QF3 - England v Portugal, Saturday 4.0pm BST

[dornansog]

They certainly know how to train their players properly in Germany because Hargreaves stamina was unbelievable. Hats off to the bloke he was a revelation.

Plus am I the only person who thinks that Beckham was feigning injury.
Dont know why he would do it , but it all seemed a bit suspect to me.

Why would we choose a player who is obviously bereft of confidence to take the all important first penalty. Lampard was never going to score if he had an empty net to shoot at.

I have seen the future and his name is Lennon. He really made my stand up and shout when he got the ball,noone else did.

Finally,was Gerrard playing?

[Duke]

They certainly know how to train their players properly in Germany because Hargreaves stamina was unbelievable. Hats off to the bloke he was a revelation.

Plus am I the only person who thinks that Beckham was feigning injury.
Dont know why he would do it , but it all seemed a bit suspect to me.

Why would we choose a player who is obviously bereft of confidence to take the all important first penalty. Lampard was never going to score if he had an empty net to shoot at.

I have seen the future and his name is Lennon. He really made my stand up and shout when he got the ball,noone else did.

Finally,was Gerrard playing?

Exactly my point from an ealier post to many players under peformed.
I did at the time doubt Beckhams injury however the camera did pick him up later with a ice pack on his leg .

[TheSaddlers]

They certainly know how to train their players properly in Germany because Hargreaves stamina was unbelievable. Hats off to the bloke he was a revelation.

Plus am I the only person who thinks that Beckham was feigning injury.
Dont know why he would do it , but it all seemed a bit suspect to me.

Why would we choose a player who is obviously bereft of confidence to take the all important first penalty. Lampard was never going to score if he had an empty net to shoot at.

I have seen the future and his name is Lennon. He really made my stand up and shout when he got the ball,noone else did.

Finally,was Gerrard playing?

I agree with some of the points you made there. There has not been many positives to take from this world cup campaign, but Lennon and Hargreaves have been the exceptions. They have performed consistently in this world cup and for that reason I think that they'll deserve their chances in other competitions yet to come for England. I think that Hargreaves will attract a lot of interest in the prem, as will Lennon, even though the latter is contracted to Tottenham.

[Stu]

Beckham clutched his leg as soon as he went down, and it was actually Gary Neville that called for him to come off, not Beckham.

As for Aaron Lennon, exactly what makes him stand out? Was it the single run that he made or the lack of final delivery? Sorry, but Lennon is not international standard (yet), neither was Downing and most of the England subs bench.

Folk shouldn't be surprised at Hargreaves, he looked this good at the last WC until injury ruled him out. Its not his fault that Eriksson played him in every position except the one he actually plays in for Munich.

[cyclothymic]

Tried driving - did not make things better

Tried having a drink at home - did not make things better

Millions of England supporters believed

The squad had more than TWO handfulls of world class players - yet the only ones who really performed were the ones that no-one expected anything from

Jesus F'ing Christ - we had this cup in the bag; but someone took all the belief out of the players (dont beleive me - watch the matches, watch the line up before the matches, look at their eyes! - broken men!!!!)

AND now I want Germany to win; because they have got to the semi's playing football. France? Portugal? Italy? It has to be Germany because they still believe in playing the game

Tried a bowl of icecream - it made me feel better

OH NO - does this mean I am ...

[dornansog]

[quote="Stu"]Beckham clutched his leg as soon as he went down, and it was actually Gary Neville that called for him to come off, not Beckham.

So thats why Beckham was crying cus even his best mate Gary Neville thought he was cack and wanted him taken off. :lol:

[coxy_saddler]

I'm half cut, I can't be arsed to read the thread, so I'll make two points

1) Forget Theo Walcott... He isn't the question. Everyone seems to be forgetting two words when we talk about strikers... Those are "Jermaine" and "Jenas". My brother didn't even know he was in the World Cup squad till I told him at 2pm today. Its not a question of "Defoe instead of Walcott", its a case of "5th striker instead of Jenas".

2) I'm not a nasty person, and this may be 8 hours worth of booze, but here goes... Ronaldo, if you die a long, slow and painful death, please let me watch. twerp.

Well fudge sed! ronaldo you big twerp

[Registered Saddler]

Most teams took five strikers - as England always did until Euro 2004 when Sven went against custom and only took 4.

Mexico 1986 - 4 strikers (Beardsley, Dixon, Lineker, Hateley)
Italy 1990 - 3 strikers (Beardsley, Lineker, Bull)
Euro 92 - 4 strikers (Clough, Lineker, Smith, Shearer)
Euro 96 - 4 strikers (Shearer, Sheringham, Ferdinand, Fowler)
France 1998 - 4 strikers (Owen, Ferdinand, Shearer, Sheringham)
Euro 2000 - 5 strikers (Shearer, Owen, Heskey, Phillips, Fowler)
Korea/Japan 2002 - 5 strikers (Fowler, Owen, Heskey, Vassell, Sheringham)
Euro 2004 - 4 strikers (Rooney, Owen, Heskey, Vassell)

So, apart from your facts being wrong about ALWAYS taking 5 strikers, you'll note that the two times we did take five, at least one of them did absolutely nothing during the tournament. Your other points are equally invalid, but I have neither the time nor inclination to prove them wrong.

[WFC_Rob]

The squad had more than TWO handfulls of world class players - yet the only ones who really performed were the ones that no-one expected anything from

Jesus F'ing Christ - we had this cup in the bag; but someone took all the belief out of the players (dont beleive me - watch the matches, watch the line up before the matches, look at their eyes! - broken men!!!!)

AND now I want Germany to win; because they have got to the semi's playing football. France? Portugal? Italy? It has to be Germany because they still believe in playing the game

I have to agree with you there - And the difference between Germany and ourselves..........expectation levels. I overheard a conversation a German was having with an English bloke who had just got back from the World Cup at Wimbledon on Thursday and they both said that the German fans and the media expect very little from their team this year. Ok, we might argue that we should have higher expectations because we have more natural ability in the squad, but that's probably the wrong way to see things. Players have a desire to prove the doubters wrong - this is shown by Hargreaves recent performances, Rooney's behaviour at times in the past and numerous others. If everyone is raving about how good they are, how can they prove anyone wrong?

[dornansog]

Most teams took five strikers - as England always did until Euro 2004 when Sven went against custom and only took 4.

Mexico 1986 - 4 strikers (Beardsley, Dixon, Lineker, Hateley)
Italy 1990 - 3 strikers (Beardsley, Lineker, Bull)
Euro 92 - 4 strikers (Clough, Lineker, Smith, Shearer)
Euro 96 - 4 strikers (Shearer, Sheringham, Ferdinand, Fowler)
France 1998 - 4 strikers (Owen, Ferdinand, Shearer, Sheringham)
Euro 2000 - 5 strikers (Shearer, Owen, Heskey, Phillips, Fowler)
Korea/Japan 2002 - 5 strikers (Fowler, Owen, Heskey, Vassell, Sheringham)
Euro 2004 - 4 strikers (Rooney, Owen, Heskey, Vassell)

So, apart from your facts being wrong about ALWAYS taking 5 strikers, you'll note that the two times we did take five, at least one of them did absolutely nothing during the tournament. Your other points are equally invalid, but I have neither the time nor inclination to prove them wrong.

How dare you use facts to dispute other peoples predjudices :lol:

Nice research by the way.

[Brum]

Most teams took five strikers - as England always did until Euro 2004 when Sven went against custom and only took 4.

Mexico 1986 - 4 strikers (Beardsley, Dixon, Lineker, Hateley)
Italy 1990 - 3 strikers (Beardsley, Lineker, Bull)
Euro 92 - 4 strikers (Clough, Lineker, Smith, Shearer)
Euro 96 - 4 strikers (Shearer, Sheringham, Ferdinand, Fowler)
France 1998 - 4 strikers (Owen, Ferdinand, Shearer, Sheringham)
Euro 2000 - 5 strikers (Shearer, Owen, Heskey, Phillips, Fowler)
Korea/Japan 2002 - 5 strikers (Fowler, Owen, Heskey, Vassell, Sheringham)
Euro 2004 - 4 strikers (Rooney, Owen, Heskey, Vassell)

So, apart from your facts being wrong about ALWAYS taking 5 strikers, you'll note that the two times we did take five, at least one of them did absolutely nothing during the tournament. Your other points are equally invalid, but I have neither the time nor inclination to prove them wrong.

ok, so england often take four strikers.. this year we should have taken five because of the fact that 3 of the 4 strikers we DID TAKE had doubts hanging over their heads (injury + inexperience)

circumstances should determine the number of strikers we take, not the amount we've taken in past tournaments. if there is a tried formula, it hasn't worked for the past 40years.

[Registered Saddler]

Brum, not the point I'm making - that was just to show that Bernie's pre-conceived accusations were misjudged. Should we have taken five? It's debateable. Jermaine Jenas was never going to figure so there was a slot going spare. Although the prior injuries to Owen and Rooney had no bearing on their participation in this tournament, bar the opening one-and-a-half games in Rooney's case. If anyone thinks Owen's knee ligament injury was connected to his recovery from a broken foot, they need to do some more medical research.

The question is more would Bent/Defoe/Johnson have made the blindest bit of difference to England's performances in this World Cup? My answer would be categorically no. It would just have been another player to enjoy a free holiday in Germany.

[Stu]

The question is more would Bent/Defoe/Johnson have made the blindest bit of difference to England's performances in this World Cup? My answer would be categorically no. It would just have been another player to enjoy a free holiday in Germany.

Agreed with most except the above...

The difference I think they'd have made is huge... Namely I don't think we'd have resorted to playing 4-5-1 in the 2nd Rd and QF.

As, ultimately, that 4-5-1 formation utilised our best player less than any other formation could have. It left our best player isolated and unable to make any impact.

[Pedagogue]

Most teams took five strikers - as England always did until Euro 2004 when Sven went against custom and only took 4.

Mexico 1986 - 4 strikers (Beardsley, Dixon, Lineker, Hateley)
Italy 1990 - 3 strikers (Beardsley, Lineker, Bull)
Euro 92 - 4 strikers (Clough, Lineker, Smith, Shearer)
Euro 96 - 4 strikers (Shearer, Sheringham, Ferdinand, Fowler)
France 1998 - 4 strikers (Owen, Ferdinand, Shearer, Sheringham)
Euro 2000 - 5 strikers (Shearer, Owen, Heskey, Phillips, Fowler)
Korea/Japan 2002 - 5 strikers (Fowler, Owen, Heskey, Vassell, Sheringham)
Euro 2004 - 4 strikers (Rooney, Owen, Heskey, Vassell)

So, apart from your facts being wrong about ALWAYS taking 5 strikers, you'll note that the two times we did take five, at least one of them did absolutely nothing during the tournament. Your other points are equally invalid, but I have neither the time nor inclination to prove them wrong.

I'm sorry, RS, but that is a cop-out. It is precisely Bernie's other points that highlighted Sven's incompetence. Rooney and Owen were NOT fit at the start of the World Cup, Walcott was a complete waste of a shirt and Crouch still has a lot to do be a true international striker. All the more reason to take a 5th striker as, by your own admittance, ENGLAND HAVE DONE FOR 2 OF THE LAST 3 TOURNAMENTS.

He has failed to evolve tactics to get the best out of players, he has favourites - players who are "untouchables", he was grossly overpaid (not his fault, admittedly), he failed to use friendly matches effectively, he has regularly been unable to change the teamplay at half-time (unlike our opponents), he does not know how to use substitutes - in short, the man has been a disaster. I will keep an open mind on McLaren - I just hope he isn't tarred with the Eriksson brush.

[Bernie]

Most teams took five strikers - as England always did until Euro 2004 when Sven went against custom and only took 4.

Mexico 1986 - 4 strikers (Beardsley, Dixon, Lineker, Hateley)
Italy 1990 - 3 strikers (Beardsley, Lineker, Bull)
Euro 92 - 4 strikers (Clough, Lineker, Smith, Shearer)
Euro 96 - 4 strikers (Shearer, Sheringham, Ferdinand, Fowler)
France 1998 - 4 strikers (Owen, Ferdinand, Shearer, Sheringham)
Euro 2000 - 5 strikers (Shearer, Owen, Heskey, Phillips, Fowler)
Korea/Japan 2002 - 5 strikers (Fowler, Owen, Heskey, Vassell, Sheringham)
Euro 2004 - 4 strikers (Rooney, Owen, Heskey, Vassell)

So, apart from your facts being wrong about ALWAYS taking 5 strikers, you'll note that the two times we did take five, at least one of them did absolutely nothing during the tournament. Your other points are equally invalid, but I have neither the time nor inclination to prove them wrong.

You are again totally correct except for:

Mexico 86 when we also took John Barnes to make 5
Italy 90 when we also had Chris Waddle and Barnes to make 5
Euro 92 when we also had Tony Daley to make 5 forwards in a squad of 20.
France 98 when we also had Paul Merson to make 5

All of those were described in the official squad lists as forwards - not as midfielders. I suppose you could well argue that Waddle and Merson are better known as midfielders, but in our current squad there are many who would argue that Rooney is also best when played "in the hole".

As for your statement that most teams at this year's World Cup took 4 strikers. A little research will show you that only 9 of the 32 teams took 4 forwards.
14 teams took 5 forwards; 8 teams took 6 or 7 forwards.

Sven was not alone in taking only 2 fit strikers - the same tactic was employed by Tunisia.

[saddibler]

[quote="Pedro"]We have to give McLaren a chance . after all he is the only person on the bench showing some passion, telling the players what to do[/quote

Does anyone know what Sammy Lee does?

[coxy_saddler]

Hargreaves showed the most passion in a ENGLAND shirt, Who is part German, Part Canadian. Says it all.

[SheffieldSaddler]

Well what can you say.
3 penalties out of 4 missed by England, you will never win a shoot out with those stats.
Ronaldo, I hope you get crippled, you DIRTY, CHEATING, PIECE OF SH@T.

[Neuromantic]

well, ive had several san miguels, and i cant really be arsed to say much apart from the fact we were cheated again, cheated by portugal, and cheated by our so called manager and players. gerrard was crap, lampard was shocking, to highlight a few.

but for me, i only give praise to one man, owen hargreaves. brilliant.

[Kevthesaddler]

Ravenscrift or who ever put that message on the front page of this forun can go fudge them selves.....go on fudge yourselves, I dont care if you and all the portgual palyers & Staff all die slowly & painfully

[merse-iah's disciple]

I said it in the build up to the World Cup and i'll say it again - Football is a TEAM GAME i don't care that we have two "World Class" Midfielders in Gerrard & LAmpard.

They DON'T play well in the same team - so don;t bloody pick them! Hargreaves (my England player of the torunament) should be the defensive midfielder with Gerrard bombing forward as he dies at Liverpool.

I am going to bed - not p***ed off anymore, just annoyed and disappointed.

[Exile]

Ravenscrift or who ever put that message on the front page of this forun can go **** them selves.....go on **** yourselves, I dont care if you and all the portgual palyers & Staff all die slowly & painfully

If you don't like the site, **** off and join another one, or start your own, or write some stuff that you do like for this site (a blog entry will always get on the front page, for instance). Mindless rubbish like you've just posted above does nothing to endear you to the majoirty of people on here.

[We-ARE-Walsall]

Well every one has their own opinion. Me i blame Sven Completely

First of all the debate about 4 or 5 strikers, no brainer, Owen had hardly played, and is injury prone to say the least, Rooney was a risk, obviously worth taking that risk, but we needed more back up. Walcott shouldn't have gone, and he clearly had no intention of using him.

Then why are we still experimenting with formations during a world cup, because he wants to fit beckham in ? because he didn't have enough strikers? or because he simply didn't know what he was doing ? I sudgest all of the above.

If we had Scolari, or Hiddink, you would have seen us go organised, with a game plan, players knowing what they where doing.

Some of the players where a big let down also, i must say well done to Hargreaves, been a big critic of his, but the bloke showed them the way to go yesterday, although i still felt if playing that formation, Carrick was mighty unlucky not to get the nod

[Exile]

Our game's just been reported on in the NZ evening news, along with the Brazil match. Imagine my total lack of surprise to see the old racial stereotypes trotted out.

The Brazilian game newsfeed managed to find some appropriate Brazilian totty with good English, who philosophically shrugged and said "what can we do? We wait for 2010".

The English game newsfeed managed to mention 100 "fan" arrests, show some drunk being taken away by German cops, then find a pom in NZ who'd stayed up drinking all night (no, not me) and managed to edit his wisdom to the one slur: "the refs are all shaite".

Where would we be without responsible journalism?

[SaigonSaddler]

Most teams took five strikers - as England always did until Euro 2004 when Sven went against custom and only took 4.

Mexico 1986 - 4 strikers (Beardsley, Dixon, Lineker, Hateley)
Italy 1990 - 3 strikers (Beardsley, Lineker, Bull)
Euro 92 - 4 strikers (Clough, Lineker, Smith, Shearer)
Euro 96 - 4 strikers (Shearer, Sheringham, Ferdinand, Fowler)
France 1998 - 4 strikers (Owen, Ferdinand, Shearer, Sheringham)
Euro 2000 - 5 strikers (Shearer, Owen, Heskey, Phillips, Fowler)
Korea/Japan 2002 - 5 strikers (Fowler, Owen, Heskey, Vassell, Sheringham)
Euro 2004 - 4 strikers (Rooney, Owen, Heskey, Vassell)

So, apart from your facts being wrong about ALWAYS taking 5 strikers, you'll note that the two times we did take five, at least one of them did absolutely nothing during the tournament. Your other points are equally invalid, but I have neither the time nor inclination to prove them wrong.

I'm sorry, RS, but that is a cop-out. It is precisely Bernie's other points that highlighted Sven's incompetence. Rooney and Owen were NOT fit at the start of the World Cup, Walcott was a complete waste of a shirt and Crouch still has a lot to do be a true international striker. All the more reason to take a 5th striker as, by your own admittance, ENGLAND HAVE DONE FOR 2 OF THE LAST 3 TOURNAMENTS.

He has failed to evolve tactics to get the best out of players, he has favourites - players who are "untouchables", he was grossly overpaid (not his fault, admittedly), he failed to use friendly matches effectively, he has regularly been unable to change the teamplay at half-time (unlike our opponents), he does not know how to use substitutes - in short, the man has been a disaster. I will keep an open mind on McLaren - I just hope he isn't tarred with the Eriksson brush.

Completely agree Leamore

[cyclothymic]

"And it was morning
And I found myself mourning,
For a childhood that I thought had disappeared
I looked out the window
And I saw a magpie in the rainbow, the rain had gone
I'm not alone, I turned to the mirror
I saw you, the child, that once loved

The child before they broke his heart
Our heart, the heart that I believed was lost "

2008

2010

COME ON ENGLAND

[Cully]

He has failed to evolve tactics to get the best out of players, he has favourites - players who are "untouchables", he was grossly overpaid (not his fault, admittedly), he failed to use friendly matches effectively, he has regularly been unable to change the teamplay at half-time (unlike our opponents), he does not know how to use substitutes - in short, the man has been a disaster. I will keep an open mind on McLaren - I just hope he isn't tarred with the Eriksson brush.

Eriksson must take all the blame. I agree Leamore, the man was a disaster for England, for the players, for the way we played, for the appalling tactics, for wrecking our hopes[if we had any misguided ones before this current debacle] and even for getting Rooney sent off. He must have known full well that playing Rooney upfront on his own out of position would lead to frustration for the player which eventually led to his unfair sending off. He obviously cannot motivate his players and it is his lack of leadership that was responsible for the way we played. I do not blame any of the players, even those that underperformed like Beckham and Lampard, Sven did not make the difficult decisions needed by a manager when players need dropping. Once again, we actually started to play well after the sending off when the players had to revert to their own natural game and were self motivated by the dilemma Sven had contrived by his negative appalling tactics. I am glad that this tw*t is going after wrecking our chances in so many tournaments, what a waste of £35 million on an international con trick, I can only hope that we can revert to proper formations, tactics and players in form for our next adventure.
Having re-read that, I also apportion some of the blame for our failure on John Motsons fawning commentry and the Argentinian referee for their bias towards our opponents. Why don't some referees understand the rules of cheating it's seems pretty obvious to me? How about watching the match after the performance and trying to learn from their 'mistakes'.

[Ian Gittins]

Our game's just been reported on in the NZ evening news, along with the Brazil match. Imagine my total lack of surprise to see the old racial stereotypes trotted out.

The Brazilian game newsfeed managed to find some appropriate Brazilian totty with good English, who philosophically shrugged and said "what can we do? We wait for 2010".

The English game newsfeed managed to mention 100 "fan" arrests, show some drunk being taken away by German cops, then find a pom in NZ who'd stayed up drinking all night (no, not me) and managed to edit his wisdom to the one slur: "the refs are all shaite".

Where would we be without responsible journalism?

But a lot of these stereotypes are grounded in truth, Exile. Many England fans ARE boorish thugs. The second the game finished yesterday, a load of neaderthals from the local pub stormed round to an African cafe on the corner of my road, full of people whose only crime was not to be indigenous English, and smashed the place to pieces. Did the same happen in downtown Rio? I doubt it, somehow. And were Brazilian fans arrested for drunken loutishness after their match, like 70 or 80 of our "brave lads" were in Gelsenkirchen?

[SaigonSaddler]

He has failed to evolve tactics to get the best out of players, he has favourites - players who are "untouchables", he was grossly overpaid (not his fault, admittedly), he failed to use friendly matches effectively, he has regularly been unable to change the teamplay at half-time (unlike our opponents), he does not know how to use substitutes - in short, the man has been a disaster. I will keep an open mind on McLaren - I just hope he isn't tarred with the Eriksson brush.

Eriksson must take all the blame. I agree Leamore, the man was a disaster for England, for the players, for the way we played, for the appalling tactics, for wrecking our hopes[if we had any misguided ones before this current debacle] and even for getting Rooney sent off. He must have known full well that playing Rooney upfront on his own out of position would lead to frustration for the player which eventually led to his unfair sending off. He obviously cannot motivate his players and it is his lack of leadership that was responsible for the way we played. I do not blame any of the players, even those that underperformed like Beckham and Lampard, Sven did not make the difficult decisions needed by a manager when players need dropping. Once again, we actually started to play well after the sending off when the players had to revert to their own natural game and were self motivated by the dilemma Sven had contrived by his negative appalling tactics. I am glad that this tw*t is going after wrecking our chances in so many tournaments, what a waste of £35 million on an international con trick, I can only hope that we can revert to proper formations, tactics and players in form for our next adventure.
Having re-read that, I also apportion some of the blame for our failure on John Motsons fawning commentry and the Argentinian referee for their bias towards our opponents. Why don't some referees understand the rules of cheating it's seems pretty obvious to me? How about watching the match after the performance and trying to learn from their 'mistakes'.

I'd agree with all that as well before adding the following:

sven : inadequate fart
Rooney : sums up the chav culture in Britain - petulence and immaturity of the highest order
ronaldo : cheating git, but them's the rules as they stand thanks to FIFA, he didn't push anyone away so he stayed on
lampard : useless bottler - can't blame sven for his choice of shooting 25+ times, and failed peno. You need to work harder on your football and less on your tan you git.
FIFA and the FA - what a bunch of w2nkers :x

Heroes - Ashley Cole and the defence, Hargreaves, Lennon, Crouch did all he could. Gerrard is not to blame, Beckham tried his best and did produce the goods - in terms of goals/assists - when asked.

[Registered Saddler]

In the cold light of morning...

My final word on the 4/5 strikers debate is thus. If you're counting wingers Barnes, Waddle et al as strikers in previous tournaments then I'm going to include Joe Cole as a fifth striker in this a) because Sven said he could play there and b) because he did play there against Paraguay. But I still don't believe having eg Darren Bent in Germany would have made any difference. Sven played 4-5-1 when he could have played Rooney and Crouch up front. If he'd taken Bent, would he have started with Bent and Rooney in that match? I doubt it. 4-5-1 was the back-up if Owen or Rooney were unavailable.

So we have to ignore the red herring of not taking a fifth striker and look at his tactics. I truly believe that with 11 men we would have won. We were set up to win that match and there is no doubt in my mind we would have done. OK so we play a bit negatively, but when you have got a defence like ours then why not play to our strengths? I'm disappointed that the woeful Lampard kept his place - and missed our best chance again - and that is one criticism I would make of Sven (as well as of Lampard). When we went down to 10 we had to adjust and I thought he got it spot on. We coped with Portugal fairly comfortably and they hardly had a chance in the last 60 minutes of the game. I don't see what we could have done differently in terms of tactics for the last part of that game.

Am I disappointed we're out? Incredibly so. Could we have won the last three tournaments? Quite possibly. Did Sven make mistakes? Almost certainly. But that doesn't mean I'm going to castigate him for another penalty shoot-out defeat, because I know the lines between success and failure are so thin. Take France for example. We did what we could and it didn't come off. How different the history of English football would be if we had Germany's record at penalty shoot-outs. Or indeed Liverpool's record come to think of it. It's heart-wrenching and it's too easy to blame it all on the manager. So if it makes people feel better then continue to heap blame and foul-mouthed insult on Sven, but personally I think you're plain wrong.