|
Yeah seriously, unlucky?
We're Bayern unlucky that around 50% of their shots weren't even on target. How about that fact that a lot of them were shots from inside the penalty area?
God honestly, people making comparisons between football and starcraft.
This is football, this is a game where luck is a factor, where weather conditions, a deflection, a red card can change it all. And it can happen in any game at any time.
Football is not a statistics sport, there is not a correct way to play. Fucking get over your selves.
|
The way Chelsea plays may be ugly as all hell, but it still wins games. And winning games is all that matters folks.
|
can bayern pls sell gomez and buy a new player
|
On May 20 2012 07:20 Denzil wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:18 Salteador Neo wrote: Chelsea are such a lucky bunch with their goals at the last minute lol. Whenever another team does it we call it "making a chelsea" here. You mean Man U?
Nope we pretty much only watch english teams in the CL, not the Premier games. In the CL Chelsea are easily the late goals team as far as I remember.
|
On May 20 2012 07:22 Shotcoder wrote: The way Chelsea plays may be ugly as all hell, but it still wins games. And winning games is all that matters folks.
Winning games shouldn't be all that matters. This isn't a war. Playing attractively should be a consideration.
|
On May 20 2012 07:21 Dr.Lettuce wrote: Yeah seriously, unlucky?
We're Bayern unlucky that around 50% of their shots weren't even on target. How about that fact that a lot of them were shots from inside the penalty area?
God honestly, people making comparisons between football and starcraft.
This is football, this is a game where luck is a factor, where weather conditions, a deflection, a red card can change it all. And it can happen in any game at any time.
Football is not a statistics sport, there is not a correct way to play. Fucking get over your selves.
Luck is a factor, but luck can be mitigated.
If you never put a foot wrong, you'll never get carded.
If you always manage to get yourself infront of the shot perfectly, the shot will never get deflected towards goal.
Weather is the only luck factor but eh,
|
On May 19 2012 01:31 greggy wrote: CHELSEA OLE
Probably will go 1-0 either way.
Well, I was right for one thing at least.
CHELSEA OLE
Edit:On May 20 2012 07:24 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:22 Shotcoder wrote: The way Chelsea plays may be ugly as all hell, but it still wins games. And winning games is all that matters folks. Winning games shouldn't be all that matters. This isn't a war. Playing attractively should be a consideration.
go watch arsenal pls
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51490 Posts
Ashley Cole surely cemented himself as the WORLDS best LB? I mean he was the best player on the pitch for me! Amazing
|
On May 20 2012 07:26 Pandemona wrote: Ashley Cole surely cemented himself as the WORLDS best LB? I mean he was the best player on the pitch for me! Amazing Sorry, Lahm was even better. Okay you said LB.
|
On May 20 2012 07:24 greggy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 01:31 greggy wrote: CHELSEA OLE
Probably will go 1-0 either way. Well, I was right for one thing at least. CHELSEA OLE Edit: Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:24 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:22 Shotcoder wrote: The way Chelsea plays may be ugly as all hell, but it still wins games. And winning games is all that matters folks. Winning games shouldn't be all that matters. This isn't a war. Playing attractively should be a consideration. go watch arsenal pls
But Arsenal play like Barcalona therefore they must be like the 2nd best team is Europe because passes = the better team right?
oh wait they have a dusty trophy cabinet, that doesn't make sense.
maybe playing attractively doesn't win games?
also to the ^ German guy, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not but the 2 displays don't compare.
Ashley Cole is known for his attacking moves and ability to get up the pitch, the past 3 games he has displayed an unparalled defensive display for someone of his position.
|
On May 20 2012 07:24 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:22 Shotcoder wrote: The way Chelsea plays may be ugly as all hell, but it still wins games. And winning games is all that matters folks. Winning games shouldn't be all that matters. This isn't a war. Playing attractively should be a consideration.
It should be a consideration. But Chelsea would have been utterly stupid to play a style of football that there team was not suited to. Rather bland back 4 compared to what they're used to. Additionally the loss of strong midfield runners affected their strategy.
You are right, but if attractiveness compromises your chances of winning then you seriously have to question what your goals actually are.
|
On May 20 2012 07:24 Denzil wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:21 Dr.Lettuce wrote: Yeah seriously, unlucky?
We're Bayern unlucky that around 50% of their shots weren't even on target. How about that fact that a lot of them were shots from inside the penalty area?
God honestly, people making comparisons between football and starcraft.
This is football, this is a game where luck is a factor, where weather conditions, a deflection, a red card can change it all. And it can happen in any game at any time.
Football is not a statistics sport, there is not a correct way to play. Fucking get over your selves. Luck is a factor, but luck can be mitigated. If you never put a foot wrong, you'll never get carded. If you always manage to get yourself infront of the shot perfectly, the shot will never get deflected towards goal. Weather is the only luck factor but eh,
A referee decision?
What if the ball swerves in an unpredictable way?
Goal line technology?
Additionally, the human element? We make mistakes, we are not perfect entities. We are human and we can't act in robotic ways.
|
On May 20 2012 07:27 Denzil wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:24 greggy wrote:On May 19 2012 01:31 greggy wrote: CHELSEA OLE
Probably will go 1-0 either way. Well, I was right for one thing at least. CHELSEA OLE Edit: On May 20 2012 07:24 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:22 Shotcoder wrote: The way Chelsea plays may be ugly as all hell, but it still wins games. And winning games is all that matters folks. Winning games shouldn't be all that matters. This isn't a war. Playing attractively should be a consideration. go watch arsenal pls But Arsenal play like Barcalona therefore they must be like the 2nd best team is Europe because passes = the better team right? oh wait they have a dusty trophy cabinet, that doesn't make sense. maybe playing attractively doesn't win games? that was the fucking point ¬_¬
|
On May 20 2012 07:21 Pandemona wrote: OH MY GOD
We have DONE IT!!! History has been made, first London club to win the European cup and CHELSEA 1ST!!
Do Arsenal fans hate Chelsea?
|
On May 20 2012 07:27 Dr.Lettuce wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:24 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:22 Shotcoder wrote: The way Chelsea plays may be ugly as all hell, but it still wins games. And winning games is all that matters folks. Winning games shouldn't be all that matters. This isn't a war. Playing attractively should be a consideration. It should be a consideration. But Chelsea would have been utterly stupid to play a style of football that there team was not suited to. Rather bland back 4 compared to what they're used to. Additionally the loss of strong midfield runners affected their strategy. You are right, but if attractiveness compromises your chances of winning then you seriously have to question what your goals actually are.
I don't really disagree with you. But I do think losing gloriously is sometimes better than winning badly, in football. Different people are different.
|
On May 20 2012 07:28 Dr.Lettuce wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:24 Denzil wrote:On May 20 2012 07:21 Dr.Lettuce wrote: Yeah seriously, unlucky?
We're Bayern unlucky that around 50% of their shots weren't even on target. How about that fact that a lot of them were shots from inside the penalty area?
God honestly, people making comparisons between football and starcraft.
This is football, this is a game where luck is a factor, where weather conditions, a deflection, a red card can change it all. And it can happen in any game at any time.
Football is not a statistics sport, there is not a correct way to play. Fucking get over your selves. Luck is a factor, but luck can be mitigated. If you never put a foot wrong, you'll never get carded. If you always manage to get yourself infront of the shot perfectly, the shot will never get deflected towards goal. Weather is the only luck factor but eh, A referee decision? What if the ball swerves in an unpredictable way? Goal line technology?
Refereeing decision such as what? That's a very vague thing for me to capitalise on but if you make every tackle cleanly and get the ball either through stopping it completely / noticible ball direction change from the challenge in theory you should be fine. Ball swerving shouldn't be a factor because you'd have stopped the shot in the first place or read the shot better, as a goalie it's your job to stop that happening and learn the swerve patterns. Goal line technology is just horse shit on so many levels and I hate fifa / uefa.
|
On May 20 2012 07:28 greggy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:27 Denzil wrote:On May 20 2012 07:24 greggy wrote:On May 19 2012 01:31 greggy wrote: CHELSEA OLE
Probably will go 1-0 either way. Well, I was right for one thing at least. CHELSEA OLE Edit: On May 20 2012 07:24 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:22 Shotcoder wrote: The way Chelsea plays may be ugly as all hell, but it still wins games. And winning games is all that matters folks. Winning games shouldn't be all that matters. This isn't a war. Playing attractively should be a consideration. go watch arsenal pls But Arsenal play like Barcalona therefore they must be like the 2nd best team is Europe because passes = the better team right? oh wait they have a dusty trophy cabinet, that doesn't make sense. maybe playing attractively doesn't win games? that was the fucking point ¬_¬
*whoosh*
|
On May 20 2012 07:31 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:27 Dr.Lettuce wrote:On May 20 2012 07:24 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:22 Shotcoder wrote: The way Chelsea plays may be ugly as all hell, but it still wins games. And winning games is all that matters folks. Winning games shouldn't be all that matters. This isn't a war. Playing attractively should be a consideration. It should be a consideration. But Chelsea would have been utterly stupid to play a style of football that there team was not suited to. Rather bland back 4 compared to what they're used to. Additionally the loss of strong midfield runners affected their strategy. You are right, but if attractiveness compromises your chances of winning then you seriously have to question what your goals actually are. I don't really disagree with you. But I do think losing gloriously is sometimes better than winning badly, in football. Different people are different. You don't sound bitter at all.
|
On May 20 2012 07:31 greggy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:31 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:27 Dr.Lettuce wrote:On May 20 2012 07:24 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:22 Shotcoder wrote: The way Chelsea plays may be ugly as all hell, but it still wins games. And winning games is all that matters folks. Winning games shouldn't be all that matters. This isn't a war. Playing attractively should be a consideration. It should be a consideration. But Chelsea would have been utterly stupid to play a style of football that there team was not suited to. Rather bland back 4 compared to what they're used to. Additionally the loss of strong midfield runners affected their strategy. You are right, but if attractiveness compromises your chances of winning then you seriously have to question what your goals actually are. I don't really disagree with you. But I do think losing gloriously is sometimes better than winning badly, in football. Different people are different. You don't sound bitter at all.
I am very bitter, so what?
|
On May 20 2012 07:32 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:31 greggy wrote:On May 20 2012 07:31 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:27 Dr.Lettuce wrote:On May 20 2012 07:24 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:22 Shotcoder wrote: The way Chelsea plays may be ugly as all hell, but it still wins games. And winning games is all that matters folks. Winning games shouldn't be all that matters. This isn't a war. Playing attractively should be a consideration. It should be a consideration. But Chelsea would have been utterly stupid to play a style of football that there team was not suited to. Rather bland back 4 compared to what they're used to. Additionally the loss of strong midfield runners affected their strategy. You are right, but if attractiveness compromises your chances of winning then you seriously have to question what your goals actually are. I don't really disagree with you. But I do think losing gloriously is sometimes better than winning badly, in football. Different people are different. You don't sound bitter at all. I am very bitter, so what?
It's clouding your ability to formulate a decent argument.
|
|
|
|