Football 2020/2021

[Guest]

2 hours ago, thetime said:

😂

@Gnomicide @eFestivals even your own manager thinks something is fishy on the United penalty front.

[eFestivals]

41 minutes ago, eastynh said:

@Gnomicide @eFestivals even your own manager thinks something is fishy on the United penalty front.

"your own manager"? lol

And for the bigger laugh, everything is a conspiracy to City fans. Ho-hum.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

"your own manager"? lol

And for the bigger laugh, everything is a conspiracy to City fans. Ho-hum.

Few bad results and you are turning your bad on your manager? 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Few bad results and you are turning your bad on your manager? 

the results about-now are what I've been expecting since before last season ended. 

And he's not my manager. Club fans can never understand the idea of a football fan.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the results about-now are what I've been expecting since before last season ended. 

And he's not my manager. Club fans can never understand the idea of a football fan.

Ah gotcha, you're just anti City. That makes sense now.

You can start following United then now, under your guise as a football fan.

[eFestivals]

Just now, eastynh said:

Ah gotcha, you're just anti City. That makes sense now.

lol

It's impossible for City to be rightly criticised. Of course.

 

Just now, eastynh said:

You can start following United then now, under your guise as a football fan.

why? They play shit football.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

lol

It's impossible for City to be rightly criticised. Of course.

 

why? They play shit football.

With all due respect, how does the football United play differ from Liverpool? They both bypass the midfield and get it to quick fowards asap. Now Liverpools 3 forwards are technically better but Uniteds are faster. They both play a similar style of football.

Both teams struggle at breaking down stubborn and set defences.

They both look exactly the same to me, with United diving or getting the luck of the green, where as Liverpool are not.

[lost]

Football is about play makers, intricate passing, spectacular goals etc.. does anyone actually enjoy this trend of juiced up flat track bullies running onto long balls over the top?

There was an article I saw the other day that asked if James Rodriguez is Everton's Ozil? I’d honestly rather watch players like these and lose than the way some other teams play especially if I was a neutral football fan.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, eastynh said:

With all due respect, how does the football United play differ from Liverpool? They both bypass the midfield and get it to quick fowards asap. Now Liverpools 3 forwards are technically better but Uniteds are faster. They both play a similar style of football.

Both teams struggle at breaking down stubborn and set defences.

They both look exactly the same to me, with United diving or getting the luck of the green, where as Liverpool are not.

back in the days when Utd were winning most things I was watching Arsenal.

There's a reason why. If you don't get it you don't get it

[Guest]

Just now, eFestivals said:

back in the days when Utd were winning most things I was watching Arsenal.

There's a reason why. If you don't get it you don't get it

And I was watching Wrexham, Macclesfield, Wigan and York when United were winning trophies.

You seem a little confused. You are suggesting that you are an aficionado of fine and beautiful football. For the last could of years City have arguably played the most beautiful football this country has ever seen, breaking all records along the way. Yet, all I have heard is negativety from your posts in regards to City. Nothing complimentary from you what so ever. What I have seen from you, is you blowing smoke up Liverpools arses, even though their football has been no where near as easy on the eye as City's.

You call Uniteds style of football shit, while failing to notice it is very similar to Liverpools. The critical difference between the 2 is that Liverpool boot it long, to the full backs in wide and forward positions. The full backs are capable of putting quality into the box while the defenders are on the half turn. United just hit it striaght into channels and want the forwards to run on to it, or Fernandes to get onto loose balls.

In essence both styles are very similar. Yet, you call one shit and have spent the last 2 years eulogising about the other.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, eastynh said:

For the last could of years City have arguably played the most beautiful football this country has ever seen

says you.

And yet they have nothing of the beauty that Arsenal had at their best - or even for a long while after their best.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

says you.

And yet they have nothing of the beauty that Arsenal had at their best - or even for a long while after their best.

You are just being stupid now. We can discuss the intricacies of both teams play, but to say City had nothing of the beauty of Arsenal is just ridiculous. The City team scored more, created more chances, passed it more, won more and broke more records. They might not have gone unbeaten all season but they won far more matches, while winning far more trophies and scoring far more goals.

Arsenal were stunning to watch and you can argue they were better to watch, but to say City had nothing of the beauty makes you look very anti City or utterly clueless.

[eFestivals]

Just now, eastynh said:

The City team scored more, created more chances, passed it more, won more and broke more records.

But they didn't do all that with the beauty that Arsenal had for a decade or so. Winning and beauty are different things.

Burnley were winning pretty well a while back. Plenty of teams lower than them I'd rather watch.

I'm not suggesting City are as dull as Burnley, but I am saying they're well short of the beauty of Arsenal back then, and haven't been the most beautiful team in the league when they've been winning stuff.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

But they didn't do all that with the beauty that Arsenal had for a decade or so. Winning and beauty are different things.

Burnley were winning pretty well a while back. Plenty of teams lower than them I'd rather watch.

I'm not suggesting City are as dull as Burnley, but I am saying they're well short of the beauty of Arsenal back then, and haven't been the most beautiful team in the league when they've been winning stuff.

The difference between the 2 is that Arsenal had Henry and Bergkamp who were stunning on the eye and capable of individual brilliance. City have a system and a format. That Arsenal team were not going to keep the ball and score at the end of 50 pass moves. That Arsenal team never battered teams to the extent the City team did.

Just because Henry and Bergkamp were prettier on the eye does not mean Arsenal played better football than City. They didn't and it is not even close. Arsenal lumped it forwards, there was not elegance in defence, it was brute force. Same with the midfield. None of them Arsenal midfielders we are good with a football as Yaya, Silva or KDB. This City team can play without a striker and still go to Stamford Bridge and win easily, that's because the footballers are so good and the system is the most important thing.

On what basis do you think Arsenal played better football? Remember City pass the ball far more, have far longer in possession, score more goals and create more chances.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, eastynh said:

City have a system and a format.

which might be why I find their footie less attractive.

[Gnomicide]

3 hours ago, eastynh said:

@Gnomicide @eFestivals even your own manager thinks something is fishy on the United penalty front.

I doubt very much he actually believes that, just using the old tactic of taking focus away from your team. Instead of the papers focusing on the performances, they're full of discussions on penalties.

[thetime]

2 hours ago, eastynh said:

 

Both teams struggle at breaking down stubborn and set defences.

 

The goals for column would suggest otherwise.

[Guest]

19 hours ago, thetime said:

The goals for column would suggest otherwise.

To be fair you're right in United's case. It's the good teams that United have struggled with. 2 points from City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs at home is pretty poor really.

Liverpool have struggled recently in trying to break teams down recently. They have huffed and puffed, without really looking like they are going to score.

As an aside, did anyone on here get to see Colin Bell play? He was a bit before my time, but I have seen all the videos. You don't really get many true b2b midfielders any more. Sad loss for his family and the club.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, eastynh said:

As an aside, did anyone on here get to see Colin Bell play?

I can remember watching him on TV occasionally as a kid (not much footie on TV back then). I can't remember much but he definitely stood out as one of the players who impressed this kid.

Am I right in thinking one of City's stands is the Bell End?

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I can remember watching him on TV occasionally as a kid (not much footie on TV back then). I can't remember much but he definitely stood out as one of the players who impressed this kid.

Am I right in thinking one of City's stands is the Bell End?

Its called the Colin Bell Stand, Neil.

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Its called the Colin Bell Stand, Neil.

but surely it gets called the Bell End? Or are City fans humourless?

 

[jyoung]

This 'Arsenal were better than City' thing is jokes.

Each of the four times City have won the league in the last decade they've won more games and scored more goals than the Arsenal 'invincibles'. Not to mention a higher points total twice.

And if you want to harp on about divers and cheats, well Arsenal wouldn't have won the league without losing a game if Robert Pires didn't dive for a pen in a 1-1 draw with Pompey.

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

but surely it gets called the Bell End? Or are City fans humourless?

 

There is a time for humour Neil and it is not when the fella has just passed away.

[pink_triangle]

6 hours ago, jyoung said:

This 'Arsenal were better than City' thing is jokes.

Each of the four times City have won the league in the last decade they've won more games and scored more goals than the Arsenal 'invincibles'. Not to mention a higher points total twice.

And if you want to harp on about divers and cheats, well Arsenal wouldn't have won the league without losing a game if Robert Pires didn't dive for a pen in a 1-1 draw with Pompey.

Of courses a teams win and goal total is also dependent on the strength of opposition which makes a like for like comparison hard. 

[kaosmark2]

8 hours ago, jyoung said:

This 'Arsenal were better than City' thing is jokes.

Each of the four times City have won the league in the last decade they've won more games and scored more goals than the Arsenal 'invincibles'. Not to mention a higher points total twice.

And if you want to harp on about divers and cheats, well Arsenal wouldn't have won the league without losing a game if Robert Pires didn't dive for a pen in a 1-1 draw with Pompey.

Raw stats aren't the only thing. To me the best PL teams are the Invincibles, Chelsea Mourinho mk1, Man U with Ronaldo/Tevez/Rooney, City ~4 years ago, Liverpool of the last 2 seasons. No other team comes close to those 5, and the nuances of differences are as much to do with era, opposition, and personal preference as they are about "being better".

Chelsea probably the least enjoyable to watch for me, but that Robben/Drogba/Duff forward line was still incredibly potent and every point in that team was a strength.