Zatman Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 I think the fact that people consider Liverpool a midtable side when there last points tally is 1 below our prem record (I think) pretty much supports the fact that they are way ahead of us. true that they are ahead of us but they are still a midtable side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted June 23, 2013 Moderator Share Posted June 23, 2013 I think the fact that people consider Liverpool a midtable side when there last points tally is 1 below our prem record (I think) pretty much supports the fact that they are way ahead of us. true that they are ahead of us but they are still a midtable side They aren't though are they, the finished 7th which puts them in the top third of the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 for me its top 6, bottom 6. rest is midtable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 for me its top 6, bottom 6. rest is midtable Would love it if we finished 7th and were referred to as midtable. Wonder what the reaction on here would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted June 23, 2013 Moderator Share Posted June 23, 2013 for me its top 6, bottom 6. rest is midtable Well that is your definition as you say, you can hardly go correcting people because they don't apply your definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 for me its top 6, bottom 6. rest is midtable Would love it if we finished 7th and were referred to as midtable. Wonder what the reaction on here would be. start a Champions League thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArteSuave Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 As a club Liverpool are massive but they haven't played CL football since 2009 and only about 4 of their current squad were with them then. Financially they're still in with the top 5, football wise they're not. I think mid table would imply they might finish bottom half which they just won't, IMO they're whatever the level between top 5 and mid table is, as are Everton. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 I think the players they are signing or have signed in last few seasons indicate how far they are behind top 4. Signings so far this window are not that eyecatching(if get Mignolet its 2 players from teams that barely stayed up and a kid who played Spanish 2nd division last season) and in the last 5 years only Suarez has actually been a good signing for them and he is a nutjob. Coutinho has potential but he could still be a flash in the pan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 I think they comfortably have the 6th best group of players in the league and will finish there next season (Everton will slip back having a season of adjustment under a new manager and don't have the money to get back up there again). They are not as good as the other sides in the top 6 but there is a big drop down to the rest of the league after them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted June 24, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted June 24, 2013 As a club Liverpool are massive but they haven't played CL football since 2009 and only about 4 of their current squad were with them then. Financially they're still in with the top 5, football wise they're not. Thats simply not true. They can keep up with most but the 2 mancs and Chelsea have disappeared over the horizon financially! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 As a club Liverpool are massive but they haven't played CL football since 2009 and only about 4 of their current squad were with them then. Financially they're still in with the top 5, football wise they're not. Thats simply not true. They can keep up with most but the 2 mancs and Chelsea have disappeared over the horizon financially! He said top 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted June 24, 2013 Moderator Share Posted June 24, 2013 That top 5 presumably includes Spurs. I wouldn't entirely rule out the possibility that 'plop could finish above Spurs next season. Even if they don't, the statement that they can at least compete with the top 5 on the pitch isn't that silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 Their record against the top teams was rubbish last year. They are some way off breaking into the top four again. When I look at their squad I think 'who is good enough to get into a top 4 team', and I see Suarez, Gerrard and possibly Coutinho. When I look at the teams above them, they have more quality, more depth and they will only strengthen again this year by bringing in a better quality of player than Liverpool can attract*. *With the exception of Everton, who will fall back a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 Yeah, their squad is not filled with quality.. And King Kenny set them back with his need for british overrated players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted June 24, 2013 Moderator Share Posted June 24, 2013 CED, if we were talking top 4 I'd agree but we're talking top 5 and that changes things considerably IMO because I think Spurs are much more catachable and I believe they're about to become even more so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted June 24, 2013 Moderator Share Posted June 24, 2013 Liverpool are where we should be. They aren't where Liverpool should be, but the nature of modern football is that your owner is much more important than your heritage. Here's one for you - Liverpool won pretty much everything they've won in the 30 years between 1960 and 1990 - Chelsea have been winning things regularly for about 16 years now - at what point do Chelsea become a proper football club and Liverpool become an historical footnote; ten more years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 (edited) CED, if we were talking top 4 I'd agree but we're talking top 5 and that changes things considerably IMO because I think Spurs are much more catachable and I believe they're about to become even more so. Stadium? Edited June 24, 2013 by AVFCforever1991 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted June 24, 2013 Moderator Share Posted June 24, 2013 It's one of those intangibles Scott. I'll start by saying that I think Chelsea can now be called a 'proper club' but they're a long way from the level of Liverpool in their pomp. During the period you gave as an example, they were dominating Europe and domestically, winning league after league. Chelsea have only been near that domestically under Mourinho for 2 years and they've never been like that in Europe. Granted, it's harder to do now in the CL but still, Liverpool had an aura about them back then which has prolonged their 'mystique' (for want of a better word). Plus their trophy cabinets don't compare. Chelsea may have been winning stuff for 16 years but even in those years that stuff is relatively few and far between. They've only 4 league titles, 3 within your time frame. CED, if we were talking top 4 I'd agree but we're talking top 5 and that changes things considerably IMO because I think Spurs are much more catachable and I believe they're about to become even more so. Stadium? Bingo bango bongo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 (edited) Hm, even without Bale I think Spurs have better players in all but one position (striker), and they have (imo) a better manager, a new DoF who is well connected in the game, and, well, more going for them at this point in time. I'm not one who takes history into account when it comes to modern football. The game has changed and apart from a period in which they had a good manager (Rafa) and were willing to spend big, Liverpool FC have been left behind. If they want to be up there again they need to bring the club into the 21st century, and by that I mean a new stadium. Apart from Chelsea (who have been looking to sell up and get a new stadium for quite a while iirc, this is and always has been about property for Abramovich), and Citeh (who just have enormous wealth) I would be surprised if a club could break the top four and sustain a challenge at the top without pulling in 60k a week to watch them. Edited June 24, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted June 24, 2013 Moderator Share Posted June 24, 2013 Stadium revenues are increasingly not a driver for success though - for example, if a team sell 40,000 season tickets at £600 each that gives them around £24m or less than half of the revenues TV brings in for the Premier league alone - the difference between filling a 60,000 seat stadium and a 40,000 seat stadium is maybe £12m a season - it's massive money for us, but once you get into the top four - it can be one players wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts