Football 2010-2011

[TheGayTent]

Not as barking as someone who thinks a goal that my mum could have scored classes as something that is only the result of good play with no luck involved.

If the football world worked as you're presenting it, my mum would be on £120k a week.

[ampersand]

goal was lucky

result was deserved

sake, the game was two nights ago!

[eFestivals]

No, a result that only exists owing to the tactics used.

1. it was not a tactic for Cole to make that crap shot.

2. it is impossible for any tactic to make Foster cock up as he did.

So what tactic caused the goal?

Are you going to saying "the tactic of shooting at goal"? I must get and inform the rest of the footballing world about this wonderful new tactic.

[TheGayTent]

1. it was not a tactic for Cole to make that crap shot.

2. it is impossible for any tactic to make Foster cock up as he did.

So what tactic caused the goal?

Are you going to saying "the tactic of shooting at goal"? I must get and inform the rest of the footballing world about this wonderful new tactic.

[ampersand]

neil, you need a tactic to enable cole to have been in acres of space to hit that shot. unless the defending was utter dogshit like arsenals last night where livingston could have breezed past them multiple times!

[eFestivals]

I beginning to think you didn't even watch the game, or have never actually played the game. Cole's goal wasn't a tap in from a yard out. You're child like comment about your mother is a wild exaggeration. Which you're forced to resort to as you have nothing to substantiate your ignorant opinion.

Cole's goal was a f**k up by him. Or doesn't your hero player know what the f**k he's talking about either?

But even with everything Cole did, it was never going to be a goal without that huge f**k up by Foster. It was lucky for West Ham that Foster made that cock-up, otherwise there would have been no goal, and consequently there would have been no win for West Ham.

If that's ignorance, I wear my badge with pride. I'd hate to hold the 'smart' opinion that you do.

[worm]

1. it was not a tactic for Cole to make that crap shot.

Edited January 13, 2011 by worm

[worm]

goal was lucky

result was deserved

[eFestivals]

neil, you need a tactic to enable cole to have been in acres of space to hit that shot. unless the defending was utter dogshit like arsenals last night where livingston could have breezed past them multiple times!

All the tactics in the world for him to have that space skill doesn't bring about a goal. That takes a shot on target, and the keeper to not save it.

Cole managed a shot on target, but it was a crap shot (even in Cole's opinion).

The keeper didn't save it, but only because what was probably the biggest balls up he'll make in his entire career (which is pretty much the opinion of his manager).

It was lucky for West Ham that the keeper f**ked up as he did, else the goal would not have been scored and West Ham would not have won.

And when how poor the shot was is put alongside that f**k up by the keeper, it adds to the lucky circumstances that brought about that goal.

[ampersand]

my memory's not fantastic but west ham score so they take the foot of the gas and defend their lead? correct me if i'm wrong tgt.

had foster not arsed up, west ham would still be pressing like they were before that incident and may have scored a marvelous goal 5 minutes later.

to say that the result was undeserved because of a flukey goal is a tad unfair. (i know you've not said undeserved but it's implied by saying the result was lucky)

Edited January 13, 2011 by ampersand

[TheGayTent]

Cole's goal was a f**k up by him. Or doesn't your hero player know what the f**k he's talking about either?

But even with everything Cole did, it was never going to be a goal without that huge f**k up by Foster. It was lucky for West Ham that Foster made that cock-up, otherwise there would have been no goal, and consequently there would have been no win for West Ham.

If that's ignorance, I wear my badge with pride. I'd hate to hold the 'smart' opinion that you do.

[TheGayTent]

my memory's not fantastic but west ham score so they take the foot of the gas and defend their lead? correct me if i'm wrong tgt.

[ralph250]

There could have been no winning result without that flukey goal. There was no other goal which was able to give them that winning result.

Edited January 13, 2011 by ralph250

[eFestivals]

1. It was Cole's intention to hit the target. He did. Had he not, he couldn't have scored.

2. It was Foster's intention to stop the shot. He didn't. Had he, Cole could not have scored.

[eFestivals]

goal was lucky

result was deserved

that's progress I guess.

But if the goal was lucky, then the result also was - after all, there would have been no win for West Ham without that lucky goal.

Nothing of that is about whether WHU played the better of the two teams; they might have, but playing better didn't give them the result, Foster being crap gave them the result.

It was lucky for WHU that Foster was randomly crap at that moment in that game, and not randomly crap in some other game.

[TheGayTent]

2. It was Foster's intention to stop the shot. He didn't. Had he, Cole could not have scored.

[TheGayTent]

But if the goal was lucky, then the result also was - after all, there would have been no win for West Ham without that lucky goal.

[ralph250]

Anyway .... this season now has the chance to prove something the best it can be, once and for all. Is the success of Fergie down to his skills alone, the resources of the club, or a mix of the two?

Dalglish has a better record than Fergie (not as many trophies, but he managed for a far shorter time at LFC). But it's also the case that when he was manager before that LFC were the best resourced club of that time.

Now, if the success of a manager is all down to that managers skills and nothing else, then Dalglish should get LFC performing well with the players they have, and they should end up finishing 6th at very lowest (if you look at the table, getting to 6th will be a breeze with just a slight upturn in form). Even 4th doesn't look an impossibility* given the points gained so far by Spurs & Chelsea.

(* that doesn't mean I expect that to happen).

Are those who reckon Fergie's success is all his own doing scared by the return of Dalglish? Nope. Which implies to me that those people don't actually believe what they say about Fergie.

[eFestivals]

my memory's not fantastic but west ham score so they take the foot of the gas and defend their lead? correct me if i'm wrong tgt.

That might have been the case, but it also might have. You, TGT and me have no way of knowing.

The simple fact is that WHU played little different after the goal than they played before it - despite Brum pretty much giving up after that goal went in.

had foster not arsed up, west ham would still be pressing like they were before that incident and may have scored a marvelous goal 5 minutes later.

PMSL - you didn't see that 2nd half, did you?

WHU were NOT pressing before they scored. It was the exact opposite - Brum were all over them, and they had difficulty getting the ball, let alone doing anything with it.

At just about the moment that WHU got the ball and went forward and scored, the TV commentator said "Fergusson is running the game" - because he was.

to say that the result was undeserved because of a flukey goal is a tad unfair. (i know you've not said undeserved but it's implied by saying the result was lucky)

West Ham might have been the better team over the 90 minutes. I don't know, I didn't see the whole match.

But the fact remains that the flukey goal was what got them the win, thus making the win rather lucky.

[eFestivals]

Though what you have said above is true, it doesn't mean West Ham were lucky to score...

It DOES mean that West Ham were lucky to score that particular goal.

As it was the goal that gave them the win - after all, there was no other goal - then the win only happened as a result of that lucky goal.

If Cole had smacked the ball clean as a whistle and it'd flew in the top corner, Foster's intention would still have been to stop the shot. Had Foster not managed to save it, would West Ham have still been lucky?

Of course not.

Correct.

But the scenario you lay out there is not what happened. You might have well said "if West Ham had won 10-0 were they lucky?".

My comment was made against what actually happened, and not some worthless fantasy.

[ampersand]

so you've changed from lucky win to 'rather' lucky. we're making progress.

my 6 words sum it up perfectly before. lucky goal, deserved result. there, i made it into 4. could have saved all this silly talk before.

[TheGayTent]

WRITING IN CAPITALS STILL DOESN'T MAKE YOU RIGHT. *FACT*

[eFestivals]

I don't get this?

you're saying that on skill level alone, he should get them to 4th-6th.

Where should he get them if on resources alone?

No. I'm saying that if manager's skill and not resources count for everything - which some like to claim as the case at Utd - and Kenny is all that he was, then 6th is a certainty, and 4th a decent possibility.

(I'll make clear: I don't believe in reality there's any chance of L'pool making 4th. If Kenny does OK - and had won last night, their game in hand - then 6th is [or was] quite possible).

On resources alone, they're f**ked. The players don't look of good enough quality.

The reality is likely to be a mix of the two. I expect an improvement under Kenny compared to under Woy, tho I'm not sure it'll be much.

Were you not positing that Liverpool had a better squad than Spurs a month or so back, so reasonable assumption you think they've got the 5th best resources/squad; Not many teams do have a £20+m forward, £17m right back, £20m midfielder out on loan etc.

while my comment was, I think, this season (a lot further than a month ago I think), the squad that was in my mind when I made that comment (and might have been stated at the time, tho I'm not sure) was the squad as it was at the end of last season. The only real major change is the sale of Mascho (who might have even still been at the club when I made that comment).

I believe it's the case that LFC had more squad members at the WC than any other Prem team. That's a pretty decent basis on which to make a general evaluation of how good a squad is, I reckon.

While it's true that not many teams have a £20M midfielder out on loan, Spurs this very week have sent a midfielder out on loan who was once valued at that - which gets to show that they have their own collection of over-priced duffs too.

My comment on Spurs was in part based on their duffs - which many of their current players were being until 'Arry gave some a kick up the arse (and failed with others).

But you're now saying that if Dalglish gets them to 5th/6th, then that is purely down to that "managers skill and nothing else", despite immediately after citing the "players they have" (ie. resources).

As I say just above, my comment on LFC's squad was for last season's squad.

But that aside, if fergie gets 1st with the best squad, and Kenny gets (say) 5th with (I'll go with it for the moment) the 5th best squad, then given the league position Kenny has started from then his achievement within those contexts is at least equal to fergie's.

But I don't really expect L'pool to get 5th, and I don't now believe they have the 5th best squad.

Manager with 5th/6th best squad gets them to 5th/6th...how's it indicative of anything? able to ascertain any proof "the best it can be"? they're different managers of which one hasn't managed for a decade.

It's indicative of the resources equalling the achievement. How is that passing you by?

[ralph250]

random on a forum is calling for Kenny's head after 2 games when he's also "inherited a squad low on confidence" and "lacking in quality" and as yet has had NO opportunity "to make new (and quality) signings".

[eFestivals]

WRITING IN CAPITALS STILL DOESN'T MAKE YOU RIGHT. *FACT*

Or you. There are not FACTS here, only opinions.

And while no other opinions here are agreeing with me, no other opinions here are agreeing with you either.