Trending Topics

      Next match: LFC v Brighton [Premier League] Sun 31st Mar @ 2:00 pm
      Anfield

      Today is the 29th of March and on this date LFC's match record is P24 W11 D6 L7

      The Official Paul Tomkins Thread

      Read 66316 times
      0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
      FabulousAurelio
      • Forum Billy Liddell
      • ****

      • 537 posts | 11 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #322: Oct 05, 2009 02:45:15 pm

      About Gray accusing Rafa of managing by numbers, because he made the sub on 65 mins - when mins earlier Gray had been saying Rafa was right to not change anything as Liverpool were doing well.

      Cheers Invisible Man. Gray is an unbelievable idiot. Just wish someone would bring him up on his hypocrisy.
      stuey
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 35,969 posts | 3945 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #323: Oct 05, 2009 04:02:50 pm
      Remind me again what qualification has the bitter gimp got to make these sweeping criticisms? it's all coming back now he used to play for the blue crew, the subject matter is now one of credibility rather than qualification and shithead fails on both.
      Cheers Invisible Man. Gray is an unbelievable idiot. Just wish someone would bring him up on his hypocrisy.
      HUYTON RED
      • Forum Legend - Shankly
      • ******

      • 39,958 posts | 8459 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #324: Oct 05, 2009 05:03:24 pm
      Cheers Invisible Man. Gray is an unbelievable idiot. Just wish someone would bring him up on his hypocrisy.

      Andy Gray is a bluenose bitter gobs***e who has never, ever managed at the top level and was a coach for about five minutes, so most of his ramblings I try to take with a pinch of salt.
      Eem
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 6,018 posts | 89 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #325: Oct 05, 2009 05:11:14 pm
      Andy Gray is a bluenose bitter gobs***e who has never, ever managed at the top level and was a coach for about five minutes, so most of his ramblings I try to take with mountainous piles of salt

      I think you meant to say this?

      As always, Tomkins speaks the complete truth. A rational, composed analysis of events.
      FabulousAurelio
      • Forum Billy Liddell
      • ****

      • 537 posts | 11 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #326: Oct 14, 2009 09:23:32 am
      TOMKINS: THE BURDEN OF PROOF
      Paul Tomkins 14 October 2009
         Here is something every critic of Rafa Benítez should consider. The Spaniard has won 57.38 per cent of his 305 games as Liverpool manager.
      paul tomkins

      Quite remarkably, Bob Paisley's figure over 535 games stands at... 57.38 per cent.
       
      It is precisely this kind of statistic – a kind of 'ultimate stat', based on winning football matches – that suggests the amount of criticism Benítez receives in the media is ill-informed, and at times, moronic.
       
      Indeed, Paisley's win-percentage record in the league is actually inferior to Benítez's, to the tune of one per cent. Times have changed, and you need to win more games in the modern age to win the league; but it still shows that the current Liverpool manager is doing a fine job when compared with the very best.
       
      Very recently it occurred to me that I saw my role as akin to a defence lawyer. (And no, not because I like to wear curly blond wigs in my spare time.)
       
      This is because I believe that Rafa Benítez gets an unfair press, and especially unfair criticism within the sports TV world. So my starting point is usually after some misleading comment in the media that undermines the manager, yet has no basis in fact.
       
      I don't think there's a bias against Liverpool in general, but I do very much believe that anyone (particularly from overseas) with non-standard methods gets treated like a leper, particularly in England; we've never really trusted new ideas, with our island mentality.
       
      With pretty much every accusation labelled against Rafa Benítez, I've been able to address a metaphorical judge and say "Excuse me, M'lud, but the facts seem to suggest otherwise."
       
      That doesn't mean that he is therefore infallible, and that every decision he makes is right. But every man deserves defending when under attack, to see if the attack is justified. That's why we have courts of law: to see if the accusations stand up to scrutiny.
       
      For instance, zonal marking. At the end of 2005-06 I pointed out that Liverpool actually had the best record for defending set-pieces; at a time when everyone was decrying it as the devil's doodoo.
       
      Now, that doesn't mean that zonal marking is perfect and man-marking is useless. I just say, "Well, if you're going to castigate Rafa for his ideas, at least back it up with strong evidence."
       
      And yet only this season, when Liverpool began conceding too many set-piece goals, were figures roundly produced by the mainstream media. This ignored issues like the fact that Liverpool are no longer an especially tall team, and the figures included things like penalties, for which even zonal marking cannot surely be blamed.
       
      The trouble is, a lot of football punditry is based on outdated theories and ingrained ideas. Ex-players are notoriously bad for failing to move with the times.
       
      Whereas people like Bill Shankly and Bob Paisley, both ex-players, moved with the times when continuing to work within the game, those who leave the coal face tend to find their ideas frozen in time; even some within the game do so, although they tend to not last.
       
      My favourite example is of Shanks and Bob realising in the early '70s that the old British stopper was a thing of the past; the way forward was the elegant ball-playing centre-half who could move into midfield.
       
      Neither man said, "But in 1947, we used to do it this way." They said, "This is the future." Almost two decades of Emlyn Hughes, Phil Thompson, Alan Hansen and Mark Lawrenson, and results proved that they were right. "In my day" should be banned from all football commentary.
       
      Alex Ferguson's success has also been down to the fact that he doesn't base his thinking on 20 years ago.
       
      And that brings me to another argument: although Rafa gets castigated for rotating, over the past three seasons Ferguson has made more alterations to his league line-up, and especially so last season.
       
      Therefore, when Rafa is criticised for every little change, I point out that not only does he rotate less than certain other managers, it's actually the method that league-winners use; and that the 'big' side that rotated least last season, Aston Villa, visibly tired in the run-in.
       
      Now, there are different issues relating to squad strength, etc, as well as when and how to rotate.
       
      But my research shows no great difference between the approaches of Ferguson and Benítez in this respect, and if anything, Rafa keeps a slightly more settled core to his team (which critics claimed was the other way around, again based on perceptions rather than evidence).
       
      But the idea is in people's minds that Benítez is the main sinner, and lazy journalists and ex-players can leap on this without having considered the evidence.
       
      Too much football opinion is based on the repetition of unfounded beliefs and the old tried-and-tested, yet research can point out that the counter-intuitive view is the wise one. (Often it's only counter-intuitive because you've been brainwashed into thinking a certain way.)
       
      What I tend to do is offer up the case for the defence by entering into evidence well-researched findings.
       
      The burden of proof – the core of the democratic justice system – is as follows: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."
       
      But funnily, in football, it seems to be the other way around. The prosecution base their thinking on hunches and hearsay. And often, what we think we see is coloured by other factors.
       
      The reason DNA is exonerating so many convicted murderers and rapists is because they were sent to prison based on eye-witness evidence in the days when everyone was satisfied that this proved their guilt. Wrong.
       
      In 2005 I wrote that Michael Shields' conviction in Bulgaria had to be unsound, because he was found guilty purely on such dubious evidence. The human mind is terribly unreliable in this sense, and plays tricks on us. I've read studies of eye-witness experiments when people even identified the wrong sex of the person! Our perceptions can easily be altered by other influences.
       
      Shields was chained up in full sight of those who had arrived to identify him in a parade; they saw a man in shackles, who vaguely matched the assailant (in the way that people from other cultures can 'all look alike'), so when they were all in the room together, they drew the wrong (but for them, obvious) conclusion.
       
      There was even a case in America where a man served 20 years for a near-fatal attack on his wife; on emerging from a coma she had no doubt that he did it. But while he'd popped to the shops an intruder had snuck in and committed the crime.
       
      While bearing no comparison in terms of severity, I think something similar happens when watching football.
       
      While nothing beats being present to get the full effect (atmosphere, running off the ball, and lots of other subtleties), you can also – whether there or at home – fall into the trap of believing what you see; or what you think you've seen. Or, indeed, what you want to see.
       
      For me, I find that my memory and my perceptions are affected more by the adrenaline of being present, when it becomes harder to detach oneself from the emotion. I also find my emotions affected by those around me; just as the crowd in Istanbul greatly lifted my spirits, I've been to many a game where I've been dragged down by negativity or edginess. It's still a far better experience, but not always more reliable for thinking straight.
       
      Even if you're at the game, you can be looking for the guilty; therefore, when someone like Lucas Leiva makes five good passes, critics might not be hyper-vigilant; but as soon as he makes one mistake, his guilt is secured.
       
      When we have a preconceived notion, we look for evidence to prove us right.
       
      Andy Gray (along with a host of other ex-pros) offers the perfect example, with zonal marking. He is very biased – he prefers man-marking, as we hear every week – so we are not being fed neutral information. We are being primed.
       
      When zonal is breached, it's highlighted, even if the ball, run, jump and header were 'undefendable' (as seen with the giant Carlton Cole earlier in the season). When man-marking is breached, the quality of the opposition play will be highlighted, as seen at the other end, when Kuyt turned in Gerrard's free header.
       
      Indeed, zonal marking is often being criticised even before the delivery is made, so people are lulled into a sense of doom. I watched the Denmark vs Sweden game at the weekend, and Leroy Rosenoir said upon the Danes' first corner: "It's zonal! I really don't like it", before listing only its drawbacks.
       
      The reason all top managers use technology like Prozone is to capture what the eye cannot see. Even if you're at the game, although you have the choice of where to look (unlike TV), you can only be looking in one direction at a time. Prozone is objective; it shows who moved where, and when.
       
      So when it's later pointed out that a referee has actually run more than most of the complaining manager's players, we can rest assured that it's right. And that is the beauty of most data. Statistics can of course be twisted, but if analysed properly (and that's the key), they can give special insight.
       
      That is why I recently created The Tomkins Times, where I can study issues in depth, and present sufficient amounts of evidence; creating standalone pieces, or a linked series of articles, that go beyond the superficiality of the sound-bite age, and present the kind of analysis that I'd previously only use in my books.
       
      So this is my approach: to defend, but to defend with great precision, even though the burden of proof should rest with the prosecutors; a prosecution that, in many cases, amounts to little more than a witch hunt.
       
      Click here to visit The Tomkins Times>>
       
      The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of Liverpoolfc.tv or Liverpool Football Club.
      johnstop
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 1,745 posts | 23 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #327: Oct 14, 2009 09:28:22 am
      The press like to be in the favour of the court of Sir Alex and anything against Liverpool probably means they are given an audience with the man with no soul.I would add the whilst Bob was the best Rafa has achieved a similar win ratio with a team that cannot be compared to Bobs so even more kudos to Rafa.
      The Invisible Man
      • Forum Kevin Keegan
      • ***

      • 352 posts | 18 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #328: Oct 14, 2009 03:20:00 pm
      Some more new stuff from Tomkins here:

      http://tomkinstimes.com/
      7-King Kenny-7
      • Lives on Sesame Street
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 44,014 posts | 5760 
      • You'll Never Walk Alone!
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #329: Oct 14, 2009 03:35:28 pm
      That Burden of Truth was a good read.
      insua-rance
      • Forum Erik Meijer
      • *

      • 34 posts | -3 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #330: Oct 15, 2009 02:42:56 pm

      have to subscribe to that though dont ya?
      cezar_sl
      • Forum Billy Liddell
      • ****

      • 612 posts |
      The Burden of Proof : Rafa's Stats
      Reply #331: Oct 16, 2009 04:05:11 am
      THE BURDEN OF PROOF
      Here is something every critic of Rafa Benítez should consider. The Spaniard has won 57.38 per cent of his 305 games as Liverpool manager.
      Quite remarkably, Bob Paisley's figure over 535 games stands at... 57.38 per cent.
       
      It is precisely this kind of statistic – a kind of 'ultimate stat', based on winning football matches – that suggests the amount of criticism Benítez receives in the media is ill-informed, and at times, moronic.
       
      Indeed, Paisley's win-percentage record in the league is actually inferior to Benítez's, to the tune of one per cent. Times have changed, and you need to win more games in the modern age to win the league; but it still shows that the current Liverpool manager is doing a fine job when compared with the very best.
       
      Very recently it occurred to me that I saw my role as akin to a defence lawyer. (And no, not because I like to wear curly blond wigs in my spare time.)
       
      This is because I believe that Rafa Benítez gets an unfair press, and especially unfair criticism within the sports TV world. So my starting point is usually after some misleading comment in the media that undermines the manager, yet has no basis in fact.
       
      I don't think there's a bias against Liverpool in general, but I do very much believe that anyone (particularly from overseas) with non-standard methods gets treated like a leper, particularly in England; we've never really trusted new ideas, with our island mentality.
       
      With pretty much every accusation labelled against Rafa Benítez, I've been able to address a metaphorical judge and say "Excuse me, M'lud, but the facts seem to suggest otherwise."
       
      That doesn't mean that he is therefore infallible, and that every decision he makes is right. But every man deserves defending when under attack, to see if the attack is justified. That's why we have courts of law: to see if the accusations stand up to scrutiny.
       
      For instance, zonal marking. At the end of 2005-06 I pointed out that Liverpool actually had the best record for defending set-pieces; at a time when everyone was decrying it as the devil's doodoo.
       
      Now, that doesn't mean that zonal marking is perfect and man-marking is useless. I just say, "Well, if you're going to castigate Rafa for his ideas, at least back it up with strong evidence."
       
      And yet only this season, when Liverpool began conceding too many set-piece goals, were figures roundly produced by the mainstream media. This ignored issues like the fact that Liverpool are no longer an especially tall team, and the figures included things like penalties, for which even zonal marking cannot surely be blamed.
       
      The trouble is, a lot of football punditry is based on outdated theories and ingrained ideas. Ex-players are notoriously bad for failing to move with the times.
       
      Whereas people like Bill Shankly and Bob Paisley, both ex-players, moved with the times when continuing to work within the game, those who leave the coal face tend to find their ideas frozen in time; even some within the game do so, although they tend to not last.
       
      My favourite example is of Shanks and Bob realising in the early '70s that the old British stopper was a thing of the past; the way forward was the elegant ball-playing centre-half who could move into midfield.
       
      Neither man said, "But in 1947, we used to do it this way." They said, "This is the future." Almost two decades of Emlyn Hughes, Phil Thompson, Alan Hansen and Mark Lawrenson, and results proved that they were right. "In my day" should be banned from all football commentary.
       
      Alex Ferguson's success has also been down to the fact that he doesn't base his thinking on 20 years ago.
       
      And that brings me to another argument: although Rafa gets castigated for rotating, over the past three seasons Ferguson has made more alterations to his league line-up, and especially so last season.
       
      Therefore, when Rafa is criticised for every little change, I point out that not only does he rotate less than certain other managers, it's actually the method that league-winners use; and that the 'big' side that rotated least last season, Aston Villa, visibly tired in the run-in.
       
      Now, there are different issues relating to squad strength, etc, as well as when and how to rotate.
       
      But my research shows no great difference between the approaches of Ferguson and Benítez in this respect, and if anything, Rafa keeps a slightly more settled core to his team (which critics claimed was the other way around, again based on perceptions rather than evidence).
       
      But the idea is in people's minds that Benítez is the main sinner, and lazy journalists and ex-players can leap on this without having considered the evidence.
       
      Too much football opinion is based on the repetition of unfounded beliefs and the old tried-and-tested, yet research can point out that the counter-intuitive view is the wise one. (Often it's only counter-intuitive because you've been brainwashed into thinking a certain way.)
       
      What I tend to do is offer up the case for the defence by entering into evidence well-researched findings.
       
      The burden of proof – the core of the democratic justice system – is as follows: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."
       
      But funnily, in football, it seems to be the other way around. The prosecution base their thinking on hunches and hearsay. And often, what we think we see is coloured by other factors.
       
      The reason DNA is exonerating so many convicted murderers and rapists is because they were sent to prison based on eye-witness evidence in the days when everyone was satisfied that this proved their guilt. Wrong.
       
      In 2005 I wrote that Michael Shields' conviction in Bulgaria had to be unsound, because he was found guilty purely on such dubious evidence. The human mind is terribly unreliable in this sense, and plays tricks on us. I've read studies of eye-witness experiments when people even identified the wrong sex of the person! Our perceptions can easily be altered by other influences.
       
      Shields was chained up in full sight of those who had arrived to identify him in a parade; they saw a man in shackles, who vaguely matched the assailant (in the way that people from other cultures can 'all look alike'), so when they were all in the room together, they drew the wrong (but for them, obvious) conclusion.
       
      There was even a case in America where a man served 20 years for a near-fatal attack on his wife; on emerging from a coma she had no doubt that he did it. But while he'd popped to the shops an intruder had snuck in and committed the crime.
       
      While bearing no comparison in terms of severity, I think something similar happens when watching football.
       
      While nothing beats being present to get the full effect (atmosphere, running off the ball, and lots of other subtleties), you can also – whether there or at home – fall into the trap of believing what you see; or what you think you've seen. Or, indeed, what you want to see.
       
      For me, I find that my memory and my perceptions are affected more by the adrenaline of being present, when it becomes harder to detach oneself from the emotion. I also find my emotions affected by those around me; just as the crowd in Istanbul greatly lifted my spirits, I've been to many a game where I've been dragged down by negativity or edginess. It's still a far better experience, but not always more reliable for thinking straight.
       
      Even if you're at the game, you can be looking for the guilty; therefore, when someone like Lucas Leiva makes five good passes, critics might not be hyper-vigilant; but as soon as he makes one mistake, his guilt is secured.

       
      When we have a preconceived notion, we look for evidence to prove us right.
       
      Andy Gray (along with a host of other ex-pros) offers the perfect example, with zonal marking. He is very biased – he prefers man-marking, as we hear every week – so we are not being fed neutral information. We are being primed.
       
      When zonal is breached, it's highlighted, even if the ball, run, jump and header were 'undefendable' (as seen with the giant Carlton Cole earlier in the season). When man-marking is breached, the quality of the opposition play will be highlighted, as seen at the other end, when Kuyt turned in Gerrard's free header.
       
      Indeed, zonal marking is often being criticised even before the delivery is made, so people are lulled into a sense of doom. I watched the Denmark vs Sweden game at the weekend, and Leroy Rosenoir said upon the Danes' first corner: "It's zonal! I really don't like it", before listing only its drawbacks.
       
      The reason all top managers use technology like Prozone is to capture what the eye cannot see. Even if you're at the game, although you have the choice of where to look (unlike TV), you can only be looking in one direction at a time. Prozone is objective; it shows who moved where, and when.
       
      So when it's later pointed out that a referee has actually run more than most of the complaining manager's players, we can rest assured that it's right. And that is the beauty of most data. Statistics can of course be twisted, but if analysed properly (and that's the key), they can give special insight.
       
      That is why I recently created The Tomkins Times, where I can study issues in depth, and present sufficient amounts of evidence; creating standalone pieces, or a linked series of articles, that go beyond the superficiality of the sound-bite age, and present the kind of analysis that I'd previously only use in my books.
       
      So this is my approach: to defend, but to defend with great precision, even though the burden of proof should rest with the prosecutors; a prosecution that, in many cases, amounts to little more than a witch hunt.
      bigvYNWA
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 16,795 posts | 994 
      Re: The Burden of Proof : Rafa's Stats
      Reply #332: Oct 16, 2009 04:45:28 am
      f***in' A. It's all i got to say.

      The point about rotation is my favorite. I have a manc supporting mate back home who always has chastised and stirred me about rotation, about how manure send out the same team week in week out and that's why they have won the league. I kept saying, dude, i notice changes almost every week, just as much as us, and he is like oh no, even the media says that. I just roll me eyes as i know he has no idea the crap the media spin sometimes.
      So going to be recommending him read this!
      gareth_lfc_belfast
      • Forum Erik Meijer
      • *

      • 28 posts |
      Re: The Burden of Proof : Rafa's Stats
      Reply #333: Oct 16, 2009 06:27:43 am
      how can u rotate a team thats barely strong enough in strength and depth anyway?

      we need about another 4 player so the argument people have about rotataion in regardless for much of anything fair enough some times we think we know best but what about what we dont know likw for instance players fitness morale etc rotataion in any team is a must the biggest teams in the world rotate

      frank rijkaard won a champions league and 2 leagues at barca under the policy that no player plays more than 10 matches at a time that went for such star players at the time as giuly ronaldinho etoo etc
      Adryan
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 17,704 posts | 378 
      • Cut my veins open and I bleed Liverpool Red.
      Re: The Burden of Proof : Rafa's Stats
      Reply #334: Oct 16, 2009 08:11:57 am
      Good article, that.
      Billy1
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 10,638 posts | 1966 
      Re: The Burden of Proof : Rafa's Stats
      Reply #335: Oct 16, 2009 08:45:28 am
       It is good to read good genuine honest facts,now maybe the gutterpress and dare I say some so called (WINGING supporters)will get off RAFAS back.
      Dmasta
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 10,895 posts | 553 
      Re: The Burden of Proof : Rafa's Stats
      Reply #336: Oct 16, 2009 09:20:50 am
      Great article it proves how biased the media really are and I also like the bit about the ref running further than they players I wonder who that was aimed at. :f_whistle:
      whyohwhyohwhy
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 11,283 posts | 95 
      Re: The Burden of Proof : Rafa's Stats
      Reply #337: Oct 16, 2009 09:57:10 am
      Great article it proves how biased the media really are and I also like the bit about the ref running further than they players I wonder who that was aimed at. :f_whistle:

      I liked that bit too :D  Spot on again by Paul Tomkins.  I love his writing.
      stuey
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 35,969 posts | 3945 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #338: Oct 16, 2009 10:30:27 am
      I wonder how many of the "witch hunt" brigade after reading The Burden Of Truth would  cellotape their mouths shut and collect their thoughts?
      bartman49
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 2,157 posts | 37 
      Re: The Burden of Proof : Rafa's Stats
      Reply #339: Oct 16, 2009 11:04:35 am
      It was like reading a Tomkins article, or is it Paul Tomkins, no one else writes like him on LFC. A really good read, the rotation thing has been going on for a while now, you would think the journo's who write the inaccuracies would have done their homework, but sadly no. This season it's come around to the zonal marking again, just when you think it's gone away, back it comes, it doesn't matter that it served us well when Pepe won two golden gloves in a row, and he was second last year, all that is forgotten. I am glad you brought Greys name up, whenever he has chance he puts Rafa down, saying stupid things like 'man marking may have prevented that',and bla, bla, bla, the trouble is when Andy Grey talks, others believe what he says in the football world as a whole, then we have daft remarks even from ex-players, and that rankles me....
      bartman49
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 2,157 posts | 37 
      Re: The Burden of Proof : Rafa's Stats
      Reply #340: Oct 16, 2009 11:13:36 am
      It is a Paul Tomkins piece and it's in the Paul Tomkins threads on this site...
      MIRO
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 12,989 posts | 3124 
      • Trust The Universe
      Re: The Burden of Proof : Rafa's Stats
      Reply #341: Oct 16, 2009 11:58:41 am
      LURV the article and the quite appropriate use of caps and bold.

      Have you thought of writing to Purslow and being a real PR person for this club? We need one.

      There is always a very big difference between Perception and Reality.

      Yours is the Reality. Stats and Truth.    The press?  Nothing more than Perception. Bollocks and Bullsh- -.

      Send it to the media and see if they reproduce it. It deserves to be.

      Bet they dont.


      Well in mate.



      (Now ..............wheres me keyboard?)


      I.R.W.T.
      philH
      • Forum Alan Hansen
      • ****

      • 628 posts |
      Re: The Burden of Proof : Rafa's Stats
      Reply #342: Oct 16, 2009 08:27:23 pm
      Top article by a Great writer
      tezmac
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 11,111 posts | 896 
      • F**k the Sun F**k Murdoch F**k the press
      Re: The Burden of Proof : Rafa's Stats
      Reply #343: Oct 16, 2009 08:34:31 pm
      Very interesting
      7-King Kenny-7
      • Lives on Sesame Street
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 44,014 posts | 5760 
      • You'll Never Walk Alone!
      Re: The Burden of Proof : Rafa's Stats
      Reply #344: Oct 16, 2009 09:58:39 pm
      This has already been posted in the Phil Tomkins thread.

      http://www.lfcreds.com/reds/index.php?topic=7206.325

      Quick Reply