JRC

Agree entirely - it allows the easy inference that it was more of the same.

Last time this came up a usually well-connected poster (on RAWK?) would have nothing of it - claimed Sammy threw his dummy out when Rafa came in because he wasn't getting a promotion, disrespected Rafa, refused to consider a decent handover, stirred all kinds of sh*t up - accused him of doing the equivalent of an Owen and shafting the club he claims to love etc. Tbf, most people didn't accept this argument; and if Rafa has an issue with him, he ddn't need to sit next to him at the Ressies. So we shall see - I wouldn't mind, his reputation is very solid.

Not sure that they were there in 80 when we played Arsenal. A horrible game and equally horrible spectator experience in the Leppings Lane end; a foretelling. Heysel barely had decent gates, walls, barriers or steps, and the Juventus end managed to get on the running track, so I'd guess no.

If this were a piece of journalism I'd accept the point, but as a piece of dialogue, the inference that it was the response to Hooliganism that caused Hillsborough is one with which I concur entirely. The Police were responsible, because they had the mindset that they were dealing with hooligans; the kind of scum who had to be treated like cattle and could be thrown back in behind the fences because they had no concept other than that we would be fighting, not dying. In fact, I might not accept the point so much; in the spirit of recognising secondary causes for Heysel (stadium condition, ticketing) alongside the actions of our fans as the primary cause - which we are entitled to - then we should accept that the presence of the Fences was a significant contributory factor to the tragedy even though the actions of SYP were the primary cause

I agree the context is questionable (in that they didn't need to mentoin Hillsborough), and there are the wilfully ignorant who will take it to mean what they want it to mean, but they didn't just 'throw in' Hillsborough, they referenced it in a way that was not contradictory to the way many of us view it. I would argue that it is simply incorrect to say that "there's absolutely no doubt the scriptwriter's message was it was all football hooliganism and Hillsborough was the day the hooligans had to pay the price." - not only is there doubt, but the scriptwriter's 'message' - if they really were delivering one, which I doubt - was exactly the opposite. There is plenty for us to fight, petition, protest and complain about in the injustice and representation of Hillsborough, but I can't see this as being a part of it.

Heysel did not lead to fences directly, they were already up, but in the context of soap dialogue, I don't have a problem that it distinguished between a hooliganism-caused tragedy like Heysel (causal caveats acknowledged) and and a tragedy caused by the reaction to events like Heysel (Fences, policing, ticketing).

Don't disagree that it was unnecessary and insensitive and liable to be taken wrong, but in terms of accuracy, or putting things right, maybe some researcher did raise the point and thus lead to the character suggesting Hillsborough being caused by fencing (which was put up due to hooliganism) rather than them simply invoking Hillsborough as being caused by hooliganism - which would, in my experience, be the more likely position such a character would take (i.e. he'd be ignorant). It's a perfectly valid argument to suggest that the attitudes, procedures, mindsets, actions and decisions from the Police, FA, Govermnment and Media that caused Hillsborough were predicated on the notion that all football fans were hooligan scum who should be treated as such, like cattle, and that the focus should be exclusively on potential crowd disturbance rather than crowd safety. You're never going to get that whole argument in Soap dialogue, but what was actually written implied it, or was entirely compatible with it. I would certainly criticise them even mentioning Hillsborough, but I have no problem with the actual text.

Ironic that we hardly reverted to the hoof at all on Saturday, despite having Crouch up front (and Sami and Riise both playing), yet got the goal from the most Route 1 piece of play all day, which either MOTD or Goals on Sunday chose to make a point of (although Pepe had no option but to put his foot through it as the backpass was a bit short)

Voronin's air shot was more than likely due to Yossi dummying the cross right in front of him. Othewise I thought he had a really good game - strong, inventive, creative and a threat. Was looking tired when he came off as well.

It's increasingly noticable how not just attitudes but also specific opinions/arguments from on the web get into circulation very quickly - the 606'ers, the match day boo boys (and fair's fair, most of the prominent neggies on here hold to the 'you don't do it at the match' line) etc are undoubtedly emboldened by the kind of, ahem, debate that has been the currency on here recently. The media, I would argue, have been less leaders than followers in attaching the 'crisis' tag to us; I almost think they were taken by surprise by the reactions over the past 3-4 weeks. I'm not saying you shouldn't be negative for that reason, just that it is not without external ramifications.

I haven't posted for ages for the dsame reason. Apart from the negative posts - people are entitled etc., etc. - I can't stand that those self-same posters keep stressing their status as martyrs because they are constantly abused, because no-one ever bothers to make a decent argument against them, because of agressive 'superfans' etc. Yet it seems to me that the most agressive 'superfannery' is from those self-same posters insisting that anyone who doesn't agree with them is blind, or at least wearing rose-tinted spectacles, does not care, does not have the long term interests of the club at heart, does not accept that Rafa can ever make mistakes, is perfectly happy with the way we are playing at the moment, is settling for mediocrity (including, ironically, the admonition that they should thus go and support Spurs, the very kind of charge they so object to themselves), can not, in effect, see what they can. There is, in many, a huge intolerance - almost a failure of comprehension - for anyone who refuses to see things in the worst possible light. I don't feel the need to justify myself, and my support, to unreasonable people. They (not all, I accept) make a big fuss about the (selective) responses they get, yet are more guilty of being abusive, high and mighty and non-rational than many of those they accuse; they also regularly ignore or avoid serious debate with anyone who tries to present an alternative viewpoint - one of the long threads from last week had in the initial post something like '..and if you don't agree with me, there's no point posting..' (paraphrased), which attitude was maintained throughout; after pages of other like-minded posters agreeing, a fair amount, I accept, abusing - more of the stop whinging type than f*** off type, but ad hominem none the less - and a lot of posters making contrary arguments, the initial poster dismissed the alternative viewpoints as 'can't argue, won't argue'; all in all a complete denial of the very possibility of debate which they self-righteously claim as the justification for their own position, and the raison d'etre of these forums. What summed it up for me was one of the more insistently negative posters (may have been on another forum, but the principle remains) claiming the truth for their negativity (and that of their ilk) was because they alone had 'objective opinions' - a wonderful, delusional, unarguable and disturbing oxymoron if ever there was.

Est1892 has finally morphed back into KT as it was 4 years ago, very scary. Established posters determined to stake their claim as the first to go negative; it's like watching a run on a Bank.

So..If Lucas had ripped them apart ad scored a Hat-Trick whilst Sissoko added 2 more, you would still criticize the decision bcause that was what you though at the time, and subsequent events can't change that opinion?

I'd guess - If we lose and/or Gerrad plays badly it was Rafa's fault, if we win and/or Gerrad has a blinder it's in spite of Rafa.

You re wrong. Gray definitely said that, and repeatedly. Oh sorry, that was about the Gerrard penalty! My mistake!

Alonso won us the Anfield Derby 2 years ago when Stevie got himself sent off...by playing too much with his heart rather than his head...being a Scouser in a Merseyside Derby and all that. Sorry, I'm just stirring it with these comments because 'Alonso vs Gerrard' (love them both to bits) is a pretty facile debate and not really relevant to the, ahem, 'discussion' going on here.

To an extent he didn't 'get lucky' because there are plenty who are not prepared to acknowledge the fact that we went on to win in any way suggests that the decision may not have been entirely 'wrong, wrong, wrong.' I'm not prepared to trawl the archives, but I wonder how many of the same posters were prepared to argue that he didn't make mistakes against Portsmouth, Birmingham, Toulouse etc, but just 'got unlucky'.

I'm pretty confident that if the Subs had been the other way round - ucas was on for 70 minutes, replaced by Stevie, and very single othr thing was the same - Lucas won the first penalty, Stevie the second - then 1. Benitez would have been slaughtered for not playing Stevei from the start - with some justification - even if Lucas contributed everything Steve did; but more pointedly 2. A huge fuss, certainly externally, but also on the forums, would have been made about how Gerrard coming on won it for Liverpool, saved Benitez, 'wh else?', omne man team etc. Lots of us - all? - had reservations about Gerrard being subbed at the time. We may well have won if he had stayed on, or by more even - we cannot know. And it's right that what we know about Stevie G's capabilities from the past 7-8 years should be factored into any view we have, no just immediate form and tasctical requiremnts. But the insistence that despite going on to win as we did - and as he said he wanted it to be, and involving the player coming on doing what he was supposed to do, apart from his goal contributon - Benitez can take NO post factum credit in the change is frighteningly myopic; in fact it just about denies the possibility of rational debate - if he's wrong he's wrong, if he's right he's lucky; if we lose it's because of him, if we win it's in spite of him. And if we are reduced now to suggesting that it's wrong that players are subbed on the basis of the postcode of their birthplace or the songs of the opposition fans or because they don't like it, then we are truly descending into a new Dark Ages.

Arsenal are clearly playing great football and converting that style into results (which has not always been the case), but the way some of their matches are going is not always impressive - when you see some of the stick Rafa has got after an away Deby win, I'm not sure he would have remained unscathed if we had last ten minute goals to thank for wins over Fulham, Sunderland and Bolton (and coming from behind vs City and Spurs). 'Character' is great - and we have shown plenty of that as well - but conceding 2 to Sunderland can never be a good thing. Arsenal are yet to win a League game outside of London, I believe - let's keep that record going with a win on Sunday.

Shielding the ball is one thing - 'Holding a player off' - depending how you do it - is technically a foul, but Refs obviously allow leeway on it, as they do for the player being held off trying to get a tackle in - if Lescott has Carra's arm held under his, he is as guilty of a foul as Carra is for having a fistful of shirt; 6 of 1 etc.. The very fact that it was going on allows room for doubt in the Ref's mind - especially, which is my main point, if he cannot possibly see the side where the pushing and pulling is really happening. He should not give a foul for an extravagant fall if he cannot clearly see how it happened, only surmise. Overall, I think it was a foul, and I'd be furious if it was against us and not given. But as it stands, I can see reasons why it wouldn't be given, or even why it shouldn't have been given, given Clattenburg's view.

A couple of points; Carra was all over him, but Lescott was also trying to hold him off -Moyes claimed Lesctt was 'too strong' for Carra - which implies there was some mutual activity going on, sufficient perhap for Clattenberg to see it as 6 of 1 etc. Secondly, let's agree with Andy Gray's point re the Gerrard penalty; if the Ref can't see the pulling, he can't give it. From his position - directly up the pitch - he could not see what was going on on Carra and Lescott's Left hand (goalwards) side, which is where all the 'action' was. It's not enough to see Lescott fall over, especially in such 'stand your ground' circumstances. Even with the TV view of their Left sides, it's not so straightforward - Carra has his shirt, but equally Lescott has Carra's arm held, like a boxer's clinch. As the ball arrives, there is very little sign of Carra 'yanking' his shirt - certainly not enough to make him fall over, Lescott' shirt is barely disturbed until he is actually already falling. As Carra goes to his right - to the ball, Lescott tries to turn Left - to the Goal. Lescott loses his balance, and his Left arm comes up - the point of the foul beng committed, surely - but if you look at the picture Carra's Left hand is no longer in view, whilst his Right is not in contact. So again - even with the TV or Video Ref view, you cannot see the exact point and cause of the 'foul' - Lescott falling over (I believe he overbalanced over Jamie's Left leg as Jamie went to ground under the torque of his own move to the ball and Lescott's turn) is not in itself sufficient evidence to call it, however likely it seems. Interestingly, Barton on Football First thought it a foul bcause Carra went through from behind, not for a pull - which kind of re-inforces the point that it was not, as has been routinely claimed, 'clear-cut'.

nor that Gerrard said anything to influence him. Still. let's not let lack of any credible evidence get in the way of a witchhunt, eh?

What is clear is that no-one really knows, so the claim that he influenced the ref is just baseless speculation. Poor punditry from Hansen with his "If he took the Yellow Card out, that was his decision, and he should have stuck with it" (even if it was wrong) cr*p.

Surely the alternative - the settled team or 'Best 11' - equally implies that it doesn't matter how badly you play you will get to play again or no matter how well you train, or play in the ressies, or perform as a sub, you are not going to get a start. I can see no difference in the potential for problems with motivation if we are to accept this as an argument against rotation; which makes me think it is a red herring.

Watching the 2nd Lescott incident, whaty is noticeable is that there is virtually no tension or displacement of his shirt even though the suggestion is that Jamie is pulling him hard enough to throw him right over (compare with a relatively light grab by Hibbert almost pulls Stevie's shirt off). Lescott could also be holding Jamie's arm to his side with his left arm, like a boxer in a clinch. Either way, from Clatterbridge's (textbook) position all there was to see was the usual wrestling and grappling between a defender holding his ground anbd a forward backing into him. Sometimes given, often not - certainly a long way from the no-brainer some have claimed.