Goal 1: stood infront of keeper blocking his path giving Okaka a free run Goal 2: persistently forced a throw which set up our second Goal 3: his run at the front post drew a defender away Alternate view: Pools goal 1: for whatever reason left his man and the ball was played through the gap Goal 3: debatably left the pool defender too much space to float the ball over the top Lost the ball repeatedly and never beat his man
To balance it out then. I thought we did well. There are little things to iron out or learn from or change. But clearly an improvement on last year.
Had the ball after hitting the bar bounced over the line there would have been no question of it being a Minolet own goal and that's all we need to know.... Britos being in an offside position for the first phase is immaterial, he was not active. Mind you the ball didn't go out of play in the build up to our 2nd but who cares
Did force the throw in for the second though and was very persistent in the lead up to that. Think if I remember around that time put in a good cross as well
Disappointing, should've won. Went to pieces when Pereyra went off. Amrabat was poo but not sure what the fuss is all about, he will eventually fall behind Gray and Richarlison.
Amrabat doesn't deserve any credit for getting a throw leading to our second goal. He got the ball 1 v 1 with the full back, hung onto it until a second defender turned up and then brainlessly ran the ball into them and it went out for a throw. That people are relying on that as evidence of one of his better moments in the game says it all really.
Couldn't agree more with this. The 1 think I'll give Amrabat credit for was his work rate yesterday, however he slowed us down in attack, misplaced too many passes, gave away too many fouls and didn't really complete many dribbles throughout the game. I've been critical of Amrabat's ability for a while and yesterday just reaffirmed my opinion. He can do a job as a squad player that helps us close out a game, but shoulnt be anywhere near the first team if we're serious about improving.
Pretty sure we are just now down to the level of saying that the fact that Amrabat is composed of matter and occupies space contributed to the 2nd goal, so desperate are people to make out that he's not complete utter ****, which he is.
In fairness, he did get an important touch in the build up to the second goal, but it was a 50-50 challenge that didn't rely on his decision making or composure. He either thinks too much, or doesnt think enough... I'm not sure which one it is, but either way the outcome is terrible end product Against better teams he could be quite useful to have around the team, because he does work hard, tracks back and is a nuisance for attackers. Unfortunately this means we sacrifice a channel of attack and it ends up breaking down our attacking moves. Gray made a great run yesterday and just needed to be played in first time, but Amrabat took far too many touches and played a terrible pass that was intercepted. We do need better if we are going to move forward, but another player of Pereyra's quality will not be cheap.
How was it offside when the shot/pass didn't go forwards? If only went forwards off Mignolet. Sideways at best, probably marginally backwards so can't be offside?
Exactly what I was about to write. The pass/shot went backwards so it can't be offside. I knew that as soon as they showed the replay. Pity Klopp doesn't know the laws of football.
Still not the rule. To be offside you need to be ahead of ball (any part of body but not hand or arm) as the ball is played, plus the usual 2 opponents between goal line.
I wish people wouldn't tempt fate at games. I mean, "Merson, what's the score..." was funny any all that but can we please do it 2-0 up deep into injury time and not a goal up after just 30 minutes!!!
Totally right on the "offside" - if any part of the payer is behind any part of the ball it is not offside - just like the throw in rule - the whole ball needs to be out It is moot anyway as the ball deflected off Matip - so he was played on It was also probably a penalty as Mongulet had Britos round the neck
I am relieved to find that i am not the only one 30 years on who cannot forgive Rush or Liverpool - frankly at the time i hated Dalglish more for begging for the pen
It was very noticeable yesterday how direct we were. I suspect we may adapt a lot more based on the opposition this year as it seemed very much aimed at Liverpool's defensive vulnerability. It will be interesting if he starts with largely the same team next week if we employ the same tactics. Okaka is a tempting target man to launch it up to but that goes out the window if Gray is playing.
Didn't really want to get involved with the offside argument as it's been given now and what's done is done, luckily in our favour! However FYI: A player is in an offside position if: any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent Britos' left foot is in front of the ball, therefore (marginally!) offside. The direction the ball moves in is irrelevant. I know someone argued that when Mignolet touched it and it hit the bar it's a different phase of play, but that's probably open to interpretation. I'd say a Watford goal in that argument
Seriously. Who gives a sheet about the offside. These decisions happen week in week out. The mere fact we are using retrospective camera angles to prove his foot was 6 inches offside means that, in the absence of video refs, the benefit of the doubt HAS to be given. Liverpool will undoubtedly get 10 or more of these decisions go their way over the course of the season and will Klopp moan about those? Of course not. He will say he didn't see it or that it was too close so the benefit has to go to the attacking team. Who cares now. It's done. We got it our way this time. I'm sure we will get these go against us throughout the season and we will moan and complain about poor officials, but we got one go our way so let's just be happy and be on our way.
I did say what's done is done; it was just several people saying the fact the ball went backwards means it can't be offside. Which is wrong.
That's the crux of it...he's in an offside position....for the 2nd goal Okaka was in an offiside position in the build up. Players are always in an offside position in every game.
The 2nd goal Okaka is not interfering with play when he's stood offside, the phase of play where he's involved he's back onside. I wish they would just change the rule back to the way it was instead of f•*+€•g about with it. When they brought this new rule in I remember watching van nistlerooy he was very good at loafing around offside and not interfering and then popping up in the right place unmarked. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well Britos is interfering with play by being in front of the goalie and touching the ball after it's played very slightly forward to him. Okaka is not interfering with play Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Had he touched it before Mignolet...he's offside...Mignolet touches it he's not offside. I think Mignolet should have been booked for fouling Britos...but that's because I want to add insult to injury.
Just to settle the argument, Britos WAS offside. However, over the course of the season these decisions balance themselves out so soon we will get a legitimate goal disallowed for offside.
Liverpool come to Watford and make defensive substitutions and time waste - We score a 94th minute equaliser - Karma
Seems like he has a few supporters on here too. Guess Arsenal have a rival for most 'secret fans' on this webzone.
He's getting defensive because after 2 full seasons his expensively-assembled team is still not much better than little old us
