Premier League match discussion thread | 2014/15

Scott_LFC wrote:What did he say?

Bet we won't beat Aston Villa. They're unbeaten in their last 3 visits to Anfield, ffs. Always seem to outplay us.

Sean wrote:Shite performance from Liverpool, bit daft to leave out Raheem

Keyser Söze wrote:Did you have to sell Suarez? As in do you think he would have been prepared to stay?

I'd rather have Suarez than £70million/all the players you've bought with the money.

Glen Miller wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:Did you have to sell Suarez? As in do you think he would have been prepared to stay?

I'd rather have Suarez than £70million/all the players you've bought with the money.

We definitely didn't have to sell Suarez.  We've spent well over 70m and greatly expanded our wage & squad size, so I don't think it was necessary financially.  Suarez has asked to go before and we just put him in his place.  Some would argue that rejecting Barcelona would be a much bigger issue than rejecting Arsenal, but Suarez, for all of his flaws, wants to play as often and as well as he can (except for when he bites people). 

If we had managed to keep him, we would probably only have signed Lambert, Lovren, Can, Manquillo, and Moreno (all guesswork, of course).  That's the curse of being a decent team outside of the untouchables in European football-whenever we get a decent player who is not homegrown, we are going to have to deal with the issues of wantaways. 

I still think a top 4 finish is a realistic proposition, but it's impossibly tough to say how good we actually are.  We got spanked by Southampton and scraped a lucky win, we lost at the Etihad where we always lose, we beat Tottenham whose number we seem to have finally gotten, then we lost in the fixture we always inexplicably struggle in.  We won't have any idea what we are as a team until the end of October.

Zzonked wrote:

Glen Miller wrote:
We definitely didn't have to sell Suarez.  We've spent well over 70m and greatly expanded our wage & squad size, so I don't think it was necessary financially.  Suarez has asked to go before and we just put him in his place.  Some would argue that rejecting Barcelona would be a much bigger issue than rejecting Arsenal, but Suarez, for all of his flaws, wants to play as often and as well as he can (except for when he bites people). 

If we had managed to keep him, we would probably only have signed Lambert, Lovren, Can, Manquillo, and Moreno (all guesswork, of course).  That's the curse of being a decent team outside of the untouchables in European football-whenever we get a decent player who is not homegrown, we are going to have to deal with the issues of wantaways. 

I still think a top 4 finish is a realistic proposition, but it's impossibly tough to say how good we actually are.  We got spanked by Southampton and scraped a lucky win, we lost at the Etihad where we always lose, we beat Tottenham whose number we seem to have finally gotten, then we lost in the fixture we always inexplicably struggle in.  We won't have any idea what we are as a team until the end of October.

I think the decision to sell hinged totally on him biting Cheilini.

Zzonked wrote:

Glen Miller wrote:
We definitely didn't have to sell Suarez.  We've spent well over 70m and greatly expanded our wage & squad size, so I don't think it was necessary financially.  Suarez has asked to go before and we just put him in his place.  Some would argue that rejecting Barcelona would be a much bigger issue than rejecting Arsenal, but Suarez, for all of his flaws, wants to play as often and as well as he can (except for when he bites people). 

If we had managed to keep him, we would probably only have signed Lambert, Lovren, Can, Manquillo, and Moreno (all guesswork, of course).  That's the curse of being a decent team outside of the untouchables in European football-whenever we get a decent player who is not homegrown, we are going to have to deal with the issues of wantaways. 

I still think a top 4 finish is a realistic proposition, but it's impossibly tough to say how good we actually are.  We got spanked by Southampton and scraped a lucky win, we lost at the Etihad where we always lose, we beat Tottenham whose number we seem to have finally gotten, then we lost in the fixture we always inexplicably struggle in.  We won't have any idea what we are as a team until the end of October.

I think the decision to sell hinged totally on him biting Cheilini.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

Glen Miller wrote:
We definitely didn't have to sell Suarez.  We've spent well over 70m and greatly expanded our wage & squad size, so I don't think it was necessary financially.  Suarez has asked to go before and we just put him in his place.  Some would argue that rejecting Barcelona would be a much bigger issue than rejecting Arsenal, but Suarez, for all of his flaws, wants to play as often and as well as he can (except for when he bites people). 

If we had managed to keep him, we would probably only have signed Lambert, Lovren, Can, Manquillo, and Moreno (all guesswork, of course).  That's the curse of being a decent team outside of the untouchables in European football-whenever we get a decent player who is not homegrown, we are going to have to deal with the issues of wantaways. 

I still think a top 4 finish is a realistic proposition, but it's impossibly tough to say how good we actually are.  We got spanked by Southampton and scraped a lucky win, we lost at the Etihad where we always lose, we beat Tottenham whose number we seem to have finally gotten, then we lost in the fixture we always inexplicably struggle in.  We won't have any idea what we are as a team until the end of October.

I think the decision to sell hinged totally on him biting Cheilini.

Bollocks it did, no way he was staying there.  They had to sell him because he had a release clause, all the Chiellini thing did was depress the price.

dena wrote:di Maria doing di Maria things.