Poolfrog

It featured in every game bar none from the mid-sixties onwards when we were giving someone a pasting - when there were 28,000 of us on the Kop. And guess what? People actually brought flags from all over the place to Anfield without seeking approval from the self-appointed ones who seemingly now want to tell us what we can and can't do. And here's the strange thing - nobody cared where the fans or their flags were from. Of course we were all stupid then and didn't realise how uneducated we were. Thank God for today's more enlightened times.

I disagree. At Stamford Bridge we created a hatful of chances - far more than Chelsea - and I recall we also had more goal attempts than Man U in that game. Our problem has been in taking the chances. Similarly at Bolton away and Blackburn away - we had enough chances in each game to have scored 4-5 goals. Sloppy finishing and an element of bad luck cost us dearly

I'm sure it did, but we'd better not say it too loudly or we'll be targets for the pimply youths behind the so-called RTK, who have decided it comes from Soccer AM

I think you over-estimate the effect of it. The majority of people won't have a clue what it is and a large chunk of those that do will rightly resent being told what they should and shouldn't do by some self-appointed guardians. It already has A shame in many ways for us traditionalists as it was extremely popular in the 60s when I started going

63% of all statistics are meaningless That's probably because you allow yourself to be brainwashed by the media purring over Arenal's "kids" and their and their amazing passing game......like in their defeat at mighty Sheffield United etc. It's one of those accepted media "truths" that you're not allowed to dispute, like the Queen Mother had a lovely smile - that sort of thing

Woteva

Chelsea prefer using him as a sub, so I'd be surprised if he starts. Their typical game is to let the opposition work hard early in the game trying to put attacks together while Chelsea sit very deep, then in the second half when the opposition's knackered, they bring on at least one fast wide player, sometimes two, as an outlet for their counter-attacking game. It works quite well for them too, as they often get late goals through it. If they happen to be losing, of course, the special one's only other tactic is to move a centre-back forward and hoof a long stream of high balls at him. Their game's very simple and predictable really.

I seem to remember that that goal was a direct free-kick that Riise took, rather than a tap to the side for him to run on to

Not that old chestnut please. It's not Murdoch's Sky. News International only has about 37% or thereabouts, of Sky shares - and the BBC is a disgrace on just about any measure you care to mention - Match of the Day just being a tiny part. For all its shortcomings Sky is easily the better football network. Football on the BBC is as leaden and ponderous as it was when Jimmy Hill was on it. It hasn't changed a bit.

Maybe someone should tell Gray that we finished third last season and are third now You were doing so well until you mentioned Bent - not good enough for a top team When he's had the players suited to the system Rafa has always favoured 4-2-3-1, so I don't see why he'd change that now if he gets the players he's after The basic flaw in your argument is that Sissoko doesn't play the advanced midfield role. He plays precisely as Makelele does for Chelsea - ie breaks up play and his partner Alonso is the playmaker of the two

It's worse than that though. I was in Liverpool with two mates from down south about 18 months ago and they wanted to go to Anfield, so one of them (an Arsenal fan) could buy a souvenir for his more sensible sister (a Liverpool fan). Driving up from downtown Liverpool on a Sunday I offered to take them past Woodison on the way to show them what a dump it was. As we approached it, watching the tumbleweed blowing across the deserted road, I was surprised to see that they have a bloody big sign saying "The People's Club" on the stadium itself! Sad really. Needless to say that when we drove round the corner to Anfield, in contrast to the empty streets round their "stadium" (their club shop was actually closed) there was a large throng of people outside Anfield, a queue to get into the museum, a steady stream of people heading to the ground on foot and a coach of our Norwegian friends pulled up in the car park to go to the shop (we'd played at home the day before). The contrast between the following of the two clubs couldn't have been more stark.

Macclesfield is not in Greater Manchester - it's very much in Cheshire proper Plenty of Liverpool fans live in and around Dartford, including mates of mine

It's quite laughable really. When I was a kid in Liverpool and we were emerging from our spell in the 2nd Division and Everton were 1963 champions we still seemed to have more fans than them. I moved house several times and there were always more Liverpool fans no matter what part of the city I lived in. There always seemed to be a token Evertonian in any group of mates. We weren't being picky, there just weren't as many of them around. Since they've been relatively much less successful in the ensuing 40 years it would beggar belief to assume that somehow their fanbase in the city has overtaken Liverpool's. Because of our worldwide fanbase it's true that a greater proportion of their fans, percentage wise, live in Liverpool than do Liverpool fans, but in absolute numbers we always seem to have 4 or 5 times as many fans as them in the city. "The People's Club" - you have to laugh

No-one in possession of their faculties would consider having a tattoo. That's all there is to say about it really.

But why aren't they more successful with it though? Didn't see it used to much effect at Sheffield United recently - not forgetting Man City, West Ham, Bolton and Fulham away (all defeats) or in their lucky home draws like against Portsmouth, Villa and Everton. For such an apparently fantastic team - according to the media anyway - they play a hell of a lot of s**** a hell of a lot of the time.

I don't think it shows one way or the other how much we have in January. Rafa - and Mourinho and Wenger - all recently said that they don't make major signings in January. The best players are cup-tied for the CL etc, so they leave major deals for the summer. I think the recent recruits reflect this - just building for the future.

I beg to differ. We used to rub our hands with glee playing against West Ham, particularly at home. Our strikers of the day always gave Moore a torrid time. Smith only played on the right - ie right flank - when he was RB. His early career as CB he played to the right of the very left-footed Yeats, but we're talking of a few yards to his right. Smith was such a versatile footballer - he played LB occasionally - that he could have played right or left in the middle of the back four. Moore was even more over-rated than the likes of Rooney and Lampard are now, which is saying something. He was slow, couldn't head to save his life and had nothing like the range of passing that Smith had. But it's all down to opinion. I wouldn't have swapped Smith for Moore in a million years. Smith aside, when the vastly-under-rated Geoff Strong played regularly for a spell at CB, Shankly famously said "If Bobby Moore's a better centre-half than Geoff Strong I'll eat the grandstand". I agree - but in my opinion Smith was even better than Strong in that role

Yes but he was almost always our best player before his injury, win or lose. Being beaten when he played doesn't diminish his importance to the team, or his ability. If other more senior members of the team had played with the same ability or commitment, I'm sure we'd be a lot closer to the top points-wise

Tommy Smith was a fantastic player. He would automatically be in any all-time best XI. He was quite superb at RB, CB or CM. Shankly played him alongside Ron Yeats as a twin CB - something that was quite unheard of before then as teams only played one recognised centre-half, who always, but always, wore number 5. Smith wore the number 10 shirt when at CB (inside left as fellow oldies will recall - essentially a shirt worn by either an attacking midfielder or occasionally a striker, although we didn't know what one of those was back then). He was ridiculously superior to the ponderous Bobby Moore, but the latter was the media golden boy at the time, played for a London club etc, didn't have a reputation as a hardman, so Smith was scandalously overlooked at international level. I think he may have only got 1 cap - Carlton Palmer got 18!

Well I'm happy to remain "...so far behind..." Arsenal in football quality if we finish 15 points ahead of them, which is where their "quality" football got them last season (wasn't much in evidence at Sheffield United away the other week either). Guess what? Their "quality" football has got them behind us again this season.

Yes we're clearly a club in crisis. 3rd in the Premiership - above Arsenal as it happens - and in the quarter-final of the Champions' League. Sack Rafa!

Let's keep a sense of perspective shall we?

Frankly I'll be surprised if more than 2-3 of those players make the breakthrough to become Arsenal first team regulars in teh next few years, for all the exaggerated praise being heaped on them. Walcott for one had a stinker last night. Whatever they paid for him it was too much.

It's been blindingly obvious all season. Whenever he's played he looks absolutely knackered. I could never understand how people seemed to be oblivious to it. Of course you have to call him God and say he's the most natural finisher in the history of football otherwise the forum Thought Police are on your case, but he's looked just terrible. Last night must have finally confirmed it for anyone who was in denial before.

We only lost by 3 goals. We lost 4-0 at home to Everton in the mid-sixties, so that's a worse drubbing in my book