Archangel

Thanks I've read these stories time and time again and it still doesn't get any easier One day maybe the c**** on the terraces will get the message.

I'm sorry I dont want another defensive midfielder unless one is on the way out I think we need to focus beyond the squad and more to our atitude and approach to the game. We lost the title not because we couldn't match the quality of the top sides but because we failed to beat sides we were already superior to. One player does interest me though, and that would be Joe Cole,

He may have said united were the better side, but inside he's crying I think we all feel for his pain

in grave danger of attaining cult status

Please please please can we please play like that in the league, unleashed fearless brilliance

I love all this revisionism Moores actually stood for the Liverpool Way You know what the biggest f***ing joke is Having a bunch of w***** fans who spit their dummies out because we havent a bunch of sugar daddy owners who can spoil us stupid with all the f***ing BiG NAmeZ our manager supposedly needs to do a competent job Bulls*** Moores respected our traditions, yes we were amateurish in the business field but under Moores we werent raped by big business either, our ticket prices were kept within the reach of the ordinary bloke in the street despite being fettered each year on European football where as the London clubs have priced them out Moores also kept us stable during some of the bleakest periods in our history, I didnt hear any s*** about Moores until after he sold us and let me get this straight there are alot of t*** on this forum who are quite happy to slag off the chairman and his CEO when not one of them have a scrap of inside knowledge on how he came to the conclusion that the yanks were a safer bet. If it was for money he could have sold us years earlier or we could have gone the PLC route, he didnt so let that one lie I'm not a great fan of the chairman or his side kick, the sale of liverpool to the americans proved to be a big mistake, but what I'm not going to let go is the f***ing brattish and spiteful behaviour some ******* have towards him. He knows he f***ed up but he's not the first and I reckon he's absolutely gutted We wanted to move on, as a club we could no longer meet the challenges of the premier league without heavy investment which could only come from serious business investors. Moores realised that and sold us, but in moving from the protection of a paternalistic owner into the real business world we are learning that its not quite such a bed of roses. If anything our experience with G&H should make us appreciate Moores' previous custodianship more The americans have crippled the club with their infighting more than the lack of funding, but I cant see us being any better off with any other serious business investor. After all, who is going to pump £700m into a club, hand Benitez an annual bounty of £50m OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKETS and still hope to make a profit for themselves Some need to get real and some should grow up and stop whingeing obsessively about David Moores Its gone, as has the liverpool way Rant finished

Courtesy of Mr John Nicholson from the famous/infamous Football365 website This Week`s Nonsense Notion: Bias Posted 03/03/09 12:32EmailPrintSave Last week I was talking about one of football's most common mythical notions: luck. This week's metaphysical concept is almost as omnipresent as luck - most think they can spot it, most think it exists and that their club is the victim of it at some point or other: Bias. Is there a media bias pro or anti some clubs? While the broad London media is a self-obsessed and self-sustaining bunch of narrow, preening narcissists who are over-focused on what happens in the south-east of England, the football media has always had a strong regional representation going back to the days of regional ITV programmes that focused on local teams. And there's always the local press, which in certain areas are virtually in-house rags for the clubs to purvey their spin to the fans. While sadly ITV has never been more homogenised as it is now, Sky, Setanta and even Five can't be accused of not covering teams from the remote or unfashionable towns of the country. Indeed, they're obliged as part of their deals to show a pre-defined amount of games of all clubs. The big and successful clubs get more coverage but is showing more Liverpool games than Bolton games a bias against Bolton or just a reflection of the popularity, status and importance of each club? Should all clubs get equal exposure? Bias seems to be one of the first accusations fans reach for when they feel hard done by. You're certain to hear bias' outrider, the cliche 'we're not getting enough credit' on every phone-in - often this is uttered by fans whose clubs get nothing but positive coverage. I even heard an Everton fan say it about Moyes when all you ever hear is what a good job he's done at Everton. Indeed the pro-Moyes voices are so loud, you'd think he was flawless and had never signed Handy Shandy Andy van der Maybe. Oddly, you don't hear Bolton fans say there's a media bias against poor Gary Megson, who to my mind genuinely doesn't attract any praise from anyone including his own supporters, whose ire he attracts even when being four positions higher than a Spurs side managed by media darling Harry Redknapp. Indeed, in Redknapp we see someone who benefits from a positive press almost regardless of the quality of his work. It does stick in the craw and seems unfair when better people get less acknowledgement. But rather than being pure unreasonable bias I suspect the pro-'Arry press is merely born out of expediency. You keep sweet those who make your life easier, I see no mainstream journalists step out of line in a major way on Redknapp because to do so would remove you from an influential loop in modern football media that also includes son Jamie, cousin Frank, Frank's mate John, all his mates and God knows how many others. It's worth bearing that in mind when you read another gushing piece about how 'Arry is right about, well, almost everything. Equally you might want to remember that expressing a negative opinion about some people in football is consciously avoided or constrained for fear of legal prosecution by an especially-litigiously inclined individual. Some fans see bias against their club everywhere, as regular readers of the F365 mailbox and blogs will be only too familiar with. Make any criticism and there are many ready to pull their skirt up over their heads and roar about the injustice of it all and how we've got it in for xyz player or club. This is almost never actually true. There is a confusion of definition at the core of this. Having an opinion isn't the same as being biased. In a simple twist of fate, it is more often those who most loudly cry bias who are the most biased themselves, seeing their preferences, loyalties and allegiances through rose-tinted beer goggles, being over-sensitive, blind or deaf to alternative viewpoints they emit an idiot wind of protest against an injustice which doesn't really exist. This can get taken to an almost comical degree of scrutiny. A friend who worked on the Daily Record in Glasgow tells stories of being rung up by irate Celtic and Rangers fans who had counted the amount of words committed to reporting each side that day, found them unequal and asserting strongly that this was proof of bias against their club and by the way pal, I know where you live. I often wonder why anyone in football really cares anyway. Football writers have no power in the world, Most of us can't find our a*** with both hands, so if you think we've given a bad rap to someone, y'know, just let it ride. Why be bothered? I've never understood this defensive paranoia about football clubs. People can have a pop at the Boro all they like, I couldn't care less. I don't even know you. I can't imagine counting the words written about Middlesbrough in the Evening Chronicle and comparing it to the amount written about Hartlepool or Darlington to try to uncover some hidden bias. This may be because I am simply not that committed to the cause or maybe I have just got a lot of more important things in life to do such as listening to Todd Rundgren albums and making soup, but I suspect I am not alone in distaste for the panty-wetting bias-mongers. Remember, there is no obligation for any writer or broadcaster to be objective and even-handed when talking about football. If it's a news report then fair enough, but the rest of it is just opinion, take it or leave it. Bias - despite the amount of emotion its perceived existence generates amongst football fans - is really an oddly impotent thing. There is little obvious consequence to all concerned if it really exists and it leaves me wondering why anyone has ever committed any degree of emotion or time to hunting it out and decrying it. On the other hand, there is bias by officials. This, if true, is where the knife hits the bone. Are some referees and officials biased against a team or player? Someone once produced stats which 'proved' there were more penalties given for the 'top four' than for any other sides. This might be proof of bias but equally, it may just be proof that those sides where better and thus were hacked down in the box more. More seriously is the fact that, at least according to Graham Poll, referees are 'warned' ahead of major tournaments about specific players regarding diving etc. This does sound more like being biased against certain players, but in a game with some many indistinct variables happening at speed, having some kind of mental criteria in place to help you go one way or another is almost inevitable. A seriously-biased referee would be quickly exposed by a voracious media. Poor refs are common, genuinely biased ones are less easy to find. So does bias exist? Yes, of course. 99% of bias is fan-on-fan bias, the illogical, emotional dislike of teams, players and even football writers; all those who accuse everyone else of bias are the true carriers of the flame of unreasonable prejudice and precisely because of that, they see it everywhere else, judging everyone by their own standards. Mind you, don't rely on me for the truth, I'm biased. Like him, hate him, he does write some good stuff does our john

Just a quick response to that. My problem with selling of Keane is that we went ahead with it without adequate striking cover (whoever fault it was) and that he had a disrupted six months barely anytime to settle which i believe was intentional by Benitez. Compare the difference with the way Crouch's debut season was handled Keane was an utter mess a shambles, everyone seems to be pointing the finger at everyone else but Benitez could at least have tried, I dont believe he did and I believe he deliberately took advantage of that situation to make a point. Was that the right thing to do for LFC or for Benitez is something I'm struggling with. But no one should be bigger than the club and I'm increasingly concerned that the manager doesnt see it this way

In answer to the original question, no i dont think Benitez style would change, but with more financial freedom we'd probably have slightly better quality and a slightly better chance of winning the league. I say slightly better, you'll stand a much better chance if we had better quality players playing a mix which incorporated more inventive liberated football. The question is redundant because we are not going to have the funds required and its not the fault of the americans its going to be a fact of life for the while.

Sorry but thats not Barry's natural role. Barry is a talented player and he did appear to compliment Gerrard when the two were in the midfield for England but the view that he could add to our attacking capability is just not there.

In fairness i think Scolari was the first choice

Its a bit of a leap in faith but I think Parry's departure must signify that Gillett is also on his way Rick has clung on for months but he's obviously realised that a future without Gillett is not going to work There has been some plusses going back through his time but I just get the impression that at times he was just out of his depth Someone mentioned Dein as a successor thats a great call, unfortunately we could end up with Kenyon because I've heard he fell out with Abramovich over the sacking of Scolari....and no one falls out with Abramovich That is pure speculation incidentally

I thought Mascherano's role was a key factor tonight. Benayoun for his telling contribution and Alonso

Could be a very influential player, quick witted and takes up intelligent positions for us. I understand the arguement for using the pace of out and out wingers but Yossi represents the type of attacking midfielder with good technique who unlocks tight defences by finding gaps and exploits them and yes he has been in the form of his life over the last few months

Its a terrific result and credit to the discipline of the team as well as the resillience of Benitez, just one minor point of caution before it gets out of hand, its only half way through the tie, though I do think Madrid are broken

I think Shankly said something very similar

Its a smashing article to read and one which gives a very sympathetic view about the manager which I dont have any issues with, except for the above segment which did make me laugh a bit. Whatever goes with Benitez and the whole maelstrom around him, the Champions League can make him into the hero once again and we can pick up the pieces of the league disappointment next season.

What I want to know is how on earth does everyone else seem to know the intricate transfer dealings and player selections that go on at Liverpool but me. I mean its bloody marvellous considering no one seems to have a clue whats going on beforehand then all of a sudden the forum is awash with posters who give blow by blow accounts of who did what to who and where afterwards. Ever since the Sander Westerveld farce I've been running with the theory that our transfer policy is more like taking pot shots with a blunderbuss than a concise series of surgical strikes into the market

Would you care to elaborate on this please?

.

At the heart of this is an understanding of what the role of the fan should be. Do you simply adopt the see no evil, speak no evil hear no evil approach, or do you try to hold a rationale debate on the rights and wrongs of an issue to see if there's any common ground or way forward. To me it seems that there are alot of people who dont want this discussion because they are afraid of it. I have an opinion, but i know from experience that i dont get things right and that i can usually benefit from the insights of others, I always thought that thats the reason to have a forum. I'm more likely to be persuaded by people who argue that Benitez's vision of football which found expression in the wonderful Valencia side that i saw rip us apart a few years ago at the Mestalla will be recreated at Liverpool given a bit more time and encouragement than some of the dummy spitting antics, irrelevant point scoring and trollish abuse that has gone on On the other hand you might not care the f***

I wouldn't have Mourinho of choice as he has many of the same negatives as Benitez if you look at it that way but how can you possibly say that Mourinho would not be successful in this league. Just purely out of interest what makes you think that, he's an arrogant egocentric I grant you but his tactical knowledge was as sharp as Benitez's and his teams were always well organised and motivated. Cant completely put my finger on his downfall at Chelsea but I'm sure his relationship with Abramovoch had something to do with it which others exploited, but a broken biscuit? get real Mourinho would be completely the wrong manager for Liverpool but I could see him doing well for Spurs, maybe City maybe even the Toon, all defensively a shambles but all seemingly prepared to spend huge sums of money

Its clearly not about one draw, you are being deliberately obtuse You can support the club but how can you support a manager if you dont share his vision or footballing philosophy? Obviously under the uber fan mantra its possible and the easy route for some but those like me find it a bit tougher to chew. If we play cautious defensive functional football solely reliant on control and systems then we are going to be difficult to beat but joyless to watch. We will do well in competitions which rely on making fewer mistakes than the opposition but we will fail when we come up against equally unadventurous teams who play flat defensive football, as a result we drop points, we beat Chelsea and United then draw to Stoke and Wigan. The win win result would be for Benitez to place more trust in flair and loosen up a little, instead who did we relentlessly pursue as a top target in the summer, Barry, a defensive midfielder, because of course we are a bit lacking in that dept admittedly with Masch, Alonso and Levia - says all you need to know about the Manager priorities

I fancy our chances of success in the Champions league, I think it plays to Benitez's strengths and its a competition where we can genuinely intimidate the very best of Europe. Despite their win at the weekend I think Madrid are a bit rattled by this tie judging from the bulls*** coming from some of their players. The home game at Anfield will decide the tie and they know it

There is support and there is blind faith and somewhere in between there is perspective Anny, I support the Club not necessarily the Manager, or the Board, or the playing staff