I'll start by saying Stoke 1 - 0 Liverpool, was not a fair result and if games were decided on performance we would have won 5-0. However, games aren't decided on performance and I think generally we have to praise Stoke for shutting the game down today. As Kenny said before the match, people insult Stoke's style of play too much, but if it works for them like it did today then who is anyone to question it? The whole game can be summed up with the following sentence: "Liverpool created lots of chances, Stoke got the penalty and shut down the game." Stoke's new signings Crouch and Palacious were the ones who were expected to make the difference today, but it ended up being the age old faces of Huth, Etherington and Shawcross that shut down the play. Crouch was thoroughly marked throughout and didn't make the sort of debut he would have wanted, however the rock solid defense impressed everyone with last ditch efforts, and crowding players in and around the box. It was certainly a tactic that had been practiced and credit to Pulis, who has got them playing as a formidable side. If I had to give advice to any other team going to play them, it would be "Don't let them score first." Liverpool played a completely different ball game (completely) as the defense struggled with the physical Stoke players, but the attack probed constantly. Adam threaded some beautiful passes throughout the first half to catch Downing on the wing, but by the second half the closing down had reached full gear, and Adam just ended up wasting possession. Downing's pace wasn't enough to get him past some of the defenders as they looked to close him down at every opportunity; although many crosses did get in, none of them ended up in a real threat as Stoke huddled bodies together in the box. Suarez was the main threat today, and it shows how good Stoke were when he couldn't get a good shot off. He created plenty of chances, and made lots of space in a tight area but he just couldn't pull off that killer pass for the goal and no matter how hard he tried no goals flowed to him. The mistake in the first half was putting Suarez up on his own, he was constantly hounded by Stoke's defenders and when it came to pulling the pass or the shot off, there was no room and nobody to pass it to. It was a game that Liverpool must have thought they could win after repeated attacks, but it wasn't to be. As for the penalty... it's a very tough one and a rare position where it was either a free-kick to Liverpool, or a penalty to Stoke and I think Clattenburg just got it wrong, although he can be forgiven for thinking it was a penalty. The thing to look at is.. would Carragher have gone down if he hadn't had been fouled by Walters? No. Therefore, he wouldn't have wrapped his arm round Walters, and no penalty would have been given - so Clattenburg made the wrong decision in the first place not to award a freekick, however if Carragher hadn't had been fouled and it had played out like that, then it was a stone wall penalty. It was a game marred with more controversy with multiple hand ball shouts as Stoke looked to keep themselves from being overrun. A handball near the end was the most obvious as Suarez looked to shoot from a tight angle only for a defender to hit it out for a corner with his arm. It was an obvious handball, and the linesman was in the perfect position to see it, so Suarez had a right to argue, however linesmen don't change their mind, so it was never going to end well once he'd made his decision. There were multiple penalty shouts throughout the game as Liverpool pushed into the Stoke penalty area, but none of them were clearcut. It all resulted in a sloppy game, with attacking play that led to nothing by Liverpool and a defensive display that Stoke should be proud of. However, the pitch problem does need addressing - as the commentators pointed out during the game, the grass was deliberately long in order to slow down the passing. It was clearly a tactic aimed at our style of play, but it should be something the FA need to crack down on. It's hard enough playing away without encountering unfavorable pitch conditions as well. Well played Stoke, and to the Liverpool fans: It's one loss, if we win the next game we're averaging 2 points a game, ending up with 78 point over the course of the season, which would give us 2nd place (2 points behind Utd) on last year's table.
Could have saved yourself some time and just said Stoke defended brilliantly. Although we had more than enough CLEAR chances to draw and win that game. The likes of Henderson going through one on one and then Adam in the same sequence, they both need to get whipped for that. Suarez too at the end with the open goal.
If we perform like that and kept losing then I would be worried, but today was just one game against a Stoke side that defended brilliantly. They have done it to many a good team in the past, look forward to the Spurs game.
Ze Liverbird. I agree with your assessment. However I wouldn't highlight just Stoke for having a bad pitch. Wigan are just as culpable. I remember a couple of years back, Wigan played all their home games bar one on a cabbage patch pitch, the one they didn't was against Manchester United. They re-laid it especially on Steve Bruces insistence. Steve Bruce knew only too well to help his old mucker without it being obvious. He instructed his players to not throw the game, but play for 45 minutes and then ease off once they took the lead. I think todays performance by Clattenberg should put an end to the notion that he favours Liverpool.
We shouldn't whinge at the pitch or Stoke's style of play or even the pen's that never were; we had more than enough chances to win this game outright - we were by far the better team and lacked only goals. Fantastic defensive play by Stoke and poor finishing by us decided the game in the end.
It was an unfair result but we can draw positives from the performance. We attacked and dominated possession, it's not as if we rolled over and died. We were sloppy in places and missed some good chances, but I don't think we'll have many problems scoring goals and winning games if we keep the same mentality and style of play.
I would be more complimentary of Stokes defending if they had kept attacking after the pen. As it was, they parked the bus half way through the first half and went to a 10-0 formation. I remember Inter doing the same against barca and being slated for being "anti-football" but when Stoke do it they are said to have played well..?
I actually thought that tactically, Inter played it perfectly; it was their only chance of winning and they executed it perfectly....as it was today with Stoke. I doubt Spurs will park up like that, next game will be very interesting!
If you read the article, then that's exactly what I say... Apart from the pitch, I genuinely thing things like that need to be addressed by the FA.
Sorry Ze, It wasn't aimed at your very good report. Just the general sentiment here seems to be that Stoke played well when I don't think they did. They got an undeserved lead then sat on it for the whole game which could have and should have backfired on them as we should have scored. As it was, we didn't score and missed great opportunites so I think it reflects poorly on us rather than well on Stoke. Having said that, the game offered nothing surprising and from the onset I knew it would be hard to score but I was expecting a draw tbh.
I was talking to KENNY_KOP_KING but okay I don't think they played well, but they defended well - they didn't deserve the win at all, but I'm not going to be all negative and slate their playing style, you get what you put in after all.
I'm not sure its as clear cut as that. Stoke allow the grass to grow because it is advantageous to their approach to the match, is that any different to Barcelona having the grass cut short in order to help the quick passing approach? Both are manipulating the playing field in order to maximise their chances of winning, what would you say makes one of them right and the other wrong?
Arsenal manipulated it when they played at the library, their ground was so narrow, the opposition couldn't play with wingers.
They're both wrong. It might not just be Stoke, but pitches should all be the same size and cut regularly.
It's very interesting that Stoke have a larger pitch when they play Europa League matches and a smaller one for the Premier League. I can only assume that UEFA stipulate the size of the pitch. If they can do it why can't the FA or the Premier League? I can't believe we narrow the pitch purely for Rory's throws as they are far less effective now than they were in our first season. As we play with two wingers, you'd imagine that a bit of width would be favourable. Mind you, I did read that when Sir Stan was playing, the right hand of the pitch in the opposition half narrowed as it approached the byline as it made it easier for him to whip crosses in. So maybe there is something in it after all...
All the teams have different sized pitches to match their style of play, and I have no problem with Stoke doing the same. My bone is that all pitches should be the same size surely, pitches can vary in length by nearly 8m! That's a huge amount when you're talking about the dynamics of football.
Just seen the game on match of the day. How the hell did the ref not give a penalty in the first half for handball? Delap just spread his arms out and pretty much caught the ball? Not so sure about the one in the 2nd half and Stoke's penalty looked very soft. If Battenburg is consistant he is going to give a lot of penalties from corners for defenders holding shirts as what Carragher did happens all the time. Doubt he'll have the bottle to do that though...
I agree, although even despite the referee's errors we should have put the game to bed when we had the chances and we didn't. We played well at times, but for some reason there was no cutting edge or proper flying shot to get us level.
