Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
urban.spaceman

LCFC vs Villa (A) Match Thread

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

We'll win this now 

 

Kasper might well be headed for a falling out with Rodgers IMO, just got a feeling his career here will end acrimoniously.

He is the player that needs replacing g next realistically. 
 

Pep did it with Hart. Klopp did it with Karius.


Henderson would be interesting if he wan to out of Manchester United.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest StevieLynex
Just now, Wolfox said:

Jesus wept…. Our ballon d’or nominated keeper has a muff up and he’s instantly garbage

 

Wow !

Bit like De Gea then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, moore_94 said:

By the rules I guess the decision was technically correct...

 

image.png.67bd3c21a4a6a12e290aad6b6f3a78bd.png

Thank you for this. No doubt, we are really lucky, and although our captain's performance isn't the best today, shouldn't discount the fact that it was a considered a great save by Kasper. He played by the rule, not sure why the everyone seem so surprised. Let's keep cheering on boys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, foxes_rule1978 said:

Yes seems it is no goal, because Kasper had it between the ground and hand… right decision 

Im not sure the law makers were thinking about this particular scenario. 1/12 of a second he had been touching the ball apparently lol

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, fazzyfox said:

Yeah thanks Kasper for getting hurt and sticking your hand down among flying boots :appl:I'd love to say the whole of FT are concerned for your well being but....

He’s paid handsomely for doing this. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

It is a foul. It's not a foul because he kicked Kasper, it's a foul because Kasper is judged to have control of the ball because he's got one hand to it first and is pressing it to the ground. This is enough to be "control."

 

The old idea that the keeper needs to have it in two hands isn't actually the law. 

fair enough, I thought it was 2 hands

Another one where  the old way is better for me - 2 hands or not is objective, 'under control' is not..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sunbury Fox said:

I can't remember the last time that our defence was this bad. They've not played well at all and yet we look like conceding every time they get in our half.

We need to get back to having Wilf screen the defence on his own, playing him in a two isn't helping anyone.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...