| Greetings and welcome to The Football Net. We love talking balls, do you? You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. Therefore you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, take part in the banter, vote in polls and enjoy fun competitions such as fantasy football and the betting exchange. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join us today on our football forums to talk balls with us! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| liverpool v reading; fa cup 3rd replay | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 13 2010, 11:59 AM (3,226 Views) | |
| Deleted User | Jan 14 2010, 01:36 PM Post #316 |
|
Deleted User
|
Walk away? from what? Your blinkered view that Liverpool deserved something over 2 games against a team hovering just above the relegation spots in the division below... From everything i saw (and the vast majority of opinion expressed on here, in the media and by Liverpool supporters) they weren't the better team. You can keep belligerently sticking to the same blinkered veiw if you wish, but the matter is that Liverpool were beaten fairly and squarely. 2 attempts you had to turn this lot over, and you didn't. Take out Torres and Gerrard from that team and you are left with a group that is currently low in confidence and even lower in determination. |
|
|
| FLOPP'D | Jan 14 2010, 01:38 PM Post #317 |
![]()
The King in the North
|
No you said Rafa was dodging bullets (or something along those lines), and wouldn't admit we were second best. Why should he, we wern't outclassed and should have put the game to bed well before Reading scored their last minute equaliser. |
![]()
| |
|
|
| goslow | Jan 14 2010, 01:39 PM Post #318 |
|
Lord of the Ring-pieces
|
you forgot ability. |
ego contemno palma venator![]() | |
|
|
| Deleted User | Jan 14 2010, 01:42 PM Post #319 |
|
Deleted User
|
Reading should have been 2 up before you got near there goal, or doesn't that count? didn't say you were outclassed, i said you were 2nd best. You were, that's why you lost. |
|
|
| FLOPP'D | Jan 14 2010, 01:44 PM Post #320 |
![]()
The King in the North
|
Being second best would mean we were outclassed?? Liverpool------------------Reading 65.7------Possession------34.3 54.5--Territorial Advantage--45.5 As I said, we wern't second best. |
![]()
| |
|
|
| Deleted User | Jan 14 2010, 01:46 PM Post #321 |
|
Deleted User
|
No, it doesn't mean that at all. Outclass would indicate that team a were a clear level above team B. I got a stat. Liverpool------Reading 1---------Goals------2 As I said, 2nd best. |
|
|
| FLOPP'D | Jan 14 2010, 01:47 PM Post #322 |
![]()
The King in the North
|
So the better team always wins? |
![]()
| |
|
|
| Deleted User | Jan 14 2010, 01:49 PM Post #323 |
|
Deleted User
|
Not always, but is it fair to say more often than not? http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/fa_cup/8451900.stm
|
|
|
| FLOPP'D | Jan 14 2010, 01:52 PM Post #324 |
![]()
The King in the North
|
Yep, however it's unfair to say it last night. Oh right, sorry I got it wrong, I didn't realise the BBC agreed The fact of the matter is Reading were the underdogs, and so will get overrated for triumphing over the "big" team. I'm not saying they didn't deserve to go through, but saying we were second best is wrong.
|
![]()
| |
|
|
| Deleted User | Jan 14 2010, 01:53 PM Post #325 |
|
Deleted User
|
Jamie Carragher:
http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_5859206,00.html want me to continue? |
|
|
| Deleted User | Jan 14 2010, 01:54 PM Post #326 |
|
Deleted User
|
If its deserved, it's fair to say they were the better team. |
|
|
| FLOPP'D | Jan 14 2010, 01:59 PM Post #327 |
![]()
The King in the North
|
No, in saying they derserved something is because of expectation. The expectation was that we would spank them. Therefore if we had won it at 1-0 it still would have been poor from us and good from them, does that mean they were the better team? No. It means they performed above their capabilities and done well. Whereas we were poor for our level. However they still wern't the better team over the two nights, look at the stats I posted up, they show dominance in possession and in territorial advantage. I'd understand if they outplayed us, but they never. A few chances on the counter does not equate to being the better team for me. |
![]()
| |
|
|
|
|
Jan 14 2010, 02:32 PM Post #328 |
![]()
Si
|
I don't think shooting the gun will solve anything. Lol @ Azward quoting articles from different sites
|
| Simmer... | |
|
|
| stacie | Jan 14 2010, 03:03 PM Post #329 |
|
Dipped in chocolate, bronzed with elegance
|
Didn't see the whole game but if Liverpool were the best team on the pitch, that just makes the whole thing more embarrassing. In the bits I saw, Reading looked superior and a lot more determined with more ability to complete passes than Liverpool. To have almost twice the possession but less shots on target is just pathetic from a team that has already restricted their trophy chances. |
|
flak and gary love stacie and weep sorrowful tears when she's not around | |
|
|
| BALLBAG | Jan 14 2010, 03:04 PM Post #330 |
![]()
MOVE !!...Im Head Boy !!
|
Yossi is injured now if I dont laugh I will cry
|
| |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Match Day Café · Next Topic » |






The fact of the matter is Reading were the underdogs, and so will get overrated for triumphing over the "big" team. I'm not saying they didn't deserve to go through, but saying we were second best is wrong.


1:29 AM Jul 11