probably been correct

Yeah, totally, Gerrard and Alonso aren't good enough to dominate a midfield away from home.

For the record, Mascherano had a complete shocker aswell. We got back into the game with the starting eleven, the changes had a massive impact in the play, allowing us to platy much higher up the pitch, the also helped get more out of Gerrard and Keane contributed more in 25 minutes than Mascherano did in 65.

How anyone can sit there and say the subs weren't the turning point is completely beyond me. Also, I didn't see us lose control against City's wonderful team (that Gerrard and Xabi) couldn't cope with when Keane actually did replace Mascherano. As I said, if anything that pushed us up another gear.

[taff]

So we have a manager who is insightful enough to make telling substitutions that win a game

The fact that we won means that all arguments go back to the manager being right at some point in the day

[JoeTerp]

1. To you it might have seemed sensible, to Keane and a few other players in the team, awell as some supporters, it would probably seem stupid. Changing your best players position, dropping a striker who's just scored in order to give a midfielder a game is plain stupidity. It was only the fact he realised how stupid a mistake it was then decided to correct it we won the game.

Yeah, so stupid to employ TACTICS and change formation to counter the opposition's ATTACKING THREAT by playing cover in midfield, to try and control possession and nullify said threat. Much better to play two strikers, because one has scored in the last game, ignoring completely the fact that with two up front we'd have lost our midfield advantage and the two strikers would quite possibly been stood upfield starved of supply.

As for the latter sentence, ballacks. The starting XI turned the game, Keane nearly contributed to the comeback but didn't turn the game around as you're suggesting. Even if the starting tactics hadn't worked it wouldn't make the decision incorrect.

Of course had it been a home game then keeping the same XI would have probably been correct

Yeah, totally, Gerrard and Alonso aren't good enough to dominate a midfield away from home.

For the record, Mascherano had a complete shocker aswell. We got back into the game with the starting eleven, the changes had a massive impact in the play, allowing us to platy much higher up the pitch, the also helped get more out of Gerrard and Keane contributed more in 25 minutes than Mascherano did in 65.

How anyone can sit there and say the subs weren't the turning point is completely beyond me. Also, I didn't see us lose control against City's wonderful team (that Gerrard and Xabi) couldn't cope with when Keane actually did replace Mascherano. As I said, if anything that pushed us up another gear.

course they(Gerrard and Xabi) didn't have problems with City's attack, Citeh were down to 10 men, and we had all the momentum.