JRC

You re wrong. Gray definitely said that, and repeatedly. Oh sorry, that was about the Gerrard penalty! My mistake!

Alonso won us the Anfield Derby 2 years ago when Stevie got himself sent off...by playing too much with his heart rather than his head...being a Scouser in a Merseyside Derby and all that. Sorry, I'm just stirring it with these comments because 'Alonso vs Gerrard' (love them both to bits) is a pretty facile debate and not really relevant to the, ahem, 'discussion' going on here.

To an extent he didn't 'get lucky' because there are plenty who are not prepared to acknowledge the fact that we went on to win in any way suggests that the decision may not have been entirely 'wrong, wrong, wrong.' I'm not prepared to trawl the archives, but I wonder how many of the same posters were prepared to argue that he didn't make mistakes against Portsmouth, Birmingham, Toulouse etc, but just 'got unlucky'.

I'm pretty confident that if the Subs had been the other way round - ucas was on for 70 minutes, replaced by Stevie, and very single othr thing was the same - Lucas won the first penalty, Stevie the second - then 1. Benitez would have been slaughtered for not playing Stevei from the start - with some justification - even if Lucas contributed everything Steve did; but more pointedly 2. A huge fuss, certainly externally, but also on the forums, would have been made about how Gerrard coming on won it for Liverpool, saved Benitez, 'wh else?', omne man team etc. Lots of us - all? - had reservations about Gerrard being subbed at the time. We may well have won if he had stayed on, or by more even - we cannot know. And it's right that what we know about Stevie G's capabilities from the past 7-8 years should be factored into any view we have, no just immediate form and tasctical requiremnts. But the insistence that despite going on to win as we did - and as he said he wanted it to be, and involving the player coming on doing what he was supposed to do, apart from his goal contributon - Benitez can take NO post factum credit in the change is frighteningly myopic; in fact it just about denies the possibility of rational debate - if he's wrong he's wrong, if he's right he's lucky; if we lose it's because of him, if we win it's in spite of him. And if we are reduced now to suggesting that it's wrong that players are subbed on the basis of the postcode of their birthplace or the songs of the opposition fans or because they don't like it, then we are truly descending into a new Dark Ages.

Arsenal are clearly playing great football and converting that style into results (which has not always been the case), but the way some of their matches are going is not always impressive - when you see some of the stick Rafa has got after an away Deby win, I'm not sure he would have remained unscathed if we had last ten minute goals to thank for wins over Fulham, Sunderland and Bolton (and coming from behind vs City and Spurs). 'Character' is great - and we have shown plenty of that as well - but conceding 2 to Sunderland can never be a good thing. Arsenal are yet to win a League game outside of London, I believe - let's keep that record going with a win on Sunday.

Shielding the ball is one thing - 'Holding a player off' - depending how you do it - is technically a foul, but Refs obviously allow leeway on it, as they do for the player being held off trying to get a tackle in - if Lescott has Carra's arm held under his, he is as guilty of a foul as Carra is for having a fistful of shirt; 6 of 1 etc.. The very fact that it was going on allows room for doubt in the Ref's mind - especially, which is my main point, if he cannot possibly see the side where the pushing and pulling is really happening. He should not give a foul for an extravagant fall if he cannot clearly see how it happened, only surmise. Overall, I think it was a foul, and I'd be furious if it was against us and not given. But as it stands, I can see reasons why it wouldn't be given, or even why it shouldn't have been given, given Clattenburg's view.

A couple of points; Carra was all over him, but Lescott was also trying to hold him off -Moyes claimed Lesctt was 'too strong' for Carra - which implies there was some mutual activity going on, sufficient perhap for Clattenberg to see it as 6 of 1 etc. Secondly, let's agree with Andy Gray's point re the Gerrard penalty; if the Ref can't see the pulling, he can't give it. From his position - directly up the pitch - he could not see what was going on on Carra and Lescott's Left hand (goalwards) side, which is where all the 'action' was. It's not enough to see Lescott fall over, especially in such 'stand your ground' circumstances. Even with the TV view of their Left sides, it's not so straightforward - Carra has his shirt, but equally Lescott has Carra's arm held, like a boxer's clinch. As the ball arrives, there is very little sign of Carra 'yanking' his shirt - certainly not enough to make him fall over, Lescott' shirt is barely disturbed until he is actually already falling. As Carra goes to his right - to the ball, Lescott tries to turn Left - to the Goal. Lescott loses his balance, and his Left arm comes up - the point of the foul beng committed, surely - but if you look at the picture Carra's Left hand is no longer in view, whilst his Right is not in contact. So again - even with the TV or Video Ref view, you cannot see the exact point and cause of the 'foul' - Lescott falling over (I believe he overbalanced over Jamie's Left leg as Jamie went to ground under the torque of his own move to the ball and Lescott's turn) is not in itself sufficient evidence to call it, however likely it seems. Interestingly, Barton on Football First thought it a foul bcause Carra went through from behind, not for a pull - which kind of re-inforces the point that it was not, as has been routinely claimed, 'clear-cut'.

nor that Gerrard said anything to influence him. Still. let's not let lack of any credible evidence get in the way of a witchhunt, eh?

What is clear is that no-one really knows, so the claim that he influenced the ref is just baseless speculation. Poor punditry from Hansen with his "If he took the Yellow Card out, that was his decision, and he should have stuck with it" (even if it was wrong) cr*p.

Surely the alternative - the settled team or 'Best 11' - equally implies that it doesn't matter how badly you play you will get to play again or no matter how well you train, or play in the ressies, or perform as a sub, you are not going to get a start. I can see no difference in the potential for problems with motivation if we are to accept this as an argument against rotation; which makes me think it is a red herring.

Watching the 2nd Lescott incident, whaty is noticeable is that there is virtually no tension or displacement of his shirt even though the suggestion is that Jamie is pulling him hard enough to throw him right over (compare with a relatively light grab by Hibbert almost pulls Stevie's shirt off). Lescott could also be holding Jamie's arm to his side with his left arm, like a boxer in a clinch. Either way, from Clatterbridge's (textbook) position all there was to see was the usual wrestling and grappling between a defender holding his ground anbd a forward backing into him. Sometimes given, often not - certainly a long way from the no-brainer some have claimed.

As has been said, Benitez is responsible for 'mentality' - but despite us being off-form, 2 result changing goals in injury time sounds like pretty good 'mentality' to me (if not for my heart). Wasn't that part of the optimism after Villa, the fact that we came back to win so late? Wasn't failing to win after going behind (especially away against scruffy, physical teams) one of our 'mentality' failings last year? I know some are 'Glass Half Full', others 'Glass Half Empty', and that there are things not right about the way we are playing at the moment; - but we just won the Goodison Derby FFS.

I had to turn City off a couple of times, first with the constant xenophobic rubbish (from Snodin as well) about how well Phil Neville did in not making a fuss of Kuyt's challenge - unlike all those dastardly 'foreigners' who would have been rolling around in faked agony; then when St John shouted down a caller who pointed out that we went on to win, with Lucas playing a crucial part after replacing Gerrard, the Saint claiming that we would have won by 2 or 3 if Gerrard had stayed on. I can't stand bullies with microphones who get all smug that they have 'won' the argument when they haven't, they've just cut them off.

Spanish or English? Or if it was Basque, most of the wordds just like random collections of letters anyway.

Any team with Lawrenson and Hansen at the back, Souness and Whelan in the middle and Rush and Dalglish up front is embarassingly overendowed with talent.

Well you clearly weren't trying enoug before, then, were you? Man up, FFS. For many teams, Manchester would be close enough to be a local derby anyway, and there is a whole raft of spats that seperate and divide the two cities, even without Football rivalry (and much we have in common, of course), whilst the Everton rivalry is with those with whom we share a lot more; like family, can be more intense, but there have been times when we have recognised our common (scouse) humanity I'm there with the Newcastle thing - a misplaced arrogance, selective memory of superfandom, but worse of all, singing 'Sign On...'. I expect that from the Mancs and London Boys, but Geordies? The Jarrow marchers must be turning in their graves.

I posted something earlier this year that Fnnan had clearly been having heading practice - after the Campo goal was analysed to death on TV (and Finnan found wanting), Blackburn clearly played on it, and McCarthy got his goal because Finnan struggled at the back post with a high cross. Some weeks later, it was notable that it was no longer a clear weakness, as other teams were still trying to isolate him, but Finnan was dealing with it superbly. http://www.ynwa.tv/forum/index.php?showtop...&hl=Heading

I've heard suggestions that he is not fully fit, and but for Agger, would have had more of a rest since his rib injury. He certainly seems to be giving his man more room to work in - it was vey noticable against Portsmouth how easy Kanu was finding it to receive and hold the ball; against Marseille they found room to turn (and score) in front of our 2 CB; and against Spurs, apart from his part in the goals and the clearance off the line, there was one point where Keane had a free shot when he turned jut a yard or 2 outside the box without any pressure on him. Hopefully we will really see the benefit of his international retirement in the next 2 weeks

Riise switches between quite effective (athletic, works hard, holds up wingers, gets forward threateningly, shoots and occasionally scores) and awful (none of the previous, and brain-dead to boot) - and he's awful at the moment. That shot on Sunday - when he had time to sit on the ball and light a ciggy - was the very definition of woeful. He HAD to at least test Robinson, but battered it about 5 yards over.

It looked - and felt - better on the telly last night than at the game. I won't pretend I'm happy with the points we've dropped at home, but it was an improved perfomane compared to recent ones. Conceding 2 similar goals in 2 minutes after not conceding in the League since August is a bit hard to take, but I'll never turn down a last-minute equaliser, even in a game we should win. I don't fundamentally believe that we won't be able to sort out those defensive errors, or that Gerrard specifially, and the midfield in general, won't get back their form, at which point we wil look a much bettr proposition (although I've probably given up on Riisse, I'm afraid). Whether that will be too late in the Pemiership is yet to be seen; but I'm not yet convinced of Arsenal's ability to sustain their current form and results (conceding 2 to Sunderland is more concerning than conceding 2 to Spurs), nor that United are necessarily hitting their straps as they did last season. Let's hope the break is as disruptive to the form (good and bad) as the last one.

Tonight was so bad, I'm almost relaxed about it. The CL position is not irrecoverable by any means, but I can honestly see no rational explanation for 11 professional footballers to perform so abjectly at the same time - not rotation, freshness, tactics; not even complacency. Leto was a micrososm for the whole team - by Half Time, his game was so shot, he couldn't even put one foot in front of the other. Maybe he will never make the grade, but surely he had basic motor functions as he made his way through his previous teams? I have to believe that he can be better than that (and was glad he got a sympathetic clap - he must have known he'd had a total mare), and am reluctant to judge him on that performance. Same with the rest of them. Don't try to claim unfamiliarity with each other prevented anyone passing to a Red shirt. Maybe there is a common, worrying, underlying cause; maybe tactics, rotation etc have been the reason for previous poor performances; but tonight looked to me like no more than a total f*cked up write off - even down to Torres hitting the post, Gerrard's best pass being a miscued volleyed shot, Hyyppia and Reina colliding with each other, Carragher falling over like a Keystone Kop etc. etc. We'll batter Spurs on Sunday.

Coppell has been surprisingly ungracious - referring to 'What you get for £20M' rather than Torres himself on more than one occasion, and saying he was anonymous for 50 minutes. Bikey and Duberry must be having nightmares about playing him at least twice more this season (if selected...)

Untestable now, of course, buty I personally think a more physical, direct side like Pompey, with that support, would have beaten the team that performed as they did tonight. either way, tonight does rather strain the argument that playing SG and Torres on Saturday would inevitably have made a huge, match-winning difference to our side. Maybe yes, maybe not, but we've certainly proved that we can be just as cr*p with them as without them. fwiw, delighted with a point, and the strength of character and resilience shown, esp w 10 men. Forgeotten about anything else already.

Different point. The suggestion was that we should start with our top players even if Rafa didn't feel they were fully fit, planning to take them off once we were in the lead. I would say that is being too much a hostage to fortune, any injury meaning you are committed to playing out with players struggling, thus a threat to success in the game AND to the player's fitness (higher potential for injury). I would say Rafa believed that the team he put out was good enough to win, and he wouldn't need to use SG and FT, but they were there as Plan B. Whilst I agree that we would have more chance of winning by starting with them providing they were 100% it was still a long way from a foregone conclusion that we would have won if they had, (or a FACT as some have claimed)and even less so if either of them were below their best physical condition. One question, possibly sacrilegious; maybe Carra shouldn't have come back for this game? Whilst he didn't do much wrong Kanu seemed to have a field day controlling the ball back-to-goal and laying off at will. He can be good at that, but Carra would normally be expected to make it much harder for him.Was Carra perhaps not at full whack?

Six Crazy Minutes, poster called CAD. See this link (mods - delete if this is not acceptable with my apologies) http://sixcrazyminutes.com/forums/index.ph...p;topic=15842.0 The same guy can also be found on Est1892 and is not (deliberately) a WUM, I believe