KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum Torres

i fail to understand ged's argument ..... if we are the second best side over the season then that makes us the second best side doesn't it??? so how does he conclude that being the second best side over the season makes us the 3rd best side? i am at a loss to follow his complete lack of logic or sense ...... or maybe he is actually a she and in which case i was being stupid to expect anything he said to make sense

Dont reply to his post ,he is not, never was, and never will be liverpool supporter.

its easy enough to understand any team can have a bad season due to injuries or tiredness e.t.c. you judge a club overall over the last 3 or 4 seasons and that makes United the best followed by Chelsea with us just ahead of Arsenal. When Liverpool finished behind Everton in 2005 nobody would ever say Everton were a better side than Liverpool just because they finished ahead of us for just one season since 1987 when they last won it. Liverpool are a big club in name only now, we are famous because of what we done 20-30 years ago, similar but no way as bad as to why Leeds and Newcastle are big only in name themselves all because of there history. Liverpool are not in the same league now as teams like United, Chelsea, Barcalona, Madrid and soon to be Man City these clubs have had either more recent success than us or have alot more money than us which in turn makes them bigger because they are far more powerful. Ask yourself this if Messi were to become available he would probably choose all those clubs ahead of Liverpool for those very reasons i have just stated, he would need more than the fact we had success 20 odd years ago to make him sign for us.

so what you are saying is you judge a club on its history just not too much history? you talk crap! the judge of a club is how it performs over a season - thats why we have the league system to decide who is the better team over the course of a season!

we are not the second best team in england though are because Chelsea are, we were only better over a season, (quote)

What a ridiculous statement! Just because we don't have the funds of Chelsea and Manure doesn't we aren't the second best team in England. A team is judged on it's performances throughout a season not how much money they have or how many so called stars they have in their squad! A champion team will generally beat a team of Champions! Champions teams play for each other and champion players play for their own glory!

Last season we were the second best TEAM in England and the results and our position on the table proves that!!!

naw i realised it from the start - i was just pointing it out for any noobs who might be reading this

So back in 2005 Everton were a better team overall than Liverpool because that season they finished fourth and we finished fifth, and overall Fulham are a better team than Spurs because they finished ahead of Spurs last season, see how ridiculous you all sound, by talking complete and utter rubbish. Any team can finish ahead of another team over one season as I have just proved you have to judge wether a team is better than another over maybe three or four seasons and than means Chelsea are the second best team in the country, behind United and ahead of us. Wish people would take there red tinted glasses off and start living in the real world, we are not the club or the team fans build us up into am afraid, just like last nites result proved.

how does that result prove anything when we're all meant to make our judgement based on the last 3 or 4 seasons?

yes in 2005 everton were the better team which is why they finished above us ..... and quite clearly fulham were a better side than spuds last season ..... what is the point of having the league system if you aren't going to accept its result ged? perhaps we should all just give up playing matches and just let you decide who finishes where each season?

No my point is anything can happen over just one season, if a team finishes higher than another team it means it has had a better season over 39 games, when you talk about who is the better team overall then thats an entirely different matter and should be judged differently. Everton in 2005 had a better season than us no argument there because they got more points over the 39 games but overall you cant seriously say they were a better team than us when they had'nt finished anywhere near us for the previous 5 seasons and haven't finished anywhere near us the five season after and thats what i mean by overall. the old saying is that the best team does'nt always win the league and when you look at teams like Forest who won the league over our very own fantastic team in 78, Leeds United in 92 and Blackburn in 95 all ahead of a fantastic United team you have to say they were all better for just one season but overall the team that finished second them seasons was the best which was proved in seasons before and after those one off victories. Am sorry but if Man City finished ahead of us this season by a point to be regarded better in my book they would have to maintain that and finsish ahead of us the next season and probably the season after that if they want to be regarded better than us overall and not just over one season.