Liverpool vs West Ham | PL | 28.2.26 | Predictions & Match Thread

[Mad Ferret]

Thanks MF.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Match Centre: 

Live data by Scoreaxis

 Odds: 
WHU: 6/1
Draw: 4/1
Bin Dippers: 6/1

 Pre-Match Press Conference: 
Official Site

 Match Preview: 
Analytics United

 Watch-along:
Hammers Chat

Streams:

Sport+

 If there above doesn't work go look for a Stream from the sites listed here!

https://champagne.pages.dev/docs/gettin ... ive-sports
 
 (With all live streams be mindful they can carry viruses etc.  Don't click on any ads and use a VPN).
   ------------------------------

---------------

Due a result at Anfield.

.........................Hermanson

AWB.....Mavropanos.....Disasi....Diouf

Bowen.....Magassa.....Fernandes.....Summerville

............................Soucek

........................Taty Costalot

[ragingbull]

Would love a point 

[Manuel]

Simple optimists aside, you want to be positive about it but the bare reality of our appalling record there and the fact that they're a good side makes it difficult. I suppose our recent upturn in form is where any optimism comes from, so I'm hoping we can somehow manage to garnish a point to take back down south. A little bit of lady luck wouldn't go amiss either.

[Come On You Irons]

Theoretically this is our best chance for years to get an away win at Anfield. But history and logic tells us that it will be a home win.

Probably be something like a standard 2-0 defeat but I hope I'm wrong.

[Takashi Miike]

I expect him to try and grind out a draw, which won't end well. Of course I hope I'm wrong

[Beef&Tomato]

Would love us to nick something up there but it's written in the Domesday book that West Ham lose at Anfield. 

[Manuel]

Think I'd start Traore in this game, and either stick him up with Taty, or moved Bowen up top and stick him down the right. 

Hopefully it being a big team, and a start, he'd be up for it (and worse case he might fall on top of Salah and break him). 

I think it's a good option to have to start Traore, but I don't see it happening today up there, maybe at Fulham, but just guessing really.

[Monsieur merde de cheval]

We could borrow  a peak  Banks/Bonds/stoichkov/puskas/Cruyff 
we'd still lose at Anfield.
It's as sure as night meets day

[BoleynGone]

I critise the manager for getting Traore in the first place. What don't you get ? Of course he needs criticism when he a) only uses 2 subs b) then not play the guy he brought in when we needed something different in the exact circumstances he would have wanted.

[stubbo-admin]

Think I'd start Traore in this game, and either stick him up with Taty, or moved Bowen up top and stick him down the right. 

Hopefully it being a big team, and a start, he'd be up for it (and worse case he might fall on top of Salah and break him). 

[Westham67]

We will need more legs in midfield with Liverpool

...........Hermansen
AWB Mavros Disasi Diouf
Bowen Magassa Fernandes Summerville
..........Wilson.... Taty

[dealcanvey]

Hermansen
KWP Mavro Disasi Diouf
AWB Soucek Fernandes Summerville
Bowen Taty

[John Drake]

Surely we have to go to the two up top?

Last time out, bar the odd corner in the early stages we didnt really look very exciting or creative

Wilson comes on, and suddenly our link up play works so much better - not giving Wilson 100% credit here, just that Tatty also looks better in a two and it means Bowen & Summerville have more space with teh two Cb's having to pick up players

Our goal difference is gone, so not to much to worry on that front

go for the win! 

Except our goal difference actually isn't gone. 

It's only 3 different to Forest.  we win 2-0, they lose 2-0, ours is then better.

We did more than enough to beat Bournmouth and barring 3 great saves and some bad luck we'd have won that game comfortably.

Wilson...just don't see it. He's struggled when coming on, had a couple of chances against Bournemouth where if he was this clinical super striker he'd have tucked them away, and greatly affects us in other areas when on the pitch. 

He's a no from me except under the most dire of circumstances, or hoping for a last 15 min slice of good forutne.  When ever he comes on our ability to win the ball high up the field diminishes, and we get pushed further and further back into our half.

As he came on for Soucek against Bournemouth I would venture that our ability to win the ball high up the field was little changed.

You would have to remind me about the three great saves. We only had 3 shots on target and I'm not remembering too many goalkeeping heroics

[stubbo-admin]

Surely we have to go to the two up top?

Last time out, bar the odd corner in the early stages we didnt really look very exciting or creative

Wilson comes on, and suddenly our link up play works so much better - not giving Wilson 100% credit here, just that Tatty also looks better in a two and it means Bowen & Summerville have more space with teh two Cb's having to pick up players

Our goal difference is gone, so not to much to worry on that front

go for the win! 

Except our goal difference actually isn't gone. 

It's only 3 different to Forest.  we win 2-0, they lose 2-0, ours is then better.

We did more than enough to beat Bournmouth and barring 3 great saves and some bad luck we'd have won that game comfortably.

Wilson...just don't see it. He's struggled when coming on, had a couple of chances against Bournemouth where if he was this clinical super striker he'd have tucked them away, and greatly affects us in other areas when on the pitch. 

He's a no from me except under the most dire of circumstances, or hoping for a last 15 min slice of good forutne.  When ever he comes on our ability to win the ball high up the field diminishes, and we get pushed further and further back into our half.

[Sanacs on tour]

Surely we have to go to the two up top?

Last time out, bar the odd corner in the early stages we didnt really look very exciting or creative

Wilson comes on, and suddenly our link up play works so much better - not giving Wilson 100% credit here, just that Tatty also looks better in a two and it means Bowen & Summerville have more space with teh two Cb's having to pick up players

Our goal difference is gone, so not to much to worry on that front

go for the win! 

[fraser]

Regardless of how its measured it would still have been measured the same as all those games that went before it so not skewed as all done the same. 

[onsideman]

I don't put much, if any, stock in xG either - however I imagine it doesn't simply reflect shots on target. If a player gets into a goalscoring position but blazes over, it would obviously be counted as an 'expected goal' in most circumstances.

I was there too and thought we lacked finishing but not much else 

[John Drake]

 

Least threatening we had looked?

"...West Ham registered an XG score of 3.27 without scoring, which is a new PL record and the sixth highest all-time in all European top-flight leagues..."

Another metric had it at 2.54, the highest without scoring for any team in the PL in 4 years

 

 

Not a big fan of xG but it was patchy. According to the stats an xG of 1.40 in the opening 5 minutes and an additional 1.25 after Wilson came on in the 72nd minute. Not so much goal threat in between

[Rossal]

 

Least threatening we had looked?

"...West Ham registered an XG score of 3.27 without scoring, which is a new PL record and the sixth highest all-time in all European top-flight leagues..."

Another metric had it at 2.54, the highest without scoring for any team in the PL in 4 years

Thought that sounded mad as I was at the game.  The bbc report has XG lower.  3 shots on target and their keeper made 3 saves. The last time we had less than 3 shots on target was Wolves away. 

I think XG is a load of shite but that's basically saying every shot on target should have gone in plus one of the shots off target?   farfetched.   How can diff sites display different XG also? 

[onsideman]

 

Least threatening we had looked?

"...West Ham registered an XG score of 3.27 without scoring, which is a new PL record and the sixth highest all-time in all European top-flight leagues..."

Another metric had it at 2.54, the highest without scoring for any team in the PL in 4 years

[Rossal]

Yes I think we all agree we are light in that department, but like I say there is more than one way to skin a cat and don't believe the only option is to play the exact same type of player. Don't you think we played well enough against B'mouth without him and prior to that Man Utd? 

 

With our squad there isnt really many ways to skin the cat at all.   Lets have it right this season we've been absolute dogshit trying 4 at the back, 5 at the back, inverted wing backs, 1 up front, changing keepers.  

It's been an absolute mess until we got the two strikers in and stuck two up top and pressed high up the pitch.  This season that is the ONLY way we have looked like a side that won't get thumped. When we move off of that in game, we are under the cosh again and have dropped shit loads of points. 

So yes, we should be obsessed with formation, as theres only one that will keep us up. 

Clearly there is more than one way to skin a cat as we played well against B'Mouth and Man Utd without him. You are way too much hard work and a bit tedious if I can be honest. Have you ever been right about anything?

Playing the same formation,  fans are obsessed with the two up top as its the only way we look like a competent side. Thats the point....  and even though he doesnt look like an amazing player, the formation doesnt work half as well without Pablo in the side.   I dont think we played that well against Bournemouth, it was the least threatening going forward we had looked in a while. 

[Manuel]

But isn't that the conundrum? He is a very limited footballer but his presence appears to have brought a better balance to the team - unless the improved results since his introduction is a coincidence. Given that he is limited should make him easier to replace.

Ideally, we would have alternatives but are woefully short of attacking options.

Yes I think we all agree we are light in that department, but like I say there is more than one way to skin a cat and don't believe the only option is to play the exact same type of player. Don't you think we played well enough against B'mouth without him and prior to that Man Utd? 

 

With our squad there isnt really many ways to skin the cat at all.   Lets have it right this season we've been absolute dogshit trying 4 at the back, 5 at the back, inverted wing backs, 1 up front, changing keepers.  

It's been an absolute mess until we got the two strikers in and stuck two up top and pressed high up the pitch.  This season that is the ONLY way we have looked like a side that won't get thumped. When we move off of that in game, we are under the cosh again and have dropped shit loads of points. 

So yes, we should be obsessed with formation, as theres only one that will keep us up. 

Clearly there is more than one way to skin a cat as we played well against B'Mouth and Man Utd without him. You are way too much hard work and a bit tedious if I can be honest. Have you ever been right about anything?

[Rossal]

No I'm really not suggesting that at all, just stating that ''like for like'' replacements are not necessarily the way to go and that too much emphasis  is put on doing just that by some. There is more than one way to skin a cat and as you say the manager should have the ability to be able to change things up when god forbid we have an injury. I think you got the wrong end of the stick, fella.

Tbh it's become nauseating and just plain weird that some are talking Pablo up like he's the second coming.

But isn't that the conundrum? He is a very limited footballer but his presence appears to have brought a better balance to the team - unless the improved results since his introduction is a coincidence. Given that he is limited should make him easier to replace.

Ideally, we would have alternatives but are woefully short of attacking options.

Yes I think we all agree we are light in that department, but like I say there is more than one way to skin a cat and don't believe the only option is to play the exact same type of player. Don't you think we played well enough against B'mouth without him and prior to that Man Utd? 

 

 

With our squad there isnt really many ways to skin the cat at all.   Lets have it right this season we've been absolute dogshit trying 4 at the back, 5 at the back, inverted wing backs, 1 up front, changing keepers.  

It's been an absolute mess until we got the two strikers in and stuck two up top and pressed high up the pitch.  This season that is the ONLY way we have looked like a side that won't get thumped. When we move off of that in game, we are under the cosh again and have dropped shit loads of points. 

So yes, we should be obsessed with formation, as theres only one that will keep us up. 

[Manuel]

But isn't that the conundrum? He is a very limited footballer but his presence appears to have brought a better balance to the team - unless the improved results since his introduction is a coincidence. Given that he is limited should make him easier to replace.

Ideally, we would have alternatives but are woefully short of attacking options.

Yes I think we all agree we are light in that department, but like I say there is more than one way to skin a cat and don't believe the only option is to play the exact same type of player. Don't you think we played well enough against B'mouth without him and prior to that Man Utd? 

Yes, I thought the performances against Manchester United and Bournemouth were both decent. But, of course, we didn't win either of them. And I don't think the other way to skin the cat - a midfield three of Fernandes, Soucek and Magassa/ Potts - offers enough attacking threat or support to the forwards who, as a result, are marked more tightly.

My point isn't to big up Pablo but to suggest that his blunt instrument role shouldn't be too difficult to replicate. But perhaps there isn't anyone. And I agree with your earlier point - Marshall wouldn't be the answer   

I think it's a lazy and unfounded argument to suggest we would have won both those games had he played, if that's what you are suggesting, I would doubt that, and we didn't always win when he played. I don't think we're the first and only side that have had to change things up when a player is missing. I don't see it as a major problem, and others have said the same on here. 

What is your prediction for tomorrow, without Pablo?

[John Drake]

No I'm really not suggesting that at all, just stating that ''like for like'' replacements are not necessarily the way to go and that too much emphasis  is put on doing just that by some. There is more than one way to skin a cat and as you say the manager should have the ability to be able to change things up when god forbid we have an injury. I think you got the wrong end of the stick, fella.

Tbh it's become nauseating and just plain weird that some are talking Pablo up like he's the second coming.

But isn't that the conundrum? He is a very limited footballer but his presence appears to have brought a better balance to the team - unless the improved results since his introduction is a coincidence. Given that he is limited should make him easier to replace.

Ideally, we would have alternatives but are woefully short of attacking options.

Yes I think we all agree we are light in that department, but like I say there is more than one way to skin a cat and don't believe the only option is to play the exact same type of player. Don't you think we played well enough against B'mouth without him and prior to that Man Utd? 

Yes, I thought the performances against Manchester United and Bournemouth were both decent. But, of course, we didn't win either of them. And I don't think the other way to skin the cat - a midfield three of Fernandes, Soucek and Magassa/ Potts - offers enough attacking threat or support to the forwards who, as a result, are marked more tightly.

My point isn't to big up Pablo but to suggest that his blunt instrument role shouldn't be too difficult to replicate. But perhaps there isn't anyone. And I agree with your earlier point - Marshall wouldn't be the answer   

[Manuel]

 

Are you really suggesting that tactics and formations are irrelevant? That the way a manager sets his team up has no bearing on performances and results? Sounds a bit odd to me. Surely, the role of a good manager is to matching tactical approach with the ability of players at his disposal. If its only about ability the role of the manager is redundant.

It's a measure of our poor squad depth that there is no-one to replace what Pablo has been doing. 

No I'm really not suggesting that at all, just stating that ''like for like'' replacements are not necessarily the way to go and that too much emphasis  is put on doing just that by some. There is more than one way to skin a cat and as you say the manager should have the ability to be able to change things up when god forbid we have an injury. I think you got the wrong end of the stick, fella.

Tbh it's become nauseating and just plain weird that some are talking Pablo up like he's the second coming.

But isn't that the conundrum? He is a very limited footballer but his presence appears to have brought a better balance to the team - unless the improved results since his introduction is a coincidence. Given that he is limited should make him easier to replace.

Ideally, we would have alternatives but are woefully short of attacking options.

Yes I think we all agree we are light in that department, but like I say there is more than one way to skin a cat and don't believe the only option is to play the exact same type of player. Don't you think we played well enough against B'mouth without him and prior to that Man Utd?