Arsenal v Man City kick off 1945 Sky Sports Premier League / Sky Sports Main Event / Sky Sports Ultr


Status
Not open for further replies.
I generally prefer competitive football and would sooner watch Stoke vs Leicester than e.g. Man City at home to a Stoke when the expected result would be 3 or 4-0 and it would really be just a case of how many Stoke concede. Granted this was supposed to competitive with Arsenal being strong at home, but I generally switch off when a team goes 3-0 up if I'm watching as a neutral. The only way I'd leave it on is if it was us winning 3-0 (I know...) or Newcastle losing 3-0.
Why would you turn off a goal fest? It's what makes the game good.
 
What's happened to Danny Wellbeck? All ower the shop here.

Hasn't really done much since he came back from his second cruciate injury. Maybe he just needs a move, Frazier Campbell was shite when he came back for us but went to Cardiff for a fresh start and started banging them in.
 
39 premiership goals in 187 appearances
Yeah. I know. He's good. I get it.
But not tonight.

Hasn't really done much since he came back from his second cruciate injury. Maybe he just needs a move, Frazier Campbell was shite when he came back for us but went to Cardiff for a fresh start and started banging them in.
Maybe we can get him back on loan next season. Wellbeck I mean
 
Why would you turn off a goal fest? It's what makes the game good.

Because I much prefer competitive sport regardless of what form it is. I'm a huge tennis fan, but if it wasn't one of my favourites I would rather watch the 32nd seed vs 40th in the opening round of Wimbledon where the odds are around 5/6 apiece, rather than Federer vs a random qualifier ranked between 100-200 where Federer was 1/100 to win. He may be playing some splendid stuff, but if it's 6-0, 6-1, 6-1 then to me that's a bit of a waste of time. Likewise I'd rather see a 50/50 English / British title fight in boxing than an 'exciting' Anthony Joshua in the early part of his career when he is knocking over no hopers in fights he pretty much couldn't lose. Just the way I am and always have been. Much rather watch something that should be close if a neutral.
 
Because I much prefer competitive sport regardless of what form it is. I'm a huge tennis fan, but if it wasn't one of my favourites I would rather watch the 32nd seed vs 40th in the opening round of Wimbledon where the odds are around 5/6 apiece, rather than Federer vs a random qualifier ranked between 100-200 where Federer was 1/100 to win. He may be playing some splendid stuff, but if it's 6-0, 6-1, 6-1 then to me that's a bit of a waste of time. Likewise I'd rather see a 50/50 English / British title fight in boxing than an 'exciting' Anthony Joshua in the early part of his career when he is knocking over no hopers in fights he pretty much couldn't lose. Just the way I am and always have been. Much rather watch something that should be close if a neutral.
Bit of a difference though. Boxing can be over in a round where as football must play for 90 minutes. Tennis I also love but if you've watched any of the last wta and atp majors, there has been shocks all over. With drubbings in football you see skill from 22 players and not 2 participants in the sports you mention. Have you ever tried watching thw t20 format? That's like a flip of a coin and gets right down to the nitty gritty. Very exciting it is.
 
Because I much prefer competitive sport regardless of what form it is. I'm a huge tennis fan, but if it wasn't one of my favourites I would rather watch the 32nd seed vs 40th in the opening round of Wimbledon where the odds are around 5/6 apiece, rather than Federer vs a random qualifier ranked between 100-200 where Federer was 1/100 to win. He may be playing some splendid stuff, but if it's 6-0, 6-1, 6-1 then to me that's a bit of a waste of time. Likewise I'd rather see a 50/50 English / British title fight in boxing than an 'exciting' Anthony Joshua in the early part of his career when he is knocking over no hopers in fights he pretty much couldn't lose. Just the way I am and always have been. Much rather watch something that should be close if a neutral.

Boxing's about career development though. It's about how you win, not just winning.
 
Ah... the team in red and white getting mullered, empty seats aplenty, fans leaving in droves before the end and a carrier bag blowing across the pitch...all that’s missing is the faded seats.
 
Bit of a difference though. Boxing can be over in a round where as football must play for 90 minutes. Tennis I also love but if you've watched any of the last wta and atp majors, there has been shocks all over. With drubbings in football you see skill from 22 players and not 2 participants in the sports you mention. Have you ever tried watching thw t20 format? That's like a flip of a coin and gets right down to the nitty gritty. Very exciting it is.

Well, England being 69-6 up against Italy then in the 6 nations :p

Yeah, maybe a bit of a difference. If City were like 3-0 to a lesser side then I would be more interested, but my point was if the favourite is comfortably doing what they are supposed to then no matter how lovely the team goals are, I'm just not that bothered if it was 3 or 4-0 in a never really in doubt match. Don't get me wrong, I love a good 4-3 or 5-4 thrilling goal fest, but when a huge favourite are very comfortable then it's a massive turn off for me. That's why I hate it when Sky / BT show a top 6 side at home to a lesser side in the earlier parts of the season as literally 9/10 it will be a routine home win.

Oh and I can't stand any form of cricket marra.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top