Who would you buy?

[Mascot88]

:celebrating:

 

[bazza66]

I banged on about this player (and Dendoncker) previously. Still to early for that letter to Santa, but I'd still quite like Tielemans. Yes he's another box to box midfielder, but he seems to have an eye for goal; and the opportunity for him to learn from Milner, at such a young age, would be great. He's also not work-shy or afraid of defensive work. Rabiot without the baggage? Anyway, i think his permanent move to Leicester is due soon, as personal terms are agreed.

 

[bazza66]

Oh, yeah

and sign Reus - no, Havertz!

 

[Zinedine Biscan]

I banged on about this player (and Dendoncker) previously. Still to early for that letter to Santa, but I'd still quite like Tielemans. Yes he's another box to box midfielder, but he seems to have an eye for goal; and the opportunity for him to learn from Milner, at such a young age, would be great. He's also not work-shy or afraid of defensive work. Rabiot without the baggage? Anyway, i think his permanent move to Leicester is due soon, as personal terms are agreed.

Yeah, seems set for Leicester. Did very well for them last season and looked to have adapted immediately to the PL.

 

[Mousecat]

Personally, I think city knew exactly what they were doing allowing that ball all but 11mm over their goal line. Luck had nothing to do with it.

Think we let Newcastle go blow for blow with us as well... just to make it interesting.

 

[Mousecat]

So obvious and yet you didn't accept that it contributed towards City's 98 points but we were lucky to get 97.

This is about game control. The end. You can define luck in different ways, you're free to do that. I'm defining it as winning in games where you didnt have control. You say injuries etc, I say they are more variables whereas the amount of game control you have is a constant. This is the logic I'm using. I think it's pretty solid logic. I would. I'm the one saying it.

Whereas you, on the other hand, think focusing on Fernandinho is the logical thing to do. And Mascot thinks Kompany scoring a goal because City had Leicester so penned into their own half that he was afforded a free shot from outside the area, also constitutes the same kind of luck.

Both things I find illogical. Am I allowed to say illogical? Is it a banning offence? If it is, well, so be it, but I must stand by what I believe. Because to expect to control things outside of your own ability to control is illogical.

If you believe in gods, you are free to pray to them. Is there a god of injuries? Have a word about Naby Keita if you get in touch with him.

Anyway... like I say, City had more control of their games. If they again have as much more control over their opponents than we did, we won't finish as close to them this time around. That's my belief. So that defines my stance on "luck" That's a logical perspective I would think. Which is why I believe we will look to improve this area of our play, whether by investing in the players we've already got to be fit, or in the market.

The transfer market that is, not the tea leaf one.

 

[Kopstar]

This is about game control. The end. You can define luck in different ways, you're free to do that. I'm defining it as winning in games where you didnt have control. You say injuries etc, I say they are more variables whereas the amount of game control you have is a constant. This is the logic I'm using. I think it's pretty solid logic. I would. I'm the one saying it.

Whereas you, on the other hand, think focusing on Fernandinho is the logical thing to do. And Mascot thinks Kompany scoring a goal because City had Leicester so penned into their own half that he was afforded a free shot from outside the area, also constitutes the same kind of luck.

Both things I find illogical. Am I allowed to say illogical? Is it a banning offence? If it is, well, so be it, but I must stand by what I believe. Because to expect to control things outside of your own ability to control is illogical, because there is no rational way it will happen. Unless you believe in gods, in which case you are free to pray to them. Is there a god of injuries? Have a word about Naby Keita if you get in touch with him.

Anyway... like I say, City had more control of their games. If they have as much more control over their opponents than we did, we won't finish as close to them this time around. That's a logical perspective I would think. Which is why I believe we will look to improve this area of our play, whether by investing in the players we've already got to be fit, or in the market. The transfer market that is, not the tea leaf one.

Luck is luck regardless of what form it takes. To compartmentalise it in the way that you're doing is the logical fallacy.

 

[Anfield rd Dreamer]

Think we let Newcastle go blow for blow with us as well... just to make it interesting.

Maybe City did too. Or maybe they just didn't control it very well.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46955254

 

[Anfield rd Dreamer]

This is about game control. The end. You can define luck in different ways, you're free to do that. I'm defining it as winning in games where you didnt have control. You say injuries etc, I say they are more variables whereas the amount of game control you have is a constant. This is the logic I'm using. I think it's pretty solid logic. I would. I'm the one saying it.

Whereas you, on the other hand, think focusing on Fernandinho is the logical thing to do. And Mascot thinks Kompany scoring a goal because City had Leicester so penned into their own half that he was afforded a free shot from outside the area, also constitutes the same kind of luck.

Both things I find illogical. Am I allowed to say illogical? Is it a banning offence? If it is, well, so be it, but I must stand by what I believe. Because to expect to control things outside of your own ability to control is illogical.

If you believe in gods, you are free to pray to them. Is there a god of injuries? Have a word about Naby Keita if you get in touch with him.

Anyway... like I say, City had more control of their games. If they again have as much more control over their opponents than we did, we won't finish as close to them this time around. That's my belief. So that defines my stance on "luck" That's a logical perspective I would think. Which is why I believe we will look to improve this area of our play, whether by investing in the players we've already got to be fit, or in the market.

The transfer market that is, not the tea leaf one.

About game control you realise they completely lost control of games 4 times last season unlike our once?

 

[Kopstar]

About game control you realise they completely lost control of games 4 times last season unlike our once?

Yeah, but they meant to do that. Just how they meant to go behind to Brighton on the last day.

Control. It's always constant.

 

[Red over the water]

I haven’t checked back to see where this derailed into having a little pop at each other, but I just want to say that Man City won more of their games more comfortably than we did last season. It is borne out in the xG and other stats. Basically, they won more of their games with more to spare. What that tells me is that if the same 38 batch of games was reproduced over and over again, there would be more seasons where Man City beat us by several points, rather than one. I don’t want to get into who enjoyed luck over the whole season, as that’s such an emotive and imprecise thing to argue about.

We are on the rise. Next season we have a fair chance to go one better and win the league. Most fans have got a similar idea about where we need to strengthen, and how we go about doing that remains to be seen. It’s also nice to see us sign a couple of highly rated kids, given the way we are showing we can bring the best ones through to the first team.

As for Man City, hopefully they are punished for FFP abuses. AC Milan just got kicked out of European football for a spell, and they are European ‘royalty’ so hopefully the authorities won’t fear an impudent rapscallion like Man City. Hopefully they get what’s coming to them.

Leaving that side of things out of it, on the pitch they are starting to lose some key players due to age. Kompany has gone. If they sign Ake, decent player that he is, it’s a downgrade. Fernandinho has been excellent for them - in a snide way, but you need a bit of that. Rodri will be phased in and it remains to be seen if he is as good. Aguero is still going, but he’s in his 30s and doesn’t have nearly the peak years ahead of him as our forwards. And this will be David Silva’s last season there too.

With all eyes on them due to FFP, they won’t be able to spend their way out of it in the same way as before. They will have to be more measured, and you really need to get it right at that point. Their days of just going back into the market if they make a Mangala sized error, as though it’s no big deal, are fading.

We have to hold our nerve and keep going. We are knocking on the door and that Premier League title is just around the corner, and when it comes, we might have a little period of dominance to follow.

 

[Kopstar]

I haven’t checked back to see where this derailed into having a little pop at each other, but I just want to say that Man City won more of their games more comfortably than we did last season. It is borne out in the xG and other stats. Basically, they won more of their games with more to spare. What that tells me is that if the same 38 batch of games was reproduced over and over again, there would be more seasons where Man City beat us by several points, rather than one. I don’t want to get into who enjoyed luck over the whole season, as that’s such an emotive and imprecise thing to argue about.

We are on the rise. Next season we have a fair chance to go one better and win the league. Most fans have got a similar idea about where we need to strengthen, and how we go about doing that remains to be seen. It’s also nice to see us sign a couple of highly rated kids, given the way we are showing we can bring the best ones through to the first team.

As for Man City, hopefully they are punished for FFP abuses. AC Milan just got kicked out of European football for a spell, and they are European ‘royalty’ so hopefully the authorities won’t fear an impudent rapscallion like Man City. Hopefully they get what’s coming to them.

Leaving that side of things out of it, on the pitch they are starting to lose some key players due to age. Kompany has gone. If they sign Ake, decent player that he is, it’s a downgrade. Fernandinho has been excellent for them - in a snide way, but you need a bit of that. Rodri will be phased in and it remains to be seen if he is as good. Aguero is still going, but he’s in his 30s and doesn’t have nearly the peak years ahead of him as our forwards. And this will be David Silva’s last season there too.

We have to hold our nerve and keep going. We are knocking on the door and that Premier League title is just around the corner, and when it comes, we might have a little period of dominance to follow.

Yeah, that's borne out by their massively superior goal difference of +72 compared to our pathetic +67.

 

[Red over the water]

It’s more nuanced than goal difference.

Even if we just applied expected goals scored and expected goals conceded, per match, over the course of the season, it would bear out the truth that Man City won more of their games with more to spare than us. (The xG and xGA stats are quite telling, as they attempt to measure both the quantity and quality of chances created, and also allowed against).

Ultimately the standings are measured by points on the board. They got one more point than us. Very close. And as you point out, there wasn’t that much goal difference between us either. Indeed, other people boil it all down to 11mm and cite a bit of luck here and there.

Some people leave it at that, and that’s fine. But you can go deeper.

I’m not an expert or a statistician. I’m just a passionate red like many others on here. I’m adding my tuppence worth to the conversation to say that the information available does indicate that Man City won more of their games with more to spare than we did. Over the course of last season it only meant one point, but if the same 38 game batch could be repeated over and over again, with the same xG and xGA, there would be more seasons where they would win by several points, rather than one.

This argument was condensed in a graph, plotted out over the season, and it revealed a gap between us and City more than the actual table showed. I can’t remember where I saw the graph, but I’ve described it in this post (xG and xGA plotted over 38 games, comparing Liverpool and Man City) and if interested it should be easy to find.

 

[Kopstar]

Here's one table:

EPL xG Table and Scorers for the 2019/2020 season | Understat.com

xG table of EPL standings and top scorers for the 2019/2020 season, also tables from past seasons and other European football leagues.

understat.com

It shows that City 'overachieved' by 7 points and we 'overachieved' by 14 points (the finishing positions remain the same). It shows that we scored 10 more goals than xG suggests we were expected to, and conceded 7 less. City scored 1 more goal than expected and conceded 3 less.

But these are merely statistical clickbait. It doesn't take into account the fact that Alisson is probably the best goalkeeper in the world. Having spent a (then) world record fee on him it's not lucky that we've got him. It also doesn't award points as if it were a game but divides 3 points on a % basis. Take this game, for instance:

Liverpool 2 - 0 Wolverhampton Wanderers (May 12 2019) | EPL | 2018/2019 | xG | Understat.com

Liverpool 2 - 0 Wolverhampton Wanderers. Check out detailed player statistic, goals, assists, key passes, xG, shot map, xGplot.

understat.com

By any reckoning Liverpool win this game. Even on the xG basis 1.7 goals beats 0.88 goals. It's not 1 whole goal, of course, but surely the result is decisive if there's more than .5 xG separating the teams? So how does the xG table treat the points gained in that match? 2.01 to Liverpool and 0.74 to Wolves. Respectfully, that's a nonsense.

 

[Red over the water]

One game isn’t enough. The xG differential carries more weight over the course of a season.

We were the closest team to City and I’m filled with hope for the season to come. That’s the unifying factor. Arguing the toss over the significance of a point gap between Liverpool and City, and whether it should have been more, less, or the same, is not really something I’m willing to invest more time in. I saw some analysis of that, hence I added my viewpoint to the discussion. I also did so partly out of a sense of fair play, as it looked like Mousecat was being belittled for saying Man City seemed to have more control in games than us. (I think they did too). I see evidence of the belittling thing in your post above to me also, where you mentioned their “massively superior goal difference” and our “pathetic” goal difference.

No need to be like that, IMO. An exchange of viewpoint should be possible without a veneer of sneer.

Anyhow, we were second to Man City and like all reds I’m hoping next time we go one better.

 

[Kopstar]

One game isn’t enough. The xG differential carries more weight over the course of a season.

We were the closest team to City and I’m filled with hope for the season to come. That’s the unifying factor. Arguing the toss over the significance of a point gap between Liverpool and City, and whether it should have been more, less, or the same, is not really something I’m willing to invest more time in. I saw some analysis of that, hence I added my viewpoint to the discussion. I also did so partly out of a sense of fair play, as it looked like Mousecat was being belittled for saying Man City seemed to have more control in games than us. (I think they did too). I see evidence of the belittling thing in your post above to me also, where you mentioned their “massively superior goal difference.”

No need to be like that, IMO. An exchange of viewpoint should be possible without a veneer of sneer.

Anyhow, we were second to Man City and like all reds I’m hoping next time we go one better.

I picked that game at random but given that it's impossible to get 3 points no matter how much you batter the other team by the chances are those teams that are winning a lot of their games are more likely to be said to have 'overachieved'. For example, only 2 teams in the bottom half are said to have overachieved, compared with 7 teams in the top half.

On xG the amount of City games where there was less than 1xG separating the teams was 13. For Liverpool it was 14.

Of those games, City lost 4 and we lost 1. Both teams won 7. To me that might suggest that we were better at controlling the tighter games than City were.

xG has Liverpool beating City at the Etihad, but we lost. https://understat.com/match/9400

xG has Leicester beating Liverpool but where does xG factor in the penalty we didn't get or the Maguire sending off that didn't happen? https://understat.com/match/9436

[Edit] To add - Mousecat wasn't being belittled for suggesting City exerted more control in games than us. At least the part I was challenging was Mousecat's assertion that we had been lucky to get 97 points, but for getting 98 points "City played within their limits".

 

[belldiouf]

My boy Everton from the Copa America with the opener and wining another penalty in the Copa America final. He was definitely the star of the tournament. I expect his price to have increased by 10 million in the last 3 weeks.

 

[Mousecat]

Luck is luck regardless of what form it takes. To compartmentalise it in the way that you're doing is the logical fallacy.

That there's any such thing as luck at all is a logical fallacy. This is why I'm giving you my definition of the term. It's not luck at all, this is just a figure of speech.

The logical explanation would be that, the more you control a game, whether by possession, territory, chances, the less the likelihood that you will lose. The less control you have, the more it becomes a question of single moments, and the more you rely on opposition mistakes, or individual plays.

When I say lucky, I mean we won games we really didn't control and couldn't have complained, based on balance of play, if we'd lost or drawn.

I'll say this again, and youre free to disagree.. city were more comfortably better than their opponents than we were. We battled harder for our points total. That's my opinion. We've still got improving to do, they haven't, I understand that. I agree with anyone who says it. I've said it many times myself. It's why we're in this thread... discussing the question 'who would you sign'..

City were the better team last season, and by more than the point that separated us. They looked clear levels above the teams they played, even in some of the games they lost... we battled, and probably punched above our weight to even be there at the end.

 

[Scott Jones]

citeh are lucky they don't get punished properly for building a squad by breaching FFP,it's the only reason they won.

 

[Anfield rd Dreamer]

That there's any such thing as luck at all is a logical fallacy. This is why I'm giving you my definition of the term. It's not luck at all, this is just a figure of speech.

The logical explanation would be that, the more you control a game, whether by possession, territory, chances, the less the likelihood that you will lose. The less control you have, the more it becomes a question of single moments, and the more you rely on opposition mistakes, or individual plays.

When I say lucky, I mean we won games we really didn't control and couldn't have complained, based on balance of play, if we'd lost or drawn.

I'll say this again, and youre free to disagree.. city were more comfortably better than their opponents than we were. We battled harder for our points total. That's my opinion. We've still got improving to do, they haven't, I understand that. I agree with anyone who says it. I've said it many times myself. It's why we're in this thread... discussing the question 'who would you sign'..

City were the better team last season, and by more than the point that separated us. They looked clear levels above the teams they played, even in some of the games they lost... we battled, and probably punched above our weight to even be there at the end.

So theres no luck but teams can lose games they don't deserve to lose? And you can control games therefore dictating who wins them and City were better at this than we were despite them losing more games?

In my opinion the Liverpool side that ended the season was better than the City side that ended the season. They are level, they're as good as they are. We are improving and several of our players had become much better players than they were at the start. Comparing City over the course of the whole season to Liverpool over the course of the whole season wouldn't show that.

 

[Kopstar]

That there's any such thing as luck at all is a logical fallacy. This is why I'm giving you my definition of the term. It's not luck at all, this is just a figure of speech.

The logical explanation would be that, the more you control a game, whether by possession, territory, chances, the less the likelihood that you will lose. The less control you have, the more it becomes a question of single moments, and the more you rely on opposition mistakes, or individual plays.

When I say lucky, I mean we won games we really didn't control and couldn't have complained, based on balance of play, if we'd lost or drawn.

I'll say this again, and youre free to disagree.. city were more comfortably better than their opponents than we were. We battled harder for our points total. That's my opinion. We've still got improving to do, they haven't, I understand that. I agree with anyone who says it. I've said it many times myself. It's why we're in this thread... discussing the question 'who would you sign'..

City were the better team last season, and by more than the point that separated us. They looked clear levels above the teams they played, even in some of the games they lost... we battled, and probably punched above our weight to even be there at the end.

City's 98 points is a result of many factors outside of what happens on the pitch. Even just restricting it to what happens in the 90 minutes this assessment of 'control' is intangible.

We could have the opposition with the ball in our defensive third and be in considerable more control than City in possession on the halfway line. I rarely felt the game was getting away from us last year such was the control we exerted even in tight games.

I didn't get the same sense from City more often than us. If anything I felt they looked more vulnerable.

Just as an aside, I think our first XI is better than theirs.

 

[Jah_Pool]

Why would Tierney or Zaha come here to be a backup? I get their other alternative is Arsenal but it’s Arsenal with a guaranteed starting spot and the chance to push for Europe and silverware via cups.

This is why it’s so dam hard for us to bring in the level of quality we need, they simply won’t come. Salah, Mane, Trent, Robertson are worldclass, so if you play that position you are coming in as 2nd choice and considering how robust they are you could be looking at games in the cup and/or a few in the league to rest only.

It’s also about cost. Klopp won’t be splurging £70mil on Zaha for someone to play 10 games or so.. he’d rather those minutes went to Origi or Brewster (or Wilson depending on pre-season).

We are playing 60+ games next season. A backup player would expect to get 30 games at least in both Cup and league competitions. Liverpool is a giant step up from Celtic and I don't expect Salah, Mane and Firmino to start early in the league campaign with the summer they have had. Zaha would start in the first five games for us, thus giving him the opportunity to stake a claim for a position.

 

[Jah_Pool]

No one is saying it is an impossible sell - just a difficult one.

You brought up Robbo as an example of where we brought in someone and gave him 30 games. I was pointing out that the circumstances were different and that even he wasn't happy with a lack of game time until he got the regular starting birth.

I don't think its a difficult sell at all, Spurs have Rose & Davies at LB and Trippier and Aurier at RB and they aren't LFC . I think we are overthinking the difficulty of signing adequate backup players

 

[GermanRed]

We are at a point now where we have to reject players and not the other way around. Players would love to sign for Liverpool, play under Klopp, play in front of the Kop.

We are not interested in Zaha. If we’d be he would sign for us without hesitation.

 

[Iluvatar]

We are playing 60+ games next season. A backup player would expect to get 30 games at least in both Cup and league competitions. Liverpool is a giant step up from Celtic and I don't expect Salah, Mane and Firmino to start early in the league campaign with the summer they have had. Zaha would start in the first five games for us, thus giving him the opportunity to stake a claim for a position.

Why won’t Salah start? He is now on holiday and will join pre-season.

So we say to Zaha, come here mate play the first 5 games then go wait for an injury.

I think we give Origi the game time instead.

 

[redfanman]

I don't think its a difficult sell at all, Spurs have Rose & Davies at LB and Trippier and Aurier at RB and they aren't LFC . I think we are overthinking the difficulty of signing adequate backup players

At least 3 of those 4 are reportedly available this summer. They may fit what Spurs were looking for when signed but they don't provide the output we look for from our full backs.

 

[Jah_Pool]

I banged on about this player (and Dendoncker) previously. Still to early for that letter to Santa, but I'd still quite like Tielemans. Yes he's another box to box midfielder, but he seems to have an eye for goal; and the opportunity for him to learn from Milner, at such a young age, would be great. He's also not work-shy or afraid of defensive work. Rabiot without the baggage? Anyway, i think his permanent move to Leicester is due soon, as personal terms are agreed.

Tielemans has been signed by the Foxes for $40 nillion quid, expect that to double if he has the season that I expect him to have next season.

 

[Anfield rd Dreamer]

Why won’t Salah start? He is now on holiday and will join pre-season.

So we say to Zaha, come here mate play the first 5 games then go wait for an injury.

I think we give Origi the game time instead.

So you think Firmino, Salah and Mane are starting every game unless injured? Not even peak age Messi and Ronaldo (in less physically demanding league) did that many starts per year as that'll probably be. But you expect 3 players to do it?

 

[Jah_Pool]

Why won’t Salah start? He is now on holiday and will join pre-season.

So we say to Zaha, come here mate play the first 5 games then go wait for an injury.

I think we give Origi the game time instead.

Salah and Firmino just finished playing with their respective country's this weekend and Mane is still playing with Senegal if I'm not mistaken. I would think that management would ensure that they get the required time away from the game so that they can recover. I wouldn't expect any of them back until mid-August and none would be in football shape. I would think that adequate backup talent would need to be signed to negate this.

 

[redbj]

Fair enough, I can accept the differences of opinion.

Ridiculous.

You really should argue it until the end, and even then, if you feel like you’ve just about lost, change tack and argue against a point I didn’t even make.




Fucking amatuers.