ECHO Comment: "Fears of Witch-hunt Against Liverpool FC" part 3

[ForeverBlue92]

The difference is though that if you took Aguero or Silva out of that City team it struggled, even with world class replacements coming in. Kompany missed a few games and they were a shambles at the back. Liverpool lose Van Dijk and some kid slots in like he’s never been away and Curtis Jones is suddenly absolutely brilliant. Robertson went from Hull and TAA had never been heard of and they became the best fullbacks in the world. City have spent 100s of millions on the worlds best full backs and can’t find any as good.

The invincibles drew 12 games in one season. Over the last two seasons Liverpool have barely dropped points in that many games! United under Ferguson would often lose games when their best players weren’t available. Liverpool can smash decent premier league teams 5-0 away from home with key players missing.

I think the difference is mentality - like him or not but Klopp has them running through brick walls for him and whilst a weirdo he seems the type who would have players terriifed of not putting in a shift under him.

Same with SAF crap players like Fletcher, Evans, Phil Neville etc won titles under him as he had them terrified of not performing.

Moyes overachieved with us for years on a shoestring budget as he has players fit and comitted.

Mentality plays a massive part in football and sadly Klopp has got it spot on there added with good recruitment.

You wouldn't see Gomes or Sigurdsson play for them as they dont run enough / not quick or fit enough.

 

[brigadier]

Wouldn't say that - Mane has been average last few weeks.

Richarlison runs up and down the pitch yet never looks goosed enough to miss a game.

I just think its an easy cop out when we never once called out Arsenals invincibles, Chelsea under Mourinho or SAF's decade+ of dominance as doping.

Even Man City never get accused of it when 34 yr old Fernandinho was bombing around the field whilst they were rocking up 100+ points.

I reckon it goes on but doubt its a club sponsored thing rather a few players likely going rogue of their own back.

Arsenal probably the best footballing side, chelsea the best defensive side , man u best all round with huge squad , liverpool is without a doubt the quickest and most energetic side I've seen, everyone has a player who can run and run but liverpool seem to have 25 of them, I'm convinced they are doping in some form or another, sako and clyne got caught and never played for the club again.

 

[EFCccc]

Although steroids helps with recovery, and helps a players strength, it wouldnt turn bang average players into world beaters like
Some of you are suggesting. Stop being bitter and just admit they are a quality team, with a manager they love to play for.

 

[catcherintherye]

Fraud doesn't come into it. Considerations like that are of no concern to any of that lot. It's their default mindset: win even if it means illegal or criminal acts.

Naturally. But it does seem fraudulent to me. I mean given it's run through tha national broadcaster, I'm pretty sure the rules state 1 vote per person?

 

[ForeverBlue92]

Arsenal probably the best footballing side, chelsea the best defensive side , man u best all round with huge squad , liverpool is without a doubt the quickest and most energetic side I've seen, everyone has a player who can run and run but liverpool seem to have 25 of them, I'm convinced they are doping in some form or another, sako and clyne got caught and never played for the club again.

But surely that means they dont agree with it then?

Just seems easy to make ourselves feel better and say "yeah you win everything cuz yous are doping lad" without actual proof.

Leeds run around like nutters yet no one excuses them or any of Biesla's sides.

 

[DanEFC92]

Lance Armstrong FC.

 

[catcherintherye]

and ten teams the other side as well. None of us know the rationale behind each club’s motivation & can only speculate. My take is three fold.

1) ultimately it’s a welfare issue & should have gone through, I’ve outlined why above and not going to repeat.
2) some of the 10 no votes missing the bigger picture and it’s a vote against the establishment - their entitled to do that
3) ultimately “the product” of good football will be impacted by this, more injuries, less tactical subs & teams shaking hands on 70. One of the ten no-voters will end up close to not being able to field a team by March & everyone will be up in arms saying it’s ridiculous

OK lets try and deal with each point
1) It has not been in any way established as a welfare issue. You yourself have said that we can't predict injuries, so resting players (through not starting) them is ineffective, as there is no evidence to suggest it works. If we accept this, why would subbing players work?
The only evidence we have, is that managerial recklessness is a big cause of injury. Whether you have 1, 3, 5 or 10 substitutes per game, it's not tackling with the issue, which is managers not looking after players. They need to use the mechanisms they have if it's a concern. There is no evidence to suggest 2 extra subs works.

2) I am not sure what "bigger picture" you have established here? The only thing you seemed to state was that more tactical subs could be made? What is the bigger picture you refer to?

3) Why will "the product" be impacted? When we have seen international games, with lots of subs, it negatively impacts the standard. It makes the games stop and start, disrupts the flow and turns it into something more akin to American football. That is not "the product" we want to see.
We want to see a more equal league, having 5 subs is likely to make it less equal, so overall will reduce the quality of the product.

As a concluding point, I would state nobody here is thinking of the big picture. They are thinking of their own teams interests. Thats absolutely fair enough as well. But managers who regularly risk their players safety, are in no position to claim either the moral high ground, or the homogeneity on the idea of player welfare. They are thinking of themselves. I dont blame them, but don't give me the guff that one side is on the right side morally and the other behaves selfishly. It's self interest all round.

 

[catcherintherye]

But surely that means they dont agree with it then?

Just seems easy to make ourselves feel better and say "yeah you win everything cuz yous are doping lad" without actual proof.

Leeds run around like nutters yet no one excuses them or any of Biesla's sides.

I agree with you. I mean I don't think Clyne was ever charged with anything either. Sakho took some stuff, but sounded like he did so on an individual basis. It's very unlikely (In my view) that a club could get away with doping for years and nobody says anything.

 

[catcherintherye]

The difference is though that if you took Aguero or Silva out of that City team it struggled, even with world class replacements coming in. Kompany missed a few games and they were a shambles at the back. Liverpool lose Van Dijk and some kid slots in like he’s never been away and Curtis Jones is suddenly absolutely brilliant. Robertson went from Hull and TAA had never been heard of and they became the best fullbacks in the world. City have spent 100s of millions on the worlds best full backs and can’t find any as good.

The invincibles drew 12 games in one season. Over the last two seasons Liverpool have barely dropped points in that many games! United under Ferguson would often lose games when their best players weren’t available. Liverpool can smash decent premier league teams 5-0 away from home with key players missing.

I mean, "away" games aren't really like away games are they? No fans etc. I don't remember the invincibles, or United every getting hammered for 7 goals at relegation fodder either.

 

[number4.]

OK lets try and deal with each point
1) It has not been in any way established as a welfare issue. You yourself have said that we can't predict injuries, so resting players (through not starting) them is ineffective, as there is no evidence to suggest it works. If we accept this, why would subbing players work?
The only evidence we have, is that managerial recklessness is a big cause of injury. Whether you have 1, 3, 5 or 10 substitutes per game, it's not tackling with the issue, which is managers not looking after players. They need to use the mechanisms they have if it's a concern. There is no evidence to suggest 2 extra subs works.

2) I am not sure what "bigger picture" you have established here? The only thing you seemed to state was that more tactical subs could be made? What is the bigger picture you refer to?

3) Why will "the product" be impacted? When we have seen international games, with lots of subs, it negatively impacts the standard. It makes the games stop and start, disrupts the flow and turns it into something more akin to American football. That is not "the product" we want to see.
We want to see a more equal league, having 5 subs is likely to make it less equal, so overall will reduce the quality of the product.

As a concluding point, I would state nobody here is thinking of the big picture. They are thinking of their own teams interests. Thats absolutely fair enough as well. But managers who regularly risk their players safety, are in no position to claim either the moral high ground, or the homogeneity on the idea of player welfare. They are thinking of themselves. I dont blame them, but don't give me the guff that one side is on the right side morally and the other behaves selfishly. It's self interest all round.

Ive laid out my points through the other thread. Not investing the time in repeating here. All I will say is 6 PL managers have no gone on the record saying it's a welfare issue; they know more than me. 71 of 72 leagues active in Europe are playing 5 subs this season. They know more than me.

Gary Cahill staying on the pitch after a muscle injury in this morning's game a microcosym of why.

 

[Blues Harp]

Although steroids helps with recovery, and helps a players strength, it wouldnt turn bang average players into world beaters like
Some of you are suggesting. Stop being bitter and just admit they are a quality team, with a manager they love to play for.

Bitter lad? Well hello...
Another one by the looks of it..

 

[nsno-chris]

They’re a very good, ruthless team and will remain so until klopp leaves

Sometimes the truth hurts lids

 

[catcherintherye]

Ive laid out my points through the other thread. Not investing the time in repeating here. All I will say is 6 PL managers have no gone on the record saying it's a welfare issue; they know more than me. 71 of 72 leagues active in Europe are playing 5 subs this season. They know more than me.

Gary Cahill staying on the pitch after a muscle injury in this morning's game a microcosym of why.

Ok. So one of them is Klopp, who regularly puts his players in danger, so he knows best then?

Carlo Ancelotti, who has managed at a far higher level, in more countries and for longer than pretty much any manager in the league (bar perhaps Mourinho)has stated 3 subs is more than sufficient, and it is an attempt to gain an advantage. But yes, what does he know?

As for the rest, I'm not really sure you have addressed the points raised anywhere. Certainly not to me.

 

[catcherintherye]

Although steroids helps with recovery, and helps a players strength, it wouldnt turn bang average players into world beaters like
Some of you are suggesting. Stop being bitter and just admit they are a quality team, with a manager they love to play for.

The only bitter people I tend to find support a club riddled with racism from to to bottom, who when finding out someone is convicted of racism jump to their defence. It is a singularly Kopite problem and has nothing to do with Evertonians.

 

[number4.]

Ok. So one of them is Klopp, who regularly puts his players in danger, so he knows best then?

Carlo Ancelotti, who has managed at a far higher level, in more countries and for longer than pretty much any manager in the league (bar perhaps Mourinho)has stated 3 subs is more than sufficient, and it is an attempt to gain an advantage. But yes, what does he know?

As for the rest, I'm not really sure you have addressed the points raised anywhere. Certainly not to me.

I would assume CA had sufficient influence over how the club voted for 5