Do people honestly feel bad when rival players get injured?

Although winning against a full strength squad feels like more of an achievement I'd rather play United without Rooney because at the end of the day all that matters is gaining 3pts, I would feel bad if someone actually did have a career-threatening injury but if it's just a little knock that sidelines him for a week or two then I aint too bothered.

That is a myth. In Liverpool defeats to Manchester United, there has been considerable influence from the referee. Unfortunately the only referee fit for the game was the Manchester United referee.

Kuled wrote:

Only rolling your eyes at the truth.

Did we not beat United at Anfield a year or two ago without Gerrard or Torres, when Vidic was sent off?

edit: Just checked, September 08, beat them without Gerrard or Torres; their line up was pretty strong though, Vidic, Ferdinand, Evra, Scholes, Rooney, Tevez, Berbatov, Webb.

Jay wrote:Did we not beat United at Anfield a year or two ago without Gerrard or Torres, when Vidic was sent off?

edit: Just checked, September 08, beat them without Gerrard or Torres; their line up was pretty strong though, Vidic, Ferdinand, Evra, Scholes, Rooney, Tevez, Berbatov, Webb.

Our best player was injured, shit for brains, hardly full strength. Also, you didn't check very well Gerrard played. In any case, that was years ago, I'm talking about the present day (as I already pointed out).

No, is the short answer. Hardly a rivalry if you don't enjoy your rivals shit.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Jay wrote:Did we not beat United at Anfield a year or two ago without Gerrard or Torres, when Vidic was sent off?

edit: Just checked, September 08, beat them without Gerrard or Torres; their line up was pretty strong though, Vidic, Ferdinand, Evra, Scholes, Rooney, Tevez, Berbatov, Webb.

Our best player was injured, shit for brains, hardly full strength. Also, you didn't check very well Gerrard played. In any case, that was years ago, I'm talking about the present day (as I already pointed out).

Gerrard came off the bench with about 30 minutes to go.

SpiritOfShankly wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Jay wrote:Did we not beat United at Anfield a year or two ago without Gerrard or Torres, when Vidic was sent off?

edit: Just checked, September 08, beat them without Gerrard or Torres; their line up was pretty strong though, Vidic, Ferdinand, Evra, Scholes, Rooney, Tevez, Berbatov, Webb.

Our best player was injured, shit for brains, hardly full strength. Also, you didn't check very well Gerrard played. In any case, that was years ago, I'm talking about the present day (as I already pointed out).

Gerrard came off the bench with about 30 minutes to go.

I know he did, so it's hardly correct to say you beat United without him, especially considering you were drawing with us at that point, and your only goal had been scored by Wesley Brown.

you got battered in that game you had your goal and 1 decent effort from giggs other than that you didnt trouble us what so ever, we played 60mins without Gerrard and Torres didnt play at all we were far more under strength than you were.

SpiritOfShankly wrote:you got battered in that game you had your goal and 1 decent effort from giggs other than that you didnt trouble us what so ever, we played 60mins without Gerrard and Torres didnt play at all we were far more under strength than you were.

Well done, you have successfully provided some sketchy evidence that years ago your under strength side was better than our under strength side, but not to to the extent that they could score a goal.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Jay wrote:Did we not beat United at Anfield a year or two ago without Gerrard or Torres, when Vidic was sent off?

edit: Just checked, September 08, beat them without Gerrard or Torres; their line up was pretty strong though, Vidic, Ferdinand, Evra, Scholes, Rooney, Tevez, Berbatov, Webb.

Our best player was injured, shit for brains, hardly full strength. Also, you didn't check very well Gerrard played. In any case, that was years ago, I'm talking about the present day (as I already pointed out).

I said your line up was pretty strong, did I say it was full strength? No, I didn't.

P.S - Please refrain from swearing and stay on topic, thankyou.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

SpiritOfShankly wrote:you got battered in that game you had your goal and 1 decent effort from giggs other than that you didnt trouble us what so ever, we played 60mins without Gerrard and Torres didnt play at all we were far more under strength than you were.

Well done, you have successfully provided some sketchy evidence that years ago your under strength side was better than our under strength side, but not to to the extent that they could score a goal.

the score was 2-1 babel scored....

SpiritOfShankly wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

SpiritOfShankly wrote:you got battered in that game you had your goal and 1 decent effort from giggs other than that you didnt trouble us what so ever, we played 60mins without Gerrard and Torres didnt play at all we were far more under strength than you were.

Well done, you have successfully provided some sketchy evidence that years ago your under strength side was better than our under strength side, but not to to the extent that they could score a goal.

the score was 2-1 babel scored....

Only after Gerrard came on, at which point you were closer to full strength than we were.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

SpiritOfShankly wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

SpiritOfShankly wrote:you got battered in that game you had your goal and 1 decent effort from giggs other than that you didnt trouble us what so ever, we played 60mins without Gerrard and Torres didnt play at all we were far more under strength than you were.

Well done, you have successfully provided some sketchy evidence that years ago your under strength side was better than our under strength side, but not to to the extent that they could score a goal.

the score was 2-1 babel scored....

Only after Gerrard came on, at which point you were closer to full strength than we were.

No we weren't you only missed ronaldo, we had a half fit Gerrard and no Torres.

Whats your excuse for the 4-1 defeat when we both had full strength sides?

SpiritOfShankly wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

SpiritOfShankly wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

SpiritOfShankly wrote:you got battered in that game you had your goal and 1 decent effort from giggs other than that you didnt trouble us what so ever, we played 60mins without Gerrard and Torres didnt play at all we were far more under strength than you were.

Well done, you have successfully provided some sketchy evidence that years ago your under strength side was better than our under strength side, but not to to the extent that they could score a goal.

the score was 2-1 babel scored....

Only after Gerrard came on, at which point you were closer to full strength than we were.

No we weren't you only missed ronaldo, we had a half fit Gerrard and no Torres.

Ronaldo was (and is) a far better player than Gerrard or Torres could ever dream of being. Ronaldo would be a bigger loss to any team than Gerrard and Torres, much less Torres and Gerrard being slightly unfit.

Whats your excuse for the 4-1 defeat when we both had full strength sides?

We didn't have a full strength side that day. For a start we only had 10 players a significant portion of the match, we were also missing Fletcher and Hargreaves. Most importantly though, we were treating the game in quite an arrogant way because we knew it was practically impossible for you to win the League from that situation, and got complacent. Even at 3-1 after we had been reduced to 10 men, Rooney was laughing and joking after he missed a chance.

I wouldn't call these excuses, that seems to have a negative connotation, it is just the explanation for what happened that day. No-one with even half a mind thinks that Liverpool were a team who were 3 goals better than United that season, it was just a fluke result, they happen in football.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

SpiritOfShankly wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

SpiritOfShankly wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Well done, you have successfully provided some sketchy evidence that years ago your under strength side was better than our under strength side, but not to to the extent that they could score a goal.

the score was 2-1 babel scored....

Only after Gerrard came on, at which point you were closer to full strength than we were.

No we weren't you only missed ronaldo, we had a half fit Gerrard and no Torres.

Ronaldo was (and is) a far better player than Gerrard or Torres could ever dream of being. Ronaldo would be a bigger loss to any team than Gerrard and Torres, much less Torres and Gerrard being slightly unfit.

Whats your excuse for the 4-1 defeat when we both had full strength sides?

We didn't have a full strength side that day. For a start we only had 10 players a significant portion of the match, we were also missing Fletcher and Hargreaves. Most importantly though, we were treating the game in quite an arrogant way because we knew it was practically impossible for you to win the League from that situation, and got complacent. Even at 3-1 after we had been reduced to 10 men, Rooney was laughing and joking after he missed a chance.

I wouldn't call these excuses, that seems to have a negative connotation, it is just the explanation for what happened that day. No-one with even half a mind thinks that Liverpool were a team who were 3 goals better than United that season, it was just a fluke result, they happen in football.

Doesn't matter if Ronaldo is better than them, you have a far better squad and as we know Liverpool were a 2 man team with just Gerrard and Torres...

Your excuses are quite embarrassing, However much you like man u and hate Liverpool that is a crock of shit which you know but i understand the need, talking like this comes with being a man u fan.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

SpiritOfShankly wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

SpiritOfShankly wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Well done, you have successfully provided some sketchy evidence that years ago your under strength side was better than our under strength side, but not to to the extent that they could score a goal.

the score was 2-1 babel scored....

Only after Gerrard came on, at which point you were closer to full strength than we were.

No we weren't you only missed ronaldo, we had a half fit Gerrard and no Torres.

Ronaldo was (and is) a far better player than Gerrard or Torres could ever dream of being. Ronaldo would be a bigger loss to any team than Gerrard and Torres, much less Torres and Gerrard being slightly unfit.

Whats your excuse for the 4-1 defeat when we both had full strength sides?

We didn't have a full strength side that day. For a start we only had 10 players a significant portion of the match, we were also missing Fletcher and Hargreaves. Most importantly though, we were treating the game in quite an arrogant way because we knew it was practically impossible for you to win the League from that situation, and got complacent. Even at 3-1 after we had been reduced to 10 men, Rooney was laughing and joking after he missed a chance.

I wouldn't call these excuses, that seems to have a negative connotation, it is just the explanation for what happened that day. No-one with even half a mind thinks that Liverpool were a team who were 3 goals better than United that season, it was just a fluke result, they happen in football.

Terrible attitude for the club and it's players to have, amateurish and unprofessional, shameful.

SpiritOfShankly wrote:Doesn't matter if Ronaldo is better than them, you have a far better squad and as we know Liverpool were a 2 man team with just Gerrard and Torres...

Your excuses are quite embarrassing, However much you like man u and hate Liverpool that is a crock of shit which you know but i understand the need, talking like this comes with being a man u fan.

Don't give me that two man team shit, I've never claimed that, the most important player in your squad when you were one of the strongest teams in Europe was Alonso, and after him it was Mascherano. Beating United side without Alonso at Old Trafford that season, even though United were also under strength, would have been a better example than that 2-1 win in Anfield.

I told you, I'm not making excuses, I'm just trying to explain it. Why do you think Liverpool won 1-4?

Jay wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

SpiritOfShankly wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

SpiritOfShankly wrote:


the score was 2-1 babel scored....

Only after Gerrard came on, at which point you were closer to full strength than we were.

No we weren't you only missed ronaldo, we had a half fit Gerrard and no Torres.

Ronaldo was (and is) a far better player than Gerrard or Torres could ever dream of being. Ronaldo would be a bigger loss to any team than Gerrard and Torres, much less Torres and Gerrard being slightly unfit.

Whats your excuse for the 4-1 defeat when we both had full strength sides?

We didn't have a full strength side that day. For a start we only had 10 players a significant portion of the match, we were also missing Fletcher and Hargreaves. Most importantly though, we were treating the game in quite an arrogant way because we knew it was practically impossible for you to win the League from that situation, and got complacent. Even at 3-1 after we had been reduced to 10 men, Rooney was laughing and joking after he missed a chance.

I wouldn't call these excuses, that seems to have a negative connotation, it is just the explanation for what happened that day. No-one with even half a mind thinks that Liverpool were a team who were 3 goals better than United that season, it was just a fluke result, they happen in football.

Terrible attitude for the club and it's players to have, amateurish and unprofessional, shameful.

Yeah it was quite disappointing, but complacency can affect the best of us. Even Spain lost to Switzerland at the World Cup, and Liverpool and Chelsea were knocked out of the FA Cup by Barnsley Football Club in the preceding season.

I have also used that example so that's two games that goe's against your point. Agree Alonso was the most important player that season but Masch was never more important than Gerrard or Torres. We were the better side that day that's all there is to it, you weren't under strength and as you've pointed out we were without Alonso and had a last minute injury problem with a starting defender and had to change and still come out 4-1 winners.

We were under strength, particularly as we only had 10 players, and Hargreaves was injured. My 'excuses' are just explanations for why you were the better side that day.

your FA Cup win last season we were down to 10 men and we were without Jay Spearing.