Davvo

Maybe the issue was that Purslow wouldn't give Rafa more than the originally turned down offer ? It's feasible that there were no available players for ?6million? or less, that were considered better options than the Greek, and so he bought him and hopefully "banked" the 4.5 for January. I'm clutching at more than a fistful of straws here perhaps, but it's plausible. We didn't have the time to play games with Hull, because we were desperate for a body in.

Agree with that bit, and Johnson is a breath of fresh air in that respect, so too it would seem is Aquilani. Pacheco showed some promise too, not afraid to have a go and try things, and naturally gifted on the ball it would seem I don't think attacking is necessarily down to the forwards, at least not entirely. There were times last night Aquilani made time and space for himself, and looked to change the angle of attack, only to find noone moving into the big spaces. Good attacking play needs good movement aswell as good passing, and we've struggled with both. It's almost become a chicken and egg thing, and perhaps Aquilani could become the chicken, or maybe the egg Players with movement will benefit, eg Johnson. What we now need is the more advanced players, and full backs to realise there's a bloke in midfield who's looking to put them into some space, and for them to start looking to find it, as Johnson has shown them how to.

He was wanted by City and Chelsea though, and 17 was hence the market value. The Crouch money allowed us to meet the price without paying out too much in cash, and it was, imo, an unmissable opportunity to upgrade RB to the required level. With Kuyt as our wide right mid, this was an absolute essential upgrade. Had we not taken the opportunity to sign him at that price, we'd have ended up taking a gamble on a cheaper player, which we really can't afford to keep doing, it's a false economy. Rafa was right to bite the bullet and pay the money, regardless of how much more he thought he had to spend. RB is another position ticked off the list, and the only way of continuing to tick positions off, is to pay market prices for first choice targets.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

Hmm, looking at the official site stuff, they do seem to be stressing that the relationship has been there for 30 years or so. The article about the Ultra's, and their reasons for liking Liverpool does not make good reading however. Can of worms springs to mind.

what's this ?

he cant remember

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

We've been struggling, and i don't think Rafa wanted to remove one of his trustworthy water carriers, to replace him with a player who's less likely to stay chained to Carra.

I normally agree with most things you say mate, but do you not concede that it's Rafa's statements that confirm he has been fit and available to play, he just didn't want to put him into the relevant match situation's. I could understand you wanting to back that particular stance (although I'm not 100% sold on it), but you have to see that the availability to play issue just isn't there?

you've had that bubbling away nicely for some time haven't you

First one to mention jigsaw's get's a slap.

Rafa has said he is fit, but hasn't been fit enough to start. I thought it was generally acknowledged that Rafa has put his non-appearances down to match situations, not availability due to fitness ? All signs, including Rafa's comments, point towards this "fit for a month" opinion as being correct. At least if you take "fit" as being "available to play and work towards match fitness"

Indeed, there'd also be far less pressure on the player or Rafa if he'd had a handful of cameo's by now. As it is, there's going to be an enormous spotlight on him Wednesday night if he starts. Whether it's fair or not, commentator's and pundits will be watching him like a hawk. I suspect the overpowering desire of the crowd to see him play well, will help to build his confidence though, so in that respect, it's a good game to play him in. There's no doubt he's been very cautiously handled thus far, hopefully the lack of minutes in the last month is soon forgotten.

excellent, wikipedia has the answers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_Cup_(football) That solves the mystery of why I could only remember us being in it twice back in the day too. Declined to play in 77 and 78, presumably as it was 2 legs ? Forest declined in 79 too, before it became a one off match in Tokyo from 1980. As for the films, according to imdb, "10" was released 1979, and The Stud 1978, so Im guessing you're right Roegahn, Stud for Flamengo, 10 must have been the Independiante game. I remember Flamengo had the likes of Zico, Socrates, Junior playing I think. They t****** us, and we were lucky to get 0 . Just remember being amazed at the quality of their team.

Ah yes, remember that being a pre-game one too. I could be confused between Flamengo and Independiente, but those 2 films go with those 2 games in some order, certain of that. Independiente was closer, 1-0 perhaps? I don't suppose you can still check tv schedules for that far back

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

Aye, I know where you're coming from, I'm just a bit touchy about the whole superfan subject to be honest. fascist

I'm 38, got 2 little kids(ie no sleep), and was loaded on wine and ale. Personally, I'd give myself a pass for it. In all honesty, I've referred to it the same before and will again, doesn't mean I don't know how many Rushie scored. Of course, I should probably replace 'Liverpudlian' with 'Woollyback' so as not to cause any offense.