Brendan Rodgers - Sore Loser. Not a bad trait to have mind but probably best not to get into it with Mourinho as he's a vindictive guy who will make you pay time and time again.
Both Rodgers and Mourinho played the right tactics. Mourinho's best hopes of getting something from us was to defend, disrupt, and squash the game, hoping for a lucky goal during the chaos (which he got). Had he attacked- he would have lost. Rodger's played the correct game. Had he sat back and let the pressure off then we would have not been playing in our best style and would have given Chelsea too much leeway. Both managers got it right- they just had to hope the cards fell their way. They fell Jose's way. I don't think Rodger's played the wrong tactics... ... There really wasn't any better approach for us. 9/10 we wouldn't have made such a fateful slip. We always looked the most likely team to score- even if we weren't a huge threat ourselves.
But there was only one team trying to win it, I don't understand how people can say otherwise? We were only the team willing to attack. I know people will say 'but they scored two' 'but they won the game' and I completely understand that, but I also agree that Liverpool were the only team who went on the pitch with mentality to win.
Tobes you talk ****e if you believe what you just wrote. You know exactly what he meant and also that he is right. Mourinho parked for a draw and got lucky
Just because you were the more attack minded does not mean you were the only one trying to win it. Why would we play for a draw that puts us out the title race? The draw meant nothing to us. We went out to win just using different tactics. I believe we were happy to get to half time 0-0 and then we'd have taken more chances as the game went on. Stevie Me's **** up just made our job easier. Not ****ing up is also a means to winning football matches. Can't bitch and moan that our players didn't make mistakes like yours. If you expected us to come to Anfield and set up to get blown away in the opening 20-30 minutes like most of the other recent visitors, your as naïve as your manager.
Hold Hard! Your side did not go out to win by sing other tactics. It's aim was to try and achieve a draw but they got lucky. If you were actually trying to win it then we would have seen some meaningful counter-attacks - which we didn't.
I know it was an awful meltdown, going on about 2 buses and talking in riddles about the game, it was a rant of epic proportions and most definitely BITTER
So if one team attacks the whole game and manages to get fifty shots on target with 95% possession but the opposition have one attack and score to win the game 1-0, you can't say only one team were trying to win it?
Don't be silly Tobes. Of course Mourinho would like to win- and he did- but he set his team up to grind out a draw. He was fortunate that Gerrard fluffed up. I'm sure even Mourinho would tell you he was fortunate screwed up. Sometimes you aim your arrow at a squirrel on the ground and hit a bird in the air by mistake. Jose was playing for a draw and got lucky. We were playing for a win and failed. Simple.
Is that the right way around? Surely it should be... "Sometimes you aim your arrow at a bird in the air but hit a squirrel on the ground by mistake" ...since if you miss the bird the arrow would return to earth. Its not going to suddenly take off and go upwards is it?
How did we get lucky? Football is as much about capitalising on mistakes as creating things. Most goals could be put down to some sort of error. As I say, you'd have seen more as the game progressed but Stevie Me once again helped us out so we didn't have to look for that goal in the second half. Even then we scored again and probably came the closest again with Schurrle's effort. Gerrard = Chelsea legend.
