Thought Chelsea had the better of it in the 15-20 mins after Liverpool's first, without really looking threatening.FMD, Liverpool are playing well, Chelsea are getting murdered.
Not making big mistakes is a pretty important part of football. If there's nothing else to choose between the sides then of course the team that made one huge goal-costing mistake deserved to lose.Depends if you agree that one player making a mistake makes Newcastle the better side, regardless of anything else.
No, Uppercut believes the team that score more goals always deserves to win.That's different. The point being argued was teams who can't score don't deserve to win. I don't see how that's debatable.
It's not that I "believe" it, it's that it's explicitly stated in the rules of football. The winner is the team that scores more goals. Nothing else is of the slightest bit of relevance, but I'd certainly make an exception for refereeing balls-ups.No, Uppercut believes the team that score more goals always deserves to win.
I didn't say anything about Arsenal. Take the 2005 FA Cup final; I don't think anyone who saw it wouldn't say Arsenal were the second best team and yet we went home with the cup. It's the nature of the sport. High premium on scoring and all that.*shrug*
Maybe you need to be an Arsenal fan to understand the merits of having lots of territory, possession and chances as opposed to winning football matches.
Although it is a lot fairer to say that the better team lost than it is to say the team that lost deserved to win.
Did I say they were?Yeah, Barcelona are the first team in the history of football to do that