lessthanluke Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Feel totally gutted for Walcott as well. That goal deserved to the winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Sean Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 I was going to post, Let the whinging begin but I see it already has. Thanks Liverpool!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJDonegal Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Soooo... that was a waste of my time, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isis Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Not one, but two people are deeply saddened because Walcott's goal was not a match-winning goal. What a bizarrely random piece of bullshit that is. Did some knob so-called pundit on the TV say that? I was going to post, Let the whinging begin but I see it already has. It never really ended. *warms hands on self-righteous outrage of gooners* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Sean Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 This does however mean Liverpool v Chelsea. Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronn Stone Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Tonight I watched the 'top ten sports highlights' on ESPN (US #1 sports network on cable) tonight, The #3 highlight in the top ten was the Torres goal (a thing of beauty, as all must confess). I was pleasantly surprised that a highlight from an international football match would score so high. #2 was a showy NBA dunk. *yawn* #1 was the run up by Walcott and Adebayor goal. I was shocked. I'd never thought to see such focus on a non-WC-championship, non-US match. Yes, America's primary sport television network had declared 2 of 3 highlights from Arsenal-Liverpool as its "Plays of the Day". Progress happens. Slowly, but it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronn Stone Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Though I must confess that I am a tad disappointed by the fact that the general consensus on this thread is that Man U (who've been buying players from less successful clubs, both in-league and internationally, for decades) are somehow preferable to Chelsea who just started. They both are doing the same heinous thing. If anything, I'd think at least one might feel sympathy for those who are new to the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorn Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Though I must confess that I am a tad disappointed by the fact that the general consensus on this thread is that Man U (who've been buying players from less successful clubs, both in-league and internationally, for decades) are somehow preferable to Chelsea who just started. They both are doing the same heinous thing. If anything, I'd think at least one might feel sympathy for those who are new to the crime. Man U plays beautiful, attacking football, while Chelsea plays boring, defensive football. "Buying players from less successful clubs" is not a crime, or if it is, every single major club, as well as most minor clubs, are guilty of it. You have to descend down to third and fourth national leagues to find clubs that aren't doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Baelish Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Not one, but two people are deeply saddened because Walcott's goal was not a match-winning goal. What a bizarrely random piece of bullshit that is. Did some knob so-called pundit on the TV say that? Or, quite possibly, we just thought that Walcott's run was the best thing in the match and deserved more. Just because you happen to disagree with it does not make it bullshit, because, and I know you may find this hard to digest, your opinion isn't worth any more than anyone else's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Though I must confess that I am a tad disappointed by the fact that the general consensus on this thread is that Man U (who've been buying players from less successful clubs, both in-league and internationally, for decades) are somehow preferable to Chelsea who just started. They both are doing the same heinous thing. If anything, I'd think at least one might feel sympathy for those who are new to the crime. I dunno about decades... United became a famous team in the late 50s and then 60s from home grown teams (the team in the late 50s was called the Busby babes, after the manager, because they were so young as team compared to what people were used to). United were pretty shit in the 70s and 80s, but Ferguson was pretty much always, from the time he got there, very willing to spend the cash on players. He did famously produce a bunch of England's best players all about the same time, (Beckham, Scholes, Butt, the Nevilles), but even then they had the record English signing in Andy Cole, and I believe that Roy Keane had been the most expensive transfer between English clubs when United signed him in 1992. I dont think that he's any different in this regard from any of the traditionally giant teams in Europe. Real Madrid are famous for splashing the cash. Before Abramovic came along, they spend large sums of money buying nearly every player who got named World Player of the year. In the early 90s, Italian clubs were famous for spending huge amounts of money on players. I think a lot of the Chelsea hate comes from the perception of how they play football. That certainly seems to be the case in this thread, rather than their spending habits. People think they play very defensive, boring football. Trying to squash the life out of each game and containing the other team and then scoring on the counter-attack when the other team is a bit slow switching from attack to defence. I don't think these accusations are particularly accurate, but there you go. Manchester United, on the other hand have a reputation for playing attacking football, with fast wingers taking the ball up the sides of the field and putting in lots of crosses. Of course, that's not the whole story When it comes to spending cash, I think the thing that sticks in people's crotch about Chelsea over United is that Chelsea took it to completely another level and arguably changed the market, for a few years there, at least. Abramovic's wealth and willingness to spend gave Chelsea ability to spend that was unmatched by any team in the World. And spend they did, without a whole lot of regard for value. Transfer prices were inflated for several years there because Chelsea were willing to outbid every other price. The other important aspect is that Chelsea were perceived as willing to buy the most promising players at other English clubs even though there wasn't much of a place in the team for them. The perception is (which I hold too) that no team ever did this before. Chelsea bought Glen Johnson, Damien Duff, Scott Parker, Wayne Bridge, Shaun Wright-Phillips and then didn't really do a whole lot with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Calm down people. At least be civil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaldanya Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I would prefer either them or Man U to win the PL but only because they play better football than Chelsea. Don't look now but you've just expressed a bias N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isis Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Or, quite possibly, we just thought that Walcott's run was the best thing in the match and deserved more. Just because you happen to disagree with it does not make it bullshit, because, and I know you may find this hard to digest, your opinion isn't worth any more than anyone else's. I can't calm down, Paddy, because I'm so traumatised about Walcott not scoring the match-winner. :cry: In fact, I think today should be a national holiday so that we can all mourn appropriately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Baelish Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 So you've never before heard someone say a moment of brilliance deserved more, then? It's an alien phrase to you? Or is it just because someone's had the temerity to praise an Arsenal player that has got you acting this pathetic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.