As I said in another thread we didn't get the run of the ball nor any decent decisions from the Referee. We had the better chances and on another day would have won the game comfortably. We certainly were not outplayed that's for sure. Having said that though Cortinos' goal was outstanding. Although a goalkeeper should never be beaten from 40 yards out. At least that was what I was told years ago when I was playing, by George Horsfall.
) I posted this yesterday or this morning too. We March On (cheesey, but so true). I have seen three teams that have been better than us on the day, properly: Man City, Chelsea (yet couldn't break us down) and sometime in stripes in south Yorkshire
Not sure why people are saying the ref cost us the game, we were never going to score despite how poor the ref was. If you have all the domination and territory and don't create 1 clear chance, then you will get what you deserve, which is nothing. I didn't fancy our chances as soon as Coutinho scored. Was too early for them to have a lead to sit on. Changed their gameplan straight away. I just never fancy us to score against any half decent side who are sitting back.
I would think not giving a very blatant penalty - the word stonewall comes to mind - and not penalising the keeper handling outside the area has a rather large impact on the match. We would have been level within about two minutes of that Coutinho goal. I am not saying the ref should "give" us a goal. Just that under the laws of the game we had EARNED a clear goal-scoring chance through a very clever piece of build up play and a horrible blunder from Allen. So we did DESERVE something at that point. Not a goal - but a penalty. By your reckoning, creating lots of chances is the only factor that may make you deserve something from the game. By that reckoning, of course, Liverpool don't deserve anything either.
SaintFord - we did have chances; we didn't take them. We did run out of ideas I'll agree and need to be more creative, but we had chances. The ref costs us by not sending off their keeper and by not giving us the one 100% stonewall penalty and maybe 2 other half claims. That is why people are saying it. I also don't think Liverpool changed their game plan at all - they came to defend and counter; unless you saw something different in the 2 minutes and 35 seconds before that goal? Bit daft to suggest they changed their game plan when they hadn't been seen doing anything else. Now if they had dominated us for 15 minutes, scored and then defended - fair enough.
They deserved 3 points as they put the ball in the net twice. I agree the ref was poor, but so were we, I just don't buy this "we played well stuff" Goals win games, and we looked like we wouldn't of scored down Empress!!
This doesn't make sense. If the ref had randomly ruled out the first goal for some imaginary infringement it would have been no worse a decision than not giving a cast iron penalty. The only difference is we may have missed the penalty. That would have led to us not having to face a very dull Liverpool who sat back and did nothing for 90 minutes. On the sum of it, the Liverpool team that we played was poor. We were better until we got into attack -at which point we were poor. If this is about are talking about playing well - and I am not sure Saints really did play that well - let's not skew the argument and say Liverpool played well. They were awful - and we gave them the game. Much like the Man Utd game...
Oh SaintFord, come on. You are being pedantic. They deserved to win because they scored 2 goals? FFS, come on fella. Every game like that is it? Let's close the discussions and forums as there is nothing else to discuss. No games have any talking point apart from who scores more goals. We are all disappointed, but at least show some objectivity.
What I'm saying is some people (not you) are saying how we played well and were unlucky. I simply can not agree with that as I think our attacking play was beyond poor (and has been for while) and you cannot win games if you don't score. Liverpool weren't great by any stretch of the imagination, but I personally thought when they were going forward they looked much more threatening than us. Might just be me though.
They won because they had a bit more quality than us where it matters - in front of goal. The ref was bobbins, though.
And about Liverpools game plan, had the worldy not gone in and it was 0-0 at HT - they would have been a lot more ambitious in the 2nd half. My confidence in this game was due to me thinking they wouldn't sit back like Swans n Hammers and an open game would suit us. The early goal changed that and gave them something to sit on for 87+ minutes.
No chances, apart from Elia's directly after the penalty wasn't given (great save) and the lob that the keeper handled (great....umm....save). That's two good chances without even having to think about it.
Sorry FLT.....it was a first class strike, no doubt about it. However 30 yards or 40 Yards a goalkeeper should have time to prevent a shot like that as he would have had a clear view of it. If it had come through a horde of players it would perhaps have been more acceptable. I agree he cannot be fully to blame as I think Cortino should have been closed down before his strike. It is just my opinion that Forster perhaps should have done better. He was there or there about but top corners like that appear to be a weakness he has. Just my humble opinion..........
Not sure on that one Beddy. That would have beaten any keeper around. By your logic, Le Tiss should have only scored about 5 goals in his career
Look, even I'm saying the ref's cost us the game. But I can't help feeling if that was Mane running through in the first minute rather than Djuricic it would have been 1-0. Damn you Mane for being late.
Oh come on. It was right in the top corner - off the underside of the bar. It would have taken a stupendous save to keep that out.
Yeah agree with that tom. Was gutted to not see Mane start but fair play to Ron for sticking to his guns.
