EPTfar more interesting to see who wins that race imo
2022 - 2023 Football Thread - Page 67
| Forum Index > Sports |
New Thread! Sneirac has delivered! | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8657 Posts
far more interesting to see who wins that race imo | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6215 Posts
On January 14 2023 23:28 Liquid`Drone wrote: United with 9 straight wins in all competitions (in fact, every competitive match since Ronaldo last played for them), and 1 point behind City? Dark horse? I wonder if the people who called for sacking Ten Hag after two games are eating their words yet. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On January 15 2023 04:50 plasmidghost wrote: Mudryk went to Chelsea, jesus fuck. How FFP hasn't gotten involved with them I don't know When they visit Man City... so never. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On January 15 2023 05:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: When they visit Man City... so never. Yeah, true. This shit is crazy | ||
|
sharkie
Austria18413 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28673 Posts
On January 15 2023 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Italian domestic fans are.... crazy. But also insanely talented. https://twitter.com/IFTVofficial/status/1614261465988624384 Juventus had conceded 7 goals in 17 games before this one. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On January 15 2023 05:39 sharkie wrote: Thank god!!! I am so happy as an Arsenal fan Hoping we avoided another Pepe and that we get midfielders now. Plus, if Chelsea punts 100m away on a flop, that's even better | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28673 Posts
His stats (not goals per game but shot accuracy, chance creation, dribbles, etc) are insane. I think he might be a better signing for Chelsea than for Arsenal (Chelsea needs someone who can create goals, a Hazard-type, and Mudryk looks quite a bit like Hazard), but I think most likely, over the next 3 years, every PL team would be very happy to have him. | ||
|
sharkie
Austria18413 Posts
On January 15 2023 06:13 Liquid`Drone wrote: Always hard to predict how a player will do in the PL but I'm thinking he's gonna do great and he would've been a great signing for Arsenal. I haven't seen much of him, just CL highlights and a bit of youtube, but the type of hype that surrounds him is usually based on something. His stats (not goals per game but shot accuracy, chance creation, dribbles, etc) are insane. I think he might be a better signing for Chelsea than for Arsenal (Chelsea needs someone who can create goals, a Hazard-type, and Mudryk looks quite a bit like Hazard), but I think most likely, over the next 3 years, every PL team would be very happy to have him. He's definitely a good player but Martinelli and Saka are just better and you can only have two wingers in a game. and 90mil is too much for a player on the bench | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28673 Posts
| ||
|
sharkie
Austria18413 Posts
 | ||
|
justanothertownie
16318 Posts
On January 14 2023 23:27 Pandemona wrote: How on earth is that Bruno goal given, haha Rashford running onto ball miles offside, doesn't touch, blocks off a defender, clearly involved in play, Bruno takes it off his foot and bends it in.....goal given? xd No idea, what a terrible decision. | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
On January 15 2023 18:47 justanothertownie wrote: No idea, what a terrible decision. 100% offside if you ask any 'real' footballer. Yes, the rules are rather vague and subjective, but it's pretty obvious that Rashford got too close to the ball and had clearly got into the field of play. It's arguably 50-50 if Rashford was close to the ball but made an early attempt to get out of the way. It's a totally different story if Rashford was making a run down the sidelines far away from the ball and defenders. But that's not what happened. Even Bruno candidly admitted that he thought both players were onside at that time (if Rashford originally thought he was onside and chased the ball only to change his mind later on, then that's there some interference with ball). The biggest surprise is how certain pundits and experts can even argue that the decision was correct based on the letter of the law. I'm not an expert of interpreting the rule book. But come on, this is such a clear cut situation that trying to interpret the term 'interfering with play' so narrowly as requiring direct physical contact or full blocking of vision is just nonsense. If this is really how the rule is applied, attackers can now deliberately stay offside and make all kinds of feints to toy with the defenders. This needlessly introduces even more complexities and increases similar situations in future. Makes a mockery of the offside rule. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
| ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
| ||
