KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum matip

And regarding sahko, I really believe that was the start of his downfall. Had the drug [oops] up not happened he might still have had a future at anfield

This is a fukking joke if true. They didn't even select him for the final 23 man squad!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38638651

And he's retired.complete fukkin joke.

Liverpool decided not to play him, no one said they could not play him, the did not want to take a risk, so you cannot blame Fifa for it, all you can argue is Fifa should have replied when Liverpool enquired, as long as Liverpool gave them sufficient time.

There are 2 things here, first is Matip said he did not want to represent his country, the second is he was injured.

As far as I know in tournaments, an initial squad is named (like 30 players) then just before the tournament the final squad is name and they travel (that's when Gazza smashed up Hoddles bedroom lol), then before the tournament starts, if a player is injured and out the tournament, the country can ask for the player to be replaced in the squad, that's at Fifa's discretion I think.

The first 2 games were on the 14th January, so once the tournament is started, Matip could not take part, so I do not see why Liverpool were concerned with playing him the day after it started? they would have been better just keeping quiet and he's back available for Plymouth, he's been out about 6 weeks, its bad timing for him to become available just as the tournament starts, so it does not look good on Liverpool playing him now, so abit of common sense to delay his return might have been better, than saying 'we're not sure of the rules' which makes us look stupid as we have known this was going to happen for the last 6 weeks.

He also wasn't named in the final 23 man squad so why do Cameroon have to give him 'permission' to play as the report says?

I don't think they do, from what I have seen Liverpool didn't know if they could play him or not, so aired on the side of safety so there could be no comeback.

I think the only thing Cameroon could have said was that he was not in their squad as Liverpool said he was injured, but since he 'would of' played for us within a day of Cameroons first game at the tournament, you can see how it would have looked dodgy, that's why I said we should have just kept quiet and give him a 60 minutes or so midweek against Plymouth, the there could be no comeback as we are easing him back from injury.

look at Beckham in the 2002 World Cup, we took him injured and unfit, Cameroon could have done the same thing.

Injured or not, if he was on the Cameroon list of wanted players in his squad, even if he didn't travel, he cannot play for his club until Cameroon stays in the tournamanent + 5 days or Camaroon allows him to play for his club. FIFA rules are clear on that and I am not surprised

Don't think will happen as the countries FA would be against it and I can understand them. Club vs Country problem. Mourinho called it slavery a few years back because of Makelele.

But he wasn't named in the 23 man squad so I don't see why they have any say in when he can play for us?

I understand he was named in the initial squad but did not agree. I suppose he is being punished by his federation