It shouldn't have been a goal, but maybe the ref thought it was deflected off Johnson and into the net. Obviously seeing the beach ball flying in the opposite direction should have been a dead giveaway but I've seen officials miss a lot worse.
Heh, indeed. Even without that sale I believe United fans have been making these same arguments for a couple of seasons now anyway.
It's just a response to Liverpool fans bleating about how they're really quite poor/haven't spent much money/you know the drill. Why would we care if someone has spent less money than us these days? Success rules out the need for such excuses.
The question wasn't "what do the laws state?" but "should the laws state what they do?". Forgetting the current example- as roseboy pointed out, Reina moved it and it blew back onto the pitch- isn't the law open to abuse the way it stands?
Fair point actually, apologies for missing it. A foreign object of that size effectively gives the attacking team an area of the goal that can't be shot at. Perhaps severe fines/bannings for any player deemed to have attempted to alter the fair course of a game with the use of such an object?
Well actually, there's a pretty compelling argument based on statistical outliers skewing the data as a reason to discount it in some manner. I'm not saying it should be but there's very little doubt that it is an outlier which skews the net spend data away from the bell curve.
). Play like rubbish till Christmas, so Gillett sells his share to the Oil man, who then moves to sack Benetiz, and appoint Hiddink ala Chelsea last year. Hiddink then has a bit of cash in the January window to grab a decent backup player or 2, and helps 'pool storm home to finish top 4. Hiddink is then convinced to sign a 3/4 year contract, and then they win in 09/10 etc.
Ah, like this is something new. It's been happening for 3 seasons now. Not signing a player who can win the first ball in the air and no one making sure they get to the knockdown. If he can't learn from his own mistakes what does he expect his players to learn?Arsene said:
Feel a bit sorry for him really, as I think he is a pretty nice guy. However, this news does not really come as any surprise, he hasn't done a good job.
No, but it should always be noted that some managers seem to get a lot of credit for their "success" when it is bought, yet others seem to get criticised for consistently coming up just short when not spending money.
Why shouldn't Ferguson get a lot of credit? He took over the club when they hadn't won the league in 20 years, and has brought them a completely unprecedented amount of domestic success. He's worked them into a position where they can spend a lot of money on new players. If it weren't for Ferguson we'd probably be in the same boat as Spurs, constantly insisting that we're still a big club and will come good eventually.
Haha, that's awesome. Let's see Ikki make a case against thatStrange that Southgate is kept on after last season just to sack him when he's right up there in the Championship right now. Oh well.
Regarding net spending blah blah blah: Liverpool Fact have spent More than United | BoxofficeFootball Soccer Highlights Video News online
Note that this is before the sale of Ronaldo, for anyone asking about that. Was gonna post it a couple of days back but figured you'd all be talking about something else so didn't want to drag it on. Looks like you all did it for me so oh well.
The thing is, he got the success in the first place through the spending of money (not a lot in modern terms but back then it was)
Well for a start, it's a bit of an arbitrary date to select - by definition if you're looking from when Rafa came in, you've got to consider he had to revamp an underperforming team, whereas Taggart had already spent his money getting players in prior to that date, expenditure that isn't taken into account.Haha, that's awesome. Let's see Ikki make a case against that
Well, that statistic was obviously drawn up by someone whose parents never played football at an international level, and therefore they don't know what they are talking about.Haha, that's awesome. Let's see Ikki make a case against that
He also changed the culture of the club and restructured the youth system. Not denying he spent money and plenty of it, but to say that was the sole reason for United's success is to be rather selective in the credit giving stakes.
And yet Liverpool's Premier League spend before Rafa came in (92-04) was still in the same ballpark as United's - it's not as though Liverpool hadn't been spending money over the previous decade.
You can pick 2004 if you want, but the article shows the same trend when you go as far back as the formation of the Premiership in 1992. And it doesn't include Ronaldo, because it hadn't yet happened at the time. Statistically speaking there's no reason to treat him as anomalous.
