Topic: Er...NO! We deserved to win the Cup!

[Fitzy.]

It has caught my attention, and probably everybody else's that the general consensus after Saturday's wonderful game is that West Ham were robbed. For me, this is simply sentimental garbage peddled by London hacks who were crying into their prawn sandwiches as Gerrard's 35 yard screamer hit the back of the net.

The notion that West Ham deserved to win implies that Liverpool didn't. This really bugs me. I actually can't think of a more worthy and hard-fought winner of an FA Cup than Liverpool. On our way to Cardiff we came from 3-1 behind to win 5-3 against a plucky Luton team. That match in itself was regarded as one of the finest 3rd round games in living memory.

After seeing off Portsmouth we go and beat Manchester United with a very solid performance. This was then followed by an utterly superb 7-0 thumping of Brum - a frightening exhibition of clinical football. From there we produced a great display against "unbeatable" Chelsea.

Finally, we find ourselves 2-0 and 3-2 down in a Cup Final and still turn it around - and in the dying seconds to boot.

Overall we've scored 20 goals on our way to glory - a truly stunning feat and something that should not be overlooked. It's almost patronising and down-right ignorant to suggest that West Ham - scorers of three of the most flukey/crap Cup Final goals ever - were robbed.

So yes, Liverpool deserved the cup and don't let anybody convince you otherwise.

[Forbsie]

No argument from me about us deserving to win it.

[Riises left boot]

could not agree more and thats all everbodys been saying to me (in Newcastle) that WH deserved to win. and if it wasn't for gerrard.....
pisses me off aswell

[Grobbelrevell]

To be honest, dont think anyone (besides the west ham fans maybe) has been implying they were robbed and deserved to win.
Just acknowledging the fact that even as losers of the final they played a huge part in a great game as that is very easy to forget in the wake of stevies wonderful 35 yard bullet.

I for one acknowledge that they were great on the day, including their fans (as were we) and together we produced a great final, and yes we deserved to win, but it would have been very easy for the hammers to turn up and go for damage limitation ala southampton/millwall etc

The fact they went for it and pushed us so very close deserves some kind of recognition in my eyes, whilst at the same time remembering whose name is on the cup.

[zigackly]

Fairly obvious this one: we dominated possession, territory and shots on goal. All three of our goals were top draw, and theirs were lucky. We also had a legitimate goal disallowed.

Don't get me wrong: they played well. But not well enough. And they were lucky in a sense that we didn't find the top of our game for a sustained period.

In the end, when it goes to penalties you can say that neither side deserved to lose. But that doesn't mean we robbed them: we won that cup on merit.

[Luis Garcia scores again]

the final could have gone either way to be fair.

[montse]

the london based broadsheets i've read on internet have said that crouch's goal is offside, "rightly disallowed", but the bbc and sky coverage both say it is onside.  I think this says it all, the tv broadcaster has to show replays so they find it harder to lie, whereas the london journo's don't show any evidence to back up their argument.

[Walter Sobchak]

dead right mate. i think a lot of people let the romance of the cup cloud their better judgement. we battered them but beacause we scored in the last minute we got 'lucky'. bollox

[IrishDave]

To be fair, it would have been the same no matter who West Ham were playing.

Bloody hacks never let the facts get in the way of a good story. They are just sick of the sight of us winning trophies.

[Bucke]

Just because they didn't deserve to lose doesn't automatically mean they deserved to win

[Brick Tamland]

Who cares... When all's said and done, we're the ones polishing it for a year.

[DaveLFC]

Who cares... When all's said and done, we're the ones polishing it for a year.

Just a year? I'll be polishing it for years after that final.

[Fitzy.]

Just a year? I'll be polishing it for years after that final.

Very good.

[matthew45]

It's also worth pointing out that all 3 Hammers goals were very fortunate: an og, a fumble and a cross-turned shot.

Other than that, they didn't really threaten our goal

[Armin]

Other than that, they didn't really threaten our goal

I felt distinctly threatened when reina had to stretch to put the ball on the bar and Harewood had a chance to bury it in extra time...

[hoonin]

The majority of reports I read on the Sunday were that both teams would have been worthy winners of what was a pulsating match once it got going.

The funiest thing to read though are the views of other fans, who have picked the game apart saying it was "not a classic" and "was of a poor standard" or "the football was technically poor". Yeah right, as if you'd be of that view if you were ambling out of the Millennium stadium on Saturday.

Fuck that. If you want technically perfect 0-0 draws go and live in Italy and watch Serie A. For me, I'll take a keenly fought game with excitment and a constant stream of events every day of the week. The obvious exception to that being Europe, where the quality does need to be higher in order to succeed and you have to accept that sometimes the football can be more sedate and tactical.

[Tuesday]

the final could have gone either way to be fair.

Agreed. 

[Interceptor]

For us, luck didn't come into it.  Gerrard gets the ball 35 yards out with the clock ticking down.  Being the world class leader that he is, he would never waste possession by having a rash - one in a hundred chance of scoring - shot on goal.

He KNEW he would score the minute he saw the ball coming in his direction!

[Hunts Cross]

I wouldn't get too wound up by this. Everybody loves an underdog. They were really up for it, and showed a tremendous spirit and belief. Yes they were lucky with their goals, but they were a threat anyway. Think of the two saves Raina made with his feet seconds apart....or the bounce off the back of Reo Cocker's neck that Reina tipped onto the post. And a decent free kick, hard and low, that Reina scrambled down to collect.

It took three amazing goals to take them to extra time. That's how good they were.

No matter when goals are scored, they count just the same, yet when a team concedes past the 90th minute to lose their lead, it feels like robbed, doesn't it?

Did you feel robbed by Ferdinand's goal at Old Trafford? I did.

We were poor on the day. I continue to believe our emotional cup final was the game against Chelsea. We just didn't have an edge about us in Cardiff, apart from one very, very special player.

Also, take a look at the player ratings: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/fa_cup/player_ratings/default.stm

Largely from neutrals, I'd guess. Almost to a man, West Ham players ranked above ours. To be perceived to play better on the day, and come off losers, has a sense of robbed all over it.

[inmylife]

They did threaten a couple of times. Ashton pulled a shot wide in the first half and we all remember the heart in mouth moment at the end.

But I agree, all three of their goals did had an element of luck about them. Ok, so people say you don't win anything without luck. Maybe so, but you would usually expect to concede a goal like one of theirs in something like one in ten matches. So to concede like that in 90 minutes was pretty odd.

But who cares. We won the cup and that's all that matters.

It's also worth pointing out that all 3 Hammers goals were very fortunate: an og, a fumble and a cross-turned shot.

Other than that, they didn't really threaten our goal

[Hunts Cross]

For us, luck didn't come into it.  Gerrard gets the ball 35 yards out with the clock ticking down.  Being the world class leader that he is, he would never waste possession by having a rash - one in a hundred chance of scoring - shot on goal.

He KNEW he would score the minute he saw the ball coming in his direction!

I read an inerview with SG where he said he knew he'd hit the ball in the sweet spot, but it didn't go where he'd wanted it to.....he was just happy to see it fly into the goal.

[RigBon1892]

I knew he would score the minute that ball left his foot, I just thought to myself, "Thats it, thats the equaliser"

West Ham didnt deserve to lose, thats true but it doesnt necessarily mean they deserved to win

The funiest thing to read though are the views of other fans, who have picked the game apart saying it was "not a classic" and "was of a poor standard" or "the football was technically poor". Yeah right, as if you'd be of that view if you were ambling out of the Millennium stadium on Saturday.

you what?? How was that NOT  a classic??

My Mank mate came up to me after the game, said congratulations, and offered me a pint, and then said, but more importantly, that was a fantastic game of football

[cjoseph]

to be honest the way we played in the first half it looked like we expected to win the final in a walk.  Apart from two 'lucky' goals from West Ham (and Crouch's goal should not have been disallowed btw) I thought they were the better side for a lot of the match.  However we did find a way to score when it counted and West Ham didn't.

[Fitzy.]

to be honest the way we played in the first half it looked like we expected to win the final in a walk.  Apart from two 'lucky' goals from West Ham (and Crouch's goal should not have been disallowed btw) I thought they were the better side for a lot of the match.  However we did find a way to score when it counted and West Ham didn't.

I think the fans were very arrogant before the game. On here it was full of "when we win"..."looking forward to the dvd" type comments.

[King Knud]

They were unlucky not to win, but they didnt deserve it any more than us - on the day. However for our FA cup run this season, we are more than worthy.

[Cruiser]

All 3 of West Hams goals were flukes - own goal, goalkeeper error, fluke cross. In contrast all of Liverpool's goals were world class and on merit. Liverpool also chased the game and didnt fall to pressure. Could West Ham honestly chase the game 3 times? No way.

Liverpool clearly deserved it and wanted it more.

[a red revolution]

All 3 of West Hams goals were flukes - own goal, goalkeeper error, fluke cross. In contrast all of Liverpool's goals were world class and on merit. Liverpool also chased the game and didnt fall to pressure. Could West Ham honestly chase the game 3 times? No way.

Liverpool clearly deserved it and wanted it more.

Which is what made it such a classic game. If we'd have gone 2-0 up after half an hour we would have certainly closed the match out in our usual professional manner.

The fact that West Ham got the 2 goal lead meant the team everyone associates with getting in front and staying there had to chase (for their second major final in a row) a seemingly impossible situation.

Credit to West Ham for trying to win the game in a positive way. Yes, all 3 of their goals owed a hell of a lot to luck whereas ours were 2 very well crafted moves and a blockbuster from Stevie for the 3rd but their overall attitude to the game was excellent.

What we saw in our case on Saturday was a team of quality players producing 3 moments of brilliance for the goals, a never-say-die attitude that dragged us back into the game, the ability of three of our penalty takers to stay calm and collected enough to put the ball between the sticks and a world class keeper not bottling it after a mixed 120 minutes to produce 3 great penalty saves. Being a deserving winner doesn't neccessarily mean being the team that scores a shed load of goals more than the opposition.

Did we deserve to win more than West Ham? Maybe not. Did West Ham deserver to win more than us? Maybe not. Were we undeserving winners? No way.

[tazman74]

It was tight, it was tough, there were good chances for both teams. The only fair result would have been a REPLAY.

And personally I think that had one occurred we would have, er, hammered them 3 or 4 - nil. We couldn't paly that badly again!

[RigBon1892]

but that was never going to happen obviously

[Tomaldinho]

This was then followed by an utterly superb 7-0 thumping of Brum - a frightening exhibition of clinical football.

This is the only bit I take issue with. Garforth Town would have beaten Birmingham that day, hell even the blueshite would have struggled to lose.

[AndyMcAdam]

If the broadsheets actually reported the game ACCURATELY, I wouldnt especially care if the individual reporter then chose to add his own sentiment as to luck or otherwise over the course of the game/the result.

I read each of the broadsheets on line and amongst the beauties were the following -

- WH's 1st penalty WASNT taken by Zamora at all!!!!;
- Ashton's (great) through ball to the FB for the cross & OG, was PLAYED OVER THE TOP!!!!;
- SG was fouled in that very early incident by Fletcher, rather than Konchelsky!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!; and
- no mention was made of Pepe turning Reo-Coker's header onto the post right at the death!!!

I cant remember which paper had which error but they were all as bad as each other.  There were plenty of others as well as these few but these I remember most clearly.

WANKERS

[Buster 'Hook Hand' Bluth]

There were mistakes that led to the high scoreline. And there were moments of sloppiness.

But some of the passing, shooting, crossing and running with the ball was superb - from both sides.

It wasn't the greatest game, technically speaking, but it was far from the worst either.

[Voni]

West Ham played well, Liverpool played well.  It could have gone either way but it went ours.  Why can't people give credit where credit is due.  There's people trying to take away from Liverpools performance - especially my bitter Manc loving Grandfather who said that West Ham gifted us the third goal!!!!  Yes they hoofed the ball out which happened to end up with Gerrard but who would have expected him to score from 35 yards!???  You can't gift a 35 yard goal!!! One of the best goals ever seen.

[Fitzy.]

This is the only bit I take issue with. Garforth Town would have beaten Birmingham that day, hell even the blueshite would have struggled to lose.

It was "clinical" because we only had 8 or 9 shots on goal. I'm not saying they were any good but we were very good and took our chances.

[Tomaldinho]

We were ok, it didnt take much was my point, they made us look good.

[kcbworth]

to be honest we played terrible. Possibly the worst performance i've seen from us since we picked up after the initial run of draws right at the beginning of the season. The 3 goals were top drawer, but, aside from this we were hopeless. If you look in the in game thread, most of the comments indicate that West Ham are dominating here, only team that looks dangerous is West Ham, etc. If we did dominate possession we certainly did not do a thing with it, aside from send it straight to riise who would simply dump it into crouch/moro who were dealt with easily.

Not discounting our win at all, as we fought hard and did the right things when needed, but IMHO west ham were the better team on the day, and we were definately fortunate about a few things on the day. WE definately didn't dominate as some on here seem to suggest

[corkboy]

to be honest we played terrible.

Agreed.

Gerrard had a poor game, all told. It's funny, really, how history will record this as the Gerrard Final (see other thread) when he played quite poorly. Apart from the three goals and the penalty, obviously. That sounds ridiculous, doesn't it, but ask him and he'll agree. That's football. On another day, he could have had the best game of his life and the chances mightn't have fallen for him.

Xabi was clearly not fit and it showed. JAR was careless and Harry was out of sorts. In fact, both were to blame for the first goal. Crouch didn't contribute much apart from his assist.

Carra had a bad game, no doubt about it, and he would admit that himself. Not just the og. Ashton caused him and Sami lots of problems. Finnan was solid enough but Etherington got around Sami and him too easily for the second.

Cisse had his usual infuriating game, while Nando spoke at length before the game about us seeing the real Morientes. As someone has pointed out, maybe we did, and he wasn't much good.

Momo got better as the game went on, and Didi was his usual classy self.

Reina had a fucking nightmare until half time. When could you ever say that before now?

Overall, we played badly, but our class and spirit got us out of jail.

Man of the match? Yossi Benayoun.

[kcbworth]

Agreed.

Gerrard had a poor game, all told.

Not sure that I agree with this. He could have misplaced every pass other than his goal on the 90th and I wouldnt say he had a bad game simply due to the significance of that goal. Add that to his brilliant pass for the first goal, and his classy finish of the 2nd, and he really did have a good game.

Overall, we played badly, but our class and spirit got us out of jail.

Man of the match? Yossi Benayoun.

Completely agree

[montse]

Man of the match? Yossi Benayoun.

he had a good game, looked lively and was a nuisance.  him along with reo-coker and ashton were great for whu.

gerrard, misplaced a few passes [by his high standard] so he doesn't deserve mom  

gerrard changed the game and was the most influential player on the pitch.  he was simply brilliant. he misplaced a few passes [what a shocker!]

[inky2]

Who cares... When all's said and done, we're the ones polishing it for a year.

  you need to go out more