Liverpool Discussion

[Rick]

Lovren has been a beast for us on occasion. And he has been okay in his games this season, but because of that little issue of him LOSING HIS HEAD COMPLETELY from time to time, I don't want him as anything more than a second choice. The sooner Gomez is back the better cause we are fucked at the moment. 

[RandoEFC+]

Is Caulker actually still on Liverpool's books?

I imagine they'll play Fabinho alongside Van Dijk rather than Caulker or anyone else from that far down the pecking order.

[The Artful Dodger]

No, I was just being silly and saying they should repeat that amazing signing.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, RandoEFC said:

Is Caulker actually still on Liverpool's books?

I imagine they'll play Fabinho alongside Van Dijk rather than Caulker or anyone else from that far down the pecking order.

No we only loaned him in.

I'm pretty sure he played more as a striker for us than at the back too.

[LFCMike]

Fuck sake

 

[Rick]

Fucking fabbydabbydosy

Might have to dip into the market with all these injuries.

[True Blue]

Who can replace Arnold?

 

[The Artful Dodger]

Why did you let Clyne go?

Title is near enough gone now.

[LFCMike]

6 minutes ago, True Blue said:

Who can replace Arnold?

 

Senior players - Milner or Fabinho.

Rafa Camacho played there in the cup against Wolves, so Klopp could turn to him.

[LFCMike]

1 minute ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Why did you let Clyne go?

Title is near enough gone now.

For all of your good posts, you don't half post some shite 

[True Blue]

2 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

Senior players - Milner or Fabinho.

Rafa Camacho played there in the cup against Wolves, so Klopp could turn to him.

Right Milner, don't think Fabinho can cope on that position. Milner should do more than a good job.

[LFCMike]

2 minutes ago, True Blue said:

Right Milner, don't think Fabinho can cope on that position. Milner should do more than a good job.

What makes you think that? He was originally a RB I believe and has already showed his versatility by putting in a good performance at CB on Saturday

[True Blue]

6 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

What makes you think that? He was originally a RB I believe and has already showed his versatility by putting in a good performance at CB on Saturday

Had no clue he was a right back mate, always stuck with me that he was always a midfielder.

Fair enough

[LFCMike]

8 minutes ago, True Blue said:

Had no clue he was a right back mate, always stuck with me that he was always a midfielder.

Fair enough

Yeah I think he came to Europe as a right back and it was at Monaco he moved to a central midfield

[Mel81x+]

20 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

Yeah I think he came to Europe as a right back and it was at Monaco he moved to a central midfield

So that Andy, VVD, Fabinho, Matip/Milner?

[LFCMike]

16 minutes ago, Mel81x said:

So that Andy, VVD, Fabinho, Matip/Milner?

I'd imagine so. You'd think Matip should be ready given he was on the bench on Saturday. Although I wouldn't be against the idea of Fabinho at centre back again against a side we should have a lot of the ball against. However, with no regular right back available that might be too much change on that side of the defence

[Mel81x+]

2 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

I'd imagine so. You'd think Matip should be ready given he was on the bench on Saturday. Although I wouldn't be against the idea of Fabinho at centre back again against a side we should have a lot of the ball against. However, with no regular right back available that might be too much change on that side of the defence

I'm honestly more in favour of having Fabinho play that central role since his ball control and distribution skills supersede Matip's so that adds an opening to have him or Virgil traverse up the pitch more to help the midfield out. Add to the fact that Fabinho tracks better from what I have seen and Milner would be a more ideal choice playing down the right side as he is our most versatile player. 

[Harry]

We should be dipping into the market though to be honest. Especially after letting Clyne go on loan and (hopefully) bundling a blindfolded Moreno out of an unmarked sedan on a deserted country road somewhere many miles from liverpool. 

I'd like to see us bring in a player able to deputise at LB or RB. Injury cover for trent and robbie. A capable understudy .

Edited January 15, 2019 by Harry

[Mel81x+]

8 minutes ago, Harry said:

We should be dipping into the market though to be honest. Especially after letting Clyne go on loan and (hopefully) bundling a blindfolded Moreno out of an unmarked sedan on a deserted country road somewhere many miles from liverpool. 

I'd like to see us bring in a player able to deputise at LB or RB. Injury cover for trent and robbie. A capable understudy .

This is an odd situation to be in when you consider the injuries as well as the timing of them all. Two of our capable CBs are out, we have a RB that we could have relied on that has been injured and we're currently struggling to find suitable replacements for them without pushing the panic button which we've done in the past so many times. But, having said all of that, look at the injury return timings and the coincidental matches as well. Gomez is back soon, Trent will probably push to be back sooner rather than later, we have Milner and Fabinho to slot and interchange, Matip to play second fiddle or primary and we have a midfield that can rotate defensive duties wherever necessary. To get someone now isn't a bad idea and I guess everyone will look back at this moment if we lose the title race and say "should have bought a defender" but its a good risk to take (waiting not panic purchasing) and if it pays off we will have all our players back fully fit.

Edited January 15, 2019 by Mel81x

[LFCMadLad]

Said at the time it was a strange decision letting Clyne go and I stand by it. Now we have to go over a month relying on midfielders, CB's and a youth player for cover when we had a perfectly good specialist RB already at the club.

Hope this doesn't fuck things up for us. 

Edited January 15, 2019 by LFCMadLad

[Harry]

3 minutes ago, Mel81x said:

This is an odd situation to be in when you consider the injuries as well as the timing of them all. Two of our capable CBs are out, we have a RB that we could have relied on that has been injured and we're currently struggling to find suitable replacements for them without pushing the panic button which we've done in the past so many times. But, having said all of that, look at the injury return timings and the coincidental matches as well. Gomez is back soon, Trent will probably push to be back sooner rather than later, we have Milner and Fabinho to slot and interchange, Matip to play second fiddle or primary and we have a midfield that can rotate defensive duties wherever necessary. To get someone now isn't a bad idea and I guess everyone will look back at this moment if we lose the title race and say "should have bought a defender" but its a good risk to take (waiting not panic purchasing) and if it pays off we will have all our players back fully fit.

But with everyone fit we don't now have two players for every position. The only cover at LB and RB is existing outfield players where previously we had Moreno and Clyne.

Putting injuries aside that alone is reason enough to dip into the market. 

[Harry]

4 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

Said at the time it was a strange decision letting Clyne go and I stand by it. Now we have to go over a month relying on midfielders and a youth player for cover when we had a perfectly good specialist RB already at the club.

Hope this doesn't fuck things up for us. 

I can only guess we did it to be fair to him as someone wanting first team football?  Surely for us to do that we must have intended to replace him with someone.. preferably a player more content to play second fiddle to trent? 

[Mel81x+]

2 minutes ago, Harry said:

But with everyone fit we don't now have two players for every position. The only cover at LB and RB is existing outfield players where previously we had Moreno and Clyne.

Putting injuries aside that alone is reason enough to dip into the market. 

I think of it this way, what quality player will come in the winter market? The chances are slim to none and most of that business properly concludes in the summer anyways. Its a big risk to take to go out and get a temporary replacement only to have shipped dross out the door and replace it with another shaky player.

[LFCMike]

10 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

Said at the time it was a strange decision letting Clyne go and I stand by it. Now we have to go over a month relying on midfielders, CB's and a youth player for cover when we had a perfectly good specialist RB already at the club.

Hope this doesn't fuck things up for us. 

I don't think it's a major issue. The midfielders at right back are probably better options than Clyne in the games Trent will miss because of their ability on the ball. Gomez probably back in the middle of this run too. 

The only issue is that it takes away an option or two in midfield but we should get by with what we have given we're only playing one game a week

[LFCMadLad]

5 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

I don't think it's a major issue. The midfielders at right back are probably better options than Clyne in the games Trent will miss because of their ability on the ball. Gomez probably back in the middle of this run too. 

The only issue is that it takes away an option or two in midfield but we should get by with what we have given we're only playing one game a week

Just think it's a needless risk we didn't have to take.