Jump to content

  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Football 2010-2011

Guest eFestivals

By Guest eFestivals
in Discussions

 Share

Recommended Posts

modey Apprentice

modey

Posted
Posted (edited)

And of course Man Utd fans didn't do the same thru their nearly 30 years of dreariness (and a spell in Div 2 :P), eh? :lol:

Edited by modey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 10.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • eFestivals

    2125

  • ampersand

    1135

  • The Nal

    1089

  • TheGayTent

    766

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

eFestivals Mentor

eFestivals

Posted
Posted

No question about it. Great to see him bring in the young full backs too. Could save him millions into the bargain. If Kelly and Flanagan work out, Kenny could sell Glen "Great Going Forward" Johnson, (with his 3 assists and 2 goals in two seasons) for silly money to some willing gang of idiots.

Like Sunderland.

I don't think it'll be Sunderland - they're most Utd's idiots, not Liverpool's. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pink_triangle Veteran

pink_triangle

Posted
Posted

No question about it. Great to see him bring in the young full backs too. Could save him millions into the bargain. If Kelly and Flanagan work out, Kenny could sell Glen "Great Going Forward" Johnson, (with his 3 assists and 2 goals in two seasons) for silly money to some willing gang of idiots.

Like Sunderland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eFestivals Mentor

eFestivals

Posted
Posted

I disagree with this, while the vast majority of football teams go out to win games and therefore get into the best position they can. There is a clear difference in being able to win a game where a loss could be the difference between winning a title or trophy or finishing second and taking over a team mid table/mid season where the results have less significance. What sets the best teams and sportsmen apart is the fact that they win when it really matters. Thats why man utd win championships and arsenal dont. We will know better next season where liverpool fit in.

I wasn't entirely serious with what I posted (cos I'd chopped off the rest of what he'd said).

All the same, I'd say you're talking bollocks. It's not about "winning when it really matters", it's about nothing further than winning more games (or, to be more precise, picking up the most points).

Man Utd have won the league and Arsenal haven't because they've won more games, nothing more than that. Arsenal just couldn't win more of their games than Utd.

It's not like the specific games you win makes any difference at all, cos there's the same points available from all of them. Utd didn't get any extra points by beating Chelsea - the "game that really mattered", it could be said - than they did by beating (if they beat them, can't be bothered to check) West Ham*.

(* picked only cos they're currently bottom).

If Utd had won a game that they did lose but lost to Chelsea, that "game that really matters" gets to be shown as one that didn't matter. It's the points that count, nowt else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pink_triangle Veteran

pink_triangle

Posted
Posted

Its true that the same points are available in game 1 and game 38. However sport is full of teams/sportsmen who fall apart when put under pressure. Football teams who go to pieces towards the business end of the season, tennis players who win lots of tournaments but flop at grand slams, golfers who only make hig scores in majors when out of contention. Could liverpool have won all these games if they were under the pressure of a title run in? The answe ris nobody knows. As I have said next season will give a better indicator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eFestivals Mentor

eFestivals

Posted
Posted

Its true that the same points are available in game 1 and game 38. However sport is full of teams/sportsmen who fall apart when put under pressure.

Is it? Or is that just how you choose to view it? ;)

It's always the case that there's going to be a winner. The fact that the team who is considered the best gets to win totally contradicts what you say.

There's no one iota of proof that you can reference to back up what you say. It's an idea, nowt more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ralph250 Newbie

ralph250

Posted
Posted

Is it? Or is that just how you choose to view it? ;)

It's always the case that there's going to be a winner. The fact that the team who is considered the best gets to win totally contradicts what you say.

There's no one iota of proof that you can reference to back up what you say. It's an idea, nowt more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
modey Apprentice

modey

Posted
Posted

yeah, you just can't compare challenging for (the best position you can get in) the league with challenging for the best position you can get in the league. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eFestivals Mentor

eFestivals

Posted
Posted

hmmm....

Why would Barca emit nervousness unless acknowledging pressure in sport?

That's a part of being *A* team I guess, not just the not-quite-best team (such as Arsenal). Nerves could work both for and against any team, depending which side of bed they got out of that day or any other random factor anyone might like to throw in.

Can you or anyone else prove that 'nerves' change the result (either way) of any game? No you can't.

Any game on any day is going to be won by one of the two sides (apart from draws of course). The winner will be the team who gets the better of the other on the day, and they manage that by a variety of factors. Nerves might be a part of that but they might not; a bobble on the pitch could be the factor which makes the difference.

Do Barca's 'nerves' make them play better or worse? While I've noticed what I've taken to be nerves (and which to me are demonstrated by them not playing as an attacking a game as they do when they're comfortably on top), it doesn't necessarily mean they're playing worse, it can only be said that they're playing differently.

..and if Utd win, will they be considered the best in Europe then?

As was said, with the reason, in the part you chose not to quote: not by most people, no. Gutting for you when you have your blinkers on, I know. :P

They will simply be the team who won on the day, and who history and the record books will suggest were the best team that year.

The act of winning doesn't mean the indisputably-best team won - as every Man Utd fan said in the recent year that City turned you over twice. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eFestivals Mentor

eFestivals

Posted
Posted

All your valid points are completely lost when you spout hyperbolic turd like that, just to try and wind folk up.

Eh? You've got me completely wrong with that. :blink:

I'm pointing out that one result says nothing of any team by itself - if it did then it would be also fair comment to say that Northampton or Notts County or whoever it was (I forget) that knocked Liverpool out of one of the cups this year are a better team than Liverpool. They of course were better in that one match, but no one but a fool would say that pans out as indisputably better overall.

To me, the best measure of who is best is over a season, where the good and bad days get to level each other out to some extent. It's also on this basis that I've said that if Utd beat Barca in the Chumps in a few weeks it doesn't mean that Utd are the better team; I'd hope that just about every Utd fan would be honest enough to admit that while they might beat Barca in a one-off, they'd be unlikely to come out best against them over a number of games ... tho of course without those 'number of games' being played, we can never know for sure; but I reckon it's a more than fair presumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Benj Veteran

Benj

Posted
Posted

Eh? You've got me completely wrong with that. :blink:

I'm pointing out that one result says nothing of any team by itself - if it did then it would be also fair comment to say that Northampton or Notts County or whoever it was (I forget) that knocked Liverpool out of one of the cups this year are a better team than Liverpool. They of course were better in that one match, but no one but a fool would say that pans out as indisputably better overall.

To me, the best measure of who is best is over a season, where the good and bad days get to level each other out to some extent. It's also on this basis that I've said that if Utd beat Barca in the Chumps in a few weeks it doesn't mean that Utd are the better team; I'd hope that just about every Utd fan would be honest enough to admit that while they might beat Barca in a one-off, they'd be unlikely to come out best against them over a number of games ... tho of course without those 'number of games' being played, we can never know for sure; but I reckon it's a more than fair presumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Benj Veteran

Benj

Posted
Posted

Eh? Who do you speak to?

We were shit this time last year and then brought in Roy? I thought we'd come about tenth in August. There's optimism for a good reason, we have our club back. I'd fight for yours too before it's too late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...