Erikse

Yeah, that's fair, but only if you look at it in relation to who he took off and compare those players to the players in our team that Howe could've taken off. He brought off Mac Allister and Gakpo, and I would assume that they were not nearly as knackered as our players were back in december. So there is also more of an argument to keep those players on the field rather than subbing them for someone who hasn't started before, or even played at all (?). Yet he did. And as I said, I can't see Howe doing what Klopp did if he was in the exact same situation with the same players and setup. Also, Howe had 2 reasons to do it. Fresh legs and resting players so that they could perform in coming games. This was a final, so you don't really think about resting players for future games.

I find it kind of funny how the first thing Klopp does when he has a bench like we had in december is to do the exact opposite of what Howe did all december, to actually use his bench for fresh legs. Not only that, but he did it in a cup final, so it wasn't even just about saving legs for next game but crucially for having any fresh legs out there. And guess what, the team didn't fall apart at all. According to what many here said in december, this was clearly a mistake by Klopp. "Howe knows better than you", yeah sure, but Klopp also knows better than you. He also knows better than Howe. I'd imagine that if Howe was the manager in that final he not use a single one of those academy players for the 120 min, sticking with players who can't run, and then some would have people defending him saying "he had no other choice, just look at the bench".

Chelsea average age: 23.9 Liverpool average age: 25.8 Liverpool started with 3 players under 24, Chelsea started with 6. That being said, Klopp did the thing that Howe refused to do. In a final. And it worked.

Liverpools bench is starting to look like ours from december. No Salah, Nunez or Szoboszlai today.

I don't think that this game is a very good example of what works best, our entire team got ran over by a much better team. If we had started Burn, we might have been fuming about Dan Burn right now. Maybe we would've lost by even more. Impossible to tell.

Then what was the purpose of your post? It said "Yeah, so about Dan Burn..." Because if the point was not that you thought that he, as a singular player, would make a difference here, then I'm struggling to understand what it was. Everyone knew we would lose today regardless, doesn't really matter whether we play Burn or not imo.

Wolves will go past us tomorrow.. Going to be 10th if West Ham beat Brentford at home.

Im' sure he would do well against Saka after having so much trouble against teams like Forest and Luton.

Didn't have a single Liverpool player (they wont play in the next one anyways), and got lucky with their injuries. Got 91 pts with Haaland tc.

I didn't know that anyone posted about it, I was too lazy to check. But looking at your post it certainly seemed like it. To be fair I wrote pretty much the same thing about Olise both times when he went out. I find it strange how managers rush players back for hamstrings. It usually goes wrong. Palace fans were begging for Roy to not sub in Olise at 4-0 Brighton in the second half. He lasted 10 min. Pep did brilliantly with de Bruyne, he was pretty patient with him.

Salah with a reoccurence of his hamstring. Trent also experienced a reoccurence of his knee injury. They both seem to have been rushed back.

Not sure how this squad is going to play possession football.. We've got Schar and Bruno for that, and that's about it. Maybe Gordon. The rest are players who wants a more direct playstyle, which the 3 that I mentioned can also do.

0-11 in the last 3. Draw at home to Bournemouth and away at Sheffield Utd before that. They are clueless without Paqueta. Shouldn't be like that, they have a good squad. Horrible playstyle aswell.

As I said after last GW: I'm just going to let double GW fool me once again..

I guess we are rushing back Isak only for him to get injured again..

Still can't believe how Tarkowski got away with no punishment after injuring Longstaff with a very nasty tackle, simply because he had already made the shot. It was last season vs Everton. Still pisses me off, it was reckless and highly likely to end in an injury. Not even a yellow, not even a pen. Made no sense. Apparently you can kill someone in the penalty area and not even concede a pen, as long as the shot was already taken. Great decision yesterday though.

They were saying that Ten Hag should be manager of the season, partly for getting top 4.

Initially he got a yellow for diving, didn't he? As if he would dive there..

Crazy idea - but what if they made the penalty area smaller? That way you get a free kick closer to goal in what used to be a penalty offence. It would change a lot for the goalkeepers aswell though, like goalkick (players are closer) and a smaller area for the GK to use his hands.

He has been injured, but they tend to play Haaland every single game. He often doesn't have to run as much as players like Foden, KDB and Silva.

If I were to take him in, it would just be for 1 round. I just think he can get a real haul if he plays both. But it would technically cost me 8 points (or 2 free subs, which is often worth 8 pts). Probably just a bad idea though as Joe Gomez will probably also get a chance.

I wonder if it's worth going for Conor Bradley, but I fear that Gomez could start atleast 1 of them.

Yes, I'm going to give it to Haaland. I was talking about vice captain. But probably won't matter which one I pick.

Fair point. Who knows, maybe Haaland is injured all of a sudden without any notice. Highly unlikely though.

I'm really confused about who to pick as vice tripple captain. Foden or de Bruyne? It's really hard to know which one who will be rotated the most in the coming games.