Forums
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
unitedbiscuits
23 Jul 20 19:04
Joined:
Date Joined: 27 Jan 02
| Topic/replies: 15,126 | Blogger: unitedbiscuits's blog
They do the high-press very well, but it's not really football, is it?

No axe to grind here: Manchester United had the same game-plan. Well remember Ruud Gullit's assessment of their game when they were at their zenith: more dangerous without the ball than with it.
Pause Switch to Standard View Are Liverpool "anti-football" ?
Show More
Loading...
Report sparrow July 23, 2020 8:10 PM BST
Depends on what you consider football.
Report HGS July 23, 2020 10:14 PM BST
OP

No
Report HGS July 23, 2020 10:15 PM BST
If the goals  they score is wrong.................

I don't wanna be right!!!!
Report jedi sophie July 24, 2020 9:15 AM BST
United Biscuits takes the biscuit.

Daftest thread on forum.......Easily

Have a little look at there record in all competitions, what theyve won, and conclude its anti football???

Unbelievable.

Fantastic team to watch, wednesday a fine example.

If want to start an anti football thread likely better start with Spurs........Mourinho!
Report rothko July 24, 2020 10:01 AM BST
probably a more sensible discussion on anti - football is about what teams want to play with the ball and what teams are happy without it
Athletico were the masters of playing without the ball strong defense, try to nick it, play on the break and have strikers who may only touch the ball 6 times in a game when they are playing the big teams. Simeone has tried to develop Athletico over the years by buying better players.
I,m not criticising them as they didn't have the resources to take the big boys on at playing attacking football
Burnley have been successful and big Sam teams are set up to frustrate
All have very low possession stats in games and its aweful to watch

Ole at Utd realised he couldn't compete with the footballing teams when he took over but has tried to develop the footballing side but their possession stats will still be low when they play the footballing sides. Liverpool had 68% possession when they played at OT this year
Report pushkin99 July 24, 2020 1:15 PM BST
Again, a resounding NO.
Report themightymac July 24, 2020 4:34 PM BST
It`s a joy to watch Liverpool under Klopp playing good, entertaining football.

It really does my nut in the way the game has gone. Passing backwards and sideways and back into their own half when deep in the opposition`s half, rather than taking on players and putting defences under pressure in their own box.
Report ----you-have-to-laugh--- July 24, 2020 5:05 PM BST
Liverpool and citeh playing the press might stop non footballing teams
winning stuff.

The games moved on, so not a stupid question, but a no for me.



However 2 excellent pressing teams stifling each other for 90 mins might be a turn off
Report charwell. July 24, 2020 6:03 PM BST
If winning football matches and scoring more goals v the opposition is anti football then the answer is yes.

A cursory glance at some of the fantastic goals they have scored this season should be sufficient to warrant the OP has a nice shiny white jacket with a fixed cord waist fitted.
Report unitedbiscuits July 25, 2020 9:21 PM BST
A mixed response. I admire Liverpool but don't warm to their gameplan - I can't help but be on the side of the artist rather than the thief, which is the part Liverpool play when facing teams of superior ability: Manchester City, Bayern Munich, Barca etc..
Report pushkin99 July 25, 2020 9:27 PM BST
Clown. In the last few years, we have beaten City, Bayern and Barca VERY EASILY in the Champions league.

Try doing a bit of research before posting your next piece of nonsense Son.
Report ffaith July 25, 2020 9:38 PM BST
Liverpool are a great team and if they were my team I would love them to bits but they are not my team and as a neutral I find their game play a bit too functional for my taste buds.
Report unitedbiscuits July 25, 2020 9:38 PM BST
Respect a difference of opinion, pushkin

but Barca beat themselves last season at Anfield; Man City customarily play Liverpool off the park and, thankfully, Klopp's team don't have to face Bayern in this year's CL, using Chelsea as a yardstick.
Report pushkin99 July 25, 2020 9:43 PM BST
Clown. When u have made a complete idiot of yourself, best to stop digging.

In the last few years, we have beaten City, Bayern and Barca VERY EASILY in the Champions league.

Try doing a bit of research before posting your next piece of nonsense Son.
Report unitedbiscuits July 25, 2020 9:57 PM BST
You're doubling down by repeating yorself, pushkin; but we are talking about different things.

I'm talking about the threshold of a team, not its ability to bring the opposition down to its own level. Of course we all have tribal loyalties but, in the long run, the true fan wants to see the development of the game. That is a dimension from which the current Liverpool team are absent.
Report pushkin99 July 25, 2020 10:02 PM BST
Clown. When u have made a complete idiot of yourself, best to stop digging.

I was at Anfield in each of the home legs when we easily beat:

City 5-1 on aggregate.

Bayern 3-1 on aggregate (IMHO I have never before seen a team waste so much time in playing for a draw as Bayern did that nite)

Barca 4-3 on aggregate.

All three teams well and truly beaten, with their tails firmly between their legs. 


Try doing a bit of research before posting your next piece of nonsense Son.
Report unitedbiscuits July 25, 2020 10:11 PM BST
I'm afraid you have forgotten the lesson of history, pushkin. Manchester United were also a team more dangerous without the ball than with it - burglars not builders. Barcelona brought them back to reality in Rome, then Wembley two years on. Liverpool are very very efficient at playing the percentages but when faced with a team who can out-imagina and out-invent them, they are fated to be humiliated, just as Man Utd were twice in CL finals against Barca.
Report pushkin99 July 25, 2020 10:26 PM BST
Clown. Like a lot of trolls on here, u love to make claim after claim, without any supporting argument, and a complete lack of evidence supporting your claim.

When u have made a complete idiot of yourself, best to stop digging.

What is undeniable is the following sequence of events, rather than your supposition of what might, or could happen in the future.

I was at Anfield in each of the home legs when we easily beat:

City 5-1 on aggregate.

Bayern 3-1 on aggregate (IMHO I have never before seen a team waste so much time in playing for a draw as Bayern did that nite)

Barca 4-3 on aggregate.

All three teams well and truly beaten, with their tails firmly between their legs.

Try doing a bit of research before posting your next piece of nonsense Son.

LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
Report unitedbiscuits July 25, 2020 10:35 PM BST
Not saying you invented those scores, pushkin; but Liverpool have a reckoning coming because luck evens itself out. And even if it doesn't - if Liverpool keep winning with their brand of football - the public will always be waiting for the team who blows them away.
Report pushkin99 July 25, 2020 10:40 PM BST
It is pretty obvious that u are a secondary account of one of the forums more notorious trolls such as muffdan/pbk or mjk. As such, and from now on I am going to expend as little energy on u as possible and simply re state what I have said before. U are not worth expending any fresh breath on and u are certainly not worthy of breathing room.

Clown. Like a lot of trolls on here, u love to make claim after claim, without any supporting argument, and a complete lack of evidence supporting your claim.

When u have made a complete idiot of yourself, best to stop digging.

What is undeniable is the following sequence of events, rather than your supposition of what might, or could happen in the future.

I was at Anfield in each of the home legs when we easily beat:

City 5-1 on aggregate.

Bayern 3-1 on aggregate (IMHO I have never before seen a team waste so much time in playing for a draw as Bayern did that nite)

Barca 4-3 on aggregate.

All three teams well and truly beaten, with their tails firmly between their legs.

Try doing a bit of research before posting your next piece of nonsense Son.

LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
Report unitedbiscuits July 25, 2020 10:53 PM BST
You may as well state rugby scores, pushkin:

An efficient rugby team can certainly prevail by finding the touchlines and stifling open play. So we are still talking about different things: you're talking about Kraftwerk, I'm talking about the Beatles.
Report pushkin99 July 25, 2020 10:56 PM BST
It is pretty obvious that u are a secondary account of one of the forums more notorious trolls such as muffdan/pbk or mjk. As such, and from now on I am going to expend as little energy on u as possible and simply re state what I have said before. U are not worth expending any fresh breath on and u are certainly not worthy of breathing room.

Clown. Like a lot of trolls on here, u love to make claim after claim, without any supporting argument, and a complete lack of evidence supporting your claim.

When u have made a complete idiot of yourself, best to stop digging.

What is undeniable is the following sequence of events, rather than your supposition of what might, or could happen in the future.


I was at Anfield in each of the home legs when we easily beat:

City 5-1 on aggregate.

Bayern 3-1 on aggregate (IMHO I have never before seen a team waste so much time in playing for a draw as Bayern did that nite)

Barca 4-3 on aggregate.

All three teams well and truly beaten, with their tails firmly between their legs.

Try doing a bit of research before posting your next piece of nonsense Son.


LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
Report unitedbiscuits July 25, 2020 11:02 PM BST
Same old..a bit like watching Liverpool, you know what's coming.
Report pushkin99 July 25, 2020 11:10 PM BST
It is pretty obvious that u are a secondary account of one of the forums more notorious trolls such as muffdan/pbk or mjk. As such, and from now on I am going to expend as little energy on u as possible and simply re state what I have said before. U are not worth expending any fresh breath on and u are certainly not worthy of breathing room.

Clown. Like a lot of trolls on here, u love to make claim after claim, without any supporting argument, and a complete lack of evidence supporting your claim.

When u have made a complete idiot of yourself, best to stop digging.

What is undeniable is the following sequence of events, rather than your supposition of what might, or could happen in the future.

I was at Anfield in each of the home legs when we easily beat:

City 5-1 on aggregate.

Bayern 3-1 on aggregate (IMHO I have never before seen a team waste so much time in playing for a draw as Bayern did that nite)

Barca 4-3 on aggregate.

All three teams well and truly beaten, with their tails firmly between their legs.

Try doing a bit of research before posting your next piece of nonsense Son.


LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh]Laugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh]Laugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh]Laugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh]Laugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh]Laugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
Report unitedbiscuits July 25, 2020 11:16 PM BST
It may be that Liverpool become a great team in time; their agricultural style may be refined into something better.
Report pushkin99 July 25, 2020 11:21 PM BST
It is pretty obvious that u are a secondary account of one of the forums more notorious trolls such as muffdan/pbk or mjk. As such, and from now on I am going to expend as little energy on u as possible and simply re state what I have said before. U are not worth expending any fresh breath on and u are certainly not worthy of breathing room.

Clown. Like a lot of trolls on here, u love to make claim after claim, without any supporting argument, and a complete lack of evidence supporting your claim.

When u have made a complete idiot of yourself, best to stop digging.

What is undeniable is the following sequence of events, rather than your supposition of what might, or could happen in the future.


I was at Anfield in each of the home legs when we easily beat:

City 5-1 on aggregate.

Bayern 3-1 on aggregate (IMHO I have never before seen a team waste so much time in playing for a draw as Bayern did that nite)

Barca 4-3 on aggregate.

All three teams well and truly beaten, with their tails firmly between their legs.

Try doing a bit of research before posting your next piece of nonsense Son.


LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
Report unitedbiscuits July 25, 2020 11:25 PM BST
Well, pushkin appears deaf to the voice of reason. But Liverpool are the Lewis Hamilton of football, you can't deny the success, it's just hard to warm to the brand.
Report pushkin99 July 25, 2020 11:34 PM BST
It is pretty obvious that u are a secondary account of one of the forums more notorious trolls such as muffdan/pbk or mjk. As such, and from now on I am going to expend as little energy on u as possible and simply re state what I have said before. U are not worth expending any fresh breath on and u are certainly not worthy of breathing room.

Clown. Like a lot of trolls on here, u love to make claim after claim, without any supporting argument, and a complete lack of evidence supporting your claim.

When u have made a complete idiot of yourself, best to stop digging.

What is undeniable is the following sequence of events, rather than your supposition of what might, or could happen in the future.


I was at Anfield in each of the home legs when we easily beat:

City 5-1 on aggregate.

Bayern 3-1 on aggregate (IMHO I have never before seen a team waste so much time in playing for a draw as Bayern did that nite)

Barca 4-3 on aggregate.

All three teams well and truly beaten, with their tails firmly between their legs.

Try doing a bit of research before posting your next piece of nonsense Son.


LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
Report darren_discombobulates_sports July 25, 2020 11:39 PM BST
I'm sure this is a fishing thread, but nonetheless, saying Liverpool are Anti Football is like saying Stoke City Under Pulis were Harlem Globetrotter like, when of course they were in fact auditioning for a spot in the Rugby Premiership half the time. Only teams that defend for their lives and seldom attack are Anti Football, though those kinda teams are usually paupers cutting their cloth accordingly, play open/expansive on a shoe string you get Bouremouth and Norwich, relegation fodder, play safe as houses, defend as a team you get Chris Wilder and Sean Dych's teams top half of the table. Liverpool don't defend for their lives. Don't buy players who fit that mould either, I mean Robertson/Trent are wing backs virtually, competing against each other for number of assists/goals.
Report pushkin99 July 25, 2020 11:40 PM BST
It is pretty obvious that u are a secondary account of one of the forums more notorious trolls such as muffdan/pbk or mjk. As such, and from now on I am going to expend as little energy on u as possible and simply re state what I have said before. U are not worth expending any fresh breath on and u are certainly not worthy of breathing room.

Clown. Like a lot of trolls on here, u love to make claim after claim, without any supporting argument, and a complete lack of evidence supporting your claim.

When u have made a complete idiot of yourself, best to stop digging.


What is undeniable is the following sequence of events, rather than your supposition of what might, or could happen in the future.

I was at Anfield in each of the home legs when we easily beat:

City 5-1 on aggregate.

Bayern 3-1 on aggregate (IMHO I have never before seen a team waste so much time in playing for a draw as Bayern did that nite)

Barca 4-3 on aggregate.

All three teams well and truly beaten, with their tails firmly between their legs.

Try doing a bit of research before posting your next piece of nonsense Son.


LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
Report pushkin99 July 25, 2020 11:42 PM BST
Well said DDS.

The United trolling clown is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo bigoted he is unable to accept what is staring him in the face.

The poor sap.
Report jedi sophie July 25, 2020 11:59 PM BST
Pushkin 99 back on the Pinot Grigio....?

Or I seriously hope he is.FFS.

A few days removed from a brilliant title win, 2 years of fabulous success and great football.

And hes back at his utterly cringeworthy best.

RUINING THE FOOTBALL FORUM FOR ALL.

Cue the copy and paste barrage!
Report jedi sophie July 26, 2020 12:02 AM BST
Give it a rest man will you?

Your an absolute embarrassment.
Report pushkin99 July 26, 2020 12:02 AM BST
u are a complete spanner.

Stop spoiling thread after thread Son.
Report pushkin99 July 26, 2020 12:04 AM BST
green on red. Small mercies u are not going into explicit detail about what u like to do with d!ldos on here.

At least u are being a good girl for once.
Report pushkin99 July 26, 2020 12:05 AM BST
u really are a spanner sophie.

green on red, what is wrong with u girl?
Report pushkin99 July 26, 2020 12:09 AM BST
So, come on then sophie. I have been defending Liverpool, so please tell me girl, what is wrong with ANYTHING WHATSOOEVER THAT I HAVE WRITTEN BELOW?


It is pretty obvious that u are a secondary account of one of the forums more notorious trolls such as muffdan/pbk or mjk. As such, and from now on I am going to expend as little energy on u as possible and simply re state what I have said before. U are not worth expending any fresh breath on and u are certainly not worthy of breathing room.

Clown. Like a lot of trolls on here, u love to make claim after claim, without any supporting argument, and a complete lack of evidence supporting your claim.

When u have made a complete idiot of yourself, best to stop digging.

What is undeniable is the following sequence of events, rather than your supposition of what might, or could happen in the future.

I was at Anfield in each of the home legs when we easily beat:

City 5-1 on aggregate.

Bayern 3-1 on aggregate (IMHO I have never before seen a team waste so much time in playing for a draw as Bayern did that nite)

Barca 4-3 on aggregate.

All three teams well and truly beaten, with their tails firmly between their legs.

Try doing a bit of research before posting your next piece of nonsense Son.
Report jedi sophie July 26, 2020 12:11 AM BST
Excited

Didnt take long that....Cool

Quite sad really.

Happy to dish it out but cant take it in return.

United biscuits took you to the cleaners so reverted to type...

Enjoy the rest of your evening Pushy.

Oh When The Saints, oh when the Saints go marching in...........
Report pushkin99 July 26, 2020 12:13 AM BST
u are a spanner sophie.

small mercies u are not going into great details about what u like to do with d!ldos on this thread. For once.

Green on red.

I will not forget this sophie.
Report jedi sophie July 26, 2020 12:14 AM BST
I didnt agree with his original point either, but the forum is about exactly that...

Differing opinions.

You when challenged try and bully,catcalling,railroad with your repeat nonsense, repeat posts,repeat drivel.

Until you get rid of decent posters. Who give up trying to sift through your garbage.

You're a scourge, a nuisance.

A troll.....
Report pushkin99 July 26, 2020 12:16 AM BST
It is pretty obvious that unitedbiscuits/sopnie is a secondary account of one of the forums more notorious trolls such as muffdan/pbk or mjk. As such, and from now on I am going to expend as little energy on u as possible and simply re state what I have said before. U are not worth expending any fresh breath on and u are certainly not worthy of breathing room.

Clown. Like a lot of trolls on here, u love to make claim after claim, without any supporting argument, and a complete lack of evidence supporting your claim.

When u have made a complete idiot of yourself, best to stop digging.

What is undeniable is the following sequence of events, rather than your supposition of what might, or could happen in the future.


I was at Anfield in each of the home legs when we easily beat:

City 5-1 on aggregate.

Bayern 3-1 on aggregate (IMHO I have never before seen a team waste so much time in playing for a draw as Bayern did that nite)

Barca 4-3 on aggregate.

All three teams well and truly beaten, with their tails firmly between their legs.

Try doing a bit of research before posting your next piece of nonsense Son.


LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
Report pushkin99 July 26, 2020 12:22 AM BST
Small mercies toonite. At least sophie has not gone into graphic and explicit detail about what she likes to do with d!ldos.

This is supposed to be a forum about betting. Hopefully sophie has finally learned her lesson?
Report unitedbiscuits July 26, 2020 9:17 AM BST
Liverpool had 68% possession when they played at OT this year - rothko

Yes but that makes my point because that was one fixture where Liverpool struggled this season. Sort of stymied by their own game.

Nevertheless, there is much to admire about Liverpool's game, even if it does look somewhat programmatic.
Report pushkin99 July 26, 2020 10:52 AM BST

Jul 25, 2020 -- 3:21PM, unitedbiscuits wrote:


A mixed response. I admire Liverpool but don't warm to their gameplan - I can't help but be on the side of the artist rather than the thief, which is the part Liverpool play when facing teams of superior ability: Manchester City, Bayern Munich, Barca etc..


The above claim made by unitedbiscuits is as absurd as it is inaccurate. unitedbiscuits is obviously trolling here.

In my responses I  used reasoned argument, providing evidence to refute it sophie, but as always, u are unable to read or understand anything.

So, u got your knickers in a twist sophie and had to have yet another go at me.


At least on this occasion u tried your best to be a good girl and did not go into graphic and excruciating detail about what u like to do with d1ldos.

Report rothko July 26, 2020 1:44 PM BST
unitedbiscuits • July 26, 2020 9:17 AM BST
Liverpool had 68% possession when they played at OT this year - rothko

Yes but that makes my point because that was one fixture where Liverpool struggled this season. Sort of stymied by their own game.

Nevertheless, there is much to admire about Liverpool's game, even if it does look somewhat programmatic


united parked the bus and played on the break at their home ground thats why liverpool had so much possession - its not complicated Laugh
Report peeler July 26, 2020 3:46 PM BST
What a strange blog
Report jedi sophie July 26, 2020 11:40 PM BST
Sandwich short of a picnic is Pushkin Peeler.....
Report darren_discombobulates_sports July 27, 2020 12:00 AM BST
Puskin, I think Jedi has explained that he is a male, and Sophie is his daughter.

Let's let this go now, seasons over.
Report jedi sophie July 27, 2020 12:09 AM BST
Do not hold your breath Darren D S.

The full copy and paste fury unleashed I would imagine...

Which as I tried to say fairly politely is ruining things for proper posters who actually want to discuss things, disagree yes, but actually debate without all the garbage.

We shall see, keep posting anyway man, interesting read.
Report PorcupineorPineapple July 27, 2020 1:33 AM BST
Yep. Beyond tiresome.
Report lfc1971 July 27, 2020 7:50 AM BST
Most successful teams use this tactic now, it’s more a case of numbers rather than sheer ability, and Man City employ this tactic as much possibly more than anyone. They push all of their players as far up the pitch as possible in an attempt to overwhelm the opposition defence by sheer weight of numbers and when and if the first attack fails maybe a through oasis intercepted the defence finds it difficult to get the ball clear without it again falling to a city player , allowing another attack. Often this becomes impossible to cope with and a goal results
Of course the attacking team in theory leave themselves vulnerable at the back to a counter attack , but often when a player does  manage to break through ( defenders are often quick enough to make up the ground and often a foul is immediately comitted if their is any danger of a break away givingtime for defenders to regroup )they will panick and fail to score

So it is more a case of the number of players increasing the chance of options , passes don’t have to work first time etc because the pressure of numbers means the ball comes back and then it is relentless .

It’s not something new, I remember watching Ajax in the European cup final in the 1980s think they played Milan and they won 4-0 , something like that’, and recall wondering his they had done so, player for player they were not so much better, this was the first. time I noticed this tactic . The Spanish international team also , their players were not so much better , it was the weight of numbers of players and the use of the tactical foul when they lost the ball .
Report lfc1971 July 27, 2020 7:58 AM BST
Of course Man City are full of very talanted players , but they are not so much so
They have just beaten Norwich 5-0 eg , and yet if we look at a player such as Pukii and compare him to perhaps Sterling ?
Pukii is actually the more talanted player
Report lfc1971 July 27, 2020 8:19 AM BST
Of course United biscuits is as muddled as ever. Man Utd when they were winning and at their most successful. used the same tactics of trying to overwhelm the opposition by attacking relentlessly.
Report lfc1971 July 27, 2020 8:34 AM BST
There is always something very pleasing when you see a player breaking away and holding his nerve to score against a team like city . I think it was Brighton who managed to do this earlier in the season , broke away twice and scored twice to win
The look of shock on city players is wonderful to behold
Report pushkin99 July 27, 2020 11:47 AM BST

Jul 26, 2020 -- 6:00PM, darren_discombobulates_sports wrote:


Puskin, I think Jedi has explained that he is a male, and Sophie is his daughter.Let's let this go now, seasons over.


Sophie. Think about what DDS has written. Really carefully and try too understand the meaning behind his words. It is good advice to us all.

Time for u to move on from your bitterness towards me? U always want to have a go at me, but run away crying when I respond.


Remember, it was all down to yourself that the forum mods suspended you for four months, over 3 years ago now.

As DDS has written:


'Let's let this go now, seasons over.'

Report unitedbiscuits July 27, 2020 5:19 PM BST
For sure the successful Ferguson and Klopp models are similar - no ****footing, wham bam, thank you Ma'am. It should have been apparent from the opening post that its author was no great admirer of the Man Utd team twenty years ago but I guess the username threw a couple of people.

The success of both as counter-attacking, smash-and-grab teams has to be acknowledged; but the heart of the purist and the neutral always lifts to see their game-plan overcome.
Report rothko July 28, 2020 1:33 PM BST
counter attacking LaughLaugh hilarious

ffs you dont watch Liverpool much - second highest possession stats behind city
its only city and chelsea who dont park the bus and play on the counter against Liverpool home and away
Report pushkin99 July 28, 2020 3:39 PM BST
unitedbiscuits has his own agenda here rothko, making claims without any sensible argument or supporting evidence.

It's obvious to any fair minded person that Liverpool are an entertaining attacking team, having the much higher possession than their opponents in the vast majority of matches. When in full flow, the front three supported by TAA, Robbo and the midfielders are exhilarating.

When out of possession, and partly due to the opportunities the high press creates, Liverpool are also very good at counter attacking. As indeed United were in their pomp, but this certainly does not mean Liverpool are 'smash and grab' as unitebiscuits tries to imply.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com