So basically, you're basing all your hopes on... 'form'?
Liverpool 2014/15 | WARNING: Contains strong amounts of Scouse nonsense
- Thread starter Wumminator
- Start date
No and I haven't said that either. I think with a fit Sturridge we're a better side than you. I think that will show in the second half of this season too if we manage to keep him fit for the majority of it.
And you have gone from 1 minute away from being Champions in 2012 to fighting for Top 4 (and probably only even money at best, and that's without any Euro 'encumbrance') after having spent £220m via 2 managers. Glass houses and all that jazz. Stick to the point.
Do you agree with Skybet that out of the three sides Liverpool have a better chance of reaching the semis so are therefore favourites to win the cup?
Therefore the 30% chance thing is not actually true?
Sturridge has barely played though, has he? Lallana cost almost the same amount that we paid for Fabregas. More then we payed for Oscar.
Form always goes out of the window when its a derby like that.
Very very tough to get real value for money in the market - just look at United's record last summer. Do any look really good value? You've had to pay an absolute premium for anything that may turn out decent.
That said, Can looks excellent business given his price and impact since he became a regular.
So therefore, what's with the posturing about the ability and chances of either side.
Nonsense. Salaries are a huge difference between Lallana and Fabregas. Hidden costs that fans don't regard as pivotal.
About 2 million per annum in the difference.
I haven't though, its just what football fans do.
So pretty significant when you consider their worth over three or four years while also sustaining the integrity of a club's salary structure.
Agreed. Not so much on the cost over 4 years, but definitely with regards to the salary structure of the club.
Goals and assists per minute. Not total goals and assists.
Yes, he did cost the same amount. I'm not sure what this illustrates though other than Fabregas is clearly worth more than what you paid for him.
Not really , with United having no european games that could well prove to be an advantage too . I just think Liverpool supporters are talking as if the Blackburn game is a done deal and taking other fixtures into account before the quarters I don`t agree , Blackburn may well surprise you .
Not sure where you got your figures for those wages from. There is absolutely no way we are paying Lallana 160k per week.
Obviously Blackburn will be taken seriously but the bookies clearly believe the draw puts Liverpool as favourite - kind of obvious really.
Yet we came back and won it in 2013. Dont think you will be doing that this season.
Its 25 years of failure and counting in the league for Liverpool.
The odds will change again after the quarter finals, with United or Arsenal being bookies favourites I'd imagine.
You talk as if you guys are clearly the form team. As bad as we have been we have only lost one game in our last 19, so if anything we are hardly the team in worse form.
I wasn't aware of that, thought someone like Coutinho or Sterling should be ahead of him. Then again Lallana has played less than either of them, hasn't he? There was a period of time when he was blatantly out of favour and barely used.
The figures I got were from the internet (that ever reliable source), and admittedly they are in dollars, not pounds. With Lallana reportedly earning about 4.2 million a year (or 75-80k a week) with Fabregas on something like 6.4 million.
Agreed. I was just taking issue with a post suggesting the 3 big teams in the draw have 30% chance each of winning it. The draw has rendered that untrue.
Liverpool ARE the form team right now in terms of results and performance. That's pretty much accepted.
The Mirror and Squaka are generally a load of horseshite, but the Telegraph is relatively decent, so fair play. I bow to your superior internet detective skills.
Liverpool are coming up against a lot of their rivals for top 4 soon, United and Arsenal both have, so far, had a better run of results against these teams than Liverpool. Yes, you can say form is a factor but the only decent team in the league run you actually played was Tottenham.
We've beat Southampton, Spurs twice, drew against Arsenal and lost against United at OT. Not exactly shocking form.
Since the Arsenal game you probably have. You have played 8 games since then.
But you have only played 1 team from the top 6(Spurs) and 3(Spurs,West Ham,Swansea) from the top half of the table. Also they were all at home.
That's because, by definition, there are only a small numbers of 'form teams' at any one time. Spurs were second to Liverpool in terms of form when they met. Most teams are not form teams nor are they top 4 rivals. That's just the way it is.
You have to laugh at this thread - just how many Scouse fans are on the Caf? Some of them with 1000's of posts. What a bunch of losers.
It's good to have resident scouse, keeps the rat population down. 
It all depends on the amount of games you take into account. Utd have probably been more solid over the last 20 games, Liverpool have been better over the last 10 (haven't checked, but I guess that must be the gist of it.
As with any statistic, you can pretty much spin it the way you want to: as a Liverpool fan, you're going to say that having better closer immediate form is more important, it shows recent improvement, whereas a Utd fan might argue that being more consistent over 20 games shows better strength, etc.
Is form measured over 20 games? Genuine question. I mean you could say Chelsea are the form team based on the past 25 PL games.
No traditionally form is mainly the more recent games (I think the PL uses the last 6 games usually), which has its merits but is of course pretty arbitrary. Though given the term is 'form', it probably makes sense. But depending on what you want to show (improvement over the past couple of months or longer, just the last month, consistency, etc.), you can use a bigger sample size. In the long run, the only 'form' that matters is that over 38 games, and basically winning the league amounts to keeping the best form over 9 months.
No traditionally form is mainly the more recent games (I think the PL uses the last 6 games usually), which has its merits but is of course pretty arbitrary. Though given the term is 'form', it probably makes sense. But depending on what you want to show (improvement over the past couple of months or longer, just the last month, consistency, etc.), you can use a bigger sample size. In the long run, the only 'form' that matters is that over 38 games, and basically winning the league amounts to keeping the best form over 9 months.
Its a historical thing. Many UK newspapers used to always have a last 6 game form table. It was to help people out by acting as a guide towards the pools.
Liverpool were the form team towards the end of last season when they went on the long run , had momentum and were the bookies favorite and the trophy cabinet was still bare in the end .