Jordan Henderson

[Norbs]

https://twitter.com/theanfieldbuzz/s...30923179253761

[Kenneth]

Of course they do. All a statistic does is tell you, without bias or opinion, a fact. Which stats are chosen (or perhaps which are not) is of course more of a tell, but we don't have visibility of anything but what Buzzo posted

Honest man you'd argue with yourself if there was no-one else to

[b]Why do we have to be skeptical?[b/] YOU have to be, because despite watching the game you think he was average. I don't, I thought he was very good so those statistics THAT ARE NOT EXHAUSTIVE BY ANY MEANS support that opinion

I will concede that I am perhaps overly positive when it comes to Liverpool, probably as much as to counter the overwhelmingly negative posts on this site; but still

I think you answered your own question. And tbh, you lost me at “ Of course they're context free. Because they're stats”, which is just a weird statement.

As you might imagine, I’m quite used to accusations of being contrary but I am struggling with the idea being accused of it in response to saying Henderson played alright.

[Buzzo]

Dig into stats here.

Hendo got a 7.5 seems fairly unanimous that he played quite well last night if any agendas are removed. I agree with the stats across all the team on that page - Ali was our best player then Nunez then Hendo.

[Mark79]

[ame]https://twitter.com/dominicking_dm/status/1585202813478776833[/ame]

[Buzzo]

It was almost certainly comments about Partey then?

If there is no further action then they should clarify that no racist comment was made.

[Mark79]

The full statement says they found there was no case to answer.

There’s no need to clarify what the alleged comment was or wasn’t.

[Buzzo]

The full statement says they found there was no case to answer. There’s no need to clarify what the alleged comment was or wasn’t.

For sure the 'chat' will be around preferential treatment. Mud sticks.

[Mark79]

For sure the 'chat' will be around preferential treatment. Mud sticks.

Yes, but it would have been anyway. It was the ‘chat’ that decided it was a racial slur in the 1st place.

[Buzzo]

Yes, but it would have been anyway. It was the ‘chat’ that decided it was a racial slur in the 1st place.

[Kenneth]

I love Bobby’s transformation from being racist and racially abusing Mason Holgate to being so disgusted by racism that simply the look on his face is proof of it happening around him.

[Buzzo]

I love Bobby’s transformation from being racist and racially abusing Mason Holgate to being so disgusted by racism that simply the look on his face is proof of it happening around him.

Yeah, there are always a few logic leaps made when the online jury is considering the evidence.

[rudedog]

What a pass to Salah for the first goal, outside of the boot to bend it round the defender.

[Kenneth]

Totally ****ed the keeper up, thought he could get to it all the way until he couldn’t and far beyond.

[Paul12]

... that simply the look on his face is proof of it happening around him.

Sorry to be stupid and apologies if I have missed something, but what is this a reference to?

[Kenneth]

Sorry to be stupid and apologies if I have missed something, but what is this a reference to?

Nothing serious, but after the incident, Twitter was awash with people claiming that Bobby had a disappointed look on his face in the photo of the incident and that this was because he was disappointed that Henderson had said something racist to Gabriel. Thus, Henderson had clearly said something racist.

Yes, it’s as mental as it sounds above, but it was a widely referenced theory.