Lightforce

The thing with Benteke is, attacking crosses is what he bases PART of his game on. Even if 1 goal out of 5 or 6 or 7 he scores is a header, that's still a percentage of his goal production that may be eliminated if he plays for a team that has players that have no fucking clue how to cross a ball properly. A team that doesn't even cross it as much as other teams in the first place. This doesn't even include any deliveries into the box he got on the end of to set other people up to score, so it could be even more of his attacking qualities that are affected. Playing against him, defenders should have to worry about the threat of the cross, even if you chose not to cross as much as Villa, you still need to have the threat of players who can deliver an excellent cross to make him and the team more effective. If we don't have that, the opposition will just sit deep, clog the middle, and let us cross it all day, and in response they'll head the ball away all day too. Paying a huge fee for a player who will have some of his effectiveness taken away from him as soon as he signs seems risky, based on the players we have right now. Having said all that, he is a good player and has other attributes which are useful, he's a quality finisher, can score from close or long range, he's physical, good with layoffs, flicks etc.

It looks like a virus.

He's a Mazda at it.

He's on basic plus commission for every car he sells.

Oh fuck, he's coming back.

Precisely. Attackers now play anywhere across the forward line, a lot of top forwards at big clubs fit this criteria like the ones you mentioned. Reus is another one. Suarez used to play a lot as a wide forward at Ajax as well.

He scored 18 goals from open play in 2 years, playing all the league games. It's a shit scoring record. What he scored from pens and free-kicks was never going to be relevant to playing for LFC, as he wasn't going to be taking them. He also wasn't ever going to play 38 league games this season either, meaning he would almost certainly score less than 9 league goals, based on evidence from past performance. Guess what. He has scored less than 9 league goals. Much less. How surprising. When you have a transfer committee full of geniuses, you'd expect them to figure this basic stuff out.

Agreed, and yeah Mauri is young, only 18. He's supposed to be a player who's got potential to be really good, apparently there is a bit of Mascherano about him but I've seen very little of him. It could be us maybe seeing an opportunity to take advantage of Parma's financial problems and pending relegation. No idea how much he'd cost but if it limits what we can spend on more important needs then we should let somebody else take a punt on him. As for Bardi, we were linked with Perrin who has a similar history, both Italian youth internationals, and maybe getting Perrin is difficult so we are looking at alternatives. Although if Rodgers went to watch him yesterday then he will have been disappointed as he didn't play. But like you said if Handanovic does move on then they're more likely to keep him.

True there's not much there, maybe Jose Mauri? Or possibly Bardi.

Doumbia. At CSKA. 26 years old and a proven goalscorer domestically and in European competition. Better goalscoring ratio there than Vagner Love who was a Brazilian international. A range of fees have been quoted, from £15m to £25m.

I certainly would like Klopp if he was available, he is weaker on the defensive side though. If it was possible to get Simeone I would prefer him. I've seen many games involving Atletico, often against good teams, where the opposition go through long periods without looking like scoring against them, or barely even creating a half chance. I've never had that same feeling watching Dortmund. I would like somebody to bring some steel back into the defensive side of our game, our squad has no goalscorers in it so being more defensively responsible will help us more. I like that Atletico still score a good amount of goals, the team is criticized a little by some for playing a less attractive physical kind of game at times but against teams like Chelsea and City that's what you need. I don't want us to be going into every game thinking we have to score 4 goals today to have a chance of winning the game. This is all hypothetical though because we don't have much of a chance of getting Simeone or Klopp, maybe Klopp is slightly more plausible but it's just guesswork at the moment.

He is weaker on the defensive side. The Champions League knockout games they were in that year ended up as 'by the seat of ones pants' type ties. 2 conceded to Shakhtar, 2 against Malaga, 3 against Real, 2 against Bayern. In contrast Bayern conceded 3 against Arsenal, none against Juventus, none against Barcelona, and one in the final. If you want even more of an idea how his defensive coaching is questionable, here's a quote from before this season, it's very Rodgers like in terms of acknowledging defensive issues, and the end result is similar too. "We should focus next season to concede fewer goals. We played great last season, but there's still plenty of room for improvement." Result? 19 goals conceded in 12 games, fifth worst in the Bundesliga.

You're right, he's one you had to sign at that point because he has the ability and was on the verge of breaking out, particularly in terms of goals. Unsurprisingly, he's now massively increased his goals to games ratio, creating more chances, and next summer will cost twice as much. I love our transfer committee.

Agents initially, to get him a nice lucrative contract extension. Since then, media fuckwits continuing it to sell papers/generate traffic.

He makes up for all his deficiencies with a great reading of the game, as demonstrated by his amazing "I'll just run past the guy who has the ball" bit of defending at 2:40 in the highlights video posted above. Followed by the "I won't track the runner even if I can see him run past right in front of me" bit of defending on the same guy who made a fool of him 5 seconds earlier. You can't put a price on that sort of ability.

Some parodies are funny. This isn't one of them.

off at the airport.

I'm unhappy with the way the media has successfully duped most viewers into believing Hohaia started the violence. If the public weren't so lazy and reactionary they would have found out for themselves that Hohaia was struck in the back of the head behind the play to make him so angry to go after Flower. Although some may still have seen it and are quite happy to ignore it so it doesn't interfere with their 'retaliatory act' justifications for what Flower did when he punched him the first time.

It does amaze me that playing and training in football for years and years doesn't improve your ability to boot the ball anywhere up the pitch with your 'wrong' foot. What the fuck do they do all day?

Their first team didn't score 4 goals in a game in the league last season so that's some achievement, if true of course.

Here you go, I've changed it to one of our kits so it looks better.

Brilliant.

You really should have read the links I posted. You still have no clue where I'm coming from. There's really not much point in repeating what already exists in the articles because they say everything I want to say but I'll post a snippet to clarify seeing as you like the words proof and belief so much. So, what is PROOF? In science, we neither prove nor disprove. Proof means that your Priest mounted and raped you. He had his way with you and 'converted' you to his Religion. That's all that 'proof' means. What is PROOF and TRUTH and EVIDENCE to one, is a LIE and BLASPHEMY and OBSCURITY to another. So how do we resolve this dilemma? Who is RIGHT and who is WRONG? Do we flip a coin? Do we consult a crystal ball or a Ouija Board? The act of "proving" is a humorous human activity, not much different than binge-drinking or smoking crack-cocaine. Prove, like drinking & smoking is a VERB. To "prove", we require a human ape to use his limited sensory system to give us a subjective biased OPINION of what they sensed. "Opinions vary!" -- Patrick Swayze (Roadhouse, 1989) "Prove" is the verb that the Pastors of Christianity, Relativity, String Theory, Quantum Mechanics and Big Bang perform on our brain (or our orifices), to get us to swallow the nonsense that space and matter were "created" by God or by ‘nothing’. Exist = object + location The scientific definition of ‘exist’ makes no provision for proof or opinions, belief or knowledge, faith or wisdom, truth or lies, observers or experiments, testimony or evidence, authority or popularity.....whether we like it or not! God exists or doesn’t, BY DEFINITION, only....not because some human ape with a clown outfit decrees it as such! Proof is in the eye of the beholder......PROOF = OPINION! We use words to define things. If you can't use words in ways that are non contradictory, you've achieved nothing. For example, telling me we aren't sure of anything in a post that's in essence disagreeing with me, is contradictory, therefore irrational. You seriously need to read the stuff in the links I posted. It clearly describes the definitions of important words and how we can use these agreed upon objective definitions to form rational arguments. If you're going to argue from the point of solipsism, which is what you've just done, then what you say has no value to you or I because we're not in the same reality. If we're not starting from the same place ie we exist, then none of this matters and you should stop debating with people and attempting to state what you think is the case.

That starting 11 has 1 goalscorer in it. It isn't good enough. Career Premier League goals; Flanagan: 1 Lovren: 2 Sakho: 1 Enrique: 2 Gerrard: 111 (16 seasons) Henderson: 11 Lallana: 12 Sterling: 11 Sturridge: 58 Coutinho: 8

Everything in the entire universe could be explained as "god made it", or "god does it". Describing actions of things that happen does not eliminate a god. Light, gravity, everything could all be working due to a god designing them beforehand to act in the way they do, or even making them work in the present. That is not my view, but I'm saying the argument can be made if you just go by what's observer dependent. Mainstream science measures/explains effects, and helps us utilise them to create and do things in day to day life. That's great. What I'm talking about is "what led to reality?". Have a read of these, they explain what I mean, Fanchester should too: http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/God-Does-NOT-Exist-It-is-IMPOSSIBLE-for-a-God-to-Exist and http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/UNCAUSED-FIRST-CAUSE-Argument-for-Creation-REFUTED