Liverpool are like an incredibly attractive man with dreadful teeth…
Liverpool won 3-0 in Marseille but you still cannot please everybody. Plus, is the Premier League rubbish and should Arsenal fans care?
Send your mails to theeditor@football365.com
Are Liverpool really quite sh*t?
Watching Liverpool in the first half I feel like we are an incredibly attractive man; chiselled body, great hair, really tall but there’s just one issue…dreadful teeth. And I don’t mean a bit wonky I mean rotten, black things. Smile looks like you’re seeing the Alps in the dark. We do a lot of really sexy exciting things but in the end we smile and it kills the mood.
Salah makes a delightful run but can’t find the through ball. Frimpong in acres of space with 5 in the box picks the worst option, Ekitike slides it in to Wirtz who forgets he’s supposed to shoot. Even the second goal is a total accident and followed an overhit pass by MacAllister.
I guess what I am saying is that we are sh*t. Marseille were dreadful which really helped matters. I am quietly hopeful that we become a bit better and maybe find a way deep into the knock outs but who knows watching them right now.
Marcus Greenwood played that game like it was his last before he would have to serve a prison sentence. Hopefully he’s not been accused of any crimes. If he were to be accused of a crime he can only hope the accuser would withdraw her (or his) evidence mysteriously.
Also what made Lewis Oldham think that Alonso would only come to Liverpool and play a 3-5-2? Just because Amorim is wedded to one single formation that doesn’t mean every manager is.
Minty, LFC
READ: Liverpool provide a convincing flourish at last to history’s most fraudulent unbeaten run
The Premier League is strong, actually
Plenty of folks want to dismiss the Arsenal title run because of other teams’ lack of form, as if it is an outlier.
Arsenal are on 50 points after 22 matches, which works out to 86 points over the course of the season. That’s more than the 84 Liverpool put up last year. It’s the same as Man City in 20/21 and a result or two off Man City’s 89 and 91 in 22/21 and 22/23, respectively. And the 50 at 22 is better than or equal to the same in 4 of the last 5 seasons by the eventual champions.
The point, of course, is that winning the league happens in all sorts of ways, and none is better or worse than the others. The league is very competitive. Does anyone really think there is any team save the very bottom, where you go into a team’s home park and it should be a cake walk?
The so-called lack of form by other clubs (and even Arsenal to a degree) is not a weakness, but rather a reflection of the depth of quality throughout the league. The league may not be chock-full of world beaters, but many very competitive, strong teams deserve an opponent’s full respect.
David, COYG
Just be happy, Arsenal fans
Arsenal fans should be happy that fans of opponents are throwing out all sorts of arguments of why they shouldn’t win the League or, at least, don’t deserve to win, and take it with a grain of salt. It generally means they all think Arsenal are in pole position to win, and are a tad jealous. Last year, we saw all sorts of stupid points made by fans, pundits and other media saying Liverpool hadn’t beaten anyone decent, blah, blah, blah. So different brickbats, same crap.
Arsenal has the best all-around squad and is handling injuries and the January doldrums better than the rest. So they come up with a few boring draws, while their challengers either lose or have boring draws. It is the time of the season when teams are ground down by the brutal (and stupid) holiday season.
But I am surprised at the number of negative Arsenal fans looking to knock the team and the manager, just as they are on the verge of doing some great things. Adam – AFC’s ideas are half right and half wrong. Gross spend shows investment intent, while Net Spend shows funding efficiency and sustainability. The points-per-Gross Spend comparison between teams/managers fails because it combines an arbitrary, subjective points system with a single financial metric. The trophy “points” system has no objective basis — small tweaks to the points values would dramatically change the rankings. So what does it tell us then?
For clubs with lower commercial revenues, match-day income, and less (guaranteed?) prize money, Net Spend matters enormously, especially compared with state-backed clubs that have a lock-in on European (CL) income and historic commercial dominance.
Transfers are only one input; wages, agent fees, contract bonuses, and squad retention costs outweigh transfer fees over time. So the cost-per-trophy model is way off kilter if we take into account the true full cost. So Net Spend is not irrelevant. Just as wages and commercial income are totally relevant.
Just as I am writing this I see Deloitte published their latest money table, and you can get a much better idea of commercial income and spend on wages.
Wages are far higher than spending on players (before player sales are accounted), with it double for the two teams with the most trophies. When you look at the numbers for player sales and wages, you can see how the better run clubs are more efficient – clearly an advantage when in the CL most (every) year and always looking to challenge for the league pays dividends in paying less for top players, getting more for outgoing sales, but paying wages commensurate with the level of player.
You can see how Arsenal and United had periods of higher wage bills and needed to get players off the roster to turn things around. You can also see how teams like Aston Villa and Newcastle are spending a significant portion of their lower incomes on wages and player acquisition as they try and catch up. Chelsea are just a complete outlier on every level, while City in the opposite direction due to their current ‘pull.’
But what you can’t do is make some kind of analogy about success based on a single metric like Gross Spend. If for no other reason than it can be a lottery as to whether players work out for their new club, get injured and miss an extended period, or (rarely) become an instant success.
Arsenal have done well in building a pretty robust squad with at least two excellent players in every position. It doesn’t guarantee them a trophy, and doesn’t guarantee there won’t be a bore draw or two, but Arsenal certainly seem to be handling the murky January period better and are still involved in 4 competitions. If anything, it will be that success across all fronts that may trip them up on the way, as Liverpool have found on a couple of occasions.
Paul McDevitt
Europa > FA Cup? No way
In response to Adam AFC. I like your points per trophy idea but in no world is the Europa League worth more points than the FA Cup.
I’d say it’s half as many given respective difficulty. In the FA cup you are up against highly motivated lower league teams for a couple of rounds. Then likely four Prem teams.
In the Europa League you’re up against a load of rubbish European teams (there are rubbish ones in the Champs League so these really are terrible) maybe a handful of average European teams and will likely face 1 English prem team.
Plus there’s the prestige. FA Cup is a 150 year old trophy. Europa league has been around for about 50 (and has been less prestigious since the rebrand).
So six points for FA cup and 3 for Europa. Which pushes conference league to 2 points. World club Cup should also be higher so 2 for that as well.
Rojapy
Clear and obvious, my arse
I see that the Martinez goal against Burnley – a goal that would have won the game, and resulted in two extra points – has been reviewed and the panel have agreed that it should have been given.
Yet, the same panel ruled that VAR shouldn’t have overruled thanks to this “clear and obvious” guff.
This grey area of subjective interpretation and application needs to be clarified. What qualifies as clear and obvious? It was clear and obvious from the merest view of the replay that it wasn’t a foul (not to mention the multiple actual fouls going on in the background that were also ignored). It’s clear and obvious that the referee got it wrong, and that on the balance of all the events in plain sight, giving the goal was the easy answer.
If, as it seems, “clear and obvious” has to be something the referee has completely missed, then VAR is doing barely half the job. It was supposed to help referees make the right decision, not be an opportunity for more of these cretins to gather round and protect each other while mumbling clear and obvious and high bar.
It just seems like an excuse to back the referee unless he really effs it.
I found this bit funny though: “There is a high bar for the VARs to intervene on subjective decisions, to maintain the pace and intensity of matches.” So, they maintain the pace by taking 10 minutes to review something and then explaining why even though the ref was wrong, they won’t overturn it. Brilliant work, guys, good process.
As someone who was absolutely in favour of bringing in technology to assist making the right decisions, this current application may as well be scrapped.
Badwolf
Confidence tricksters v Man Utd traditions
This might be a bit of a long one for some so please forgive me – the morning mailbox had one Paul McDevitt (Confidence, not tradition) – a Liverpool fan, in a frankly stunning turn of events – arrogantly dismissing my thoughts of clear, self-evident, extremely well-documented and well-known Man United traditions.
It should go without saying that he’s done so with all the guaranteed clockwork predictability of yet another hellacious, Trumpian lie-boast.
Mr. McDevitt, I find you to usually be one of the more thoughtful contributors to F365’s hallowed pixels, but your mail betrayed all the bad faith and agenda-driven “argument” and psychology I’ve sadly come to expect from so many fans of your wonderful club over the years.
You clearly employ an Army of Strawmen (it must cost a fortune keeping that lot fed and watered!) so let’s take a little stroll shall we – point-by-point – through what you’ve written and let’s also relate it to what you’ve stated that I wrote – while at the same time pointing out what I did NOT state, and what therefore – just like the lovely, aforementioned Demented Orange Demonblimp – you’ve just completely made up for reasons best known to yourself:
“Yet more DNA drivel ensued.”
Have a look again at what I wrote:
“People can of course balk at the use of “DNA”, fine – I’ve no issue with that – it’s clearly quite cringey, especially to non-fans of your club.”
If you order a black coffee and the server indeed brings you said black coffee, would you complain to the server that you ordered a black coffee, not a white coffee?
You then explain what the definition of a North American sports’ dynasty is – thanks for explaining something so obscure and esoteric, we’d all have been left baffled otherwise…If you like the term dynasty – wonderful, fantastic. I personally don’t like most Americanisms and – as mentioned in my mail – and prefer to go with the word ‘tradition’ instead.
“The idea that there is some constant set of values, principles, styles, etc, that runs deep through the veins of players and coaches once they join a club is trite, ludicrous and frankly boring.”
Again, a straw man Paul. I never said any of the above. Reading comprehension is really challenging for many people for some reason, and you’re clearly not exempt from this. What I did actually write, in response to Johnny Nic calling United’s style of play (over the MAJORITY of the last 80 years) – “just a few years in the mid 90s”.
Do you know what I find “trite, ludicrous, and quite frankly boring.”?? When someone uses fantasy, projection, irrelevant semantics and bad faith to pompously try and alchemise some kind of misguided and triggered opinion into being facts, in an attempt to soothe oneself, for whatever reasons.
You then get your deliberate and oh-so-clever nitpick out, to go through the managers I didn’t mention, as if it’s some “gotcha”…. I deliberately left Wilf McGuiness out (18 months) and Frank O’Farrell (18 months) as each of their spells were so short.
McGuiness tried at least to continue the attacking style but he was obviously way out of his depth.
I also left out Moyes, Van Gaal and Mourinho because – and this might stun some people – none of them played in a style that we United fans were happy with. I wonder why? Am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe, just maybe they each might have not have played a style of football in the best traditions of the club? The same for Amorim. Clearly. Solskjaer was loved because he understood what those traditions are. Basket-case FC circumstances and Ed Woodward’s atrocious recruitment did for him in the end – but he’s still loved.
Tradition doesn’t mean “literally every single last manager United have ever had – and for any length of time – played one type of football according to Holy Writ inscribed on a stone tablet by Sir Matt Busby.” Am I being clear enough? It means that if you ask Man United fans what way of playing do you MOST enjoy and MOST associate with your club’s history, what would it be? But of course Paul – you already know this.
You then write “Wasn’t the DNA also about how this won things?” Firstly – I thought your whole mail was rejecting the use of DNA as a term? But you then for some reason itemise the trophies won by the various managers. Sure, your team winning is brilliant – obviously. But what matters more to me – and to a hell of a lot of United fans – is the how it’s done, or at least attempted. I wrote yesterday: “For most of the last 80 years – in successful times and not-so-successful times…”
You then bang on about the importance of confidence to playing well – and of course, shock horror – shoehorn talking about Liverpool apropos of nothing, into the situation. Hang on a second Paul – are you saying that confidence in sport is important?? Do other people know about this!?! Any more searing insights you might bestow upon we poor, floundering mere mortals, Your High Scouseness??
So finally to wrap up – United were absolutely brilliant v City. It was a a throwback performance that made us fans feel some passion and joy about the club again, and the best United display in many years. It could well be a one-off flash-in-the-pan – but who cares? It was a performance worthy of the club’s history and traditions. You of course can’t just accept that, and have to try in your futility to chip away at the validity of it by citing “the mid-January exhaustion of teams that have played twice a week all season”. It’s as hilarious as it is desperate, insecure and transparent.
For what it’s worth, I think that Liverpool is clearly also a great club, with traditions, historical through-lines, “dynasties” or whatever else you want to call these things. I have zero interest in trying to diminish those things – and I would think it a pretty weird thing indeed to even want to attempt same. Reality is reality, however much it seems like a great many wish for that simple truth to not be so.
Ken Legend (Happy in the saddle on my new high horse named ‘Dynasty’) Manchester
A World Cup dominated by Europe? Shush
I see a few people have been suggesting an alternative World Cup that might be a precursor to Europe breaking away from FIFA entirely.
I bet they didn’t give it much (or any) thought.
Why break away? Because FIFA are just so corrupt. So UEFA, the model of righteousness they are, should be separated. We have to protect their innocence. Sure.
But who/what is FIFA? The above would make you think they are some alien entity rather than a federation of football associations from all over the world, including of course Europe. FIFA are corrupt, yes, but UEFA breaking away doesn’t solve that because guess what, they are corrupt too.
The current FIFA president is European. He’s preceded by Sepp Blatter who is also European. I wonder whatever became of Blatter, that holy man. Let’s not forget Platini, an actual UEFA president.
As the strongest confederation in FIFA, FIFA’s despicable reputation is more a reflection of UEFA than anyone else.
But let’s all get on our high horses and leave everyone to deal with the mess we’ve created.
While I’m here, Lee, Ideas man (ironic isn’t it?), saying the alternative World Cup should exclude everyone not in Europe or South America did make me chuckle.
Yes only those two regions ever produced World Cup winners. But likely always will? Hmmm. But let’s look at Europe once again. Only 5 of the 54 nations Lee recommended for the tournament has ever won the World Cup. And that includes England and their solitary win in black and white 60 years ago. Thank your stars Italy and Germany exists, they’re doing a lot of heavy lifting.
If you’re going to discount others based on their chances of winning being too low, then your tournament should have not more than 7 or 8 European teams. I really don’t think Scotland or Turkey are winning the World Cup any time soon.
AY