Poolfrog

I'll never forget the game at Old Toilet when he made his return against us after suspension for THAT incident. Fowler scored two absolutely brilliant goals and Cantona got their equaliser from the penalty spot - a free potshot at goal from 12 yards. I watched the game live and a mate of mine popped round in the evening and we watched the BBC news before going for a pint, as he wanted to see the Liverpool goals. The BBC actually showed the highlights in the sports section without showing either Liverpool goal! If you didn't know the score you'd have though the scum had won and Cantona had scored the winning goal. Quite amazing really. They get the softest ride of any of the big teams and the media fall over themselves to big up all their players (Rooney the best young player since Maradona - as was pronounced before his utterly abysmal performances in the World Cup - and similar cobblers) and fall over themselves to excuse any poor perfomances. If anyone really thinks they get as tough an examination by the media as we do, they clearly never read newspapers or watch TV.

Fowler hasn't been a natural finisher for donkeys years

I don't think he'll have any say in it. He's clearly only going to be used in the Carling Cup or against lower division FA Cup opponents with the odd sub appearance for the proper games. I'd be amazed if he were kept on.

On the Kuyt thing - Yuk! No thanks. Sounds very contrived and not really up to our level. On the Gerrard thing, no idea at all

That would be the same Rooney who was completely anonymous against us; the same Rooney who hasn't scored a goal for England in a competitive fixture for 2 years; the same Rooney that took until his third season to pass the 20 league goals mark; the same Rooney who took the same time for his goals to outnumber his yellow cards; the same Rooney who was laughably hailed as the best young player in the world to emerge since Maradona. I think I know who you mean: Rooney a.k.a probably the most over-hyped player of the last decade - and that includes Beckham

Of course the main difference being that Carragher was in central midfield when he made his debut, while Paletta was at CB

Not long ago I had a very pleasant stay in probably the second best hotel in Dubai. I am not condoning how things are run in the UAE, but I think it's worth remembering that the foreign workers there are aware of the labour employment conditions that apply and still flock to the country in their thousands voluntarily. The same applies to people from the Philippines who, after guest workers from the Indian sub-continent, seemed to be the biggest foreign group there - indigenous UAE nationals being totally invisible as members of the general workforce. If the foreign workers turned up with a false idea of conditions and were then herded into camps and denied rights etc it would be a different matter, but all parties know where they stand from the outset.

It's not baffling really; it makes good sense. This has been done to death, but all Morgan has ever suggested is a rights issue so that it would be Moores who paid most into the club for new shares pro rata to his current holding, while on the same basis Morgan would put a much smaller sum in and have the right to mop up any shares not taken up by small shareholders, thus inevitably reducing Moores' current 51% holding. So Moores agreeing to this would be like a turkey voting for Christmas; it would cost him a fortune and he wouldn't benefit in the slightest. The fact remains that Morgan's not rich enough to make a difference.

In fact the very early part of his career was at left-back. We signed him for that position and he played there many, many times - as he did for England. He was good enough to play anywhere and be top class in absolutely every position he played. He was hugely under-rated, although he did get to be our most capped England player I believe - and was of course England captain My pleasure - no extra charge

He started at centre-back - wearing the No 10 shirt, which was quite revolutionary in those days, 10 being strictly indicative of Inside Left - before playing at right back here and there and he was equally adept in both positions. I saw just about all his career and don't remember him playing centre midfield. Maybe because he went on to wear number 4 (old-fashioned Right Half) someone assumed he was a midfielder, but he was CB at that time Actually I'm pretty sure he and Ron Yeats were the first twin centre-back pairing. In those days you had two full backs and one centre half as your principal defenders and they were strictly numbered 2 (RB), 3 (LB) and 5 (CH). I don't remember anyone having twin centre backs prior to that pairing Gerrard is a very similar player (better passer perhaps, but not as good in the air or in the tackle, not as good a work-rate either, not as much of a team player for that matter), but Hughes did it for a lot longer at the highest level than Gerrard has to date, so deserves to be ahead of him in any list

Tommy Smith was a world class centre back and infinitely superior to any centre-back in the current squad. He had the misfortune to be a peer of Bobby Moore who, although an inferior player, was the media darling of the time and played for a London club, so Smith hardly got a look in at England level. Anyone who saw them both play in those days would agree. People rave about Carragher on here and, good lad though he is, Smith was 10 times the player. He had a fantastic skilful touch on the ball, was good in the air, could pass like a midfielder, had great vision and when he tackled you, you stayed tackled!

"God" doesn't exactly seem to be knocking them dead in the reserves I notice. This from another thread: "Liverpool got on the score sheet very late in the game. a Zenden cross from the left sailed over the keeper and hit the post, bouncing straight to Fowler to prod home. It was the only real proof that Fowler had actually played tonight."

Excellent - I do so enjoy intelligent debate! I think what you're trying to say in your limited way is that no criticism of Fowler - er...sorry, God...will be tolerated. Isn't that so much more elegant? But being totally intolerant of others' views is not a very attractive trait, so do try harder

Your point being?

Er...it was the same in the first 50 minutes. I wasn't talking about only the period after 2-0

My only fear is that if we don't play him Maybe Barca or Milan will swoop for him when the transfer window re-opens. He is after all, the most naturally gifted strker in the history of footballZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

As I keep saying, Fowler has shown hinself to be way below Premiership standard in his two appearances and Rafa has seen enough. Carling Cup for the old boy is all he's going to get, with maybe 10 minutes here or there in the first team if we sub a striker.

No thanks! Horrible pseudo-American crap

If they "wanted it more" failing to cross the halfway line more than a handful of times is a starnge way of showing it. We were under no pressure at all at anty stage of the match - the easiest game we've ever had at their ground You can't legislate for plain stupid officials, but the second goal was a bread and butter cross and we should be defending this kind of thing better. That apart our goal was completely and utterly untroubled for the entire match

No - my point was that you're whingeing about us scoring "from a rebound" as if it was a bolt from the blue, some sort of fluke, when in fact it was the culmination of an excellent move the full length of the pitch. It was you who said Spurs were stretched when I pointed out that you were totally wrong - not because of my differing opinion but by facts as analysed frame-by-frame on TV. But if indeed we had scored from breakaways - which we didn't - then who cares? I'd be happy if all our goals were scored because the opposition was stretched, despite that not being the case on Saturday. Football is about taking opportunities as they present themselves. In fact back on planet Earth Spurs did not have a shot on target, the nearest being an effort blocked by Agger, so it failed to threaten the goal in any significant way - and blocked shots are not recorded as being on target - they're recorded as blocked shots. I'm sure you consider yourself a good fan, but you seem to enjoy denigrating the team, which I find surprising to say the least. I'm the first to criticise a poor performance by individuals or the team, but you are out of step with most fans and pundits in your appraisal of both Sissoko on the day and the merit of our win. I'd like to wish you a happy paranoia.

Yes Spurs had a few chances - 4, as I said - in 90 minutes, all off target. I don't know what you're on about. Getting the ball, breaking quickly and scoring is called football. Should we have stopped and let them regroup so that you'd have been happier with the number of defenders? In the game I watched Spurs never had a shot on target, Reina had not a single save to make, Spurs didn't win a single corner, we dominated possesion, chances and goals. In the strange-to-you world that I inhabit, most newspapers praised Sissoko, several giving him Man of the Match awards, as did the TV company that showed the game. In your world Spurs were unlucky, Sissoko was no good, we were lucky with our goals.Jesus Christ, with fans like you who needs Mancs and Bluenoses?

I didn't say he was a 9 - I said: I thought he was our best player Sky gave him MOTM Most newspapers on Sunday/Monday made him our best player and/or MOTM Therefore your views are very much in the minority. And also this thing about both having chances. It's worth noting that Spurs only had 4 chances in the entire 90 minutes, none of which was on target. They also failed to win a corner in the entire 90 minutes. When we scored our first goal they had everyone back. Saying we scored "from a rebound" hardly does justice to the superb play leading up to the rebound. It's not like someone took a pot-shot from outside the box and we somehow luckily had a player on hand to tap in the rebound; it was a superb flowing move. TV analysis showed that when we got our second there were four Spurs defenders between Garcia, Kuyt and Gerrard and the goal and there were plenty of players betwen Riise and the goal when he scored from 35 yards, so it clearly wasn't a question of their defensive players chasing the game that led us to winning by scoring on the breakaway. On the contrary their most glaring miss, by Jenas, was brought about by a breakaway by Spurs on the left when we were streched with our defensive players upfield supporting our forward play. I don't inderstand your agenda really. You take an opposing view to 99% of the people who saw the game on Sissoko's and call it whitewashing; you imply that the game could have gone either way and we only won because they were caught out defensively chasing the game after we scored "from a rebound" (gosh we were lucky!). Your opinions on Sissoko are entirely that, but to take a slant on the goals that is the opposite to the facts and which a spurs fans' forum would probably be hard pressed to improve upon is surprising to say the least. I suggest you watch the goals again on TV and see how stretched gallant, attacking Spurs were in reality - and to enjoy the excellent flowing move that led to us scoring merely "from a rebound"..

Well I thought he was excellent - and Sky selected him as MOTM so he can't have been that bad. Imagine what he'll be like on a good day when a minority like you thinks he was average? I haven;t seen him play less than very well all season. He's easily been our best midfielder so far

Strange that you should say that because whilst watching the game I thought Sissoko was yet again our best player and after the game the Sky people said he'd been voted Man of the Match, confirming my impression. Several papers over the weekend and this morning also gave him either Liverpool's highest rating and/or Man of the Match and I don't recall anyone rating Zokora over Sissoko - except a handful on here bizarrely enough. Personally I didn't really notice Zokora all that much. I though Murphy made more of an impact for them than he did

Didn't you just say that?