*Official* English Football Season 2010-11

[Nate]

HE'S DONE IT AGAINNNNNNNNNNNNN

OH HECK YES!

z

 

[Woodster]

It does if it is right. I (and others) have said this before, the team that plays prettier football is not the team that deserves to win the game, the team that scores the most goals is the team that deserves to win the game, with the exception of things such as poor refereeing and other facets of luck. As City were not unlucky at all today (arguably the reverse, given the nature of their goal) I don't see how they can be said to have been the better team.

A rather simplistic view of football, but that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. The team that scores the most goals,imo, is not always the best side.

 

[sledger]

How can you not classify Rooney's goal as half a chance ? Because it was a truly unbelievable strike that as he said would go over the bar nine times out of 10. Had it gone over, you wouldn't have said "what a chance that was". It was just pure quality.

Utd took their chances, cannot argue with that, and that's what it's all about, however, I don't think that automatically means they were the better side. There are occasions where the best team on the day doesn't win, it happened today imo. I know from experience Utd fans have immense difficulty in giving credit to the opposition (esp when it's City), had we won it would have been because Utd were bad rather than we were better. The reactions therefore do not come as any great surprise.

So you're suggesting that Rooney somehow managed to score a goal, despite the fact that he had no chance of scoring one whatsoever, I see.

There are occasions where the team on the day is perhaps the better side, but I think your justification for it here is tenuous at best. You make reference to Man Utd fans, but I'm not one.

 

[Nate]

Ohmygoodness Suarez, so good. Just don't chew on anyone.

 

[Woodster]

So you're suggesting that Rooney somehow managed to score a goal, despite the fact that he had no chance of scoring one whatsoever, I see.

There are occasions where the team on the day is perhaps the better side, but I think your justification for it here is tenuous at best. You make reference to Man Utd fans, but I'm not one.

That's fair enough, the beauty of it is it's all based on opinions. I thought we were pretty clearly the better side, but didn't win, c'est la vie.

 

[Uppercut]

But this is the crux of the matter. Utd's chances were few and far between, but it was just a game of few chances, and as you have pointed out, in these sorts of games you give merit to the team which takes the ones that come their way. I don't know how you can't classify Rooney's goal as a chance either...given that the ball ended up in the net. You can pass the ball around nicely until the cows come home, but when you do that for 90 minutes and hardly threaten throughout it becomes more or less irrelevant.

Yeah, judging which side was better based on how well they moved the ball and how dangerous they looked takes some of the most important aspects out of the game- finishing, goalkeeping, last-ditch defending.

But even if I was to evaluate the match that way I'd make it 50-50. I didn't think either side especially looked like they were going to score at any stage. Both sets of centre-backs were immense.

 

[Woodster]

So you're suggesting that Rooney somehow managed to score a goal, despite the fact that he had no chance of scoring one whatsoever, I see.

There are occasions where the team on the day is perhaps the better side, but I think your justification for it here is tenuous at best. You make reference to Man Utd fans, but I'm not one.

Yes I'm saying he had absolutely no right to score from there, but he did. Think we'll be seeing a re-run of that goal for a few million years to come, and why not, it was tremendously executed.

 

[Uppercut]

So you're suggesting that Rooney somehow managed to score a goal, despite the fact that he had no chance of scoring one whatsoever, I see.

There are occasions where the team on the day is perhaps the better side, but I think your justification for it here is tenuous at best. You make reference to Man Utd fans, but I'm not one.

TBF that'd be a pretty good way of explaining the goal to someone who didn't see it.

 

[sledger]

The undertones to my point being they should count themselves a touch fortunate, didn't think I needed to clarify that.

Fortunate it what sense? The fact that City scarcely posed them any problems for the duration of the match? Because in that case I would agree unreservedly.

 

[Tom Halsey]

A rather simplistic view of football, but that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. The team that scores the most goals,imo, is not always the best side.

Simplistic, because football is a game with quite a simple objective, that is to score more goals than the opposition. If you don't, then you've failed in your objective. If this is due to bad luck, fair enough, if it's due to wasteful finishing, or in this case not even creating many clear cut chances in the first place, then that's your problem. Best example is the 2005 FA Cup final where Arsenal barely had a kick all game, but we missed a host of chances and got exactly what we deserved.

Anyway this is my last post on the matter as we're clearly going around in circles.

 

[sledger]

Yes I'm saying he had absolutely no right to score from there, but he did. Think we'll be seeing a re-run of that goal for a few million years to come, and why not, it was tremendously executed.

Yes, and I agree, but in order for to score a goal, one must surely be presented with a chance to score, by basic definition. I'm not contesting any of the above, but there clearly was a chance, regardless of its difficulty.

 

[Woodster]

Fortunate it what sense? The fact that City scarcely posed them any problems for the duration of the match? Because in that case I would agree unreservedly.

They were second best in a number of areas of the game. Generally when that is the case you are fortunate to come away with the three points, but credit to them they did just that.

We scarcely posed them any problems for the duration of the match ? Mmmmh.

 

[Nate]

Aurelio shows so much promise. Deliver dammit.

 

[Woodster]

Simplistic, because football is a game with quite a simple objective, that is to score more goals than the opposition. If you don't, then you've failed in your objective. If this is due to bad luck, fair enough, if it's due to wasteful finishing, or in this case not even creating many clear cut chances in the first place, then that's your problem. Best example is the 2005 FA Cup final where Arsenal barely had a kick all game, but we missed a host of chances and got exactly what we deserved.

Anyway this is my last post on the matter as we're clearly going around in circles.

Ok, you score more goals than the opposition, therefore you're better. Do think there's more to it personally, but if that's how it is it's surprising there's so much to debate in football!

 

[Woodster]

Yes, and I agree, but in order for to score a goal, one must surely be presented with a chance to score, by basic definition. I'm not contesting any of the above, but there clearly was a chance, regardless of its difficulty.

Think you may be being a touch pedantic on this one. But yes, there must have been a chance to score, obviously, regardless of how small that opportunity was.

 

[Tom Halsey]

if that's how it is it's surprising there's so much to debate in football!

It's not really, because clearly not everyone shares that view of the game. This debate has been a case in point.

In other news, Avram Grant could be receiving his P45 soon one feels...

 

[Uppercut]

Ok, you score more goals than the opposition, therefore you're better.

Hey, that's what the rule book says.

 

[sledger]

They were second best in a number of areas of the game. Generally when that is the case you are fortunate to come away with the three points, but credit to them they did just that.

We scarcely posed them any problems for the duration of the match ? Mmmmh.

Seeing as these "areas" I suspect you are referring to the use of possession throughout the game, I'm inclined to disagree, given that City did show some nice touches and passed the ball around well in the middle of the field, but this amounted to precisely nothing. Showing nice touches and pretty sideways passing does not amount to good use of possession, or anything like it. If this is what constitutes a good performance by any subjective standard then it really is lost on me. Apart from Silva's chance in the first half early on there were no desperate moments for the Man Utd defence, even the goal conceded was a total freak which can't be put down to anything other than good fortune on behalf of the attacking team, not the presence of poor defending. I'm sure that Man Utd will be pleased with the win, and they were made to work hard for it, but I doubt they'll consider themselves fortunate, for the reasons I've just stated.

Anyway, similarly to Halsey, this is tiresome, so no more posts from me on the matter either.

 

[Nate]

In other news, Avram Grant could be receiving his P45 soon one feels...

Indeed. Not watching this game, but can only imagine that the Hammers are playing the same loose, aimless football of previous weeks.

 

[sledger]

They were second best in a number of areas of the game. Generally when that is the case you are fortunate to come away with the three points, but credit to them they did just that.

We scarcely posed them any problems for the duration of the match ? Mmmmh.

Seeing as these "areas" I suspect you are referring to the use of possession throughout the game, I'm inclined to disagree, given that City did show some nice touches and passed the ball around well in the middle of the field, but this amounted to precisely nothing. Showing nice touches and pretty sideways passing does not amount to good use of possession, or anything like it. If this is what constitutes a good performance by any subjective standard then it really is lost on me. Apart from Silva's chance in the first half early on there were no desperate moments for the Man Utd defence, even the goal conceded was a total freak which can't be put down to anything other than good fortune on behalf of the attacking team, not the presence of poor defending. I'm sure that Man Utd will be pleased with the win, and they were made to work hard for it, but I doubt they'll consider themselves fortunate, for the reasons I've just stated.

Anyway, similarly to Halsey, this is tiresome, so no more posts from me on the matter either.