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.
Fair enough. Forgot about Elias but I still stand by we were poor goin forward considering the possesion we had at times.
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.
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.
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..........
I totally agree and I am not saying that it wasn't "one of them strikes" It only just beat Forster I would agree, which suggests that he was a tad slow to move. Just speaking as an ex goalkeeper considered to be of a reasonable standard is all....I would have been disappointed to have not saved that from that distance. Before you ask, yes, I had been beaten from distance but glad to say not by too many. On another day Forster may well have got to it. If you ask him though I bet he personally takes some of the blame.
I totally agree and I am not saying that it wasn't "one of them strikes" It only just beat Forster I would agree, which suggests that he was a tad slow to move. Just speaking as an ex goalkeeper considered to be of a reasonable standard is all....I would have been disappointed to have not saved that from that distance. Before you ask, yes, I had been beaten from distance but glad to say not by too many. On another day Forster may well have got to it. If you ask him though I bet he personally takes some of the blame.
Ah now that's different. Yes, and as we all know that's an ongoing problem. But to say we had "no chances of note" is selective at best! There were others too. We certainly had more chances to speak of than Liverpool.
As said above, I just won't have that we played really well and we were unlucky, where in my view we just didn't do anywhere near enough to win the game.Yes I thought that. Pretty poor show really but it shows the respect even the good teams are giving us these days. They shut up shop pretty effectively and the second goal only really came from a comedy of errors all over the pitch. I am still upset about yesterday. Not about failing to score or creating chances - I think they gave everything - but more about the bloody referee not having the balls to award a penalty so early in the game.Well you said they changed their plan when they scored. They didn't. Liverpool sit back away and counter.... pretty much like West Ham and Swans.
Well you said they changed their plan when they scored. They didn't. Liverpool sit back away and counter.... pretty much like West Ham and Swans.
Yeah I worded that wrong to be fair, my badAs said above, I just won't have that we played really well and we were unlucky, where in my view we just didn't do anywhere near enough to win the game.
Yeah I worded that wrong to be fair, my badAs said above, I just won't have that we played really well and we were unlucky, where in my view we just didn't do anywhere near enough to win the game.
Oh sorry Beddytare, but humble opinion or not, I can't let that go. With that type of humble opinion, more games should be 0-0. I can't accept any blame being laid at Forster's door for that goal. None whatsoever.
Clark Kent would have struggled.
Disagree, the longer it stayed 0-0 they would of had to go for it at some point, as a point would of been better to us than them. Getting the early goal means they knew that we would have to break them down (and probably struggle).
We weren't great. We were pretty solid and untroubled and for the first half played fairly well. So I agree, overall we didn't play REALLY well, but we were certainly unlucky if you consider the penalty claims, the goal keeper incident and the number of times the ball whizzed around in their 6 yard box but didn't fall to a red shirt.
Agree to an extent, but it has been the same story for the last 3 home games. We can't just keep being 'unlucky', we really need to solve this breaking down deep/compact defenses.
I certainly feel more confident away from home at the moment, regardless of the opposition.
Er ... you are disagreeing about something that never happened and we will never know what would have happened. You said they changed their game plan after 2 minutes .... really? Or do you mean that you THINK they may have played differently had they not scored early? Again, you don't know that; no-one knows that.
I agree that if it was 0-0 longer, they MAY have opened up more, but we don't know that and you can't say that they changed their game plan after 2 minutes. You are just hypothesizing.