Chelsea v Liverpool - post match thread

[Craig_H]

I think they edged it personally. We created a couple of chances but for most of the second half, they were pressing and controlling, while we were trying to nullify them and sneak something on the counter.

They were trying to win the game, albeit in a less than emphatic manner. I think we were trying to not lose, and hoping to pinch it.

I dont blame Rafa for that personally, you rarely go gung ho away at Chelsea and get anything. Our mentality wasnt wholly wrong, it just didnt happen for us.

Still think 442 would've been better, mind.

[Roboklopp]

Aye, thought we did much better than against Fiora. Just that one mistake that cost us (2nd goal being as a result of chasing the game).

We are in a tough position now tho, altho it was the home loss to villa that has really cost us as I'd only have pencilled in 1 point apiece for the other 2 losses.

I just dont think we have the squad to compete this yEAr tho

[Craig_H]

Aye, thought we did much better than against Fiora. Just that one mistake that cost us (2nd goal being as a result of chasing the game).

We are in a tough position now tho, altho it was the home loss to villa that has really cost us as I'd only have pencilled in 1 point apiece for the other 2 losses.

I just dont think we have the squad to compete this yEAr tho

Spot on. Losing to Chelsea and Spurs away, you can legislate for in the context of a title challenge. Losing at home to Villa cannot be defended.

[RedReet]

Let's look at it this way.

Had Chelsea beat Wigan and Man Utd beat Sunderland, and we had drawn today.

We would be six points of Chelsea and six points of Man Utd.

Instead we are still six points of Chelsea and only four points of Man Utd.

Of course, other teams have gained ground - but I am talking about winning the title and if we come above Chelsea and Man Utd we win the league.

Was thinking the same myself.

Disappointed not to get a result, but there were still some positives to take from the performance, and points wise we aren’t much worse off than I would have expected before last weeks games.

Hopefully the players can regroup over the International break and return injury free with two further additions to the squad for Sunderland.

[Molby]

Was thinking the same myself.

Disappointed not to get a result, but there were still some positives to take from the performance, and points wise we aren’t much worse off than I would have expected before last weeks games.

Hopefully the players can regroup over the International break and return injury free with two further additions to the squad for Sunderland.

Thats right RedReet - as paul tomkins was saying in the offical site today...i felt much worse after the villa game - a lot of teams will get beat at the bridge this year, we have to take heart at the fact Wigan can beat Chelsea, they will drop more points this year, lets remember the African tournament in January - that Drogba cunt will be missing, as will Essien etc

I've no doubt we can regroup from this - remember, we were the better side on Sunday.......remember that Drogba fouled Skirtel for a dead cert pen that wasn't given? the game could have a much different impetous to it then.

And do you think the little Chief will get caught out like that again in midfield? i don't think so......

Keep the faith lads, if our new no 4 is as good as we all hope - the future, for this season, is very bright

YNWA

[Craig_H]

I read that Tompkins article and to be honest, it was hard to stop cringing.

The guy has zero credibility - there's nothing wrong with pointing out positives, but he never thinks ANYTHING is ever negative or bad, it's just embarrassing. It sounds like a parent patronising their 7 year old child.

[Marky]

I read that Tompkins article and to be honest, it was hard to stop cringing.

The guy has zero credibility - there's nothing wrong with pointing out positives, but he never thinks ANYTHING is ever negative or bad, it's just embarrassing. It sounds like a parent patronising their 7 year old child.

Spot on, i can't be bothered reading his articles anymore, it's the same old **** trying to turn the most negative of situations into positives.
If we were ever relegated, i'm sure he'd still find positives and tell us how everything will be ok.
He seems like a passionate supporter but he's a bit of a tool.

[Craig_H]

While I admit to feeling like Liverpool's hopes were over after three games, I actually feel the opposite now, after a third defeat.


Those first two defeats really bothered me; this latest one didn't.

Funny, because i'm sure he wasnt saying that in his column after those two defeats. He would've been crowing about how it was too early to write anyone off (and he'd have been right, as it goes) and how there was plenty of time to rectify it (again, he would've been correct). But now he claims that he thought our hopes were over - when has Tompkins EVER come anywhere NEAR saying something remotely as negative and indeed terminal as this? Bollocks.

The key was to get some wins under the belt after losing two out of the opening three, and that happened; otherwise the hole could have got quite deep. But now, the table is still so tight that a couple more wins in quick succession can easily change things.

It's not that tight really, 6 point gap after 8 games is pretty big actually. Being one game away from a 9 point gap, in a league where the winners rarely lose more than 3 or 4 games, is massive.

I do get sick of the “yes they can”/”No they can't” guff that surrounds every big team after a win or a defeat. It's a manic depressive state of analysis. Viewed dispassionately, it's ludicrous.

Agree with this. So if he gets sick of it, why did he (apparently) conclude that our hopes were over after game three of the season?

Six points off the pace at this stage is not ideal, but equally it's nothing to panic about, particularly with Chelsea and United able to drop points cheaply, as they have at places like Wigan and Burnley; and with United's squad looking weaker than last season, and Chelsea due to lose almost half a team to the African Nations.

True, but ignores the fact that we're evidently more able to drop points than they are proving to be. United are weaker than last season, but they're still winning. We're weaker, and we're losing. Rhetoric about who's weaker and by how much, is completely overriden by the actual results, which say more than anything else.

Chelsea may well lose a few players to the African Nations Cup, but it wont matter to us if we're 10 points or more adrift by then.

I'm also curious to see how Chelsea's ageing team copes come the spring, especially as they have for once escaped injury problems to their major players (which helps them very much for now, but could lead to burnout for the thirtysomethings.) Of course, the Reds will still need to be in the mix, but I think that's easily possible.

Fair point. We need to still be in the mix if Chelsea suffer a burnout and it's possible for sure, if not necessarily probable. Tompkins takes it as a given. I do not.

I felt that Liverpool were marginally the better team at Stamford Bridge, but Chelsea were more clinical in front of goal. On that score, they will argue that they deserved the points, and that argument always carries water, but they didn't impress me as much as they have in the past. I felt they had all the luck.

Disagree, i thought they were marginally better, evidenced by the fact that they were pressing for most of the 2nd half and controlling the game, whilst admittedly not exactly carving us open. The main issue though, is that goals and points rarely lie.

Unlike the Fiorentina game, this was a match Benítez's men didn't deserve to lose, and had a penalty been awarded at 0-0 for a foul by the unusually upright Drogba on Skrtel, the table might look very different now.

I wouldnt argue with him here, but Liverpool fans should know better than anyone, that 'ifs' and 'buts' mean nothing in a tangible sense.

Unusually wayward misses from Torres and Benayoun summed up the day in the final third, but on the whole there was much to be encouraged by, particularly from some of the less-heralded players, and the return to form of both centre-backs (even if Carragher did get beaten for the second goal).

Wont argue with that.

All last season we were told that draws cost the Reds. Draws draws draws. Doesn't matter if you gamble and lose, but avoid the draws.

Well, there have been no draws this season.

Stupid point. Of course it matters if you lose. Draws cost us last season against Stoke, Hull, West Ham, Fulham, City and Everton. Games we should be expecting to win without much bother. Obviously draws against those sides ARE ****. Draws at Chelsea and arguably Spurs, ARE worth having, largely because of the two extra points they deprive Chelsea and Spurs of, as much as the individual extra point we'd be getting.

We were told that it's not beating the big teams that counts, it's beating the little ‘uns. So is that no longer true?

Again, a stupid attempt to make a point. It's about beating as many teams as you can and yes, you should beat the little 'uns, but if you just lose to all your main rivals, your margin for error against the little teams diminishes quickly. And if Villa count as a 'big team' in Mr Tompkins' weird little world, then his outlook of who we should and shouldnt beat, will leave us only winning about 20-25 games. Perhaps a chase for 4th place is the extent of Mr Tompkins' ambition.

Going into the Chelsea game, the Reds were actually a point up on the corresponding fixtures from 2008/09. That's fairly remarkable given the criticism that's been aimed at Liverpool since the summer.

It's not remarkable at all, considering that three of those 7 games were against Hull, Burnley and Stoke at Anfield. All this highlights, is the fact that we did abysmally against these kind of teams last season. In reality, we should've been a good 5 or 6 points better off than the corresponding results last season.

The Chelsea game shows that season-to-season comparisions cannot be totally trusted, mainly because the order of the games affects the momentum, and run of the ball can affect any single result.

Totally agree. So why does he use the season-to-season comparison to make a point about how 'remarkable' the comparison is, in his last point?

Either it's a valid comparison you can trust, or it isnt.

But Liverpool still have plenty of 2008/09 draws to turn into wins, to get back on course for more than 86 points, if such a high tally is needed this year. And take a team like Arsenal: Liverpool could afford to lose against them this season, but if they win the other they'll end up with more points than from the two draws last time.

This is all true, but it also relies on us repeating wins we achieved last season, such as Villa at home - which we havent done yet.

And anyway, how many teams win at Chelsea two years running? For the last 20 years, any kind of victory there has been a rare event. Defeat in Italy and defeat at Chelsea are a million miles away from the results that unduly bother me. And October was always going to be a hellishly difficult month.

True again, but it's not really the defeat at Chelsea that's the problem. Losing at home to Villa was a kick in the teeth and shouldnt have happened.

In fairness, losing at Chelsea and Spurs is no disgrace and the fact that these two games have come in the first 8 is a more important issue, than the fact that we lost them. If we'd lost at Spurs in August and then the Chelsea game was late November and we'd lost it, then it wouldnt be looked upon so worryingly. But as Tompkins rightly says, the order of the games can have an impact, and we've been unfortunate there.

Equally though, whilst Chelsea, Arsenal, Man Utd, City, Spurs etc are all very difficult away games, and not shameful to lose, across those 5 games, we need to have some kind of balance. In other words, we cannot be losing them all or only picking up a solitary point or two, from those games, if we're to seriously challenge for the title.

Even draws at those clubs would be decent enough as, although it wouldnt yield us a huge number of points, it would still prevent the opposition from claiming 3 more points than we do.

You dont have to beat all the top sides by any means, but you have to compete, hold your own and take a credible number of points from such clashes. Not to mention the fact that losing the away games puts intense pressure on us to win the reverse fixture, in order to balance out the distribution of points.

Remember, Liverpool have gone to two of the current top three sides in the country. That is far from a balanced fixture list, and that provides me with a calming optimism. There are far tougher games still to be played at Anfield, but it was the supposedly easy ones that caused problems last time around.

Yep, this touches on what i've said above.

There's no denying that Liverpool have contributed to some of their own reversals this season, but there are other issues, too.

Yes there are other issues, but this league is unforgiving and whatever the issues, we need the points. A list of mitigating circumstances isnt something we can exchange for the league title next May.

I have to say that I haven't been too impressed with the refereeing this season, and had mentioned the timekeeping issue even before United got their inexplicable never-ending injury time to avoid what should have been two more dropped points, in the Manchester derby. Liverpool just don't get those unfathomable decisions in their favour.

Liverpool failed to get even the allotted added time at Spurs to claw back a point, and conceded the crucial second against Villa when there was no earthly reason to go beyond the one added minute.

Penalty decisions aren't going the Reds' way either, with about four stonewallers waved away, and lesser offences, like Carragher's shoulder barge on Zavon Hines less of a foul than the clattering of Voronin at Spurs, where the Reds were poor but could have scraped the kind of lucky draw United got at the weekend.

Poor excuses. If we'd done what we needed to do, then amounts of injury time and late penalty claims not being given, wouldnt matter.

Meanwhile, Skrtel was pushed over by Drogba and nothing was given, yet the Chelsea striker has an air ambulance on standby every time he sneezes.

While I don't believe that these things even themselves out (after all, that would need a conscious decision by some omniscient being), you have to hope that the Reds' luck improves in line with that of their rivals.

He's right about the Skrtel appeal, it was a foul. But that's football, you have to accept it sometimes wont go our way, and we get on with it. You dont just have a tantrum and pack up & go.

We could do with a little bit of luck, but by the same token, the level of our poorer performances has been such, that even a bit more luck wouldnt have made much difference.

While on the subject of luck and fairness, I have total sympathy for Lucas Leiva in terms of the press he gets. The whole team plays poorly in Italy, yet he gets singled out. While I felt he really struggled in the first half of last season, I see no such problems this time around. But still the stigma remains attached.

There are probably reasons for this. If he was English, he'd be lauded for his workrate, feverish closing down and generally very good (if unspectacular) use of the ball.

I'm not going to go through the Lucas debate again, it's been done to death.

But the 'English' thing he mentions, is weak. Kuyt gets lavish praise for his effort and commitment, work rate and desire. Last time i checked, he wasnt from Bootle.

Because he's Brazilian, he has to fit a stereotype. That doesn't sit easily with people with no imagination. I've seen some idiotic comments in the press like he's “the most un-South American player I've ever seen”; as if, as a Brazilian, you have no worth unless you're a stepover king.

At Stamford Bridge, Liverpool actually won the battle of the midfield, and Lucas played a massive part in that. The Reds lost largely because Chelsea's strikers had a better day in front of goal, and not because of the balance of play (dictated by Lucas and Mascherano) or chances created.

I dont think it's about being Brazilian, it's just that people expect a certain level of player at LFC. I agree about Chelsea away though, Lucas was good.

As a psychology student helpfully pointed out to me during a discussion on my new website: “The ‘truth effect' comes when a message is repeated enough, then the receiver of the message will accept it as fact.”

Lucas made many positive contributions to the Hull thrashing, with two forceful, direct forward passes leading to goals two and five, as well as getting to the byline for the sixth. But along with not being stereotypically Brazilian, he is criticised for not being Xabi Alonso. Which, to me, seems grossly unfair.

Some merit in this.

Liverpool had their best-ever scoring start to the season, so how can Lucas, a league ever-present, be to blame for a “lack of creativity” that clearly isn't there?

That best ever scoring start, was largely down to bagfulls of goals against Stoke, Hull and Burnley. How about Villa at home and Spurs away? There was a distinct lack of creativity there. I'm not suggesting this is down specifically to Lucas, but when Tompkins suggests there hasnt BEEN a lack of creativity, he's being deliberately selective.

I thought Liverpool were creative against Chelsea, too, without ever tearing through them, but then this is a world-renowned defensive set-up, at home, and by the end, forced to defend in great numbers. Liverpool were no worse than in the fixture a year ago, but crucially, Chelsea were much improved, and the Reds didn't have that crucial slice of luck.

This is the most accurate paragraph in the article.

I therefore believe that the ‘truth effect' to be very much in evidence with Lucas, as it so clearly is with zonal marking.

Watch Liverpool defend a set-piece, and count the times ‘zonal marking' is discussed in negative terms. Watch a team defend man-marking, and you'll only get “great run/great cross/great header” if the ball goes in.

I agree with this. Zonal marking, as a system, isnt at fault. But our implementation of it has been shocking. How can anyone suggest we've implemented the system well this season, when you look at the goals we've conceded? Plainly, we've been **** at defending set pieces. Whether it's zonal, man-to-man or a mixture, if you get it wrong, you'll concede - and we have. Tompkins neglects to mention this though.

I've been saying this very thing for years, but almost collapsed when Gordon Strachan pointed this out after the Sunderland vs Wolves game. Then again, he's managed at the top level using both man-marking and zonal, and he said that both work equally well, and that it just depends on what your players are comfortable with. How dare he talk such sense?

Yep.

Against Chelsea, I noticed that after every excellent Mascherano challenge or even just harrying, there was a positive mention from the commentators, but Lucas, who made loads of excellent contributions was only mentioned after mistakes. Go and watch the game again, and you'll see this to be true.

Valid enough points. But it's human nature unfortunately, someone who's been brilliant will inevitably get a softer ride when his form drops, whereas someone who's usually perceived to be ineffective will feel the brunt of frustration when he goes wrong.

It's a similar concept to the one that comes into play when someone is on trial for a criminal offence. If someone has a perfectly clean previous record, it makes a difference. It says that this particular oversight, is rare and unlikely to be repeated, which makes it easier to forgive.

Someone with a string of offences though, who takes to the stand and professes remorse and sorrow, is far harder to believe.

The truth effect: bear it in mind next time you find yourself being told something time and again, its message driven into your brain like a hypnotist's mantra.

There's a delicious sense of irony in that last line, which could very easily be used to describe many of Tompkins' articles, funnily enough.

[Tee]

****ing hell Craig, you doing a dissertation on Forum replies?

Tomkins was interesting but it is just so predictable. He is Liverpool's very own Alistair Campbell it seems.

[cream]

Some of the comments in this thread are ridiculous and embarassing. I thought we played ok in what was a tight game, we had some half decent chances that on another day would have buried. We then concede a goal after a mistake, these things happen against good sides. When Drogba wasn't rolling around like a drama queen, he caused us quite a few problems and in the end was the difference.

As for us, I thought the defence looked a lot stronger for most of the game compared to previous games. It's very unfair to criticise Lucas for not being anywhere near as good as Alonso. He isn't, but they are 2 completely different players, and he isn't a like for like swap. Aquilani is the direct replacement for Alonso, so we just have to be patient and hope he is as good as rafa thinks he is. Btw, does rafa play masher and lucas as 2 holding midfielders against the good sides because he wants the 2 full backs to attack more? Just a thought, and if true it's taking a bit of time to work properly but there are signs we are slowly improving if you fotget about the Fiorentina game.

As for having a go at Torres and Gerrard, again a bit harsh imo as against the good teams they get starved of any decent service from our midfield because we aren't quite creative enough. We huff and puff with the likes of kuyt and riera, but there's no real quality in there who can make those killer passes to the front 2. Is gerrard in the middle, kuyt up front and benayoun on the right the answer while we wait for aquilani to get fit? personally i'm not sure - yes it may improve us going forward but wouldn't it give us less ptotection at the back?? i think that whatever team is played, we just need to start keeping clean sheets again, this will bread confidence through the team and then we should do better against the better teams.

I think people are more ****ed off that we have lost three games already this season.

[Craig_H]

****ing hell Craig, you doing a dissertation on Forum replies?

Tomkins was interesting but it is just so predictable. He is Liverpool's very own Alistair Campbell it seems.

I didnt want to seem like i was just disagreeing with the bloke for the sake of it, i was always told to show my workings