Liverpool bring back the lack of romance of the cup

LIVERPOOL has once again made the League Cup Final look like the end of a damaging relationship.

The club had been with the competition longer than they would care to remember and treated it seriously despite most onlookers thinking they could do so much better. Some fear that Liverpool has got involved in so many league cups now that no decent competition will want them any more.

Footballologist Wayne Hayes said: “The final itself was like a divorce hearing, with a tedious, drawn out set of proceedings dragging on longer than anybody wanted and at the end of it one half fucked off with the silverware.

“Although the record books will say that Liverpool won, both teams will know deep down that there could only ever be different levels of losing by this stage.

“And when Liverpool get drunk at dinner parties and loudly boast that they ‘took that bitch Cardiff for everything they had’ people are going to wonder why they seem so proud.”

The affair started back in August with a Wednesday night in Exeter many thought was just a meaningless flirtation with the competition. Even after another midweek jaunt to the seaside with Brighton in September, they were still insisting there was nothing serious between themselves and the cup.

But by the fourth round, Liverpool were told they had to decide between the Premier League and the League Cup and surprised everybody by saying they would stand by the League Cup no matter what everybody said about it.

Hayes aded: “It’s not a bad competition and I’m sure there’s a club out there that would be proud to be seen with such a cup. But Liverpool parading it in an open top bus is like turning up for Christmas dinner at your mum’s with a prostitute.”


Sign up now to get
The Daily Mash
free Headlines email – every weekday

Silent films were rubbish, say experts

HOLLYWOOD’S silent era was not magical, it was rubbish, according to new research.

Experts at the Institute for Studies watched more than 500 films made between 1900 and 1922 and thought they were all crap.

Professor Henry Brubaker said: “We watched one called The Daring Darlings of Alakazam starring Douglas Fairbanks and Fatty Arbuckle. At one point Fairbanks jumped from one chair to another chair and Fatty Arbuckle looked very surprised.

“Then a caption came up which said ‘That showed ’em skipper!’ We were all like ‘what the fuck is this shit?’.

“And what’s going on with the music? They could pay Douglas Fairbanks a million dollars a year but they couldn’t find someone to tune that fucking piano?”

The research was published as the Oscars celebrated Hollywood’s magical silent era with awards shared equally between The Artist, Martin Scorcese’s Hugo and Mel Gibson’s reboot of DW Griffith’s Birth of a Nation, the 1915 tribute to all things Klan.

Meanwhile, Professor Brubaker has called for new criteria for the best actor and actress Oscars, insisting the winner should be the person who does good acting using the least number of ‘takes’.

He added: “Every single Oscar winner was able to do their scenes over and over again until they were not rubbish at it. Meryl Streep got to practice being Mrs Thatcher for ages.

“Unless we apply some kind of limit then anyone could win an Oscar as long as they have enough spare time.”

Meanwhile, Colin Firth, last year’s Best Actor, said this year’s award should
not have gone to The Artist‘s Jean Dujardin because the ‘main thing about acting’ is
learning lines and then saying them out loud.

He added: “Is he supposed to be acting with his face? I imagine it would be
rather easy for a silent film actor to play somebody with a speech