Cronky

I know what you mean, but this is his first time in European competition. I don't think he's got a choice.

Too late, amigos.

I was opposed to VAR being used for anything other than issues of fact (eg offside, ball across the line). Handballs, with the idea of intention, are matters of opinion, as with many other fouls. Having said all that, now we're on this journey, let's see if we can refine things with experience. VAR was never going to eliminate controversy, but it can improve decisions in general, and eliminate those that are clearly wrong. That's all we can expect. It would help if managers like Frank didn't react with outrage when a reasonable decision happens to go against them.

Might be my imagination, but I did sense that Eddie is quite angry at the way the media are trying to create a crisis out of the three defeats. Two away from home, and all against teams in the top four...hmm. Over the years, he's earned a bit more respect than that. Let's face it, most non-Geordies would prefer for our story to continue - ie hopes being constantly dashed, the roller coster of near success followed by failure. Schadenfreude.

Realistically, a very large proportion of free kicks or pens are awarded through an attacker deliberately positioning himself so that a defender makes contact. The way our game is refereed, there is some responsibility on the defender not to be suckered into challenges where they don't get the ball. The issue of whether the contact is enough to cause a player to go down is a tricky one. We can't expect players to fight to stay on their feet, when the consequences of that temporary loss of balance or footwork is to lose the ball. I'm not sure whether the ball was still on the field when the foul was committed. Given that the whole of the ball has to have crossed the line, it probably was. But I'm not clear on what the correct decision would have been if the ball had crossed the line. Googling hasn't helped. Any refs out there?

Harvey Barnes, in the second half, stood out as the man most likely to make something happen, and so it proved. I thought our superior fitness told as the game went on, as happened a few times last season. The old confidence seemed to be coming back a bit. But it's heart in mouth time every time Dan Burn gets the ball, in attack or defence.

I thought Pawson got two of the major three decisions right. Wilson was using arm against the keeper, and there was clear contact on Gordon for the pen. I thought the handball was 50-50. Sometimes they get given, sometimes not. Worst incident was Onyeka going down clutching his face. I didn't think there had been any contact in that area at all. It's bothered me a bit that players can get the game stopped just by holding their face like that, and I hope it doesn't catch on. Very relieved to get the win of course. We looked a bit more like our old selves in the second half.

I like the fact that he's gone for a bold selection. There are players in there who'll be eager to show something to the manager ie Longstaff, Anderson, Barnes

The Leeds fan has been given a 12-week prison sentence and a six-year football banning order for the assault on Eddie. Bit surprised at the prison sentence, but I guess there has to be some deterrent.

I would count that as the craziest bit of over-pricing ever. It's immoral.

Apparently we've won the chase. That video really did cheer me up. Much recommended viewing for anyone with the post-Brighton blues.

The problem is that you couldn't really call it a 'mistake'. A 5 year old knows that you're supposed to try to block a shot in that situation. His attitude just seemed all wrong, and in fact he seemed a bit tentative throughout. Perhaps he's mentally a bit brittle, and Eddie needs to work on that. The reports from AC Milan seemed to suggest that his form blew hot and cold. Maybe he finds it easy to perform in home games. After he was subbed, we seemed to show a bit more fight, but by then it was too late.

Last season, I couldn't work out how such a weak looking back four was conceding so few goals. Well Botman was probably a big factor in that. Trippier, Burn and Targett all looked very vulnerable. Another factor last year was that our midfield was playing with a lot of confidence and energy, and that probably compensated. That was almost entirely absent today, and we saw the result.

I agree. That at least is a combination that we know can work. Overall, I didn't think Tonali had a good game today. He looked okay in flashes, but most of the time, he didn't seem to know what he was doing, and seemed tentative. His failure to even attempt to close down Gilmour for the first goal was just awful and would have been noticed by his team-mates.

We do seem to miss Longstaff's energy in midfield. It looks very static at the moment. In fact, Isak looks like our best midfielder. The back four isn't getting much protection, and looks fragile anyway. Tonali didn't close down the shot for the goal. He's not the only one that seems to lack aggression at the moment. I'm just glad it's only one.

Poor by Pope for the goal, but Tonali made virtually no attempt to close down the shot.

I agree on your first point. I feel embarrassed myself at the way in which my general mood can go up and down depending on the result of a football match. It has its dangers. Nick Hornby expressed the whole thing very well in Fever Pitch. On the second point, I got irritated by the way in which the result last week was interpreted as Eddie being outwitted by a 'masterclass' from Klopp. There was the idea that Eddie was 'not yet up to competing with the elite', which was the phrase I perhaps should have used. I think the reality is that Liverpool generally have better players, being way ahead of us in that side of their development, and that our players got nervous in the way that teams tend to do when they fail to put a game to bed and their opponents go for broke in the final phase of the game. It's just pressure, and a manager can't completely shield his players from it. Personally, I think Eddie is not just top tier, but ahead of the game. The test of a manager is what they can achieve on the resources available, and in that regard Eddie has been remarkable.

Sorry if this has been posted before, but I saw a quote from Eddie saying that the previous custom of managers fraternising after a game was starting to decline, and in any event, he didn't feel it was viable for friendships between rival managers to develop. His door was open to any manager that might want to converse, but he did not seek closer relationships himself. Again, I have to admire our guy's capacity for honesty and his ability to think something through for himself. Realistically, managers are responsible for their own livelhood and that of others, so the temptation to use a relationship for their own ends and against their rivals' must be very strong. But I have noticed, in the after match handshakes, a certain reluctance on Eddie's part to engage in anything but the briefest courtesies. I do wonder whether this has irritated a number of other managers, because the occasional barbed remark about our team can emerge later. However, I'd see this remoteness as a form of integrity really, and an avoidance of false behaviour.

Eddie doesn't like taking players on loan. He says he doesn't get their souls. (that very word) Hall was a permanent signing with the payment deferred. Targett was brought in during a crisis.

Yeah, this is my worry too. The hunger for success, after so many years of deprivation, is so great that it can easily turn to anger and frustration when things take a dip. And you're so right about Robson - the Geordie support, captain, Chairman and press all turned against him and drove him out. The idea that Eddie isn't quite up to it is ridiculous. His results are no fluke because he's done it with two separate clubs - taking Bournemouth from administration at the bottom of the four divisions into the Premier League, and taking us from bottom of the Premier League to the Champions League in two years. The guy is outstanding.

And with the first, the ball went in off the post. In football, if you make subs and then lose the game, then the decision is to blame, and vice versa when you win. And if one of your subs actually scores, then it's a stroke of genius. Managers know their players and their systems, and will spot when someone is tiring much earlier than we do. The knack is to make the decision before the tiring player becomes a problem, rather than afterwards.

I'd need to know what's gone wrong at Arsenal first. He's been on the sidelines for a long while and there don't seem to be any takers.

To be honest, I'm not so bothered that this game is away from home. After Sunday's disappointment, the home crowd is going to be a bit on edge. A decent result (ie anything but a defeat) would calm things down.

Yeah, I like this. Full backs can play a big part if we're trying to break down a packed defence, which at the moment is difficult. Eddie tries to play an attacking game, and really needs his two full backs to support the attack.

I thought it was a very good decision by the ref, because Van Dijk was very cute in the way he made it look like it was a genuine attempt at the ball. A lot of refs would have played safe and given the free kick outside the area. The earlier one on Alexander-Arnold was one of those where a second yellow, by custom, has to be a more serious foul than the first one. I'm okay with that convention, and on this occasion a 50-50 decision went Liverpool's way.