Yippee we got a draw


Status
Not open for further replies.
So how many times do teams normally get into the box and threaten? They had 21 shots, Ive counted Hart having to make 6 saves, 4 of which came from in the box. Welbeck and Terry both blocking on target shots.

For me, that is above the average "threats" in a game.

I think outside the SMB, it is widely accepted that France - in all but goals (which is the thing that matters) hammered us.



Haha, really?! You said they hardly threatened. You said there were no great saves, then back tracked into saying "yeah, well that was the only great-ish save)

Silly man.


You jumped in saying I said they didn't threaten, I said they rarely threatened.
You said he made great saves, I said "great saves, really". He made one great(ish) save.

You got ahead of yourself and you've made a right bellend of yourself, please continue with it.

When did i say they didn't threaten? You said Hart made some great saves, he made one.

The lad has got himself in a right tangle.
 
Ah, so now youre saying there was a great save?!

And do long range efforts, heading towards the bottom corner, that required a full diving save, not count?! (Nasri)

Anyway, The block from Benzama, the hear post save from Ribery. Not world class saves, but still signs that France threatened on quite a few occasions.

Youre having a mare.

I think the clip posted shows you to be having the mare. Apart from the point blank header save (and the poor follow-up header) all the other chances would've been catastrophic if they had gone in.

Attempts at goal, YES. Threatening? Not really.
 
I think outside the SMB, it is widely accepted that France - in all but goals (which is the thing that matters) hammered us.
:eek: Bloody hell, another one. Here's one I made earlier to Komodo but apllies to you as well....
How do you view our win against Man. City? I thought despite their possession they didn't (weren't allowed to) batter our goal and we deserved the win - we created better chances on the break.

England didn't create enough chances to win so a draw was a fair result, imo.

Man. City > Sunlun and France > England but, on the day, both underdogs deserved what they got.
 
You jumped in saying I said they didn't threaten, I said they rarely threatened.
You said he made great saves, I said "great saves, really". He made one great(ish) save.

You got ahead of yourself and you've made a right bellend of yourself, please continue with it.



The lad has got himself in a right tangle.

But even with rarely threaten, they DID threaten, quite a bit.

Was the long range effort that went in not a threat?!?!:eek:

Long range efforts ARE threats. They are a shot on goal. Quite how these are not deemed a threat is beyond me, and will perhaps be forever cast with SMB logic.

Who did?

Can we counter that ONE great save with the shocking miss by Milner just to even things up a bit?

I never, ever, said England didnt threaten. I have also said that I think we played well, we defended well, but we shouldnt convince ourrselves that we rode our luck, and that France threatened a tad more than "rarely"

:eek: Bloody hell, another one. Here's one I made earlier to Komodo but apllies to you as well....

I thought exactly the same with our Man City game. Anyone who didnt think City pummelled us in that game, and that we were lucky to come away with a win, is slightly deluded.
 
Usha Dup said:
In fact, watching that video, makes the suggestion France never threatened even more laughable.

I felt we were really comfortable even Blanc said the draw was a fair reflection of the game while you are saying they battered us you utter f***ing gonk
 
We need to implement massive changes to how we train our youths so that one day we will have technically sound players capable of dominating a game with the ball at their feet.

However, anyone who expects us to try and play like that right now is either a f***ing idiot, or wants us to lose.

Sick of this massive possession stat group wank that wasn't going on before Spain won the world cup and this current Barcelona team came along.
 
I think the clip posted shows you to be having the mare. Apart from the point blank header save (and the poor follow-up header) all the other chances would've been catastrophic if they had gone in.

Attempts at goal, YES. Threatening? Not really.

Was the goal France scored catastrophic?

The French goal proves that long range efforts/in the box efforts (there was a few) all count as threats. They can all lead to a goal. We gave them the time and space to get those long shots in, and they proved to be just as dangerous as any box play. In fact they proved to be our downfall, so to say we they threatened rarely because they "only had long range efforts" is a complete contradiction in terms, esp when that how they scored!
 
I never, ever, said England didnt threaten. I have also said that I think we played well, we defended well, but we shouldnt convince ourrselves that we rode our luck, and that France threatened a tad more than "rarely"



I thought exactly the same with our Man City game. Anyone who didnt think City pummelled us in that game, and that we were lucky to come away with a win, is slightly deluded.

Your definition of a threat on goal is clearly different to mine. You said great saveS, your definition of a great save is clearly different to mine. We created one other clear-cut chance which Milner ballsed up. How many other clear-cut chances did France create bar their goal?
 
We need to implement massive changes to how we train our youths so that one day we will have technically sound players capable of dominating a game with the ball at their feet.

However, anyone who expects us to try and play like that right now is either a f***ing idiot, or wants us to lose.

Sick of this massive possession stat group wank that wasn't going on before Spain won the world cup and this current Barcelona team came along.

I agree with you. I think we played well, we made the most of our strengths. As I said earlier, goals are the only things that count in this game, and we drew. But we do need to improve if we have any chance of winning the tournament (do we anyway?!)

If we keep our forwards forward, and stretch their back line, like we did up until our goal against France, we could have even went on to win by a couple of goals. Their defence commented on how hard Young and Welbeck were stretching them.
 
Was the goal France scored catastrophic?

The French goal proves that long range efforts/in the box efforts (there was a few) all count as threats. They can all lead to a goal. We gave them the time and space to get those long shots in, and they proved to be just as dangerous as any box play. In fact they proved to be our downfall, so to say we they threatened rarely because they "only had long range efforts" is a complete contradiction in terms, esp when that how they scored!

So 10 30-yard shots flying miles over the bar is better and more productive than 3 headed goals from crosses? Pleased i have now worked out your priorities.

I'd be interested* in your views regarding our home game against Swansea last season.

*i wouldn't.
 
Last edited:
I thought exactly the same with our Man City game. Anyone who didnt think City pummelled us in that game, and that we were lucky to come away with a win, is slightly deluded.

And there we have it.

No more discussion necessary. You will never understand football.
 
Your definition of a threat on goal is clearly different to mine. You said great saveS, your definition of a great save is clearly different to mine. We created one other clear-cut chance which Milner ballsed up. How many other clear-cut chances did France create bar their goal?

So are only clear cut chances goal threats then?!?!?! Because id say there are other goal threats, than just clear cut chances.

Amen. DIFFERING OPINIONS. What a shock! I know the SMB massive dont like people with differeing opinions, but we have them.

Well if their goal was a clear cut chance, then we'd have to include when Ribery skinned Lescott and shot at the near post, that Hart had to save, the header, the Nasri shot to the bottom left that Hart had to dive for.

And were now arguing about great saves? To keep it in context of how many times France threatened our goal, lets forget the "great" as that is subjective, and just call it saves that required a bit of effort. There were a few, the above mentioned. To say they rarely threatened is a bit optimistic.

And there we have it.

No more discussion necessary. You will never understand football.

So if that was Man City against Newcastle, you'd have said that the teams were equal on the day, but that Newcastle fully deserved their victory, aye?!

I was very proud of us that day, but i didnt kid myself that we displayed anywhere near the quality that City did.

So 10 30-yard shots flying miles over the bar is better and more productive than 3 headed goals from crosses? Pleased i have now worked out your priorities.

I'd be interested* in your views regarding our home game against Swansea last season.

*i wouldn't.

Swansea didnt threaten much at all. They had possession, but not many threats. To compare Swansea and France, youre kind of trying to make my argument about simply possession, which it isnt.

Who did?

Can we counter that ONE great save with the shocking miss by Milner just to even things up a bit?

Rocky, i think it was.

Have to go now. Its been quite a while, but good to know, deep in my heart, that I can rely on the SMB to never change.:lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Swansea didnt threaten much at all. They had possession, but not many threats. To compare Swansea and France, youre kind of trying to make my argument about simply possession, which it isnt.

:confused: Danny Graham should have scored. They threatened in a similar way to France. Nice build up play without really causing many serious threats to our goal. I don't count having the ball near or in our box as threatening unless a good chance is produced from it hence the questioning of your "threatening" statements.

Have to go now. Its been quite a while, but good to know, deep in my heart, that I can rely on the SMB to never change.:lol:

f***ing hell. :lol:
 
So if that was Man City against Newcastle, you'd have said that the teams were equal on the day, but that Newcastle fully deserved their victory, aye?!

I was very proud of us that day, but i didnt kid myself that we displayed anywhere near the quality that City did.

Nae idea why yu think I'm so biased that I can't make a judgement on a game of football.

For the record:

  • Bayern battered Chelsea and bad luck/bad finishing kept Chelsea in it.
  • Man. City had plenty of possession but struggled to break us down. We had good chances on the counter and punished them.
  • France rarely troubled England but we barely created enough chances to win the game ourselves.

Three similar games wher the supposed better team failed to win but, imo, only Bayern deserved better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top