We're a very average, uninspiring, one dimensional side

[El Jefecito]

Read the thread and you'll see it refers to Football in general. Night.

Night, bit early isn't it?

[Redspin]

This is one of the worst, negatively deluded posts I've ever come across. When did you start supporting Liverpool Dave? In fact, when did you first come across football in general because you are talking absolute ****e.

I agree. If he doesn't like it, go and watch someone else and stop bitching about it here. Christ, who needs Mancs and Bluenoses when we've got alleged supporters like him?

[Redspin]

Joining this a bit late

Football has changed a lot because of fitness coaches, good diet, no Tony Adams et al style drinking, 22 man squads etc

Many , many players now are good(very) athletes rather than gifted footballers.Space on the pitch is at a premium and time on the ball is non-existent. A player like Sissoko, who let's face is more of an athlete than a footballer at the moment, is seen as undropable by many LFC fans.

The game was more beautiful in the past because there was more time on the ball, more fat, unfit , slow players (drunks) ,and therefore skillful players could show off their talent more.

The cream will always rise to the top, Ronaldinho, Henry, Stevie etc but the general style has changed for now.

As for us, 3 points is all that matters until we win no 19, then we can think about style and beauty

Actually it's a load of nonsense to suggest that football was more beautiful in the past. I've been going to games for over 40 years and the standard of football back then compared with now was abysmal. If you get the chance, watch the England - W Germany World Cup Final. The standard of play was appalling by both teams - lots of honest endeavour, very little quality passing and the sole tactic was to get the ball wide and cross it - and I have little doubt that any midtable Premiership side now would batter either team.

Players are infinitely fitter - in the 60s a player's career was generally over by 30 - the game is much faster, tactical awareness is light years ahead and the general spectacle is vastly superior to the kick-and-rush football of 30-40 years ago.

[Redspin]

I think that'd just result in more longshots. If there are any changes then it needs to be something that gives people that bit more time and space on the ball to pass it round.

At the moment, the half way line is the point where you can be offside. Maybe making that "offside line" halfway into the opposing teams half would give more room in midfield.

Though watching the old matches on 442, the thing that I really think has been detrimental to the style of play that teams play these days is the back pass rule.

Then a defender would pass it to the keeper, he'd pick it up and roll it out to the full back. These days a defender in a bit of trouble launches it and so the game takes place in the skies as much as on the floor.

I don't personally think the backpass rule has benefitted the spectacle and beauty of the game. Its speeded it up yes, but its made it much less beautiful too.

You can't be serious. The passback rule is much better now. When I first started watching a team could kill a game by passing back. The goalie was under no time constraint and could hold onto the ball as long as he liked. The later amendment and its progression to the current rule are huge improvements and keep the ball in play and the game flowing

[Redspin]

How about something like no points for a no score draw? Both teams would have to come out playing, sure they could sit back after one goal, but most teams do that these days anyway.

it would stop teams setting out 4-5-1 in an attempt to bore the game to death.

But it penalises great games where evenly-matched teams slug it out and neither side can break through. I've seen some fantastic 0-0 draws over the years. It's not always about winning 6-0 to be entertaining.

[dww]

You can't be serious. The passback rule is much better now. When I first started watching a team could kill a game by passing back. The goalie was under no time constraint and could hold onto the ball as long as he liked. The later amendment and its progression to the current rule are huge improvements and keep the ball in play and the game flowing

I actually think that the keeper should be able to pick it up but the time limits in the rules should be enforced more. Currently the ball goes back to the keeper under pressure and he hoofs it up pitch resulting in very little flow of play and normally a throw in the vecinity of the halfway line or alternatively a bit oh head tennis. Allowing the keeper to throw the ball out does in general start more attcks and encourages better football. You are definitely right that something needed to be done about what keepers were doing before the rules were changed though.

[Shaggy]

You can't be serious. The passback rule is much better now. When I first started watching a team could kill a game by passing back. The goalie was under no time constraint and could hold onto the ball as long as he liked. The later amendment and its progression to the current rule are huge improvements and keep the ball in play and the game flowing

We were masters at it when 1-0 up.

In fact, a lot of deluded Mancs reckon our “demise” didn’t coincide with the changing of the back-pass rule, they reckon the changing of the rule TRIGGERED our demise!

[alunevans]

You can't be serious. The passback rule is much better now. When I first started watching a team could kill a game by passing back. The goalie was under no time constraint and could hold onto the ball as long as he liked. The later amendment and its progression to the current rule are huge improvements and keep the ball in play and the game flowing

I'm serious. I agree there was a problem in terms of how long the keeper could hold on to the ball (easily fixed) but there was less booting from the back and more rolling it out and building up the play.

[JRC]

We were masters at it when 1-0 up.

In fact, a lot of deluded Mancs reckon our “demise” didn’t coincide with the changing of the back-pass rule, they reckon the changing of the rule TRIGGERED our demise!

Whenever that old canard is raised (stand up Terry Christian), I'm tempted to ask why, if passing the ball back to the Goalkeeper was the basis of our success, did no other team latch on to this tactical masterstroke, and dominate to the same extent? No other teams decided NOT to pass back to the Goalie because of a matter of principle - although Mancs would probably claim they did..

Truth is, Paisley's teams were pragmatic when they neede to be, but they were the first English team to value possession like Continental teams. What other fans (probably) recall is Liverpool passing the ball across the back 4 - or 5, as Clemence would be included - waiting for an opportunity to strike. If no opportunity arose - say if the opposition didn't come out to challenge us - we'd just keep on probing until it did. Everyone else - including a Man Utd with a carthorse like Jim Holton(!) in a traditional CH role - didn't have the patience OR passing technique/control, so they would just lug it upfield, like they always did. Less knowledgeable fans took this to be a more 'positive' form of Football. Somehow, we always scored more goals than anyone else, though.

Strange thing with this thread; the usual charge made by those of a pessimistic persuasion is that anyone who is too positive about LFC is wearing 'Rose-Tinted Spectacles'; yet those of a similar persuasion on here appear to be wearing absolutely Rose-Painted Goggles in their view of the quality of Football from years ago. As another with > 40 years footie-watching, I concur that some things were better then, but there was an awful lot of cr*p around, and overall, it is better now as a spectacle.

[Shaggy]

Whenever that old canard is raised (stand up Terry Christian), I'm tempted to ask why, if passing the ball back to the Goalkeeper was the basis of our success, did no other team latch on to this tactical masterstroke, and dominate to the same extent? No other teams decided NOT to pass back to the Goalie because of a matter of principle - although Mancs would probably claim they did..

Truth is, Paisley's teams were pragmatic when they neede to be, but they were the first English team to value possession like Continental teams. What other fans (probably) recall is Liverpool passing the ball across the back 4 - or 5, as Clemence would be included - waiting for an opportunity to strike. If no opportunity arose - say if the opposition didn't come out to challenge us - we'd just keep on probing until it did. Everyone else - including a Man Utd with a carthorse like Jim Holton(!) in a traditional CH role - didn't have the patience OR passing technique/control, so they would just lug it upfield, like they always did. Less knowledgeable fans took this to be a more 'positive' form of Football. Somehow, we always scored more goals than anyone else, though.

Strange thing with this thread; the usual charge made by those of a pessimistic persuasion is that anyone who is too positive about LFC is wearing 'Rose-Tinted Spectacles'; yet those of a similar persuasion on here appear to be wearing absolutely Rose-Painted Goggles in their view of the quality of Football from years ago. As another with > 40 years footie-watching, I concur that some things were better then, but there was an awful lot of cr*p around, and overall, it is better now as a spectacle.

Nice post.

[alunevans]

I actually think that the keeper should be able to pick it up but the time limits in the rules should be enforced more. Currently the ball goes back to the keeper under pressure and he hoofs it up pitch resulting in very little flow of play and normally a throw in the vecinity of the halfway line or alternatively a bit oh head tennis. Allowing the keeper to throw the ball out does in general start more attcks and encourages better football. You are definitely right that something needed to be done about what keepers were doing before the rules were changed though.

Yeah you've expressed my view really well. It stays in play but not really in play. Its always a pressure hoof down the pitch rather than something more measured so you've got 30 seconds of head tennis or a throw in - which these days is often a punt down the line too.

[desertscouser]

'We're a very average, uninspiring, one dimensional side'

I would say the above perfectly describes tonight's ****e performance.

[CharlieMansonsSquint]

The lack of pace upfront is a problem. Teams can just sit right on top of the keeper and it's compounded because we lack creativity.

Of course that being said Bellamy isn't the answer. What I wouldn't give for Robbie Fowler circa 1996.

It would be nice to see the fullbacks get beyond the midfield players once in a blue moon as well.

But most of all the midfield needs upgrading. Starting with a proper right sided player. Would Chelsea sell us Wright-Phillips?, doubtful. But what I do know is that Pennant HAS to go. A ****ing joke is that lad. What on earth did Rafa see in him?

I expect Rafa to go full out for Alves this summer, that's if the board don't handcuff him again.

As for January, well we need more than Lucas Neill, but we knew that already.