Liverpool dealt Gerrard injury blow

• ASKL!

  3 Nov 09, 16:50

  

   

  Liverpool skipper Steven Gerrard, midfielder Albert Riera and defenders Martin Kelly and Martin Skrtel will all miss Wednesday's decisive Champions League match at Olympique Lyon.

  Reds boss Rafael Benitez revealed the news but added that he was hoping Italian midfielder Alberto Aquilani would recover from a virus that kept him out of Saturday's 3-1 defeat at Fulham for the Group E match.

  Gerrard has a groin injury which may need surgery and is definitely out of a game that Liverpool cannot afford to lose after winning just one of their opening three group matches, including defeat to Lyon at Anfield two weeks ago.

  "Gerrard won't travel to Lyon," Benitez told the club's official website. "He has no chance. He is improving but we have to wait. He has had an injection but we have to wait two or three days and see how he reacts.

  "Aquilani had a virus," Benitez added. "He trained today but was a little weak. Hopefully, in two days time he will be better."

  Benitez confirmed that striker Fernando Torres, who is nursing an adductor muscle injury, was part of the squad travelling to France, explaining: "We have to take Fernando to Lyon because we don't have too many options."

  The club confirmed on its website that midfielder Riera and defenders Kelly and Skrtel were also definite non-starters.

• Hal Georgie

  3 Nov 09, 17:07

  Liverpool are in so much turmoil right now. reminds me of the newcastle of last season; strings of losses, long list of injuries of key players. the only difference is, liverpool are a much better team with a lot more games to play. really hope rescue comes in time before they suffer the same fate as the Toon.

• zocoss

  3 Nov 09, 17:58

  They won't end up like Toon lah... They are not that bad, and they still have quality players in their squad...

• zocoss

  3 Nov 09, 18:03

  TORRES NEEDS HERNIA OP - REPORT

  

  .

  .

  .
  
  

  Fernando Torres is reportedly suffering from a hernia problem that will need surgery if he is overplayed. 

  The Times claims the Liverpool medical staff have told Benitez that the Spanish striker needs to be treated with kid gloves or he will need an operation that will rule him out for two months. 

  The inguinal hernia apparently developed while he was on international duty in October and the striker has been playing in pain and rationing his training ever since. 

  He was withdrawn after an hour against Fulham at the weekend and will start against Lyon on Wednesday night. 

  Benitez admitted: "We are trying to manage, as he was close to having an operation. Two days after the Fulham game, he is still feeling something. 

  "He is not comfortable and hasn't got the power he had before, so we have to try to protect him. 

  "Fernando cannot play well if you keep pushing him. Maybe if you push him he will be injured for a long time." 

  Steven Gerrard has been ruled out of the crunch game against the French side with a groin injury - which could need surgery - along with Martin Skrtel. 

  Alberto Aquilani has been added to the squad despite still being "weak" from a virus that kept him out of the game with the Cottagers, while Daniel Agger and David Ngog will travel despite carrying slight knocks.

• youyayu

  3 Nov 09, 19:09

  Song bo..

• I-like-flings(m)

  3 Nov 09, 19:43

  GAME OVER

• trendz

  3 Nov 09, 21:14

  Once pool loses this match, they may not qualify for the next round. btw, they've already lost 5 out of 7 epl matches, no?

• zocoss

  3 Nov 09, 21:26

  Originally posted by trendz:

  Once pool loses this match, they may not qualify for the next round. btw, they've already lost 5 out of 7 epl matches, no?

  
  No lah... 5 out of 11, the other 6 all wins...

• a-Lost-9uY

  4 Nov 09, 01:36

  if they win against Lyon, its a miracle!!

• reyes

  4 Nov 09, 05:10

  if rafa can last beyond jan2010, either the boss are only interested to sell the club or liverpool fans are the stupidest of the world for failure to exert pressure on the club for his sacking.

   

• charleslee

  4 Nov 09, 10:52

  Originally posted by reyes:

  if rafa can last beyond jan2010, either the boss are only interested to sell the club or liverpool fans are the stupidest of the world for failure to exert pressure on the club for his sacking.

   

  
  as the world have alrdy known,the owners are only in for a profit, hence they would only care abt the books, n not the turmoil in the dressing room, n guess wat, liverpool fans  are baying for RB's blood, but they know there r not much world-class managers who r willing to work in a shoestring budget and withstand the nonsense from the owners, so that's y they r supporting the manager until the end of the season, whr it's a more suitable time to really judge the full strength of  the team n RB's capability..so  mr reyes,  pls do some research on the net and various LFC forums before u label liverpool fans for being stupid( btw there's no such word as stupidest) for nt pressuring the club...thank you..

• Rooney9

  4 Nov 09, 10:56

  so which is the most successful managers after kenny daglish?

  souness, evans, houllier or rafa in terms of trophies won?

• iceFatboy

  4 Nov 09, 11:09

  Originally posted by Rooney9:

  so which is the most successful managers after kenny daglish?

  souness, evans, houllier or rafa in terms of trophies won?

  Rafa, he won the UCL right..

• s0nic

  4 Nov 09, 11:16

  actually how do u all define successful manager? someone who wins alot of trophies, or someone who actually manages the club well, even though he doesnt win any trophy?

• Rooney9

  4 Nov 09, 11:18

  Originally posted by iceFatboy:

  Rafa, he won the UCL right..

  yes, but houllier won the uefa cup, super cup, fa and league cup. so between he and houllier, who is more successful?

• iceFatboy

  4 Nov 09, 11:21

  Originally posted by s0nic:

  actually how do u all define successful manager? someone who wins alot of trophies, or someone who actually manages the club well, even though he doesnt win any trophy?

  are you looking @ David Moyes or a Martin ONeil or even a Harry Rednapp who did well with their clubs but did not win any major trophies yet..

• iceFatboy

  4 Nov 09, 11:22

  Originally posted by Rooney9:

  yes, but houllier won the uefa cup, super cup, fa and league cup. so between he and houllier, who is more successful?

  well, if U going by trophy count, Houllier may get the vote, but then, u add all the cups together, and they may equate to one UCL cup, or half a League title.

  Perhaps some red fans can comment.

• s0nic

  4 Nov 09, 11:27

  Originally posted by iceFatboy:

  are you looking @ David Moyes or a Martin ONeil or even a Harry Rednapp who did well with their clubs but did not win any major trophies yet..

  
  yup they are the sort of managers whom i would say are successful.

  in particular Harry Redknapp. lol. would u prefer a good manager, but has not won any major titles, or a mediocre manager, whom won titles with his strong squad previously?

  what i am trying to say, yes, managers do have a part to play when it comes to pre-match tactics and in-match decision makings. but then, the gameplay and end results still boil down to the players.

  if the players chose to play badly due to bad relationship with their managers, they will still lose even if their manager is Jose Mourinho or Sir Alex Ferguson or Gus Hiddink.

• Rooney9

  4 Nov 09, 11:29

  Originally posted by s0nic:

  actually how do u all define successful manager? someone who wins alot of trophies, or someone who actually manages the club well, even though he doesnt win any trophy?

  successful managers win trophies, thats how they are defined. the more trophies the manager won, the more successful he is when compare to trophies won with other successful managers.

  a manager who seldom or never win trophies, he cannot be called successful as he is termed together with managers who managed to avoid relegation with their teams, they also never win trophies what. they also can say they are successful with avoiding relegation with their team.

  so the benchmark of successful managers are trophies.

• s0nic

  4 Nov 09, 11:39

  Originally posted by Rooney9:

  successful managers win trophies, thats how they are defined. the more trophies the manager won, the more successful he is when compare to trophies won with other successful managers.

  a manager who seldom or never win trophies, he cannot be called successful as he is termed together with managers who managed to avoid relegation with their teams, they also never win trophies what. they also can say they are successful with avoiding relegation with their team.

  so the benchmark of successful managers are trophies.

   hmm alright. i think different ppl have different perspective. cos i believe, some managers are good, just that they were not given the chance to perform. sometimes a manager takes charge of a club when the club is in dire straits. then he failed to get results in the beginning, and everyone starts to blame the manager for the results. Just think, Gus Hiddink is a good and successful manager in alot of you ppl's eyes right?

  what if, when he took charge of Chelsea, the results of Chelsea was very bad instead, and didnt win anything at all, and still lost to Man Utd in the BPL? will u all still say he is a good manager, or start pointing fingers and blame him for the end result?

• Rooney9

  4 Nov 09, 11:46

  Originally posted by s0nic:

   hmm alright. i think different ppl have different perspective. cos i believe, some managers are good, just that they were not given the chance to perform. sometimes a manager takes charge of a club when the club is in dire straits. then he failed to get results in the beginning, and everyone starts to blame the manager for the results. Just think, Gus Hiddink is a good and successful manager in alot of you ppl's eyes right?

  what if, when he took charge of Chelsea, the results of Chelsea was very bad instead, and didnt win anything at all, and still lost to Man Utd in the BPL? will u all still say he is a good manager, or start pointing fingers and blame him for the end result?

  managers live and die by results and trophies. maybe can term them as successful and good managers.  successful managers win trophies and good managers are those that are good without winning trophies. how about those managers who are tipped to be relegated, but survived relegation? are they good as well?

• s0nic

  4 Nov 09, 11:53

  Originally posted by Rooney9:

  managers live and die by results and trophies. maybe can term them as successful and good managers.  successful managers win trophies and good managers are those that are good without winning trophies. how about those managers who are tipped to be relegated, but survived relegation? are they good as well?

  
  if they managed to help save the club from relegation, i believe in the eyes of their fans, he is a good manager. put yourself in their shoes. if, for eg u are a fan of say, Hull City. This season Hull City is widely tipped for relegation, but in the end they manage to stay up. will u regard the manager as a good manager?

• iceFatboy

  4 Nov 09, 13:32

  Originally posted by s0nic:

   hmm alright. i think different ppl have different perspective. cos i believe, some managers are good, just that they were not given the chance to perform. sometimes a manager takes charge of a club when the club is in dire straits. then he failed to get results in the beginning, and everyone starts to blame the manager for the results. Just think, Gus Hiddink is a good and successful manager in alot of you ppl's eyes right?

  what if, when he took charge of Chelsea, the results of Chelsea was very bad instead, and didnt win anything at all, and still lost to Man Utd in the BPL? will u all still say he is a good manager, or start pointing fingers and blame him for the end result?

  Gus Hiddink is a good and successful manager, he did well with Chelsea, but do rem what he did internationally. I believe his record speaks for himself.

• iceFatboy

  4 Nov 09, 13:33

  Originally posted by Rooney9:

  successful managers win trophies, thats how they are defined. the more trophies the manager won, the more successful he is when compare to trophies won with other successful managers.

  a manager who seldom or never win trophies, he cannot be called successful as he is termed together with managers who managed to avoid relegation with their teams, they also never win trophies what. they also can say they are successful with avoiding relegation with their team.

  so the benchmark of successful managers are trophies.

  well, how would you rate wenger in this case, he has won trophies, but he had had a barren spell. But all in all, he did well for the club.

  He did not spend tons when the club need to save, and got a brand new stadium. He sold when needed, and got maximum from those sales, and on top of that, he established an excellent youth policy and is reaping its reward.

• s0nic

  4 Nov 09, 13:41

  Originally posted by iceFatboy:

  Gus Hiddink is a good and successful manager, he did well with Chelsea, but do rem what he did internationally. I believe his record speaks for himself.

  
  yes. so in other words.. how u define successful managers, is also by their history? if one manager has a good past history, and then suddenly, he caused the fall of one of the club, will he still be considered a good one in your eyes?

  if a manager, who has a knack of managing a club to promotion to next level for eg BPL, is he a good and successful manager? lol think Roy Keane.