• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* English Football Season 2013-14

Eds

International Debutant
Nah come off it, Charlie Adam dandered straight through the part of the pitch he was meant to be covering for Stoke's second.
Ha! Seriously? Watch the goal again and watch Gerrard and tell me that's his fault.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ha! Seriously? Watch the goal again and watch Gerrard and tell me that's his fault.
It's not that it's his "fault", because clearly it came from a **** pass by someone else. It just shows how inappropriate he is for the role. He moves into a position to receive the ball if Liverpool win it, when a defensive-minded player would move into a position to protect the goal if they don't. Ends up leaving the back four exposed when Lucas wouldn't have.
 
Last edited:

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Nah come off it, Charlie Adam dandered straight through the part of the pitch he was meant to be covering for Stoke's second.
He's right, defensively Gerrard was very good. He had a bad passing game but for me Rodgers' tinkering with Lucas ahead of him was misguided. He should have let both play in their natural roles. He is grooming Gerrard for that position though, but I think having Allen and Henderson ahead of him is better than Lucas who isn't really that mobile or creative with his passing.

It's not that it's his "fault", because clearly it came from a **** pass by someone else. It just shows how inappropriate he is for the role. He moves into a position to receive the ball if Liverpool win it, when a defensive-minded player would move into a position to protect the goal if they don't. Ends up leaving the back four exposed when Lucas wouldn't have.
It was just a poor pass. You're seeing far too much into it. If he had passed right into his feet (which Jordan attempted to do) that would have been a poorer pass because it'd be right into Gerrard's feet with an oncoming pressing Stoke player. Moving into open space was the right thing to do as it took the need away for a touch. It was only 1-2 yards to the right.
 
Last edited:

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
Haha, don't even know what to think. Awesome to win there for the first time in the Prem though. :)
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Pards wasn't wrong about needing officials with balls, **** me.
Yeah, but he's a guy who's capable of making even the most reasonable point seem unreasonable. He's a thoroughly odious individual, who repeatedly behaves like a complete oik, only to then try and laugh it off afterwards. He's rapidly approaching the Warnock bracket of unpleasantness for mine.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Strange comment generally, it's much ballsier to disallow a Cheick Tiote screamer at St. James's than to let it stand. Failing to send Yanga Mbiwa off definitely had an element of *****ing out to it though.
 

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
So the Ballond'or ceremony.

  1. Really Bad
  2. So bad it's good
  3. Gone past that until it's become excrutiatingly painful
  4. That Ruud Gullit's a funny guy hey?
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Decent win, but Villa were cack for the majority of the match. Only looked slightly up for it once they were gifted their goal.

Definitely the kind of game that would have ended up 2-2 if this had been the Arsenal of 2-3 years back though.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Decent win, but Villa were cack for the majority of the match. Only looked slightly up for it once they were gifted their goal.

Definitely the kind of game that would have ended up 2-2 if this had been the Arsenal of 2-3 years back though.
The Arsenal of 3 years back would have found a way to lose.
 

Cabinet96

Hall of Fame Member
Every week we hear how the Arsenal of old would've lost or drew. It's truly remarkable they never got relegated.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
It's often true though. Hence why the current Arsenal are top of the table in mid-January, and the Arsenal sides of the last 2-3 years did not manage this.

The game last night was a prime example of the exact kind of match they used to make a meal of. If you think back to nearly 2 years ago exactly, they played away at Fulham, generally dominated play and never looked threatened, were winning until the last 15 mins or so, and then conceded two fairly ****e goals one of which was because of a total inability to deal with high balls into the box, and the game was lost.

Under similar circumstances last night they managed to stand firm, not for the first time this season either.
 

Cabinet96

Hall of Fame Member
They play differently though. Plenty of times they would've got more goals and won by a four goal margin. This year they sit back when they go a couple of goals infront, regularly end games with more than two fullbacks on the pitch and often just park the bus for the last ten or fifteen minutes. On the contrary I think our biggest win was a 4-1 win at home to Norwich. So yeah, occasionally we hold for games we wouldn't have won two or three years ago. But you could also very regularly say, "the Arsenal of old would've won that 5-1" when we scrap a 2-1 at Villa park. There have been plenty of games we've managed to turn into a so called "hard fought win" just by taking the foot off the throttle. Overall I think it's been a positive (helps to have a really solid back 4/5) but I think the constant comparisons to how Arsenal wouldn't have won such games a few years ago is a bit of a lazy cliche and not always correct IMO.
 

Top