Liverpool FC Forum

by **Yari7** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:41 pm

Toffeehater wrote:
Yari7 wrote:
Ace Ventura wrote:yari7 that is the first post you have made using the word 'we' when talking about LFC.
In another post i read about the Chelsea Spurs draw...thats good for Liverpool. Only a minor thing but just another that hints that your not an actual supporter.

There is no harm with being objective and if the Burdisso sending off was definately not a second booking i could see your point, but when its one of them were most would say...i have seen them given, the fact that your supposed to support liverpool would naturally make you think he should of gone.

He went in with his studs shoulder high and didnt get the ball, when he was already on a booking. Why is that not a booking ?

Actually, thats lie. Go check through my posts and you will see that I use the word "we" in many posts.

Look at it again, Buridisso leg was no where near shoulder height. In fact, Lucas' lifts his foot higher and is also going with studs showing. Lucas brings his foot down on Buridissos thigh and the momentum spins Lucas around. If anything, you coukld argue it was a foul by Lucas as he made the contact.

One thing about the sending off is that from the refs position it definatley looked like an awful challenge so I can see why he gave the red card but it wasnt worthy of a red card.

We got some good desicions in the tie which helped us a lot.

so what you are saying is that because of the sending off we won , without them we would never have beaten inter? u better laugh it off mate , no 1 is convinced that u are a fan

Did I say that? You read what you want to read.

All I said is that it could have been a much much harder task if we didn't have the advantage of playing 10 men for 90 mins.

Anyone who denies that is deluded.

by **Toffeehater** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:46 pm

Yari7 wrote:
Toffeehater wrote:
Yari7 wrote:
Ace Ventura wrote:yari7 that is the first post you have made using the word 'we' when talking about LFC.
In another post i read about the Chelsea Spurs draw...thats good for Liverpool. Only a minor thing but just another that hints that your not an actual supporter.

There is no harm with being objective and if the Burdisso sending off was definately not a second booking i could see your point, but when its one of them were most would say...i have seen them given, the fact that your supposed to support liverpool would naturally make you think he should of gone.

He went in with his studs shoulder high and didnt get the ball, when he was already on a booking. Why is that not a booking ?

Actually, thats lie. Go check through my posts and you will see that I use the word "we" in many posts.

Look at it again, Buridisso leg was no where near shoulder height. In fact, Lucas' lifts his foot higher and is also going with studs showing. Lucas brings his foot down on Buridissos thigh and the momentum spins Lucas around. If anything, you coukld argue it was a foul by Lucas as he made the contact.

One thing about the sending off is that from the refs position it definatley looked like an awful challenge so I can see why he gave the red card but it wasnt worthy of a red card.

We got some good desicions in the tie which helped us a lot.

so what you are saying is that because of the sending off we won , without them we would never have beaten inter? u better laugh it off mate , no 1 is convinced that u are a fan

Did I say that? You read what you want to read.

All I said is that it could have been a much much harder task if we didn't have the advantage of playing 10 men for 90 mins.

Anyone who denies that is deluded.

Not really i think u need to get ur eyes checked , from what i saw we were dominating them at anfield when they had 11 men . Not much of a diff though , they seem intent on defending and the sending off did not really help as it was still the great wall of china.

It's called inference , u shud try it anyone with sense could

by **Toffeehater** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:49 pm

NANNY RED wrote:
Toffeehater wrote:
jonnymac1979 wrote:
Toffeehater wrote:
jonnymac1979 wrote:
Leonmc0708 wrote:
peewee wrote:
woof woof ! wrote:
Yari7 wrote:LFC.tv is biased anyway. ITV is more partial then LFC.tv. Personally, I prefer to watch a partial analysis of our team.

LFC biased, now there's a surprise, and you prefer ITV because they are more partial ? ie they favour Liverpool .

Are you for real ?

i read mein kampf once, that was very pro nazi,, strange that eh?

See PEewee - when your not moaning your a funny guy.

You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little fucked up maybe, but he's funny how, I mean funny like he's a clown, he amuses you? He makes you laugh, he's here to fuckin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How is he funny?

thats either annoying or means that u're jealous . I'd vote for both

Duh!!!! How did you not get that reference?

Maybe the movie quotes thread needs to be paid a visit...

sorry to dissapoint u mr mac , but i ain't that old like nanny

Your gonna be gettin a dig off me soon yeh cheeky little sod

just messing nanny , u might wanna write that down though abt having a dig at me , u know with age goes ur memory

cheers

by **Yari7** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:59 pm

Toffeehater wrote:Not really i think u need to get ur eyes checked , from what i saw we were dominating them at anfield when they had 11 men . Not much of a diff though , they seem intent on defending and the sending off did not really help as it was still the great wall of china.

It's called inference , u shud try it anyone with sense could

Yes, we were dominating them for the first 30 mins at Anfeild. Their plan was to sit back at Anfeild and hit us on the break. When they had matarazi sent off, that greatly helped us as it nullified their counter atttacking potential and allowed us to push further even more.

And in the second game, the sending off took the wind out of their sales and effectivley killed the game.

The sending offs helped us greatly. I am not saying that without the sedning off we would have lost, but what I am saying is that they were key decisions which helped us greatly.

Anyone who thinks that we didnt benifit from those decisions is deluded.

by **Toffeehater** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:06 pm

Yari7 wrote:
Toffeehater wrote:Not really i think u need to get ur eyes checked , from what i saw we were dominating them at anfield when they had 11 men . Not much of a diff though , they seem intent on defending and the sending off did not really help as it was still the great wall of china.

It's called inference , u shud try it anyone with sense could

Yes, we were dominating them for the first 30 mins at Anfeild. Their plan was to sit back at Anfeild and hit us on the break. When they had matarazi sent off, that greatly helped us as it nullified their counter atttacking potential and allowed us to push further even more.

And in the second game, the sending off took the wind out of their sales and effectivley killed the game.

The sending offs helped us greatly. I am not saying that without the sedning off we would have lost, but what I am saying is that they were key decisions which helped us greatly.

Anyone who thinks that we didnt benifit from those decisions is deluded.

There is seriously no point in starting a debate with you as u awlays have an answer for everything , u never put ur hands up and say yes u were right , or no its my mistake . End of discussion lad , walk it off

by **maguskwt** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:08 pm

geez... how come this boring thread is this long?... (because of Yari

)

by **Yari7** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:10 pm

Toffeehater wrote:
Yari7 wrote:
Toffeehater wrote:Not really i think u need to get ur eyes checked , from what i saw we were dominating them at anfield when they had 11 men . Not much of a diff though , they seem intent on defending and the sending off did not really help as it was still the great wall of china.

It's called inference , u shud try it anyone with sense could

Yes, we were dominating them for the first 30 mins at Anfeild. Their plan was to sit back at Anfeild and hit us on the break. When they had matarazi sent off, that greatly helped us as it nullified their counter atttacking potential and allowed us to push further even more.

And in the second game, the sending off took the wind out of their sales and effectivley killed the game.

The sending offs helped us greatly. I am not saying that without the sedning off we would have lost, but what I am saying is that they were key decisions which helped us greatly.

Anyone who thinks that we didnt benifit from those decisions is deluded.

There is seriously no point in starting a debate with you as u awlays have an answer for everything , u never put ur hands up and say yes u were right , or no its my mistake . End of discussion lad , walk it off

I would put my hands up and say "You were right", if you you were right.

But to say that the red cards played no role in us winning is wrong.

All that matters is that we are through and that we beat Arsenal.

by **Toffeehater** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:12 pm

Yari7 wrote:
Toffeehater wrote:
Yari7 wrote:
Toffeehater wrote:Not really i think u need to get ur eyes checked , from what i saw we were dominating them at anfield when they had 11 men . Not much of a diff though , they seem intent on defending and the sending off did not really help as it was still the great wall of china.

It's called inference , u shud try it anyone with sense could

Yes, we were dominating them for the first 30 mins at Anfeild. Their plan was to sit back at Anfeild and hit us on the break. When they had matarazi sent off, that greatly helped us as it nullified their counter atttacking potential and allowed us to push further even more.

And in the second game, the sending off took the wind out of their sales and effectivley killed the game.

The sending offs helped us greatly. I am not saying that without the sedning off we would have lost, but what I am saying is that they were key decisions which helped us greatly.

Anyone who thinks that we didnt benifit from those decisions is deluded.

There is seriously no point in starting a debate with you as u awlays have an answer for everything , u never put ur hands up and say yes u were right , or no its my mistake . End of discussion lad , walk it off

I would put my hands up and say "You were right", if you you were right.

But to say that the red cards played no role in us winning is wrong.

TBH , i can't be arsed even if the red cards were not shown , i'm sure we would have beaten them , we looked promising enough in the first 30 mins and matterazzi deserved the sending off , and no way were we lucky wiht that sending off like u claim we were

by **NANNY RED** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:21 pm

So let me get this straight were playing a team one of there players gets sent off we win but we only won because the team had ten men, am i on the right track

Because thats bull i know your only quoting them two games but what abar when we play in prem or other games and we win when theve had a player sent off are you then gonna say that a red card played a part in us winning

Matterazi is :censored:

anyway so it was just like playing against 10 men from the off. We outplayed them lad 10 men or eleven men . For gods sake they could of had 12 men on that pitch and we still would of won. simple as

by **Yari7** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:27 pm

NANNY RED wrote:So let me get this straight were playing a team one of there players gets sent off we win but we only won because the team had ten men, am i on the right track

Because thats bull i know your only quoting them two games but what abar when we play in prem or other games and we win when theve had a player sent off are you then gonna say that a red card played a part in us winning

Matterazi is anyway so it was just like playing against 10 men from the off. We outplayed them lad 10 men or eleven men . For gods sake they could of had 12 men on that pitch and we still would of won. simple as

It is a fact that key decisions can change matches. Weather they be goals, or red cards. The 2 red cards helped us. We played 90 mins of a 2 leg tie against 10 men.

It gave us the advantage but we still had to take it. Credit to the lads for taking full advantage of it.

My point is, Gray talking about the red in details was a fair reflection of it's importance in the game.

by **lakes10** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:10 am

Yari7 wrote:
lakes10 wrote:one of the best bit Essex Radio did was to point out to SKY that there is a player doing just as well as Ronaldo in the prem........Torres.

also they said something like that Torres has played a lot less games.

is that right???

i was sure it was the same.. 24

Gray did mention Torres last night. He said that the race for the top scorer in the premiership is going to be intresting with Torres on such fine form. However the difference is that Torres is a striker and Ronaldo is a midfeilder.

Roanaldo has 24 and Torres has 20.

Who do you think will win it this season?

Torres will win easy, Roanaldo will be put in his place at the weekend by JC, or a very hard freekick could see him out for the year.

:devil:

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:58 am

Gray went on about the red card for a shorter period than what you lot are. Are you all bias? :laugh:

by **Toffeehater** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:02 am

NANNY RED wrote:So let me get this straight were playing a team one of there players gets sent off we win but we only won because the team had ten men, am i on the right track

Because thats bull i know your only quoting them two games but what abar when we play in prem or other games and we win when theve had a player sent off are you then gonna say that a red card played a part in us winning

Matterazi is anyway so it was just like playing against 10 men from the off. We outplayed them lad 10 men or eleven men . For gods sake they could of had 12 men on that pitch and we still would of won. simple as

Exactly , thats my point that i'm trying to make but yari is a sturbborn , thick headed tw@t and doubt he's is even a LFC fan , i'd ban him if i had the chance , he can't take a hint , he's clearly not wanted here

by **Ace Ventura** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:30 am

Yari7 wrote:
lakes10 wrote:one of the best bit Essex Radio did was to point out to SKY that there is a player doing just as well as Ronaldo in the prem........Torres.

also they said something like that Torres has played a lot less games.

is that right???

i was sure it was the same.. 24

Gray did mention Torres last night. He said that the race for the top scorer in the premiership is going to be intresting with Torres on such fine form. However the difference is that Torres is a striker and Ronaldo is a midfeilder.

Roanaldo has 24 and Torres has 20.

Who do you think will win it this season?

Here we go again.

I know you will say you were only stating the obvious but again you appear to be biased towards an opposing player.

We have Torres the current darling of Liverpool supporters and Ronaldo someone who virtually every other fan in the country hates, and still you have to try and diminish nando's amazing season by talking about him being a striker and Ronaldo a midfielder. Subtle you may be but am onto you.

For the record Ronaldo has played as a forward all season, he has no defensive responsibilities. He is more of a wide attacker than either a midfielder or striker. He also has taken a few penalties as well.
If Torres wins it in his first season then it will be fantastic for the lad, but even if he doesnt then i still think he has had a better season than Ronaldo, cos i am biased...towards my club LFC :;):

by **66-1112520797** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:17 pm

Ace Ventura wrote:
Yari7 wrote:
lakes10 wrote:one of the best bit Essex Radio did was to point out to SKY that there is a player doing just as well as Ronaldo in the prem........Torres.

also they said something like that Torres has played a lot less games.

is that right???

i was sure it was the same.. 24

Gray did mention Torres last night. He said that the race for the top scorer in the premiership is going to be intresting with Torres on such fine form. However the difference is that Torres is a striker and Ronaldo is a midfeilder.

Roanaldo has 24 and Torres has 20.

Who do you think will win it this season?

Here we go again.

I know you will say you were only stating the obvious but again you appear to be biased towards an opposing player.

We have Torres the current darling of Liverpool supporters and Ronaldo someone who virtually every other fan in the country hates, and still you have to try and diminish nando's amazing season by talking about him being a striker and Ronaldo a midfielder. Subtle you may be but am onto you.

For the record Ronaldo has played as a forward all season, he has no defensive responsibilities. He is more of a wide attacker than either a midfielder or striker. He also has taken a few penalties as well.
If Torres wins it in his first season then it will be fantastic for the lad, but even if he doesnt then i still think he has had a better season than Ronaldo, cos i am biased...towards my club LFC

Your suspicious Ace, I should I call you Peewee

I havent read many of Yaris posts, but didnt see anything wrong with that one fella.

Yari do you support Liverpool ?

Liverpool FC Forum

Sky sports under fire for "anti liverpool fc bias" - Its about time

Who is online