Liverpool - Birmingham [R] 9.11.09
Jussi Uosukainen
FT 2 - 2
1 - 0 Ngog
1 - 1 Benitez
1 - 2 Jerome
2 - 2 Gerrard (pen)
Pathetic. Sure, Torres was out, Riera was injured before half time and
Benitez put on the half fit Gerrard, who was pretty anonymous. At least
Kyrgiakos and Voronin were not on the pitch at any time.
The second Brum goal was Reinas fault, he came off the line at the wrong
time. Agger also backed away for no good reason, and Mascherano was
behind the player. Without that fluke, the result could have been very
different
--
/jussi
You're perfect, yes, it's true
But without me you're only you
* FNM
Alkamista
> FT 2 - 2
>
> 1 - 0 Ngog
> 1 - 1 Benitez
> 1 - 2 Jerome
> 2 - 2 Gerrard (pen)
>
> Pathetic. Sure, Torres was out, Riera was injured before half time and
> Benitez put on the half fit Gerrard, who was pretty anonymous. At least
> Kyrgiakos and Voronin were not on the pitch at any time.
>
> The second Brum goal was Reinas fault, he came off the line at the wrong
> time. Agger also backed away for no good reason, and Mascherano was
> behind the player. Without that fluke, the result could have been very
> different
The result will not be in vain if it in any way expedites Benitez's
departure.
Benny
> From : ju...@zulu-30.nebula.fi
> FT 2 - 2
>
> 1 - 0 Ngog
> 1 - 1 Benitez
> 1 - 2 Jerome
> 2 - 2 Gerrard (pen)
>
> Pathetic. Sure, Torres was out, Riera was injured before half time and
> Benitez put on the half fit Gerrard, who was pretty anonymous. At least
> Kyrgiakos and Voronin were not on the pitch at any time.
>
> The second Brum goal was Reinas fault, he came off the line at the wrong
> time. Agger also backed away for no good reason, and Mascherano was
> behind the player. Without that fluke, the result could have been very
> different
It would have been very different without Ngog doing a Gerrard to win a
penalty.
--
http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
Binder Dundat
> Rss feed :http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
I watched this game and it was not very good. Liverpool should have
had this game wrapped up in the first 10 minutes. It is not Benitez's
fault they could only get a draw. Ngog scored a nice goal and won a
debatable penalty so he did his job. Nobody else for Liverpool looked
good. A coaching change might help the lethargic attitude of the
players, but that is about it. And I am not sure it would even do
that? The crowd was kind of quiet as well? It would also be nice if
ESPN found an english speaking commentator instead of Chris Waddle? I
can barely understand him when i am drunk!
Manx Gunner
> 2 - 2 Gerrard (pen)
No comment on Ngog's dive?
Jussi Uosukainen
Ngog dived to win a penalty.
--
/jussi
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point
out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a
half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.
* The Sandman
Jussi Uosukainen
> On Nov 9, 5:58ï¿œpm, Benny <Be...@soccer-europe.com> wrote:
>> ￜ> Subject : Liverpool - Birmingham [R] 9.11.09
>> ￜ> From : ju...@zulu-30.nebula.fi
>>
>> ￜ> FT 2 - 2
>> ￜ>
>> ￜ> 1 - 0 Ngog
>> ￜ> 1 - 1 Benitez
>> ￜ> 1 - 2 Jerome
>> ￜ> 2 - 2 Gerrard (pen)
>> ￜ>
>> ￜ> Pathetic. Sure, Torres was out, Riera was injured before half time and
>> ￜ> Benitez put on the half fit Gerrard, who was pretty anonymous. At least
>> ￜ> Kyrgiakos and Voronin were not on the pitch at any time.
>> ￜ>
>> ￜ> The second Brum goal was Reinas fault, he came off the line at the wrong
>> ￜ> time. Agger also backed away for no good reason, and Mascherano was
>> ￜ> behind the player. Without that fluke, the result could have been very
>> ￜ> different
>>
>> It would have been very different without Ngog doing a Gerrard to win a
>> penalty.
>>
>> --http://soccer-europe.com
>> Rss feed :http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
>
> I watched this game and it was not very good. Liverpool should have
> had this game wrapped up in the first 10 minutes. It is not Benitez's
> fault they could only get a draw. Ngog scored a nice goal and won a
> debatable penalty so he did his job. Nobody else for Liverpool looked
> good. A coaching change might help the lethargic attitude of the
> players, but that is about it. And I am not sure it would even do
> that? The crowd was kind of quiet as well? It would also be nice if
> ESPN found an english speaking commentator instead of Chris Waddle? I
> can barely understand him when i am drunk!
I thought Johnson also played very well, very good runs into the box at
times. Just what a fullback needs to do when playing against weaker
opposition at home.
--
/jussi
Highly intelligent and well-informed people disagree on every political
issue. Therefore, intelligence and knowledge are useless for
making decisions, because if any of that stuff helped, then all the
smart people would have the same opinions. So use your "gut instinct"
to make voting choices. That is exactly like being clueless, but with
the added advantage that you'll feel as if your random vote preserved
democracy.
*Scott Adams
El Kot
> Manx Gunner <goal@4thegunners!com> wrote:
>> On 09 Nov 2009 22:01:48 GMT, Jussi Uosukainen wrote...
>>
>>> 2 - 2 Gerrard (pen)
>> No comment on Ngog's dive?
>
> Ngog dived to win a penalty.
I think this is one of these strange controversial cases. True,
Ngog was not tripped, he fell on his own accord. But the reason he was
not tripped is because he jumped to avoid being tripped. The defender
most certainly did not get the ball. If Ngog had not jumped, he would
have been tripped, and it would have been a stonewall penalty. But then
he might have been injured by the tackle.
On balance, I think the penalty was fair, if not exactly to the
letter of the rules. Maybe another rule needs to be added - if a player
has to jump to avoid being fouled, then it's a foul. :)
--
No, no, you can't e-mail me with the nono.
Jussi Uosukainen
just decided to go down to earn a point.
--
/jussi
Science flies you to the moon.
Religion flies you into buildings.
* Victor Stenger
El Kot
Yes, he dived. That's not the point. The point is, if he had to
jump to avoid the tackle, then that tackle was illegal to begin with,
and should have been penalized in some way.
To extend an analogy - should the sentence be the same for murder
as for attempted murder? And moreover, should it make a difference, if
the victim dodged the bullet, but fell to the ground and pretended he
was dead? The attempt to kill him took place regardless. :)
chris m
<nono.bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
NOOOOOO!!!!!! There has to be contact. A oenalty is due to a foul in
the penalty area. If your logic held true, players would be diving all
over the field, all of the time, to avoid fouls, thereby winning the
ball. Football would become a game of wusses throwing themselves to
the ground to avoid a hard tackle. It would be a farce.
Ngog dove. It cost Birmingham the game, and perhaps saved Benitez his
job. The dive had huge implications. If Eduardo got sanctioned by
UEFA, then the FA should slap Ngog silly.
chris m
MH
Bollocks ! Have you ever even read the rules (aka Laws of the game) ?
I quote: (LAW 12, direct free kick)
Kicks or ATTEMPTS to kick ....
Trips or Attempts to trip ....
Jumps at an opponent
Strikes or attempts to strike....
BTW I am not saying that Ngog didn't dive, just clarifying this myth
about "contact".
Binder Dundat
>
> >> > FT 2 - 2
> >> >
> >> > 1 - 0 Ngog
> >> > 1 - 1 Benitez
> >> > 1 - 2 Jerome
> >> >
> >> >
>
> >> It would have been very different without Ngog doing a Gerrard to win a
> >> penalty.
>
> >> --http://soccer-europe.com
> >> Rss feed :http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
>
> > I watched this game and it was not very good. Liverpool should have
> > had this game wrapped up in the first 10 minutes. It is not Benitez's
> > fault they could only get a draw. Ngog scored a nice goal and won a
> > debatable penalty so he did his job. Nobody else for Liverpool looked
> > good. A coaching change might help the lethargic attitude of the
> > players, but that is about it. And I am not sure it would even do
> > that? The crowd was kind of quiet as well? It would also be nice if
> > ESPN found an english speaking commentator instead of Chris Waddle? I
> > can barely understand him when i am drunk!
>
> I thought Johnson also played very well, very good runs into the box at
> times. Just what a fullback needs to do when playing against weaker
> opposition at home.
Agreed but i thought his crosses and passing were poor.
Kuyt and Gerrard work hard as well but seem to lack the right final
touch be it passing or shooting.
Dietmar Hamman was a player who rarely made the 50 yard through pass
but he rarely gave the ball away. I think they need someone like
Hamman to retain possession make simple passes and slow things down
instead of always looking for the low percentage pass trying to create
a scoring chance. I assume Benitez has changed his tactics to make an
aesthetically more attractive direct style after being criticized for
the defensive style he employed years ago, or maybe it is the
players?
Jussi Uosukainen
> Kuyt and Gerrard work hard as well but seem to lack the right final
> touch be it passing or shooting.
> Dietmar Hamman was a player who rarely made the 50 yard through pass
> but he rarely gave the ball away. I think they need someone like
> Hamman to retain possession make simple passes and slow things down
> instead of always looking for the low percentage pass trying to create
> a scoring chance. I assume Benitez has changed his tactics to make an
> aesthetically more attractive direct style after being criticized for
> the defensive style he employed years ago, or maybe it is the
> players?
>
Mascherano is playing very much the Hamann role, with a bit more passing
options and a lot more niggly fouls. Losing Alonso lost Liverpool that
ability to control possession with precise square passing, which was
very effective last season (the six red cards Alonso drew attest to
that).
Benitez also has played a more attacking style in 2009, now we just
don't have the personell to pull it off...
--
/jussi
"There is no hell. There is only France."
* Frank Zappa
Google Beta User
> Dietmar Hamman was a player who rarely made the 50 yard through >pass but he rarely gave the ball away. I think they need someone like
> Hamman to retain possession make simple passes and slow things >down instead of always looking for the low percentage pass trying to >create a scoring chance.
Hmm......
Binder Dundat
This is a true story, no really
The ECL final a few years back between AC Milan and Liverpool I was
watching it with a couple of Liverpool fans and I was the Milan fan
and as we all know Milan went up 3-0 and controlled the game for the
1st half and then some. But when Hamman came on in the second half it
was still 3-0 and I half seriously said " Oh no, now Liverpool is
going to come back and win it" and the thing is I kind of beleived it
at the time. OK i had been drinking Wild Turkey and Cuban Rum all
afternoon, but....
Benny
> Yes, he dived. That's not the point. The point is, if he had to jump
> to avoid the tackle, then that tackle was illegal to begin with, and
> should have been penalized in some way.
Rubbish. When was tackling outlawed? Ngog jumped and dived, he didn't
jump to get out of the way of the tackle. Who is to say Carsley would
not have won the ball? He didn't run at velocity, he didn't have his
studs showing and as I recall correctly he seemed to motion to make a
tackle then pulled out. Not a tackle, not a penalty.
--
Diabolik
"El Kot" <nono.bl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hdbal8$457$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Jussi Uosukainen wrote:
>> Manx Gunner <goal@4thegunners!com> wrote:
>>> On 09 Nov 2009 22:01:48 GMT, Jussi Uosukainen wrote...
>>>
>>>> 2 - 2 Gerrard (pen)
>>> No comment on Ngog's dive?
>>
>> Ngog dived to win a penalty.
>
> I think this is one of these strange controversial cases.
controversial? lol. He was no-where near the defending player.
> True, Ngog was not tripped, he fell on his own accord. But the reason he
> was not tripped is because he jumped to avoid being tripped.
He didn't have to jump because he was no-where near the defending player.
> The defender most certainly did not get the ball.
Yes he did! He touched the ball.
JohnB
> "El Kot" <nono.black.e...@gmail.com> wrote in message
This just goes to show how several people can watch the same incident
and all see different things. I saw NGog touch the ball past Carsley's
leg and then attempt to jump over it. What was in his mind when he
went to ground I can't say (and only NGog can). However, some players
would not have attempted the jump, would simply have allowed a
trailing foot to catch Carsley's leg, and hey presto, penalty.
So, that's what I saw. Others obviously saw something different. I
don't believe the referee has yet explained what he thought he saw.
What we know is that someone cried "Dive! Cheat!" and the papers have
started another witch hunt. One broadsheet claimed it was the worst
dive he'd ever seen. Well, he can't have watched much football then.
I recall a game several years ago when Robbie Fowler was playing for
Liverpool. He took the ball past the keeper and jumped over him.
However he lost his balance in the process and fell to the ground.
Referee gave a penalty and Fowler himself said "he never touched me".
Referee said that it was still a foul challenge because Fowler had had
to take evasive action.
You may think it's cut and dried. Others (me included) don't.
But we probably all wear blinkers of one colour or another...
ken.o...@gmail.com
> > Subject : Liverpool - Birmingham [R] 9.11.09
> > From : anthu_001@no_-_spam_.hotmail.com
>
> > Yes, he dived. That's not the point. The point is, if he had to jump
> > to avoid the tackle, then that tackle was illegal to begin with, and
> > should have been penalized in some way.
>
> Rubbish. When was tackling outlawed?
The fact that he started with "Yes, he dived. That's not the point"
should probably indicate that you need not bother.
El Kot
> On 11 Nov, 05:46, "Diabolik" <Diabo...@noemail.com> wrote:
>> "El Kot" <nono.black.e...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:hdbal8$457$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>> Jussi Uosukainen wrote:
>>>> Manx Gunner <goal@4thegunners!com> wrote:
>>>>> On 09 Nov 2009 22:01:48 GMT, Jussi Uosukainen wrote...
>>>>>> 2 - 2 Gerrard (pen)
>>>>> No comment on Ngog's dive?
>>>> Ngog dived to win a penalty.
>>> I think this is one of these strange controversial cases.
>> controversial? lol. He was no-where near the defending player.
>>
>>> True, Ngog was not tripped, he fell on his own accord. But the reason he
>>> was not tripped is because he jumped to avoid being tripped.
>> He didn't have to jump because he was no-where near the defending player.
>>
>>> The defender most certainly did not get the ball.
>> Yes he did! He touched the ball.
>
> This just goes to show how several people can watch the same incident
> and all see different things. I saw NGog touch the ball past Carsley's
> leg and then attempt to jump over it. What was in his mind when he
> went to ground I can't say (and only NGog can). However, some players
> would not have attempted the jump, would simply have allowed a
> trailing foot to catch Carsley's leg, and hey presto, penalty.
That's exactly what I saw and how I saw it, too, and that's why I
wrote what I wrote. I did /not/ see the defender touch the ball. If he
had, it would not have been a penalty, of course.
> So, that's what I saw. Others obviously saw something different. I
> don't believe the referee has yet explained what he thought he saw.
> What we know is that someone cried "Dive! Cheat!" and the papers have
> started another witch hunt. One broadsheet claimed it was the worst
> dive he'd ever seen. Well, he can't have watched much football then.
>
> I recall a game several years ago when Robbie Fowler was playing for
> Liverpool. He took the ball past the keeper and jumped over him.
> However he lost his balance in the process and fell to the ground.
> Referee gave a penalty and Fowler himself said "he never touched me".
> Referee said that it was still a foul challenge because Fowler had had
> to take evasive action.
Very good point, exactly what I've been talking about. Thanks for
mentioning it - I, not being a Pool fan, obviously didn't know about
this case.
El Kot
> "El Kot" <nono.bl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hdbal8$457$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Jussi Uosukainen wrote:
>>> Manx Gunner <goal@4thegunners!com> wrote:
>>>> On 09 Nov 2009 22:01:48 GMT, Jussi Uosukainen wrote...
>>>>
>>>>> 2 - 2 Gerrard (pen)
>>>> No comment on Ngog's dive?
>>> Ngog dived to win a penalty.
>> I think this is one of these strange controversial cases.
>
> controversial? lol. He was no-where near the defending player.
Nowhere near as in right next to him?
>> True, Ngog was not tripped, he fell on his own accord. But the reason he
>> was not tripped is because he jumped to avoid being tripped.
>
> He didn't have to jump because he was no-where near the defending player.
If he had not jumped, he would have tripped.
>> The defender most certainly did not get the ball.
>
> Yes he did! He touched the ball.
No, he didn't.
El Kot
> > Subject : Liverpool - Birmingham [R] 9.11.09
> > From : anthu_001@no_-_spam_.hotmail.com
>
> > Yes, he dived. That's not the point. The point is, if he had to jump
> > to avoid the tackle, then that tackle was illegal to begin with, and
> > should have been penalized in some way.
>
> Rubbish. When was tackling outlawed? Ngog jumped and dived, he didn't
> jump to get out of the way of the tackle. Who is to say Carsley would
> not have won the ball? He didn't run at velocity, he didn't have his
> studs showing and as I recall correctly he seemed to motion to make a
> tackle then pulled out. Not a tackle, not a penalty.
The only difference between a tackle and a foul is, if the tackler
gets the ball. In this case, the defender didn't. Got ball - tackle;
didn't - foul. Clear and simple.
That's one of the reasons I personally dislike tackles and wish
they were outlawed, but it's a topic for another discussion.
Diabolik
> Diabolik wrote:
>> "El Kot" <nono.bl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hdbal8$457$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Jussi Uosukainen wrote:
>>>> Manx Gunner <goal@4thegunners!com> wrote:
>>>>> On 09 Nov 2009 22:01:48 GMT, Jussi Uosukainen wrote...
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2 - 2 Gerrard (pen)
>>>>> No comment on Ngog's dive?
>>>> Ngog dived to win a penalty.
>>> I think this is one of these strange controversial cases.
>>
>> controversial? lol. He was no-where near the defending player.
>
> Nowhere near as in right next to him?
Yeah.
>
>
>>> True, Ngog was not tripped, he fell on his own accord. But the reason he
>>> was not tripped is because he jumped to avoid being tripped.
>>
>> He didn't have to jump because he was no-where near the defending player.
>
> If he had not jumped, he would have tripped.
Nah...he could have *easily* avoided the defender.
He was in mid air before he even got the the defender.
Very soft penalty.
>
>>> The defender most certainly did not get the ball.
>>
>> Yes he did! He touched the ball.
>
> No, he didn't.
Looking at it again the defender didn't touch the ball.
Doesn't change anything though. It was still a very soft penalty.
Benny
> The only difference between a tackle and a foul is, if the tackler
> gets the ball. In this case, the defender didn't. Got ball - tackle;
> didn't - foul. Clear and simple.
In this case the defender didn't make a tackle or commit a foul.