neopulian

"You're religious believes" wouldn't really make sense. I'd be more certain if it wasn't full of halfwits looking for a kick. But that doesn't really base on fact, is it, however much it's been repeated? Historical friendlies results overall indicated more than just fitness. Besides, the teething problem is kind of obvious. Or is it a religious issue now?

Not "your" as in "your literally", if you joined the pile on, I was entitled to address you as part of the group. How the team were supposed to be ready if they couldn't take friendly half seriously? It was a bomb? More like a cracker.

Did you miss the "reasonable doubt" bit. That contact gave legitimacy to Dowd's call, however f***ed up that was.

Personally I didn't think it was a foul, but the contact made ground for reasonable doubt. The goal didn't stood, period.

And what argument was that? The one I actual made or the one some people assumed that I made? I said we've gone 5 matches without creating a goal from open plays, pre-season or not, it matters because this is a team that still have everything to prove. If you thought that stat was irrelevant, fine -- arguments can be made for that. But don't say it was crap, because crap indicates it was false, or made up. If you don't think it indicated anything at all, then argue so, don't act like I affronted your religious believes. I don't even want to go into the semantic and personal b******s. You made me laugh and pity your sorry a***, seriously. I mean, what sort of people can't wait to pile on a spelling mistake?

Some people seem to have little aptitude for anything but piling on false assumption. How was I a troll?

Again. Irrelevant. I said it was a lazy backpass, I didn't say he was immune to anything, what I said was if you thought a 16 vet that won just about everything crapped himself under leisure pressing in a friendly then I've forgotten more football than you ever knew. Seemed to hit a raw nerve. Throw another tantrum. Created. I've already answered this.

Open play. Not sure it was a push -- but it was disallowed anyway. It was David flipping Abelda. If he crapped himself under Carroll's pressure then I've forgotten more football than you've ever known.

Downing would have created his own chance. A lazy back pass on the other hand, was not. Can we not get hung up by the semantics? Pre-seasoned or not, the team needed that time to gel and the players had to impress the boss. They had a lot to prove, it's not as if they were already a cracked team that only needed to go through the motion in meaningless friendlies. Beige attention seeking troll? The oxymoron made it kind of clever, though entirely nonsensical insult.

Ok. so now I am a dick. What was your f***ing point then?

Do it against an actual wall -- don't let my answer stop you.

Please. I can't be any less interested in a semantic piss take. If you don't think it was indicative of a glitch. Fine. Have it your way.

Cut whom some slack? This is a forum to discuss, oh allow me one guess, Liverpool football. It's not as if the players and manager will read the posts here and hurt by any sort of criticism. So suddenly I was a t** because I pointed out an uncomfortably stat?

Can you be less irrelevant with your question?

It's still FIVE games - 450+ minutes and counting of football.