*Official* English Football Season 2009-2010

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Hmm, shame, but hardly unsurprising I suppose. Would have thought they could have cashed in on one of their other players for a bit of extra cash rather than sell one of their best defenders for a fairly modest price. I imagine Forlan or Aguero would have fetched a decent amount, though obvoiusly I doubt they would have wanted to sell either of them.

Their defense is ****ing rubbish though, they should take what they can get for them.

 

[Uppercut]

Not even close to being true. Association football places a uniquely high premium on scoring, so it's the football code where upsets are most likely to happen because teams having more possession/chances can be beaten by (say) mildly dodgy penalties or own goals.

But for Foster's foot the game was 2-0 and over to all intents & purposes. United never really looked like scoring until we had to chase the game and left gaps at the back.

But for Van Persie's poor finishing and Foster's excellent keeping the game was 2-0 and over. Two of the most important parts of the game, but you seem to want to discount them completely in favour of who created the most or who saw most of the ball. Why?

Also, if you're not going to count the chances United had when they were winning because Arsenal had to attack, I don't see why you've referenced a chance that Arsenal had when they were winning and United had to attack.

 

[sledger]

Their defense is ****ing rubbish though, they should take what they can get for them.

Haha what are you on about?! Luis Perea is the new Rio Ferdinand

 

[Uppercut]

I am in partial agreement with this. However, I think there is a difference between saying "X were the better team" and "X deserved to win". Personally, I think that unless there is some factor that is totally against your control that costs you the result, then you will not deserve to win unless you do, and if you win, you deserve it, end of. However, I think there is still room for a team to be the best team on the field and lose. In all honesty I believe that Arsenal were the better team, and Man Utd were ordinary. However, as Arsenal did not take their chances and made mistakes that Man Utd capitalised on I would also say that they did not deserve to win. In other words, Man Utd deserved to win, but Arsenal were the better side, imo anyway.

Yeah, I can see where you're coming from there. But I still don't fully agree with it. If you look at the top-class Chelsea side under Mourinho, they were quite clearly the best side in the league, but regularly would turn in performances like the one United put in on Saturday. They didn't keep the ball especially well and they didn't create a massive amount of chances.

Where that Chelsea side were so good was in their efficiency. When they made a chance, they invariably took it, and their defence made no mistakes whatsoever. They often didn't look the better side, in the way that United didn't on Saturday, but they most certainly were.

 

[sledger]

Yeah, I can see where you're coming from there. But I still don't fully agree with it. If you look at the top-class Chelsea side under Mourinho, they were quite clearly the best side in the league, but regularly would turn in performances like the one United put in on Saturday. They didn't keep the ball especially well and they didn't create a massive amount of chances.

Where that Chelsea side were so good was in their efficiency. When they made a chance, they invariably took it, and their defence made no mistakes whatsoever. They often didn't look the better side, in the way that United didn't on Saturday, but they most certainly were.

I agree, however, the difference being, Chelsea did this over the course of a season, if Man Utd can also do this, then I would change my opinion to agree with you. However, my initial thoughts on the game, were than Man Utd were not at all special, and against a better side, would not have been afforded the chances they were. I saw nothing to suggest Man Utd could do this on a regular basis and that this was not just a one off. Obviously I may be proved completely wrong, but that Chelsea team had a solid backbone, Man Utd have a solid defence, but when you see Carrick and Flecther lining up in the center of midfield it hardly looks impressive for a team that is meant to be a challenger, obviously time will tell on that one and again I may be proved wrong, but, those are my initial thoughts anyway.

 

[Uppercut]

I agree, however, the difference being, Chelsea did this over the course of a season, if Man Utd can also do this, then I would change my opinion to agree with you. However, my initial thoughts on the game, were than Man Utd were not at all special, and against a better side, would not have been afforded the chances they were. I saw nothing to suggest Man Utd could do this on a regular basis and that this was not just a one off. Obviously I may be proved completely wrong, but that Chelsea team had a solid backbone, Man Utd have a solid defence, but when you see Carrick and Flecther lining up in the center of midfield it hardly looks impressive for a team that is meant to be a challenger, obviously time will tell on that one and again I may be proved wrong, but, those are my initial thoughts anyway.

Yeah, I agree that United look weak. I still think they can win the title though, partly because the opposition isn't too great, but also because the defence is the most important part of a title-winning side, and that's already in place. Liverpool and Arsenal are giving away a lot of goals to set-pieces, and that's a bit of a killer to any title bid. Chelsea are favourites, but they've had a remarkably easy few games to start the season so it's still pretty unclear how Ancelloti's side will do.

On top of that, United never look good at the start of a season. With the way the side's built, I suspect we could see a lot of scrappy 1-0 wins like the one against Birmingham this season. It's not an especially strong pack this year so the situation's not as bad as it looks on our teamsheet.

 

[BoyBrumby]

But for Van Persie's poor finishing and Foster's excellent keeping the game was 2-0 and over. Two of the most important parts of the game, but you seem to want to discount them completely in favour of who created the most or who saw most of the ball. Why?

Also, if you're not going to count the chances United had when they were winning because Arsenal had to attack, I don't see why you've referenced a chance that Arsenal had when they were winning and United had to attack.

I'm not discounting them, I was using them to illustrate my point that the outcome of football matches turns on such events. As I said in my previous post because of the nature of it being a low-scoring sport games are often won by undeserving teams. United won, essentially, because Rooney dived and Diaby had a brain-implosion. Those two events won the game but don't suggest by any stretch that United were the better team by any reasonable measure.

& it isn't that I'm not counting the chances United made, rather explaining the reasons for them happening. Berbatov coming on and belatedly providing a link to the isolated Rooney helped too.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

A question to all of you guys:

If we pull 4 points from Arsenal and United, do people rate us for top 4 (or shockingly even above) or would it still be too early to tell? (I'm in the camp of the latter, just had a few mates tell me they're in the earlier camp).

 

[duffer]

Also, if you're not going to count the chances United had when they were winning because Arsenal had to attack, I don't see why you've referenced a chance that Arsenal had when they were winning and United had to attack.

Well the time they happened tbbh. I don't ever remember a stage of the game where Utd had 4 strikers on and had a centre back push up and play forward too as they were running out of time.

 

[sledger]

Yeah, I agree that United look weak. I still think they can win the title though, partly because the opposition isn't too great, but also because the defence is the most important part of a title-winning side, and that's already in place. Liverpool and Arsenal are giving away a lot of goals to set-pieces, and that's a bit of a killer to any title bid. Chelsea are favourites, but they've had a remarkably easy few games to start the season so it's still pretty unclear how Ancelloti's side will do.

On top of that, United never look good at the start of a season. With the way the side's built, I suspect we could see a lot of scrappy 1-0 wins like the one against Birmingham this season. It's not an especially strong pack this year so the situation's not as bad as it looks on our teamsheet.

Yeah indeed, I would still unquestionably expect to see Man Utd up there challenging if not leading the pack, though like you say Chelsea have to be favourites it is to early to write everyone else off. I don't think the absence of Ronaldo will be a particularly telling factor either, at least not in the premiership. I think Man Utd would benefit massively from having one other really solid player in the centre of midfield, someone like Mascherano would be ideal imo. But then again, there isn't a team in the country I could think of who wouldn't benefit from one or two extra players. Arsenal on the other hand, we'll see how they can bounce back from the defeat, and see if this "team character" Wenger has mentioned exists. Need the likes of Gallas to stay fit as well, get the feeling that if Fabregas was fit at the weekend (though the result may have stayed the same - though maybe not as Diaby would probably not have played ) Arsenal would have at least created a lot more or at least a few more clear cut chances, ah well, moot point, just hope he's fit as much as possible.

 

[duffer]

A question to all of you guys:

If we pull 4 points from Arsenal and United, do people rate us for top 4 (or shockingly even above) or would it still be too early to tell? (I'm in the camp of the latter, just had a few mates tell me they're in the earlier camp).

Wait and see tbh. I'd put you guys in the same boat as Spudz right now.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

A question to all of you guys:

If we pull 4 points from Arsenal and United, do people rate us for top 4 (or shockingly even above) or would it still be too early to tell? (I'm in the camp of the latter, just had a few mates tell me they're in the earlier camp).

It's Citeh. It'd be too early to tell with a 4-point gap to fifth after match 36.

 

[sledger]

A question to all of you guys:

If we pull 4 points from Arsenal and United, do people rate us for top 4 (or shockingly even above) or would it still be too early to tell? (I'm in the camp of the latter, just had a few mates tell me they're in the earlier camp).

Marginally too early to tell for mine, a few years ago Fulham had the same sort of start and ended up falling into the mid table, though I don't expect that to happen with City, I would say it's too early to say top 4 material, top 5 or 6 though without a doubt. I think a lot will come down to whenever you lot play the big four teams the second time round later in the season.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Personally think we're a far better team than Spuds man for man, only spot I'd have them clearly stronger would be at right-back with Corluka. Not saying we'll finish above them mind, they've been playing together for longer obviously.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Bit harsh comparing our team to Fulham from a few years ago, IMO.

(klaus)

 

[Uppercut]

I'm not discounting them, I was using them to illustrate my point that the outcome of football matches turns on such events. As I said in my previous post because of the nature of it being a low-scoring sport games are often won by undeserving teams. United won, essentially, because Rooney dived and Diaby had a brain-implosion. Those two events won the game but don't suggest by any stretch that United were the better team by any reasonable measure.

& it isn't that I'm not counting the chances United made, rather explaining the reasons for them happening. Berbatov coming on and belatedly providing a link to the isolated Rooney helped too.

Well their ability to unique ability to finish easy chances and not head the ball into their own net made them the less-bad team for me.

Rooney didn't dive either, I think your mind is still somewhere around 2004

 

[sledger]

Personally think we're a far better team than Spuds man for man, only spot I'd have them clearly stronger would be at right-back with Corluka. Not saying we'll finish above them mind, they've been playing together for longer obviously.

I'd agree with you tbh, Spurs always give the impression of looking good when in fact they are a team of cinderella players and flat track bullies (Defoe) who when it comes to the crunch go missing or get injured, all the players who play for Spurs who are actually of any quality inevitably end up being sold to another side anyway sooner or later, as happened with Berbatov and as will obviously happen with Modric. If Robbie Keane had actually joined a team that wanted him then he would be in that bracket as well.

 

[duffer]

Yeah indeed, I would still unquestionably expect to see Man Utd up there challenging if not leading the pack, though like you say Chelsea have to be favourites it is to early to write everyone else off. I don't think the absence of Ronaldo will be a particularly telling factor either, at least not in the premiership. I think Man Utd would benefit massively from having one other really solid player in the centre of midfield, someone like Mascherano would be ideal imo. But then again, there isn't a team in the country I could think of who wouldn't benefit from one or two extra players. Arsenal on the other hand, we'll see how they can bounce back from the defeat, and see if this "team character" Wenger has mentioned exists. Need the likes of Gallas to stay fit as well, get the feeling that if Fabregas was fit at the weekend (though the result may have stayed the same - though maybe not as Diaby would probably not have played ) Arsenal would have at least created a lot more or at least a few more clear cut chances, ah well, moot point, just hope he's fit as much as possible.

Not just him, arguably Nasri and Theo would've started if fit as well. I see a full side as this:

Almunia

Sagna Gallas Vermaelen Clichy

Song

Nasri Cesc

Theo Arshavin

Rvp


Although I'd prefer a guy like Chamakh or bendtner in the middle there and Robin as a right forward cutting in on his left.

 

[sledger]

Bit harsh comparing our team to Fulham from a few years ago, IMO.

(klaus)

Yeah indeed, your lot are clearly streets ahead, was only really using that example for the old 4thplace to 10th place example tbh.

 

[BoyBrumby]

A question to all of you guys:

If we pull 4 points from Arsenal and United, do people rate us for top 4 (or shockingly even above) or would it still be too early to tell? (I'm in the camp of the latter, just had a few mates tell me they're in the earlier camp).

It's looking good for Citeh. Pompey was exactly the kind of game that (potentially) wins titles: an obviously better side win away from home without ever really playing anything like their best. It's also the kind of fixture your boys often contrive to lose or at least fail to win.

Ordinarily I'd be confident of a result for The Arsenal at Eastlands, but much less so this year. I think it'll be a measure of how far City have come.

It might be wishful thinking, but with Citeh (& the Spurts ) starting well and ManUre, Liverpool and ourselves all having obvious issues this could be the season the hegemony is broken.

Chavs nailed-on for the title, I'm afraid but I don't think Citeh are embarrassed by comparison to any of the other "big four".