Conspiracy? Bias? Dumb luck? Why do LFC get shit decisions?

[Kopstar]

Over simplification and pigeon holing of a complex issue, so that you can fire arrows in one direction? I dont think its that easy, those of us on THIS side of the debate have given numerous examples, rationales, experiences, history lessons, geographical reasons to illustrate bias against the city and club. All of that evidence has been constantly refuted, with very little of the proof that you yearn for veing offered to disprove our belief.
Polarised views, fair enough. But asking people to package a wide ranging and complex issue up in a bow for you to derail is simplistic and trite.

It really hasn't and that's why this topic will continue to rumble on...

 

[Barnestormer]

It really hasn't and that's why this topic will continue to rumble on...

Yes and even good points that render the effects of this bias inconsequential are ignored; like for instance, in terms of influencing the output of a game, by and large a team misses way more chances under their own failing, than they do suffer an unfair or erroneous decision.

 

[Anfield rd Dreamer]

Yes and even good points that render the effects of this bias inconsequential are ignored; like for instance, in terms of influencing the output of a game, by and large a team misses way more chances under their own failing, than they do suffer an unfair or erroneous decision.

That's part of the contest though to determine which side is better. If we were playing City in a cup final would you be ok with the referee scoring a goal against us every time we missed a shot? We want contests to be even and fair. If, when even and fair, we lose or win it's on us. If it's not even and fair why are we supposed to accept it in the same way as accepting a players mistakes? How does that logic work?

 

[Barnestormer]

That's part of the contest though to determine which side is better. If we were playing City in a cup final would you be ok with the referee scoring a goal against us every time we missed a shot? We want contests to be even and fair. If, when even and fair, we lose or win it's on us. If it's not even and fair why are we supposed to accept it in the same way as accepting a players mistakes? How does that logic work?

Well it never actually happens as you describe, the premise I put is correct, a team by an large messes their own score line up without unfairness creeping in. As well, fairness is an idealism, that under close analysis, often pales away. Of course no one would accept blatant cheating or manifest unfairness, but those instances are even rarer. But sometimes it does bite, like the situation I think you are getting at, but it is so rare. In fact lets see how many examples we can find of a game actually being swung by manifest unfairness? The only one I can remember is Henry's handball against the ROI, beyond that, these so called unfair decisions are bound up in perspective, they ebb and flow with the game, with a bad touch, with a slippy surface, or long grass, like last night. Another instance of unfairness I can remember was this season when Ancelloti prevented us from training on the match pitch prior to the game. But, these occasions are so rare. I think football is bias but if it amounts to anything its only blow football!

 

[epsomred]

How many times are you going to come back after storming out??
For clarity.
I am not a conspiracy theorist and regard it as insulting to be branded so.
Conspiracies theorists see things that dont exist, what I have commented on definitley exists. If @cynicaloldgit uses the term conspiracy, it doesnt mean he is incorrect. But the comedic value some people got in using the term in other threads annoyed me.

So let’s be clear. If @cynicaloldgit can say there’s a conspiracy against the club and quoting your post “it doesn’t mean he’s incorrect” then a reasonable interpretation would be that you think he’s correct. But in the same post you say you are not a conspiracy theorist and find this moniker insulting. So you agree with and regularly like the posts of somebody who thinks there a conspiracy but you state that you're not a conspiracy theorist and it’s an insult to say you are. I think it’s this sort of tortured reasoning on your part that is the reason the rest of us don’t agree with you.

 

[Anfield rd Dreamer]

So let’s be clear. If @cynicaloldgit can say there’s a conspiracy against the club and quoting your post “it doesn’t mean he’s incorrect” then a reasonable interpretation would be that you think he’s correct. But in the same post you say you are not a conspiracy theorist and find this moniker insulting. So you agree with and regularly like the posts of somebody who thinks there a conspiracy but you state that you're not a conspiracy theorist and it’s an insult to say you are. I think it’s this sort of tortured reasoning on your part that is the reason the rest of us don’t agree with you.

Do you not realise that the term "conspiracy theorist" is both demeaning and condescending as well as insulting? It's not an accurate description of someone who believes in a conspiracy or even works on exposing one. It's a derogatory dismissal of someone's beliefs who you don't respect. If you understand that maybe you can discuss things a bit more civilly with others. Not everyone who believes in a conspiracy is a nut job. For the record I don't think we are affected by some large, overarching conspiracy.

 

[Kopstar]

So let’s be clear. If @cynicaloldgit can say there’s a conspiracy against the club and quoting your post “it doesn’t mean he’s incorrect” then a reasonable interpretation would be that you think he’s correct. But in the same post you say you are not a conspiracy theorist and find this moniker insulting. So you agree with and regularly like the posts of somebody who thinks there a conspiracy but you state that you're not a conspiracy theorist and it’s an insult to say you are. I think it’s this sort of tortured reasoning on your part that is the reason the rest of us don’t agree with you.

Tortured reasoning on whose part?!

 

[Anfield rd Dreamer]

Well it never actually happens as you describe, the premise I put is correct, a team by an large messes their own score line up without unfairness creeping in. As well, fairness is an idealism, that under close analysis, often pales away. Of course no one would accept blatant cheating or manifest unfairness, but those instances are even rarer. But sometimes it does bite, like the situation I think you are getting at, but it is so rare. In fact lets see how many examples we can find of a game actually being swung by manifest unfairness? The only one I can remember is Henry's handball against the ROI, beyond that, these so called unfair decisions are bound up in perspective, they ebb and flow with the game, with a bad touch, with a slippy surface, or long grass, like last night. Another instance of unfairness I can remember was this season when Ancelloti prevented us from training on the match pitch prior to the game. But, these occasions are so rare. I think football is bias but if it amounts to anything its only blow football!

Except it does have a major effect.

Liverpool unluckiest Premier League team & Manchester United luckiest, says study

Liverpool were the unluckiest team in the Premier League last season while Manchester United were the luckiest, a new study says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Although not a perfect study (no idea why deflections are taken into account) and I wish it was showing a ten season period this is conclusive proof of how much it can effect teams.

 

[Barnestormer]

Except it does have a major effect.

Liverpool unluckiest Premier League team & Manchester United luckiest, says study

Liverpool were the unluckiest team in the Premier League last season while Manchester United were the luckiest, a new study says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Although not a perfect study (no idea why deflections are taken into account) and I wish it was showing a ten season period this is conclusive proof of how much it can effect teams.

No it isnt, it fails to address many other factors, such as the teams inherent qualitative performance. Such as they might have lost anyway. I suggest you follow the link, it looks like clickbait to me. Its not even a fucking study! So really, you are, let me get this, basing your view on the ESPN luck index?

 

[Quicksand]

So let’s be clear. If @cynicaloldgit can say there’s a conspiracy against the club and quoting your post “it doesn’t mean he’s incorrect” then a reasonable interpretation would be that you think he’s correct. But in the same post you say you are not a conspiracy theorist and find this moniker insulting. So you agree with and regularly like the posts of somebody who thinks there a conspiracy but you state that you're not a conspiracy theorist and it’s an insult to say you are. I think it’s this sort of tortured reasoning on your part that is the reason the rest of us don’t agree with you.

Lets be clear.
I am not a conspiracy theorist. That term is used in this and many instances as an insult.
How other posters choose to describe the biases that exist against Liverpool is their choice. Its language. I agree with a lot of what @cynicaloldgit posts. His description may not mirror mine but what he says rings true to me on many occasions.
You describe things differentley to other posters. Is that cause for me to question your sanity or diagnose you as having tortured reasoning?

And who is the "rest of us"??? Half a dozen die hard individuals who seek reassurance, evidence or proof at every corner. Good Friday tomorrow and into Easter. Not major au fait with the Bible but maybe read about "Doubting Thomas". Wouldnt call anyone that as it is an insult to intelligence.
Hope thats clear enough.

 

[Quicksand]

No it isnt, it fails to address many other factors, such as the teams inherent qualitative performance. Such as they might have lost anyway. I suggest you follow the link, it looks like clickbait to me. Its not even a fucking study! So really, you are, let me get this, basing your view on the ESPN luck index?

So an assistant University of Bath Professor conducts the research and its not even a fucking study!!!

 

[Barnestormer]

So an assistant University of Bath Professor conducts the research and its not even a fucking study!!!

Get us a copy of the study then? Instead of a page of banners and spangled summaries. And what about the rest of the games? You know the parts where football goes on, missed chances. You cant seriously make a cause and effect analysis of the outcome of a football match, and then simply focus on the officiating decisions. Many other factors contribute to the outcome. Its flawed.

 

[Anfield rd Dreamer]

Get us a copy of the study then? Instead of a page of banners and spangled summaries. And what about the rest of the games? You know the parts where football goes on, missed chances. You cant seriously make a cause and effect analysis of the outcome of a football match, and then simply focus on the officiating decisions. Many other factors contribute to the outcome. Its flawed.

So you refuse to acknowledge that the actions of a referee, biased, impartial, incompetent or corrupt could influence the outcome of a football match? If you don't even take the first step there is no chance of ever hoping to meet in the middle on such a subject. You must have thought Calciopoli was trivial and Juve hard done by I guess.

 

[[email protected]]

Young was condemned all over the media at the time including by Ferguson himself who dropped him because of it. You can still google the comments. I remember the furore very well. Just one reference https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...guson-told-Ashley-Young-diving-tolerated.html

John Terry was banned for four matches and fined £220,000 for racially abusing QPR defender Anton Ferdinand.

Talk about selective memory

Mentioned in the media of late? Don’t remember Terry’s incident being reminded like the one Suarez faced. Can’t recall in any of the pundits keep reminding us Young is a diver. You brought out the timeline where the incident happened. Post event all forgotten. While negrito incident still being reminded each time Suarez came back to England to play against premier league team.

Young did have a reputation as a diver. As Rambler said, it got so bad that Ferguson dropped him and publically bollocked him. Plenty of players have. The diving tag followed Andy Johnson round his whole career.

And I think you have to be careful with the comparison of Suarez to Terry as an example of bias against the club. It was absolutely, unequivocally double standards, with Suarez getting a harsher sentence for a lesser crime than Terry - Por que, negrito v fuck off you rubber lipped black cunt (allegedly).

A couple of things make this difficult to directly compare. Firstly Suarez admitted to what he’d said, naively assuming that the FA would have the nuance to understand the cultural background to the phrase. He wasn’t helped by Comolli weighing in with all the tact and subtlety with which he’d have perused an average mid-table midfielder with good crossing stats.

John Terry insisted his innocence and stood firm over his version of events, which was that he hadn’t used racist language, some of his best friends are blacks, and he hasn’t got a racist bone in his body apart from the one between his ears. The FA had to rely on imperfect evidence like lip reading to reach a judgement.

More importantly, the Suarez/Terry comparison revealed more about institutional racism within the game rather than bias towards LFC. At heart, we had a foreign lad who already had a reputation for being a bastard (biting, hair pulling and spitting) versus England’s brave John Terry, hard but fair, and with the spirit of Albion running through his veins. Suarez got the most he could get and Terry got the very least. One rule for our lads and another for those dastardly foreigners coming over here and being better than us a football has a long history.

I often think of Gerrard in this case. In high spirits after thumping Newcastle, Stevie got into an altercation with a DJ who refused to play a Phil Collins song. There are mixed accounts of what happened, and in the end Gerrard got off with ABH, despite security footage showing Stevie clearly landing blows on the lad. Objectively this is worse that saying a naughty word in a football pitch, but it’s never clung to Gerrard like the racism thing did to Suarez. It was a story for a few weeks and then everyone moved on. We can’t claim an anti-LFC bias in this case.

The simple fact is, as far as I can see, there is a latent racism in the game, and society at large, that visits a harsher judgement on foreign players for lesser crimes than it does for ‘native’ lads.

@Mascot88 Definitely a sense of xenophobia, and not strictly limited to football, however one has to be careful in limiting that just to racism though? I mean, if Johnny Foreigner were biased against then we'd see the results in most sanctions coming out and not just those for racism. Then of course, given the cosmopolitan nature of the English game, foreign players make up a larger percentage of players than local ones so if sanctions for foreigners are more prevalent than those for local players is that not perhaps a natural by product of the majority of players being foreign. I would be wary of attributing the nature of Suarez' punishment to only simply being Johnny Foreigner.

The most telling bit of the difference between Terry and Suarez is not necessarily the respective bans, which was disproportionate, but also the reaction amongst fans across England who had fuck all to do with both players:

'We know what you are,
We know what you aaaaaaaare,
Luis Suarez, we know what you are'

Putting John Terry in there would fit in quite seamlessly but it didn't happen, did it? Suarez was subjected to that every game, home (by away fans) and away. He was labelled a cheat, a diver, a stain on humanity. A lesser character would have broke. He used it to fuel the spectacular then left.

Just to go back to Johnny Foreigner in the context of being mocked here and to use Gerrard again. This is obviously not a racist incident but it is relevant in my view. Liverpool are on the brink of glory. A man who is Liverpool personified but also Captain of England cruelly slips to watch his dreams fade. So, what does the country do? Stand by the man who is one of the best produced by them? Console the man who has also given *them* sterling service and much to be proud of? No, he is subject to derision and mockery at every single home and away game by the very fans who cheered him when he still had an England shirt on. The exact same 'banter' that Suarez had to put up with minus the cheat.

John Terry somehow managed to combine both of what happened to Suarez and Gerrard while shagging his team mates wife at the same time; he who was banned and fined for racist abuse and who slipped to lose his team the European Cup final went about the business of his career in grand, uninterrupted and serene fashion with barely so much as a reminder of his indiscretions and got a guard of honour and a royal sending off in the 26th minute of his last game.

Can anybody really say that some sort of bias against Liverpool is nonexistent? The evidence may be circumstantial, like what I noted above, but surely the pure weight of circumstantial lends itself some sort of credence. There is never going to be a smoking gun or a signed memo but surely the disproportionate number of random incidents when put together over time, and the outrageous vilification amongst rival fans that we get whenever it seems that we are sticking our head above the parapet again, gives one some pause at least?

Some people want to be biased against as it can be a crutch for their own failings, that is undoubtably true. However, at at the same time some people think that is the only explanation for someone to perceive bias against them and are according dismissive of the aggrieved. There is actually a middle ground where bias exists without iron clad evidence to dispel it that does not have to be disparaged or be entirely dismissed and that murky trench is exactly where we fall into. IMO, of course.

*edit* grammar

 

[Kopstar]

Get us a copy of the study then? Instead of a page of banners and spangled summaries. And what about the rest of the games? You know the parts where football goes on, missed chances. You cant seriously make a cause and effect analysis of the outcome of a football match, and then simply focus on the officiating decisions. Many other factors contribute to the outcome. Its flawed.

https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/files/185031624/Final_Report.pdf

 

[lfc.eddie]

Thanks @[email protected] for that post, got tired of replying already.

 

[Barnestormer]

So you refuse to acknowledge that the actions of a referee, biased, impartial, incompetent or corrupt could influence the outcome of a football match? If you don't even take the first step there is no chance of ever hoping to meet in the middle on such a subject. You must have thought Calciopoli was trivial and Juve hard done by I guess.

No I didn't say that, thats your paraphrase, I dont think referees decisions can always define the outcome of football matches. I understand cause and effect and intervening acts, other factors apply. I think Calciopoli was anomaly, not pattern. Italy being the differentiating feature. I have acknowledged some games could be influenced here and there, for betting scams. I do not think there is an operative conspiracy keeping LFC away from the title or major honors, if you hadn't noticed, we've not been quite good enough (as well). Or have you found an algorithm to discount that data?

 

[Barnestormer]

https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/files/185031624/Final_Report.pdf

Any peer reviews?

 

[Barnestormer]

So you refuse to acknowledge that the actions of a referee, biased, impartial, incompetent or corrupt could influence the outcome of a football match? If you don't even take the first step there is no chance of ever hoping to meet in the middle on such a subject. You must have thought Calciopoli was trivial and Juve hard done by I guess.

In being able to integrate a large amount of diverse information, Bayesian hierarchal models are a valuable analytic tool for our project that seeks to redraw the Premier League based on luck. This said, the construction of a Bayesian model for ‘in-game’ estimation is not straightforward, and can be subject to misinterpretation and/or manipulation. Naturally, then, questions of the accuracy, reliability, and appropriateness of our methods need to be addressed fully. In what 7 follows, we detail each step of our consultation, coding, and analysis to document the procedures that took place to establish ESPN’s luck index.

From page 6/7, I mean thats pretty much everything in terms of credibility there in bold! But nevermind that lets just look at causation? There are other factors that influence a football match. Or are you going to continue to ignore the points that go against your overarching point? In fact what is that exactly, are you saying there is an operating conspiracy amongst professional referees against LFC?

 

[Anfield rd Dreamer]

In being able to integrate a large amount of diverse information, Bayesian hierarchal models are a valuable analytic tool for our project that seeks to redraw the Premier League based on luck. This said, the construction of a Bayesian model for ‘in-game’ estimation is not straightforward, and can be subject to misinterpretation and/or manipulation. Naturally, then, questions of the accuracy, reliability, and appropriateness of our methods need to be addressed fully. In what 7 follows, we detail each step of our consultation, coding, and analysis to document the procedures that took place to establish ESPN’s luck index.

From page 6/7, I mean thats pretty much everything in terms of credibility there in bold! But nevermind that lets just look at causation? There are other factors that influence a football match. Or are you going to continue to ignore the points that go against your overarching point? In fact what is that exactly, are you saying there is an operating conspiracy amongst professional referees against LFC?

I don't know how many times I need to say I don't believe there's a conspiracy. What I wish we had was a study showing how many incorrect calls are made in favour and against each team. Ignore how that changes points and results. Break it down over the last year, 5 years, 10 years and since the premier league started. Then you would have a body of evidence vast enough to finally prove some general rules. Some we already will know such as bigger teams tend to get more favourable calls than smaller teams amongst others. We don't have that (much better but still imperfect) body of evidence. Instead we have to make do with what we have. As the study provided is completely neutral and all teams are affected by the same imperfections it can be used to show that, last season at least, we were not on an equal playing field with some of our rivals.

 

[Quicksand]

Thanks @[email protected] for that post, got tired of replying already.

One of the best posts, tge stark comparrison between Gerrard and Terry is gobsmacking, when you see it in black and white.

 

[Anfield rd Dreamer]

No I didn't say that, thats your paraphrase, I dont think referees decisions can always define the outcome of football matches. I understand cause and effect and intervening acts, other factors apply. I think Calciopoli was anomaly, not pattern. Italy being the differentiating feature. I have acknowledged some games could be influenced here and there, for betting scams. I do not think there is an operative conspiracy keeping LFC away from the title or major honors, if you hadn't noticed, we've not been quite good enough (as well). Or have you found an algorithm to discount that data?

Why does it have to be all or nothing in every counter argument on here? Why does it have to be the difference between a league title or not? What if it was the favourable calls in an FA cup semi final when we could have won the final? Or the odd points here and there that could have meant the difference between 5th and 4th one year which meant we couldn't recruit as well that summer so had a poorer following year? Calciopoli was an organised event to create favourable situations, not flat out match fixing. A lot of what I've been trying to highlight in here is the circumstances that could accidentally lead to some of the same results.

 

[Barnestormer]

I don't know how many times I need to say I don't believe there's a conspiracy. What I wish we had was a study showing how many incorrect calls are made in favour and against each team. Ignore how that changes points and results. Break it down over the last year, 5 years, 10 years and since the premier league started. Then you would have a body of evidence vast enough to finally prove some general rules. Some we already will know such as bigger teams tend to get more favourable calls than smaller teams amongst others. We don't have that (much better but still imperfect) body of evidence. Instead we have to make do with what we have. As the study provided is completely neutral and all teams are affected by the same imperfections it can be used to show that, last season at least, we were not on an equal playing field with some of our rivals.

Well I agree then (and have stated this some pages back), there is an unconscious bias, but its endemic to team sports. Scousers probably get worse tbh. Im not sure you can discount points and results, else there is no material prejudice. It would be good to see those figures, but as more and more VAR evolves, I think we will destroy some parts of the fluidity of the game. If you accept unconscious bias though, dont you have to also accept idiocy and mistake?

 

[Barnestormer]

Why does it have to be all or nothing in every counter argument on here? Why does it have to be the difference between a league title or not? What if it was the favourable calls in an FA cup semi final when we could have won the final? Or the odd points here and there that could have meant the difference between 5th and 4th one year which meant we couldn't recruit as well that summer so had a poorer following year? Calciopoli was an organised event to create favourable situations, not flat out match fixing. A lot of what I've been trying to highlight in here is the circumstances that could accidentally lead to some of the same results.

Its just the title of the thread and how long back it goes, and people are lazy to not read every post, or sane enough. It doesnt have to be the difference, it has to have a material difference, to matter, else its just banter and, like i said, blowfootball. Its also tribal. And fuckuppery. I dont think there is a Calciopoli waiting to be uncovered in England, but would accept some of Fergie's favourable end of game scenarios are very suspicious and may reveal some degree of iniquity, if we could ever find out.

 

[Anfield rd Dreamer]

Well I agree then (and have stated this some pages back), there is an unconscious bias, but its endemic to team sports. Scousers probably get worse tbh. Im not sure you can discount points and results, else there is no material prejudice. It would be good to see those figures, but as more and more VAR evolves, I think we will destroy some parts of the fluidity of the game. If you accept unconscious bias though, dont you have to also accept idiocy and mistake?

I've said all along there will be incompetence and general corruption here and there that will effect LFC but everyone else as well. However I'm a firm believer in unconscious bias and how it effects decision making. Understanding what I do and appreciating the historical way our club and area have been viewed by the rest of the UK and particularly a large, influential, section of media I'm convinced we don't get a fair shake of things.

 

[Barnestormer]

One of the best posts, tge stark comparrison between Gerrard and Terry is gobsmacking, when you see it in black and white.

Yeah terrible, and Terry is an utterly despicable man in real life as well. And that study is a load of bollocks, as well lol

 

[epsomred]

Lets be clear.
I am not a conspiracy theorist. That term is used in this and many instances as an insult.
How other posters choose to describe the biases that exist against Liverpool is their choice. Its language. I agree with a lot of what @cynicaloldgit posts. His description may not mirror mine but what he says rings true to me on many occasions.
You describe things differentley to other posters. Is that cause for me to question your sanity or diagnose you as having tortured reasoning?

And who is the "rest of us"??? Half a dozen die hard individuals who seek reassurance, evidence or proof at every corner. Good Friday tomorrow and into Easter. Not major au fait with the Bible but maybe read about "Doubting Thomas". Wouldnt call anyone that as it is an insult to intelligence.
Hope thats clear enough.

I think Doubting Thomas is a good role model in this debate. Didn’t blindly go along with the account of the resurrection, he asked for evidence. Was critised at the time for not having just faith in what was obviously nonsense. Call me a doubting Thomas any day. I won’t be insulted.

 

[Barnestormer]

I've said all along there will be incompetence and general corruption here and there that will effect LFC but everyone else as well. However I'm a firm believer in unconscious bias and how it effects decision making. Understanding what I do and appreciating the historical way our club and area have been viewed by the rest of the UK and particularly a large, influential, section of media I'm convinced we don't get a fair shake of things.

There is an Article like this in evidence, called Hunting the Snark, because you cant ever find it.

 

[Mascot88]

@Mascot88 Definitely a sense of xenophobia, and not strictly limited to football, however one has to be careful in limiting that just to racism though? I mean, if Johnny Foreigner were biased against then we'd see the results in most sanctions coming out and not just those for racism. Then of course, given the cosmopolitan nature of the English game, foreign players make up a larger percentage of players than local ones so if sanctions for foreigners are more prevalent than those for local players is that not perhaps a natural by product of the majority of players being foreign. I would be wary of attributing the nature of Suarez' punishment to only simply being Johnny Foreigner.

The most telling bit of the difference between Terry and Suarez is not necessarily the respective bans, which was disproportionate, but also the reaction amongst fans across England who had fuck all to do with both players:

'We know what you are,
We know what you aaaaaaaare,
Luis Suarez, we know what you are'

Putting John Terry in there would fit in quite seamlessly but it didn't happen, did it? Suarez was subjected to that every game, home (by away fans) and away. He was labelled a cheat, a diver, a stain on humanity. A lesser character would have broke. He used it to fuel the spectacular then left.

Just to go back to Johnny Foreigner in the context of being mocked here and to use Gerrard again. This is obviously not a racist incident but it is relevant in my view. Liverpool are on the brink of glory. A man who is Liverpool personified but also Captain of England cruelly slips to watch his dreams fade. So, what does the country do? Stand by the man who is one of the best produced by them? Console the man who has also given *them* sterling service and much to be proud of? No, he is subject to derision and mockery at every single home and away game by the very fans who cheered him when he still had an England shirt on. The exact same 'banter' that Suarez had to put up with minus the cheat.

John Terry somehow managed to combine both of what happened to Suarez and Gerrard while shagging his team mates wife at the same time; he who was banned and fined for racist abuse and who slipped to lose his team the European Cup final went about the business of his career in grand, uninterrupted and serene fashion with barely so much as a reminder of his indiscretions and got a guard of honour and a royal sending off in the 26th minute of his last game.

Can anybody really say that some sort of bias against Liverpool is nonexistent? The evidence may be circumstantial, like what I noted above, but surely the pure weight of circumstantial lends itself some sort of credence. There is never going to be a smoking gun or a signed memo but surely the disproportionate number of random incidents when put together over time, and the outrageous vilification amongst rival fans that we get whenever it seems that we are sticking our head above the parapet again, gives one some pause at least?

Some people want to be biased against as it can be a crutch for their own failings, that is undoubtably true. However, at at the same time some people think that is the only explanation for someone to perceive bias against them and are according dismissive of the aggrieved. There is actually a middle ground where bias exists without iron clad evidence to dispel it that does not have to be disparaged or be entirely dismissed and that murky trench is exactly where we fall into. IMO, of course.

*edit* grammar

Only a couple of things to respond to in this excellent post.

If there is a bias against Liverpool, it’s still enabled Liverpool to be one of the most successful clubs in the country of the last few decades. We’ve more pots in that time that 95% of teams, and we’re usually up there at the business end of the season.

I think there is a kind of bias that works against us, in that referees evidently like to use their trips to Anfield to show how good they are and not being swayed by a big club, but haven’t historically had the same diligence towards United, and now City. As an attacking team that tends not to be dirty, we tend to have referees think they have to let the lesser teams leave their boot in as a ‘leveller’. And we frequently get referee trying to maintain balance in game where we are clearly the better side, to preserve the game as entertainment for the neutral.

But I don’t really see how a dislike of the city or the people or the club has manifested in some sort of conscious or unconscious effort to deny us success.

On John Terry, it’s baffling how he is revered by the press, but I think a lot of football fans have seen through his bullshit, with the penalty, the full kit wanker episode, the shagging, the ovation etc all getting plenty of scorn and ridicule. With the press I think it’s because he represents a certain image of Englishness - blood and thunder, no nonsense, basic - that they tend to like. I’ve seen him getting plenty of ridicule.

And I’m pretty sure he did get the ‘you know what you are’ treatment. I’ve certainly heard it in Chelsea games, although to be fair I can’t be sure which of his many indescretions - the racism, the insensitive jokes around 9/11, the infidelity, or the financial misconduct - they are referring to.

Why does Liverpool get the slip song every fucking week, and no-one bothers Terry? I suspect it’s because they know it gets to us. I honestly think it will fade away in a few years, especially if we ignore it.

Anyway, I’ve tried to start a counter version for Terry, but no-ones biting

John Terry, Terry.
He fucked up his penalty
He cried like a big baby
John Terry, Terry.

I’ve done my bit.

 

[Quicksand]

I think Doubting Thomas is a good role model in this debate. Didn’t blindly go along with the account of the resurrection, he asked for evidence. Was critised at the time for not having just faith in what was obviously nonsense. Call me a doubting Thomas any day. I won’t be insulted.

It was an analogy, but to humour you....
You are a Doubting Thomas. You simply refuse to believe what is obvious. You refuse to contemplate, to attempt understanding of any phenomenon outside of your chosen notms because it fucks with the neatness and tidiness of the world.

You accuse me of tortured reasoning, and use derogatory language, and infer reduced sanity on my behalf every couple of days or pages, then wring your hands and declare yourself "out". I am now of the mind that its not really you wanting to insult me, or people who have a coalition of beliefs that you dont like. Its just that you really want us to implode, to prove OURSELVES wrong, so that normality and fairness and equity returns. Hence your repetitive search for "clarity" and the need to have all views conrary to yours neatly packaged up.
Really sorry, not happening. I guess more derision to follow, at least the tin foil hats seem to be put away......