Rafa explains Torres decision and confirms appeals over red cards

Carragher may be helped by the fact that Zamora told the ref that Carra got the ball first but when did we ever win an appeal.

You're baffling the f**k clean out of me Mist. 

If I've got this right: you reckon we are either a "two man team" or a "three man team" (in attack anyhow), yes?... but you also, "agreed" (earlier) with Brain78 that it was better for us that one of the "two man team" (Nando) should be substituted.

Now, given that the other member of the "two man team"/"three man team" (Stevie) wasn't even playing, it's safe to assume that, at the point of the first substitution, (Nando), you were content with a draw at best and at the point of the second substitution, (Yossi), you were resigned to defeat. Strange indeed.

Having to carry the burden of your defeatist attitude around must be one hell of a strain Mist. I wish you well.

YNWA.

We've been through this already. Torres was playing through PAIN. What don't you understand. Rafa said that Torres took 4 days to recover from the united game. Thats how bad he was. If you asked me before the Fulham game if I would have taken the win but have Torres out for 4 weeks, I'd rather loose, as long as we keep Torres fit. I've made my points about this in the other thread, if you want to discuss it further we'll keep it in that thread.

What don't you understand.

Do you believe us to be  a "two man team" or a "three man team"? - make your mind up.

If you asked me before the Fulham game if I would have taken the win but have Torres out for 4 weeks, I'd rather loose, as long as we keep Torres fit.

You'd "rather loose (sic), as long as we keep Torres fit"?! Holy f**k! Oh jaysus, make it stop. How f**king daft is that? It's as inane speak as I've had the pleasure of reading - ever! Want to know why? Okay I'll ask you the question (that no-one asked you prior to the Fulham match): will you "take the win" against Lyon "but have Torres out for 4 weeks" or would you rather lose? What about the Birmingham game or the City match? - same question.

How in the name of sweet f**k can you expect to be taken seriously when all you do is answer questions with doom ladened, hypothetical, "what ifs"? Can't you see how your argument reads? ......we're a two/three man team that can't score without Nando. .... If we can't score we can't win but I'd rather lose anyway than have Nando injured because, er, em.... because without him (Nando) we'd er, em,..... lose. What the f**k?

I'm bored now, catch you later.


YNWA

Can't you see how your argument reads? ......we're a two/three man team that can't score without Nando. .... If we can't score we can't win but I'd rather lose anyway than have Nando injured because, er, em.... because without him (Nando) we'd er, em,..... lose. What the f**k?

  Comedy that.

As for Rafa explaining his decision to take Torres off, didn't we already know he wasn't fully fit? And more to the point, didn't the media already know that?

My gripe about that is, if he isn't fully fit, he shouldn't be playing in the first place. It speaks volumes of how stretched we are up front though. Especially yesterday - Voronin's about as good as a bikini on an elephant.

I would have liked to have heard more on the Yossi sub though. Personally I thought that was an insane decision. Especially when you think back to who got us our winner at the cottage last season.

The red cards. Well, the damage is already done. We ended up with 9 men on the pitch and that put the wind in Fulham's sails. Then we lost all composure and confidence and were a distant shadow of the team playing in red in the first half.

Degen is not a first teamer. And I don't think he's good enough anyway. Would much rather prefer Darby covering for the injured Johnson.

And Carra needs a rest, take some time to recharge his mind and come back refreshed.

 

Do you believe us to be  a "two man team" or a "three man team"? - make your mind up.

You'd "rather loose (sic), as long as we keep Torres fit"?! Holy f**k! Oh jaysus, make it stop. How f**king daft is that? It's as inane speak as I've had the pleasure of reading - ever! Want to know why? Okay I'll ask you the question (that no-one asked you prior to the Fulham match): will you "take the win" against Lyon "but have Torres out for 4 weeks" or would you rather lose? What about the Birmingham game or the City match? - same question.

How in the name of sweet f**k can you expect to be taken seriously when all you do is answer questions with doom ladened, hypothetical, "what ifs"? Can't you see how your argument reads? ......we're a two/three man team that can't score without Nando. .... If we can't score we can't win but I'd rather lose anyway than have Nando injured because, er, em.... because without him (Nando) we'd er, em,..... lose. What the f**k?

I'm bored now, catch you later.


YNWA

Laughing at your own jokes now. Shows how desperate you are. I'm talking about the current situation. Gerrard is injured and has been for a while so lets take him out of the equation. Now the only people we have left who can create and score goals are benayoun or Torres. Can we agree on that at least. Which means Torres at this particalar time is our most important player, and with the way we are playing at the moment he is our only hope of scoring is he not? If anyone else had been on the end of yossi's pass against united would they have scored? F**K NO!! Against fulham would anyone else have been able to score a Goal out of nothing like torres has? F**K No!. Therefore he is our most important player and we need to keep him injury free. Do you agree that if he plays in pain he will just make it worse? Does that seem logical to you? Because it would to a two year old.

If we can't score we can't win. Torres is the only person who seems to be able to score at the moment. Loosing against fulham is only a loss of 3 points, if Torres is injured for 4 weeks we would loose many more points, considering we still don't even have Gerrard. So yes I would rather we loose against fulham and have Torres fully fit for the next 4 weeks because that increases our chances of scoring by 110%. Understand?

Laughing at your own jokes now.

No Mist, read it again, i was laughing at you. You contradict yourself but still expect your arguments to be taken seriously. Understand?

By the way, 110%? - physically impossible. 

No Mist, read it again, I was laughing at you. You contradict yourself but still expect your arguments to be taken seriously. Understand?

By the way, 110%? - physically impossible. 

No its not. You obviously don't know maths. If somebody is playing twice as good, in mathematcial terms their playing 100% better.

1 match ban

But Carra got a straight red.

No its not. You obviously don't know maths. If somebody is playing twice as good, in mathematcial terms their playing 100% better.

I don't know maths, eh? Well for a start I know how to spell "mathematical" ....but I digress.

We'll look at it mathematically then: You stated: "Torres fully fit for the next 4 weeks because that increases our chances of scoring by 110%" - (PL) we have scored 25 goals this season, of which, Nando has scored 10. That much is true - a fact, if you like.

Now that figure equates to Torres scoring 40% of our goals - yes? Mathematically this (only) means that if Nando doesn't play we may score 40% less goals - nothing else. Understand? Now that is the mathematics of it.

"Physically", as I stated, it is impossible to have 110% of something - there can be no argument on this. Sorry but it looks like you are wrong on both fronts Misty.

Listen mate this could deteriorate into farce here; I reckon it's best you admit you're wrong and we'll let it lie at that, eh? Truce?  

I don't know maths, eh? Well for a start I know how to spell "mathematical" ....but I digress.

We'll look at it mathematically then: You stated: "Torres fully fit for the next 4 weeks because that increases our chances of scoring by 110%" - (PL) we have scored 25 goals this season, of which, Nando has scored 10. That much is true - a fact, if you like.

Now that figure equates to Torres scoring 40% of our goals - yes? Mathematically this (only) means that if Nando doesn't play we may score 40% less goals - nothing else. Understand? Now that is the mathematics of it.

"Physically", as I stated, it is impossible to have 110% of something - there can be no argument on this. Sorry but it looks like you are wrong on both fronts Misty.

Listen mate this could deteriorate into farce here; I reckon it's best you admit you're wrong and we'll let it lie at that, eh? Truce? 

Yes I spelt mathematical wrong, i've got a shitty keyboard to type on but you got me there. But what you say about the percentage increases is wrong. If you have a value, and it doubles, it has increased by 100% has it not? Lets say over 5 games, Liverpool score 10 goals without Torres playing. Now lets say if he does play and he increases that goal tally to 21 instead, then our goal tally has increased by 110%

Agreed?

F**k me misty now you've moved the goal posts yet again. For F**k sake lad, let it be. You're boring the life clean out of me. I'll give it another (last) whirl in the hope you'll, at least, understand for future reference:

I stated "physically" .......PHYSICALLY...... you can't have more than 100% of anything! - That really is true Mist.  Now.......

"Mathematically", in some situations, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with using percentages greater than 100%. Percentages are only another way of expressing a fraction with a denominator of 100. One can therefore have the percentage equivalent of an improper fraction (a fraction whose numerator is greater than the denominator), such as 5/4, or 125%.

However there are situations in which a percentage greater than 100% makes no sense: for example, Torres can never score 125% of our goals. This would makes no sense because if we scored 100 goals Nando couldn't possibly have scored more than all of them. It's just as nonsensical as saying "I ate 5/4 (five quarters) of the cake."

sh*t, reading this, one might swear i have an 'O' Level Maths (grade A), 'O' Level Add Maths (grade B) and a Maths 'A' Level (grade B) ...... ......Anyhow back to your bone you little Jack Russell you....

You pulled a random figure (110%) out of thin air in order to back up an argument on how much more our chances of scoring increases with Nando playing - no point in lying mate or moving the goalposts. It was a figure you made up or invented, if you like. That figure is wrong - end of

This really is my last post in this topic - and i really do hope you understand.

I 110% agree

i agree 98.767688666%

Topic locked.