So that's two away games over xmas against top four sides, two defeats, both 2-1, and both because of poor refereeing decisions. The off-side that wasn't against City and the penalty that he didn't give for a reason that I still don't understand why. And, yes, Sterling should still have scored that sitter.
I missed the City game, but from what I've heard and read, a draw would have been a fair result. I saw yesterday's game and whilst Chelsea were definitely the better side, had that penalty been given and had it been scored, 2-2 with 8 or so mins to go, you would suspect that'd end in a draw. That might have flattered Liverpool slightly, but since when have results been based on how a team plays or what they deserve? Look at Pool winning their last CL, or indeed Utd robbing Bayern in '99.
Gotta say though the glaring difference between the two clubs was the options available when the manager wanted to change things. Ivanovic gets injured, on comes Ashley 100 caps Cole. Lampard needs a rest at HT on comes Mikel.
Liverpool on the other hand had Ass-pass, who has looked as much a PL player as me, and then some wee lad called "Smith" who was making his PL debut.
Ok, Chelsea have a very rich owner who is happy to fire money at them, but if Liverpool have serious top four/CL ambitions they won't get far relying on players of the calibre of ass-pass and the unproven Smith. That's where their CL ambitions will suffer.
