Liverpool

[citoyen]

What the Hell is wrong with the BBC football editor?  Their website headline is "Liverpool THRASH Tottenham".  They persistently say THRASH if any team scores 4 or more.  The actual score was 4 - 2, which is effectively 2 - 0 and by no means a THRASHING.  And I don't support either team.  I'm so lucky to be old enough to have read reports from Hugh McIlvanney, Michael Parkinson, John Arlott and even as far back as Neville Cardus.

Yours sincerely,

Old Bloke

I think thrashing is a fair reflection of the overall performance even if not the final scoreline. They switched off a bit towards the end but the game was already won by then.

Agree on the general point about sports journalists being lazy though.

[Wowbagger]

Weren't Liverpool 4 - 0 up? The journo probably was too pissed to notice Spurs' goals when they occurred.

[citoyen]

Should have been more than four, really. They were running Spurs ragged for much of the game.

But then I’ve seen them do the same in other games this season and fail to score any goals at all. Which is why they’re not winning the league.

[Peter]

Crystal Palace 4 - Manchester Seconds 0.  Happy to call that a thrashing (which the BBC's John Bull printing set trotted out as expected).

[citoyen]

Crystal Palace 4 - Manchester Seconds 0.  Happy to call that a thrashing (which the BBC's John Bull printing set trotted out as expected).

Next up for them is an in-form, free-scoring Arsenal... what's the next level up from a "thrashing"?

Strong chance Newcastle will finish above them now, which you've got to be happy about.

[Peter]

Sure, but it's severely muted because of the ownership.  What the murderers' takeover has done is make me not care when Newcastle lose but I admit I still smile when they win.  They were "my" team before they were the Saudis' - but I'm still ashamed of myself.

[citoyen]

Fair enough. It’s not you who needs to be ashamed of yourself though.