'You should have stayed at a big club'

[stringvest]

Surely this is more about expectations?

 

Because we knew Torres was capable of a really good work rate and scoring loads of goals its what we started to expect.

 

When the work rate became shite and he scored less, if still a decent amount, it started fucking fans off.

 

Its about a player playing to his potential. Something Kuyt does most weeks, something Torres hasn't done for 18 months.

 

It's about what the player contributes to the success of the team and the club. I hated watching Torres skulking about in his last 12-18 month, but it cannot be denied that he was effective as far as scoring was concerned. Players playing to their potential, when their potential is miles short of being good enough, is no good to the team.

 

This is not suggesting that Torres should be brought back, or that I'd want him at the club, but I'd rather have him in the team than Kuyt. That's because he would contribute more to the success of the team. I can't get emotionally attached as some do to players - they are individuals, with their own motivations, and those that can legitimately be regarded as intrinsic to the club are rarer than hen's teeth. People swooning over badge kissing antics need to grow up fast.

 

As far as I'm concerned, Torres didn't cover himself in glory when he left here, and his attitude and body language was poor. He wouldn't want to come back, and he wouldn't be welcome back at the club for lots of reasons, so the argument is moot.

 

Kuyt would appear to be a much more likeable individual than Torres, but the club has had more than it's fair share of players of less than exemplary character over the last four or five decades. I find it hard to celebrate mediocrity, and I'll be over the moon to see the club move forward over the next few years.

[Rico1304]

Sturridge still won't pass to Torres, it's hilarious to watch.

[stringvest]

All good attackers first instinct should be to attack the goal. As for the rest, for me they are very dissimilar. Torres never wanted the ball to his feet and was not comfortable with his back to the goal. His game was running into the channels. Suarez is very good at receiving the ball with his back to the goal and getting it back quickly to other players running off him, and brings everyone into the game. His selfisheness in the area, imo, is due to the fact that right now we do not get enough bodies forward. I am guessing but I bet Luis already has more assists that Torres did his entire time here. He brings others into the game, Torres took them out of it. Luis is also a wizard in tight spaces and with quick one touches.

 

Torres was fine with his back to goal - he would try to use a bit of pace in order to buy himself a bit of space to turn and face his opponent, whereas Suarez loves working in tight spaces. I have seen both of them choose to attempt to score when teammates are in far better positions. I do take your point about the lack of (or quality of) options that both players have had which may go some way to explain their reluctance to pass, but their very presence and the panic they introduce to the opposition defence frequently means they create huge space for their teammates to exploit, if they ever got the ball.

 

A more mobile, quicker thinking attacking force will increase the options for Suarez, and will give him more opportunities than Torres had. Bellamy and Maxi, and hopefully Gerrard, working around Suarez is potentially every bit as potent as an in form Torres.

[Delmar]

I kind of agree with Stringvest here. If you look at the football ability alone, it's a simple decision, get him here right now. However, it is never that simple. He left the way he left, how he is seen in the dressing room is not really known by posters here, how he would get along with Dalglish is not that clear, either, way too many intangibles.

 

We do need a goal scorer, we have defended better than I expected, but we have not put our chances away. Torres needs a manager like Benitez, but he won't find that here, neither will he at Chelsea.

[Code]

I can't get emotionally attached as some do to players - they are individuals, with their own motivations, and those that can legitimately be regarded as intrinsic to the club are rarer than hen's teeth. People swooning over badge kissing antics need to grow up fast.

 

And this is the crux of the matter the great hypocrisy in football, some like JohnnyH are easy victims to it, while others like myself who are able to look at things objectively when I'm not at the game or are trying to wind up opposition fans not so much.

[TheHowieLama]

Torres was fine with his back to goal - he would try to use a bit of pace in order to buy himself a bit of space to turn and face his opponent, whereas Suarez loves working in tight spaces. I have seen both of them choose to attempt to score when teammates are in far better positions. I do take your point about the lack of (or quality of) options that both players have had which may go some way to explain their reluctance to pass, but their very presence and the panic they introduce to the opposition defence frequently means they create huge space for their teammates to exploit, if they ever got the ball.

 

A more mobile, quicker thinking attacking force will increase the options for Suarez, and will give him more opportunities than Torres had. Bellamy and Maxi, and hopefully Gerrard, working around Suarez is potentially every bit as potent as an in form Torres.

 

TBH I do not agree about Torres with his back to the goal. He never operated anywhere near as close to our half as Luis has had to. The "in form" Torres played in a side that had Gerrard and Alonso as well and was built around him. I also do not remember him facing up too often - unless you mean 35 yards out wide, he was very good running with the defender on his hip, or in the area off a diagonal run cutting it hard back against the flow.

For me, Suarez is the better player overall and the team is harder to defend against with him. As for the selfishness - I just checked, Suarez gets an assist @ every 5 games, Torres one in 15.

Definitely agree on the bolded part.

[Code]

To highlight the importance of getting 70 + goals a season to have a chance of winning the league I will post what I posted on the MF last night.

 

Goals scored from the Champions, second place and us:

2011/12: 1- 43 goals, 2- 30 goals, Liverpool- 17 goals

2010/11: 1- 78 goals, 2- 69 goals, Liverpool- 59 goals

2009/10: 1-103 goals, 2- 86 goals, Liverpool- 61 goals

2008/09: 1- 68 goals, 2- 77 goals (us)

2007/08: 1- 80 goals, 2- 65 goals, Liverpool- 67 goals

2006/07: 1- 83 goals, 2- 64 goals, Liverpool- 57 goals.

2005/06: 1- 72 goals, 2- 72 goals, Liverpool- 57 goals.

2004/05: 1- 72 goals, 2- 87 goals, Liverpool- 52 goals.

2003/04: 1- 73 goals, 2- 67 goals, Liverpool- 55 goals.

2002/03: 1- 74 goals, 2- 85 goals , Liverpool- 61 goals.

2001/02: 1- 79 goals, 2- 67 goals (us).

2000/01: 1- 79 goals. 2- 63 goals, Liverpool- 71 goals.

 

We can also look at the seasons back when we were really good and actually won the title from time to time.

 

1990/91: 1-74 goals, 2-77 goals (us)

1989/90: 1-78 goals (us), 2-57 goals

1988/89: 1-73 goals (us), 2-65 goals (us)

1987/88: 1-87 goals, 2-71 goals

1986/87: 1-76 goals, 2-72 goals (us)

1985/86: 1-89 goals (us), 2-87 goals, 42 games.

1984/85: 1-88 goals, 2-68 goals (us), 42 games.

1983/84: 1-73 goals (us), 2-66 goals, 42 games.

1982/83: 1-87 goals (us), 2-74 goals , 42 games.

1981/82: 1-80 goals (us), 2-75 goals.

 

I could go on and on, but those 10 seasons will have to do.

 

Goals, goals,goals,goals,goals,goals thats what matters, you can work as hard as you like, have the best attitude in the world and play the most pleasing football for the eye, but unless it results in goals scored at least 70 you will win fuck all.

 

This was Rafa's main problem when he was managing us, he thought it was good enough to try and control the games instead of finishing them off and we did not score enough goals as a result of it, the year whe released the chains and really went for it when came as close to winning the title as its possible to get, so considering JohhnyH was a huge Rafa fan its no suprise he cant panthom the importance of actual goals scored compared to hard work.

[Code]

We have never been about scoring the most goals - even in the best teams of the late 70's and early 80's we scored less than many of the other sides.

 

Are you sure?

[TheHowieLama]

Are you sure?

 

In 76 - 77 for example, 6 teams, including Birmingham City and Villa scored more.

 

We had the best goal differential.

 

In 84 even with Rush leading the league in scoring we were fourth overall but again hade the best goal differential.

 

Defense wins championships, in every sport, always has.

[Anubis]

Another whole ten minutes.

[Code]

In 76 - 77 for example, 6 teams, including Birmingham City and Villa scored more.

 

We had the best goal differential.

 

In 84 even with Rush leading the league in scoring we were fourth overall but again hade the best goal differential.

 

Defense wins championships, in every sport, always has.

 

How does this reflect on what you said in the other post?

 

You said we had never been about scoring the most goals when thats exactly what we have done 9 out of 10 times when we have won the league.

 

It happens from time to time that the team who score most end up not winning it, but thats exceptions not the rule.

 

The truth of the matter is that unless you score 70+ goals starnge things need to happen if you should stand a chance of winning the league.

 

You dont a the top scorer in the league to achieve this but when the other players in the team might just have the odd 15 goals between them in them its good to have a prolific striker to help you out.

[TheHowieLama]

How does this reflect on what you said in the other post?

 

You said we had never been about scoring the most goals when thats exactly what we have done 9 out of 10 times when we have won the league.

 

It happens from time to time that the team who score most end up not winning it, but thats exceptions not the rule.

 

The truth of the matter is that unless you score 70+ goals starnge things need to happen if you should stand a chance of winning the league.

 

You dont a the top scorer in the league to achieve this but when the other players in the team might just have the odd 15 goals between them in them its good to have a prolific striker to help you out.

 

 

 

Erm, again your are confusing your opinion with facts

 

in 75-76 QPR, Derby and Newcastle (who finshied 15th and scored 5 more than us) scored more, again we had the best GD.

 

In 46-47 we were 6th in scoring.

 

 

You are into stats - a better discussion might be to find a league winner who was not first in goal differential.

 

Ask Southhampton what you win by scoring a shedload and giving up the same.

[goatboy59]

To be fair to Code, the other lad's stats are pretty old.

 

Three points for a win certainly had an effect on teams trying to score more.

 

The last couple of decades, I suspect the champions were either 1st 2nd or 3rd highest scorers.

[TheHowieLama]

To be fair to Code, the other lad's stats are pretty old.

 

Three points for a win certainly had an effect on teams trying to score more.

 

The last couple of decades, I suspect the champions were either 1st 2nd or 3rd highest scorers.

 

 

Well since we were discussing us as champions, unfortunately we have to go back that far and I can find our stats.

 

In 08-09 we scored more than United who won the title and I know that Arsenal scored more than they did a couple of the other years.

 

As the league has become more lopsided at the top in the last 15 years the disparity has grown for sure, but the simplistic "goals, goals, goals" attitude does not hold water.

Of course the best teams score more, you shouldn't need a Codian table to know that - ateotd champions end up scoring a handful of crucial goals, and more importantly, keep a handful of clean sheets that separates them from the pack.

If you want a recent example. In 05-06 Chelsea and Utd were joint top scorers in the league and the Chavs were clear by 8 points. How did that happen? They shipped a league leading 22 goals, 12 less than Utd. The year before it was even more pronounced as they were outscored by Arsenal by 15 goals yet won going away by 12 points. You do not get beat very often when you give up less than half a goal a game.

[Code]

Erm, again your are confusing your opinion with facts

 

in 75-76 QPR, Derby and Newcastle (who finshied 15th and scored 5 more than us) scored more, again we had the best GD.

 

In 46-47 we were 6th in scoring.

 

 

You are into stats - a better discussion might be to find a league winner who was not first in goal differential.

 

Ask Southhampton what you win by scoring a shedload and giving up the same.

 

As I said these are the exceptions rather than the rule as you suggested it was in your first post on the subject.

 

Goal difference is interesting, in fact its so interesting that I years ago put forward a suggestion that we should just scrap points all together and decide the league winner on goal difference, the iwnner would be the same most of the time and when not maybe the team with better goal difference was the deserved winners in most peoples eyes.

 

08/09: manc winners, us second place with better goal difference.

02/03: mancs winners, Arsenal second place with better goal difference

97/98: Arsenal winners, mancs second with better goal difference

 

In the games above the second placed team scored most, in the ones below it was the other way around.

 

96/97: mancs winners, Newcastle second with better goal difference

94/95: Blackburn winners, mancs second with better goal difference

88/89: Arsenal winners, us second, same goal difference.

 

I'm not going to go further back as this is a regular occurence as you can see.

 

To be fair to Code, the other lad's stats are pretty old.

 

Three points for a win certainly had an effect on teams trying to score more.

 

The last couple of decades, I suspect the champions were either 1st 2nd or 3rd highest scorers.

 

Thats a valid point as they will become.

 

Either way, my main point is that if you want to become champions you will need to score 70 + goals and sadly I dont think our squad is capable of that right now, the teams around us are scoring for fun, we dont.

[TheHowieLama]

As I said these are the exceptions rather than the rule as you suggested it was in your first post on the subject.

 

 

uh -- "even in the best teams of the late 70's and early 80's"

 

The 77 and 84 team were our best teams of that era.

[goatboy59]

78/79.

 

Scored 85, conceded 16.

[Code]

uh -- "even in the best teams of the late 70's and early 80's"

 

The 77 and 84 team were our best teams of that era.

 

You forgot your opening mate, We have never been about scoring the most goals .

 

Anyway its not really that important, lets conclude that you do not always win if you score most goals but unless you score 70 goals your chances are slim.

[TheHowieLama]

You forgot your opening mate, We have never been about scoring the most goals .

 

Anyway its not really that important, lets conclude that you do not always win if you score most goals but unless you score 70 goals your chances are slim.

 

We could make it even simpler than that. If you score more than the other team you win.

 

Bring on Fulham, we can put 70 past those no marks easy peasy.

[TheHowieLama]

78/79.

 

Scored 85, conceded 16.

 

In other breaking news, tall guys are more likely to be professional basketball players and the best hitters in baseball have the highest averages.

[Guest San Don]

In other breaking news, tall guys are more likely to be professional basketball players and the best hitters in baseball have the highest averages.

 

Yeah but many people ignore the 77 / 78 team which I personally think was our best ever.

[zigackly]

78/79.

 

Scored 85, conceded 16.

 

If we hadn't tripped up against Forest in Europe, that team could have gone down as one of the best of all time, winning a double and taking us to our third European Cup in a row.

[WaltonRed]

PSG?

[shaunstrudwick]

he is the type of player we need to partner Suarez.

 

as much as i think Torres is a cunt for leaving in the manner which he did - the above statement is factually correct

 

Saurez and Torres could've been a leathal combination

[Whelan]

And this is the crux of the matter the great hypocrisy in football, some like JohnnyH are easy victims to it, while others like myself who are able to look at things objectively when I'm not at the game or are trying to wind up opposition fans not so much.

 

Objective, the first rule of being a football fan that!

 

Firstly you are not objective about Kuyt, Lucas, Skyrtle, Johnson or a host of other players are you? No, you cherry pick stats and present them as factual unbias analysis.

 

But you never allow for caveats, for instance Kuyt had more assists than Xabi Alonso last season, and is level this season. Clearly Dirk does more than simply run around and is clearly far more creative than Xabi, it says so!

 

Dirk Kuyt Bio, Stats, News - Football / Soccer - - ESPN Soccernet

 

Xabi Alonso Bio, Stats, News - Football / Soccer - - ESPN Soccernet

 

Torres is a selfish cunt how left us high and dry, and if that doesn't factor in your thinking of whether or not you would have him back or not then you are not a Liverpool Fan.