kurtsimonw

When there's not much to complain about on the pitch..

The UEFA Cup in '94 and Champions League in '24 aren't really comparable. If it is the reason, it makes sense, and honestly it would be negligent not to.

Only thing I don't like is the drop shadow

Because he' 3rd on the foul list, apparently. Interesting that the clubs of however are the 2 most fouled players haven't complained. Grealish and Zaha used to have the shit kicked out of them every week and get booed for it.

The only thing they've done wrong is 2 of the very few decisions they've had to make so far? Okay.

That's not how football works, though. If City are the best team, why haven't they just won every single trophy available? Are they under achieving because they've had the best team in World football for the last 4 years and only have 3 league titles and 1 CL to show for it? You don't just win every trophy, and Klopp is arguably the biggest reason Liverpool are up there. the fact they are competing with City is a massive overachievement in itself.

Agree with @bobzy. It's worth remembering the Liverpool side he took over had finished in the top 4 once in the previous 6 years and won 1 trophy in 8 years. Combine that with competing with clubs with not only better sides, but spending power that did (and still does) dwarf what Liverpool could spend. I'd say that it's comparable with suggesting Simeone has underachieved at Atleti, though I'd argue Atleti have less competition for trophies overall. The fact Liverpool have been competing with City is an overachievment in itself, them wnning a European Cup and title is ridiculous. I think it'd barmy to suggest anyone other than Klopp has been the best PL manager over the past 5-10 years.

Fair enough. I remember them winning 3 in a row but that was a month ago now.

This genuinely looks like Liverpool against some lower league side in the FA Cup.

Unfortnately refs actively encourage it. You can get hacked to death in the box, but unless you go to the ground you will never, ever get a penalty. Just one of many reasons that refs are not fit for purpose.

Yeah it's mad they people think it's not a penalty. Another case of a player being 'punished' for being honest and getting nothing, then criticised for going down. Players can't win sometimes.

Yep. It's not what they take from you, it's what they leave behind.

I don't think Liverpool will blow away teams like City can, but they just don't lose. Genuinely think a talking point at the end of the season might be abou the Spurs VAR debacle costing them an undefeated season. They have the (joint) best keeper in the World, and probably more options than anyone else up top.

Wednesday seem to have turned a corner and picking up points at a decent rate, QPR have improved under their new manager despite their loss today. Worrying times for these lot.

Hope everyone has a good one and stays safe. May 2024 bring you all a better year.

Only Chelsea have a higher net spend than Arsenal in Arteta's time there. Give how frequently Chelsea change managers, I wouldn't be surprised if that means he has the highest net spend of any manager in World football in that period. And, as I said, arguably his 3 best players were inherited.

Arteta has spent £700m, whilst inheriting Saka, Saliba and Martinelli who Emery bought in to the side. Pep does have a few misses when it comes to transfers, but Arteta seems to get it horribly wrong most of the time and leaves him with no depth.

Love Daboll but good Lord have we had some terribly managed games.

Did the defender make contact with the ball, Duran, neither or both?

This is pretty much how I see it. Where do you draw the line for 'enough' contact? You're just adding grey areas to grey areas. If you're overturning a penalty when there is 100% certainty that the defender didn't get the ball AND kicked the attacker, then you may as well flip a coin over every decision.

So what you're saying is that it's a difference of opinion. The on field decision is a penalty. The fact we're debating it means the outcome is correct as you don't overturn a 'difference of opinion' decision.

I don't think VAR should be being used in a grey area like the one yesterday, where there is definitive contact. The only time it really need be used was the foul on Ollie before their 2nd goal tbh. I think clear and obvious is generally good, whatever others may think. In the NFL, you only overturn something if you can prove the initial decision is 100% wrong, and given that Duran is kicked, it's not 100% wrong. Again, it's soft, but he does kick him and referees encourage players to go down.

That is more or less what VAR is for though, really. The use of it is just often poor. But in this instance, I stilldon't understand the point anyway. The ref on field gave a penalty, this is a penalty with or without VAR? I've no idea why people make something about VAR when it's literally nothing to do with it.

VAR is there for 'clear and obvious'. The referee gave a penalty in real time. The defender make contact with Duran and didn't get the ball. There's no 'clear and obvious' wrong here. You can absolutely argue its soft, but the ref deemed the contact enough for a penalty, which is a grey area. If there was no contact, then yes VAR should overturn. But I think this is why VAR will never be accepted in general. Peopple seem to both want VAR gone and never to make decisions, but also want it to make decisions. It's not there to flip a view on a grey area, it's there when something is obviously wrong; like a handball that the ref didn't see, a foul that the ref didn't see was studs up, something that was in the box and the ref has given a free kick, etc.

Only thing holding Arsenal back is the man in charge.