Kid Icarus

Insinuating it was deliberate ffs. Utter whooper that Geordie Josh like.

Your posts never seem to match up with what I've said like. I don't think someone can be outed for something they keep saying themselves, that makes no sense. So no I don't think I'm outing you or attempting to at all, I think it's pretty obvious you have an agenda against Howe though and I expected that to be something you'd openly admit to tbh.

You want Howe out and don't deny it. You having that agenda isn't really meant as an accusation, it's just an accurate description of something you openly admit...unless it's described as an agenda apparently.

They're not seperate things. The point is that bad results and bad form happens to good managers. When it happens to Emery it's highlighted for that reason, not because the people who defend Howe don't rate Emery.

I would imagine that the argument would probably be Villa lost to Everton and Brentford at home, we should be beating them at home.

Best performance at Anfield in 30 years. Which it is imo, because we're nigh on always absolutely shite there. Anyway, I've made my point.

No, it's your opposing opinion to mine. Howeh man, the whole 'fact. Simple as' thing is beneath you like.

A fact

Football is full of "that wasn't a x - x game" matches like, there's nothing unusual or cope about it where it applies.

We were robbed in that match, but a great deal of it was backs to the wall defending like.

I did think it looked like we needed to make changes, but gave Howe the benefit of the doubt. When he did make changes and we saw the negative impact it had on our setup and saw their individual performances, I understood why he might have been reluctant.

Those two things don't compare. Is the point you're making that if we'd brought the players who came on at 3-1 at 2-1 instead, we'd have improved? All despite them all playing poorly individually and making us worse collectively when they actually did.

So if Howe was right to not bring players on if he thought - for whatever reason - that they weren't going to improve us, but who then do come on and make us worse, it's actually that he was still wrong in principle and they didn't improve us because he signed the wrong players.

Ah yes, the team selection was still somehow wrong despite it showing all of you up, of course. We played well throughout and very well for 35 minutes. Goals, in our case due to individual errors that have nothing to do with the setup, change games. So we're using xG to override the eye test of a goal, hitting the post, creating opportunities and chances now are we? It did work. Unless you're being deliberately obtuse or have an agenda, you should be able to be honest and separate the merits and success of a setup from individual errors within it. Regardless of whether the game was gone, the cry was for subs to come on - all of which came on, played poorly individually, and made us worse collectively. The complaint is all a bit "the food here is terrible and the portions are too small" in my book.

And 14 years under Ashley isn't 30 years either. Partly what I mean by short memories. Even if we discount the Ashley era (although people have no problem including it when trying to cite an example of a better performance) There's another 16 years there where we've been contenders or were supposed to be, under Keegan (albeit in 94/95), Dalglish, Gullit, SBR, Souness, Roeder, Allardyce - all of that is included. The difference in resources now, never mind under Ashley, compared to then is gargantuan. In a field of other examples over the years where we've been terrible, it's actually very easy to point to a match where: - We dominated until the match was turned on its head with individual errors - 3 of the goals we conceded were individual errors, 1 of which was meaningless, and all of which that had nothing to do with our set up - Played well as a team for the most part and very well for most of the first half - Scored, should have scored more, hit the post, tested their 'keeper plenty, won corners, pressed well, linked up, supported each other and were set up well - Did it all in the context of every entitled know-it-all on here whinging about how our line up was a disgrace and couldn't work etc - The subs that were apparently essential and too late made us much worse and come out of it thinking the performance, not the scoreline, was the best we've had at Anfield in a long, long time and that people are reverse engineering the performance from the scoreline. There have been much better scorelines, but if there's an example where we've played better than that at Anfield since 1996, I haven't seen it.

Classic case of the scoreline setting narratives I reckon. I remember this match well (the one I've seen put forward as a better performance/set up than last night) and it was classic Pardew: we were shite.

It absolutely is. People have extremely short memories.

Away record: Total W29 D19 L34

There's no chance that's right like.

That would all make sense if last night wasn't comfortably our best performance at Anfield in 30 years. Individual errors that changed the game are making people think the overall performance was poor.

Hi, I'm German. stirb, Fotze, stirb

Reminds me of a different argument, not the same argument

The first one can be categorised as a misread, the second was a clanger, playing it directly to a Liverpool player under no pressure and when he was part of the last line of defence.

This reminds me of the argument against tiredness in 23/24. About how it wasn't an excuse anymore when we got to March, despite it being clear that as time went on the team got more tired, not less.

Leeds away we had no striker, Sunderland and West Ham was in a poor run of form, no doubt, We've been inconsistent all season, but if you want a bit of a look outward, we're still near the too of the form table, that's how inconsistent everyone is.