Whitey Grandad

Ah. I thought it was 'Truth Be Told'. I knew it probably wasn't Tri Butyl Tin because that was banned as an antifoulant years ago.

Jerky

I don't think any of them went down the middle, probably because the player making the attempt was aiming to put the ball past the keeper and into the corners. We don't see a lot of that from our players so you're probably not used to seeing this sort of thing.

Once we'd signed him he'd be rubbish.

I was told 'wet & windy' but having just checked it looks like a bit windy but probably dry.

I think the weather is going to play a big part no matter what team we put out.

They may not have been spectacular shots but they are certainly of the most effective type. Hard and low from 12 to 16 yards will beat any keeper. Human reaction time to a visual stimulus is 0.25s and dropping 3 feet takes over 0.4s so that's two thirds of a second to get down to a shot near your feet. In that time the ball moves 58 feet, about 19yds, which means any shot just outside the box. The goal is 24 feet wide a goalkeeper in the centre also has to move across 4 feet first and then dive at full stretch in a dive to reach the foot of the post. No penalty struck firmly and inside the foot of the post or in the top corner is ever saved. The only chance a keeper has is to take a gamble and hope that he goes the right way. Even then, most saves are made well above ground level.

We would have scored 5 or 6 and no he wasn't. They were not average shots. Please name another keeper who you think might have got a hand to one of them.

I look at it this way... If we'd bought a world-class top-notch keeper for £80m in the summer he still wouldn't have stopped all those goals on Wednesday night, maybe one at most. But if we'd bought a couple of top-class defenders we would probably be looking up the train timetables for the semi-finals in January.

It's the new nickname for the team.

If you put the chance of saving those types of shots at 20% (and that's generous) then it's still 64% probability that both shots are going to go in. I think your being too harsh on Stek, even the best goalkeeper in the world might only have got to one of the six, maybe two at most which still means we lose 4-1.

Hmm... now there's a thought.

I've seen worse too but most of it was on a Sunday morning and usually in the team I was playing for. I hasten to add that I was the only one playing in the correct position. This is why I know poor defending when I see it.

Indeed, opinions is what we're all about, but you'll see Sturridge score from those positions all seasons long and against top goalkeepers, it's why he cost so much and gets paid so much.

I think it's where Origi ran across into space on our left from where he received the ball and lashed it into our net. Yes, nobody had a clue and nobody seemed to care.

Long? He has the capability to lash the ball with pace and accuracy, he just chooses not too most of the time

Look at the shape, or lack of it. It's what you show at training sessions as an example of the worst sort of defending.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'those angles and distance'. Sturridge was virtually in top of him for his two, Origi deflected the third, not by much but enough. Origi's second was lashed past from from well inside the area and in the corner right under the bar. Ibe's shot was probably the most difficult to do anything about, very fast and low and right inside the foot of the post. I don't know of any goalkeeper who would have stopped that. As for Origi's header, he was so unmarked he must have thought that all our players had packed up and were already in the showers. The low shots were of the pace and accuracy that you very rarely see from any of our players, Long excepted.usually our shots are at a height that gives the goalkeeper a reasonable chance of stopping them.

Nice try but 1 out of 10, and that just for effort. I can guarantee you that if our players had made those same shots against their keeper the result would have been the same.

We don't have the depth of squad that's needed, not quality players at least. One of Liverpool's players last night have number 56 on his back. We have a squad of 29 players, they have 49.

Possible head injury. The referee can take no chances with that. Maybe, just maybe, it wasn't a corner? All I saw was Pellè flying backwards into their defenders. Sturridge tried it once and was then warned off.

. Shots to target ratio is totally meaningless. Using those measurements a shot in the bottom corner counts as much as one straight at the keeper.

Yes, really. You must understand that they are not biased in the same way that you are. None of those decisions last night were anywhere near 'awful'. Find someone else to blame. Our defence for example.

Oh FFS, we're not going to start having a go at the officials again are we? They did nothing wrong last night and were not the reason that we let in six goals. Give it a rest.

'Shots on target' is meaningless unless you also analyse the nature and accuracy of this shots. That one of Ibe's last night was fast, low and just inside the foot of the post. I don't know of any goalkeeper who would have saved it.