THE KING IS DEAD. HAIL THE NEW KING

Yoda wrote:

Bashmachkin wrote:The phrase 'overall quality' was used simply in reference to, and to counter the idea that Arsenal were only superior to Milan in their fitness. The benefit of the way you've cut up my post is that you create sections to suit your needs - so that you can highlight this one phrase and pretend that it makes up my whole analysis of the game, whilst hiding actual pieces of analysis and ignoring points that you can't counter or twist.

Care to actually give an example of this, or are you just going to cut and run with yet another drab cliche?

I have given a description of the game, outlined Arsenal's main chances, depicted the areas in which Arsenal excelled and the roles of the players involved in this - Flamini breaking up the play more and more as the first half progressed, assisted in the earlier stages by Diaby; Sagna matching Kaka, Milan's best player, every time he drifted over to Arsenal's right hand side (which is the side he tended to drift to); Fabregas dictating the play in the middle of the pitch; Hleb making a lot of clever passes, reverse balls, and some good dribbles which helped Arsenal retain possession and create, and which rendered Milan's destructive players, Gattuso and Ambrosini, ineffective.

If you've already given it, why give it again?

Your analysis on the game - or rather your vain attempt to rail against Arsenal after a successful match - is based on misleading nonsense with a few full stops at the end of it - on some pretence that Arsenal's success in yesterday's game can be reduced solely to the issue of fitness, which disregards the quality of Arsenal's passing and the way they dominated the midfield through this;

What I actually said was that it was primarily an issue of fitness, then of tactics. But sure, overlook what I actually said so you can reduce my argument to about a quarter of what it really is, and then attack that by calling me vain.

Apparently, this is a pwning. I'd say its the death throes of someone who knows they're in the wrong but whose ego won't allow them to admit it. Go back and read what I said again. If you can argue against that, please go ahead.

on a vague suggestion that a chance isn't a chance unless it comes in your own specified area of the pitch, that a chance can't be cited as such if it occurs a yard outside the box as opposed to within it;

Never said any of this. Once again, you attack something other than the argument at hand. You are nowhere near as smart as you think you are.

on the idea that you can annul most of the good work Arsenal put in with the notion that Milan simply didn't play well (as though this is an issue entirely apart from the issue of how Arsenal played, from the way they stopped Milan playing);

Never said this either. I said that the hype that had resulted from the performance could be anulled by pointing out Milan didn't play well. The performance itself is what it is.

on the idea that Milan's gameplan actually worked well, which itself overlooks Milan's good start to the game (something I have never ignored in the least) and the way Arsenal managed to turn the game around, the way they started to dominate possession and create chances.

Milan started BOTH halfs well. You've overlooked this time and again, and when I say you've overlooked it you go back to 'I know they started the first half well, I haven't overlooked that'. Are you so thick as to not be able to distinguish between Milan starting the first half well and then Arsenal coming into the game more and eventually dominating, and them starting both halves well with Arsenal coming into the game more as each half wore on?

Seriously, if you can't tell the difference between these two fundamental and basic things then christ only knows how you have the temerity and arrogance to question my writing, posting style and opinions.

I wasn't arguing that Milan didn't have chances, but that wasn't quite the issue being contested. Milan did have chances early in the game - their early corner that Fabregas cleared, the chance that should have seen Pato give Milan the lead. I don't agree that Kaka's long range efforts were chances in the same way that Diaby and Hleb had chances - his shots were from further out, in much less space.

One in particular was from right on the edge of the box. You are being hypocritical here to try to fudge the issue.

Overall, Arsenal had more of the ball, they pressured Milan more, and they had more chances throughout the game. In my post above, looking at all Arsenal's chances, I differentiate between a good chance and a clear chance. I call Diaby and Hleb's chances clear chances because they were in space on the edge of the area (inside the first twenty minutes) - they were able to shoot from not so far out without Milan defenders in the way to block the shots. I didn't call Adebayor's opportunities in the box clear chances, but they were chances, where Arsenal worked themselves into dangerous positions in Milan's area (in spite of their deep-lying defence) - Adebayor didn't take either opportunity well, but the opportunities were there.

If you'd already made this clear then why have you spent 10 lines making it clear? Are you so thick that you can't differentiate between having already done something and actually doing it? One has happened in the past, one is happening now?

Maybe they don't have temporal distinctions where you're from...

As for Fabregas hitting the bar - of course, if you don't hit the target you're not going to score, but then if you don't beat the goalkeeper you're not going to score either, and Fabregas's shot was the first to beat the keeper in the match, and he was a few inches away from scoring.

Beating the keeper with an off target shot (how close to going in it may be) is not a signifier of a wonderful performance. Since it actually surrender possession. And y'know, gains you no advantage. This is so vague, and se desperate on your part. It's become so obvious that you're only pursuing this for ego's sake, because you haven't got an argument derived from the evidence of the actual game. Three long posts, and not a word of sense in any of them, despite what the peanut gallery might think.

Your appeal to the masses, 'anyone saw the same things I did', is very hypocritical but entirely typical of you. And I didn't bring up the issue of writing style, but inferiority complexes will out.

Bash, though he won't admit it wrote:As for your view of the game, and the cheap 'did
you even watch the game' - I did, but with two eyes instead of one, and
your essential point that the difference between the two sides was
predominantly one of fitness - with an implication that Milan were even
tactically superior, and lost more due to their own faults than due to
anything Arsenal did - is misleading, a poor, simplified assessment of
the game. Arsenal were fitter than Milan, but this was just one element
in an overall performance that saw them in control of the game.

And my appeal wasn't to the masses, it was to anyone whose primary reason for watching the match wasn't wanking over Arsenal. That may or may not be the masses. Fact is, you've consistently downplayed or outright ignored the good things Milan did in the game, how it ebbed and flowed, and presented a horrifically one sided versiono of events that has seen much congratulation from Arsenal supporters but a reasonable amount of contradiction from others. Now, this doesn't prove you wrong. The fact you can't make basic distinctions is what proves you wrong. The fact that you've let your ego take over and hoped that you'll lose me in long pointless, repetitious paragraphs and that if I pick apart your bullshit you can accuse me of taking your words out of context and that'll scare me off.

f@ck you and your hyping bullshit merchant Arsenal supporting friends. If this is the very best you can do to defend a ludicrous belief then good luck crossing the fucking street.

Saints,

out of pure curiosity- how do you manage the time to post such longwinded retorts? So what if Bash believes Arsenal were the better side and played well last night? I don't see anything ludicrous in his assessment. Never have done, the fella is always 100 percent articulate and balanced.

The fact you've managed to end up in arguing toe-to-toe with him is truly remarkable; he couldn't be more placid if he tried

ARSENAL WERE FUCKING AMAZING! WELL DONE ARSENAL!

ARSENAL

Really? Use of capital letters there showing what an egotistical snivelling little toad you really are.

WERE

Were, or where? Jesus Christ it's like talking to a semi retarded amoeba

FUCKING

Fucking? In the anus or the vagina? Not once have I stooped to such a level as to use a profanity. Clearly I am not going to stand around and be insulted. So f@ck you n*gger jew

AMAZING!

The only thing amazing is that you claim to have a brain. I sense you may actually be a woman. Their brains are a third the size of ours. Its science

WELL DONE ARSENAL!

There we go again. HYPING up Arsenal as though they are the greatest team known to mankind. Reality check you illegitimate son of a 2 bob prostitute: you give Arsenal even a modicum of praise on here and you'll be fucking with a juggernaut. Is that what you want? Really?

Hilarious.

I gave the description of the game and my analysis of the players again precisely because you ignored it first time around, as I pointed out - you reduced my whole analysis of the game to the phrase 'overall quality', and so twisted my use of that phrase, whilst hiding some of my actual analysis of the game in the next of your sections. I clarified my position on Arsenal's chances because you confused the issue, suggesting that I was calling Adebayor's opportunities when in a good position inside the Milan area 'clear chances' when I wasn't calling them thus.

You haven't actually commented on tactics in this thread - rather, you have cited Arsenal's superior fitness and Milan's poor performance as the reasons for Arsenal's victory. Your point about Milan's poor level of performance wasn't made simply to nullify the hype around Arsenal - your claim was that 'Arsenal can't claim any great credit for winning', and so regarded Arsenal's performance itself.

You've repeatedly commented on Arsenal's lack of shots from within the penalty area, or from within twenty yards, suggesting that the fact Arsenal didn't often shoot from inside twenty yards means that they didn't have more than a couple of chances in the game.

I don't particularly think Milan did start the second half well. They perhaps picked up a little from the end of the first half, but for me they didn't better Arsenal in any real sense, in terms of creating chances, in terms of controlling the midfield, in terms of pressing the opposition, outside the first twenty minutes of the game. Whatever, I think the way Arsenal came into the game and took control of it after the first twenty minutes suggests that Milan's gameplan probably didn't work right up until the 85th minute.

The bit on Fabregas's shot is useless. I am arguing that whatever Milan's gameplan, Arsenal had chances to score goals throughout the game. Fabregas had a chance to score a goal, and came the closest to doing so from either team before Arsenal actually did score. I'm not using this shot to signify a wonderful performance, I am citing this shot as a chance, and a chance almost fulfilled, to counter your argument that Arsenal didn't have many chances and that Milan's gameplan worked.

And I'm focusing on the Arsenal side for two reasons - for me, they were comfortably the better team yesterday, they controlled the game, and so there is more to say about their performance and their players; and secondly, and most importantly for this thread, because I am arguing your assessment that Arsenal didn't have chances, that fitness was the only factor in which they bettered Milan, that Milan's gameplan was a successful one until the last five minutes of the game. I'm not hyping Arsenal in the least - I saw them play what I thought was a good game, and have borne witness to you writing a lot of nonsense about the game, so I'm arguing with that nonsense.

'Arsenal were very lucky' , 'that was the worst madrid side ever', 'well, juve didn't just turn up' . 'that milan team is old and finished' -

Hlebtastic wrote:'Arsenal were very lucky' , 'that was the worst madrid side ever', 'well, juve didn't just turn up' . 'that milan team is old and finished' -

Senor Woody wrote:
Saints,

out of pure curiosity- how do you manage the time to post such longwinded retorts?

I'm a very fast typer. That last took less than five minutes.

So what if Bash believes Arsenal were the better side and played well last night?

I said the same thing, that isn't being disputed.

I don't see anything ludicrous in his assessment.

Then you didn't read it closely.

Never have done, the fella is always 100 percent articulate and balanced.

Except he can't tell the difference between quite basic things such as a team being good at the start of one half and a team being good at the start of both halfs.

The fact you've managed to end up in arguing toe-to-toe with him is truly remarkable; he couldn't be more placid if he tried

Let's see - he took issue with what I said, he labelled and insulted my point of view (i.e. me), he persisted with ego driven argumentation that makes no sense and is both repetitious and contradictory, and the Arsenal fans are crowding round cooing and masturbating. Yet somehow you're trying to paint me as the bad guy?

Keep it up. You people are all embarassing yourselves. Of course, none of you have any pride in your actions so you don't care.

Senor Woody wrote:
There we go again. HYPING up Arsenal as though they are the greatest team known to mankind. Reality check you illegitimate son of a 2 bob prostitute: you give Arsenal even a modicum of praise on here and you'll be fucking with a juggernaut. Is that what you want? Really?

Let's be nice and clear about this - I said Arsenal were the better side, I said they deserved to win, I said they deserved to go through, I said that they played well, I even congratulated them.


Yet somehow, you see fit to paint my view as one dimensional and dogmatic.

If you like, I could misrepresent your opinions and take the piss out of them in a childish way. But what would that show other than the fact that anyone can do this to anyone? Yet I've been accused of immaturity, bias, irrationality - all because I refuse to jump on the Arsenal hyping wanktrain.

Really, if any of you bothered to read over this thread rather than just leap in with any old bollocks to try to look cool and clever, you'd learn something about yourselves. But like I say, none of you take any pride in your actions, so you don't care.

Bashmachkin wrote:I gave the description of the game and my analysis of the players again precisely because you ignored it first time around, as I pointed out - you reduced my whole analysis of the game to the phrase 'overall quality', and so twisted my use of that phrase, whilst hiding some of my actual analysis of the game in the next of your sections. I clarified my position on Arsenal's chances because you confused the issue, suggesting that I was calling Adebayor's opportunities when in a good position inside the Milan area 'clear chances' when I wasn't calling them thus.

Why not just point out that I've ignored it? Why go to such lengths of writing new paragraphs if your existing ones are sufficient? Unless your aim is to impress naive tosspots into thinking long paragraphs = good writing and strong argument...

You haven't actually commented on tactics in this thread - rather, you have cited Arsenal's superior fitness and Milan's poor performance as the reasons for Arsenal's victory.

Maybe I haven't discussed them at length in this thread, but I did talk of Arsenal's high possession being part of Milan's gameplan, and how this affected the game. That is a comment on tactics. Ignore this all you like, it just makes you look like you can't argue.

Your point about Milan's poor level of performance wasn't made simply to nullify the hype around Arsenal - your claim was that 'Arsenal can't claim any great credit for winning', and so regarded Arsenal's performance itself.

Winning is a result, not a performance. Once again, basic distinctions Bash. Try to keep up. I know your egotism and personal dislike of me is clouding your usually solid judgement, but really, that's the third time in two posts that you've failed to make such basic distinctions thus rendering your point meaningless.

You've repeatedly commented on Arsenal's lack of shots from within the penalty area, or from within twenty yards, suggesting that the fact Arsenal didn't often shoot from inside twenty yards means that they didn't have more than a couple of chances in the game.

No, I said that they didn't create clear chances in the area and were almost entirely limited to long range shots.

I don't particularly think Milan did start the second half well. They perhaps picked up a little from the end of the first half, but for me they didn't better Arsenal in any real sense, in terms of creating chances, in terms of controlling the midfield, in terms of pressing the opposition, outside the first twenty minutes of the game.

Finally, you acknowledge a basic distinction. Maybe next post you'll actually come up with a better counterargument than 'I don't think so'...

Whatever, I think the way Arsenal came into the game and took control of it after the first twenty minutes suggests that Milan's gameplan probably didn't work right up until the 85th minute.

It stopped Arsenal from scoring or creating clear chances in the area (one scramble from a corner and Eboue's slice aside) until the 85th minute or so.

The bit on Fabregas's shot is useless. I am arguing that whatever Milan's gameplan, Arsenal had chances to score goals throughout the game. Fabregas had a chance to score a goal, and came the closest to doing so from either team before Arsenal actually did score.

Milan had already produced a clearance from a goalbound header from a corner by that point (a clearance made by Fabregas, of course). So that's simply not true.

I'm not using this shot to signify a wonderful performance, I am citing this shot as a chance, and a chance almost fulfilled, to counter your argument that Arsenal didn't have many chances and that Milan's gameplan worked.

Citing one chance doesn't disprove that Arsenal didn't have many chances. It proves that had one chance. Which fits with my argument. Again, basic distinctions. Maybe to illiterates like TWERP this is '100 percent articulate' but to someone who can actually read this language, it ain't.

And I'm focusing on the Arsenal side for two reasons - for me, they were comfortably the better team yesterday, they controlled the game, and so there is more to say about their performance and their players; and secondly, and most importantly for this thread, because I am arguing your assessment that Arsenal didn't have chances, that fitness was the only factor in which they bettered Milan, that Milan's gameplan was a successful one until the last five minutes of the game.

I didn't say Arsenal didn't have chances, I'm saying they created only one clear chance in the area before the goal, which Eboue sliced well wide.

I didn't say fitness was the only factor in which they bettered Milan. That's a fabrication of yours which I've already pointed out is not what I said. That you persist with it speaks volumes for the dinsgenuous nature of your character and the egotism that drives your arguing on this thread.

You've produced nothing to contradict the idea that Milan's gameplan was working until it didn't work anymore.

I'm not hyping Arsenal in the least - I saw them play what I thought was a good game, and have borne witness to you writing a lot of nonsense about the game, so I'm arguing with that nonsense.

Yet you've misrepresented what I've written time and time and time again, suggesting you either didn't understand it (in which case are in no position to call it nonsense), or you have a personal, ego driven issue with me and this is all a distraction and projection (in which case you are in no position to call it nonsense).

Really, how can you expect me to take you even the slightest bit seriously? You fail to make basic distinctions. You misrepresent my opinion at every turn, attacking your own misrepresentation. You label and use red herring arguments. You ignore blatant facts about the game, even when they are explicitly pointed out to you. Really, how is this anything but a pathetic attempt by you to get pissed off for no good reason?

Hlebtastic wrote:

Bashmachkin wrote:Of course, Fabregas is only saying that Arsenal can win both the Champions League and the Premiership - he isn't presuming anything or hyping Arsenal in the least. And last night, after the game, he was level-headed and humble enough to say 'this is just the beginning. We are now in the quarter-finals but we have not done anything. It is just one more step'. Which motivating words, which words of leadership, only mirror his match-winning performance on the pitch.

Incidentally, many news sites seem to have rubbed these post match comments, replacing them with today's comments and more sensational headlines - perhaps part of an unceasing media drive bent on undermining Arsenal by portraying them them as an arrogant group of foreigners. In fact, Milan have been more lavish in their praise for Arsenal - Kaladze calling Arsenal a 'great team', whilst 'Adebayor has proven to be a great player who managed to hold the team up'; Ancelotti praising Arsenal's 'great courage' and saying they can reach the final.

And this was a Milan team whose record this season domestically has been very similar to their record last season (1.65 points per game compared with 1.79), when the Italian league was of a poorer standard; a Milan team who, considering their standard over the last two seasons, have been on a good run recently (in their last ten games before last night, they drew away at Arsenal, and went unbeaten in the league, picking up on average 2.1 points per game); a Milan team featuring eight of the eleven players that started against Man Utd ten months ago - and the three changes arguably provided them with a more solid defence with Maldini in for Jankulovski, a more potent and mobile attack with Pato alongside Inzaghi, and though Milan missed Seedorf's creativity and link-up play in the middle, still Milan didn't have a lot of the ball after the first twenty minutes, Arsenal pushed them back and dictated the midfield, and rendered Ambrosini and Gattuso, and Pirlo too, entirely ineffective.

So if Milan weren't at their best, they haven't been there for a couple of seasons now, and have still been the team to beat in Europe, always able to use their experience, to raise their game and dictate the play. Besides from the fact that Arsenal's win makes them the first English team to beat Milan at the San Siro, the extent to which they controlled the game was very impressive. However many shots they took from inside the box, Arsenal had a number of clear chances through the game - the difference of a yard is no real difference, Arsenal were constantly in space on the edge of Milan's area. Fabregas, who now has four goals in the CL this season, gave a big game performance and dictated the play in the midfield, assisted by Flamini, Hleb, and I thought Diaby was strong too, especially early on.

Excellent post

I see saints has had a productive day today. You are a credit to your cause saints

Hlebtastic wrote:'Arsenal were very lucky' , 'that was the worst madrid side ever', 'well, juve didn't just turn up' . 'that milan team is old and finished' -

Get used to it mate. The more you get called lucky and hear these nonsense excuses the happier you will be


Over the past few years these excuses have been on continual replay for us liverpool fans. You soon learn to block them out as your team marches on to the next round

COTR wrote:

Hlebtastic wrote:'Arsenal were very lucky' , 'that was the worst madrid side ever', 'well, juve didn't just turn up' . 'that milan team is old and finished' -

Get used to it mate. The more you get called lucky and hear these nonsense excuses the happier you will be


Over the past few years these excuses have been on continual replay for us liverpool fans. You soon learn to block them out as your team marches on to the next round

http://soccernet-akamai.espn.go.com/gamecast?id=233735&league=UEFA.CHAMPIONS&cc=5739

That shows Arsenal had 3 shots from inside the area excluding Adebayors goal.

Add to that the marginal offside decision that would have lead to an open goal and Walcotts squared pass, thats quite a few chances inside the box.

Moreover, we then have the four more shots just outside the box which were clear shooting opportunites.

Shutting out Milan twice is always good.

We didn't play at our best yesterday. But at least we contained Milan & created (half) chances. I know we can play better & with more purpose, certainly when Van Persie gets back

COTR wrote:

Hlebtastic wrote:'Arsenal were very lucky' , 'that was the worst madrid side ever', 'well, juve didn't just turn up' . 'that milan team is old and finished' -

Get used to it mate. The more you get called lucky and hear these nonsense excuses the happier you will be


Over the past few years these excuses have been on continual replay for us liverpool fans. You soon learn to block them out as your team marches on to the next round

Sounds like us in the Carling cup after the 5-1... nice to see the shoe is on the other foot.

A Tribe Called TS wrote:

COTR wrote:

Hlebtastic wrote:'Arsenal were very lucky' , 'that was the worst madrid side ever', 'well, juve didn't just turn up' . 'that milan team is old and finished' -

Get used to it mate. The more you get called lucky and hear these nonsense excuses the happier you will be


Over the past few years these excuses have been on continual replay for us liverpool fans. You soon learn to block them out as your team marches on to the next round

Sounds like us in the Carling cup after the 5-1... nice to see the shoe is on the other foot.

Did you manage to keep a straight face while typing that T/S


Comparing the carling cup to the CL

COTR wrote:

A Tribe Called TS wrote:

COTR wrote:

Hlebtastic wrote:'Arsenal were very lucky' , 'that was the worst madrid side ever', 'well, juve didn't just turn up' . 'that milan team is old and finished' -

Get used to it mate. The more you get called lucky and hear these nonsense excuses the happier you will be


Over the past few years these excuses have been on continual replay for us liverpool fans. You soon learn to block them out as your team marches on to the next round

Sounds like us in the Carling cup after the 5-1... nice to see the shoe is on the other foot.

Did you manage to keep a straight face while typing that T/S


Comparing the carling cup to the CL

Fact is, after that thrashing certain posters came out with a ton of excuses to cover it up.

The issue for me is that, however many faces you pull, however much you insult, however you twist my argument and change your own, your initial purpose in commenting on Arsenal's game was only to undermine their performance. And in this, you didn't, and still haven't made much sense. You accepted early on that Arsenal deserved to win the game, but it seems to me that this was just a pretence in order to appear somewhat magnanimous, in order to validate various nonsensical criticisms that were made in order to disregard Arsenal. Whilst suggesting that they were the best team, you at the same time gave a vague 'it could have gone the other way' as though there was really barely anything between the teams; you've implied that Milan had just as many chances as Arsenal and so the scores could just as well have been equal; that Milan's gameplan predominated and worked until the last five minutes; that Milan played so poorly that it's hard to really judge or give credit to Arsenal, or to most of their players; that if Arsenal did excel in any one area, it was in their fitness rather than in anything to do with footballing ability or mental strength.

All the talk about my ego is entirely besides the point, and the fact that you keep bringing it up, and the fact that you started the turn in this direction with a paranoid and incorrect suggestion that I criticised your writing style, suggests that you are the one who sees this argument as a test of ego. I don't have any personal issue with you, but your posts on football are dull to me, you contrive to harp on the one subject which, as far as I am concerned, is detrimental to football discussion on the board, and in this instance I thought your criticisms of Arsenal were particularly stretched and unfair.

Regarding tactics, in this thread, all you've said regarding Milan's gameplan is that it involved sitting deep and that this worked until the 85th minute. I think it's very dubious to argue this was Milan's gameplan - perhaps its how they chose to play in defence, but, especially given how they started the game and how the game changed after twenty minutes, and how close Arsenal came to scoring on occasions, it seems to me that things probably didn't go entirely according to their plans. You haven't given a tactical analysis of how Arsenal won the game other than suggesting Milan's tactics worked fine until they messed up in the final minutes of the game.

In another thread where you mention tactics, you say how Ambrosini and Gattuso played the same roles yesterday whilst Hleb, Flamini and Fabregas combined better - but this isn't so much a discussion of tactics as it is a comment on the respective abilities of the Arsenal and Milan players in question.

Regarding chances, you're not making much sense, unless you're making a pointless distinction between a clear or a good chance in the box and a clear or a good chance outside the box. I have pointed out the numerous chances Arsenal had in the game, identified the ones I think class as clear chances. This doesn't mean that I'm ignoring Milan's chances, it means I'm highlighting Arsenal's in order to counter your suggestion that they didn't have many, and that Milan's gameplan worked.

Bashmachkin wrote:The issue for me is that, however many faces you pull, however much you insult, however you twist my argument and change your own, your initial purpose in commenting on Arsenal's game was only to undermine their performance.

Speculating about my motives is a polite insult. Once again, you accuse someone else of what you are doing yourself. I haven't changed my position, and yet again you've made an accusation without any effort to back it up.

You accepted early on that Arsenal deserved to win the game, but it seems to me that this was just a pretence in order to appear somewhat magnanimous, in order to validate various nonsensical criticisms that were made in order to disregard Arsenal.

It seeming that way to you speaks volumes for your projections, insecurities, fears and knowledge of your own failings on this thread. It has f@ck all to do with what I wrote.

Whilst suggesting that they were the best team, you at the same time gave a vague 'it could have gone the other way' as though there was really barely anything between the teams;

So on the one hand I repeatedly say Arsenal were better and deserve to win, on the other I point out that Milan did have a few chances and that it could have been different. From this you attribute yet another false, misleading and misrepresentative motive and agenda to what I've written. And then on the basis of that misleading misrepresentation insulted me and tried to argue with me.

you've implied that Milan had just as many chances as Arsenal and so the scores could just as well have been equal;

They could. Just as Arsenal could win the CL and the league this season. Funny, you defend Fabregas for saying something that could happen could happen, yet you attack me for saying something that could have happened could have happened. Try applying consistent criteria, otherwise you look confused and hypocritical.

that Milan's gameplan predominated and worked until the last five minutes; that Milan played so poorly that it's hard to really judge or give credit to Arsenal, or to most of their players;

Yet I've given credit to two of their players who I thought did particularly well - Flamini and Fabregas. No doubt this is all part of some deceptive agenda on my part.

that if Arsenal did excel in any one area, it was in their fitness rather than in anything to do with footballing ability or mental strength.

Fitness has a shitload to do with footballing ability - look at the resurgent Spurs since Ramos came in and got their stamina levels sorted. It's hardly disparaging to say that Arsenal won more second balls and dominated possession through being faster and more energetic. Yet you turn this into a criticism because it's the only way to justify your hounding of me.

All the talk about my ego is entirely besides the point, and the fact that you keep bringing it up, and the fact that you started the turn in this direction with a paranoid and incorrect suggestion that I criticised your writing style, suggests that you are the one who sees this argument as a test of ego.

Then why are you so reluctant to admit that you've misrepresented my opinions at almost every point, or apologise for your slurring my 'point of view' at the start of this argument? If you were the polite, balanced, articulate person you want people to believe you are then you'd have no problem with this. But you refuse to even acknowledge that this is what you've done. Hence, ego-driven.

I don't have any personal issue with you, but your posts on football are dull to me, you contrive to harp on the one subject which, as far as I am concerned, is detrimental to football discussion on the board, and in this instance I thought your criticisms of Arsenal were particularly stretched and unfair.

If my posts are so dull, why have you wasted so much energy on them? This is just like so many people saying 'I don't care', only to go on three page rampages proving they do care. It doesn't work on me. I'm not that stupid.

Regarding tactics, in this thread, all you've said regarding Milan's gameplan is that it involved sitting deep and that this worked until the 85th minute. I think it's very dubious to argue this was Milan's gameplan - perhaps its how they chose to play in defence, but, especially given how they started the game and how the game changed after twenty minutes, and how close Arsenal came to scoring on occasions, it seems to me that things probably didn't go entirely according to their plans.

I never said it did, I said that their gameplan worked until 5 or so minutes from the end. Which it did. Call it dubious all you like, the facts speak for themselves.

You haven't given a tactical analysis of how Arsenal won the game other than suggesting Milan's tactics worked fine until they messed up in the final minutes of the game.

Not worked fine, just worked. Arsenal did create some chances before the end, but only one clear cut one which Eboue hit well wide. Again, you are putting words in my mouth and attacking them, not what I actually said. On the other thread I went into more detail about the risks of the strategy Milan employed and how both goals came from Arsenal exploiting just these risks (albeit taking 80+ minutes to finally get it just right).

In another thread where you mention tactics, you say how Ambrosini and Gattuso played the same roles yesterday whilst Hleb, Flamini and Fabregas combined better - but this isn't so much a discussion of tactics as it is a comment on the respective abilities of the Arsenal and Milan players in question.

No it isn't, because Ambrosini and Gattuso can play much better, and Hleb, Flamini and Fabregas can play much worse. One game doesn't define a players ability.

Regarding chances, you're not making much sense, unless you're making a pointless distinction between a clear or a good chance in the box and a clear or a good chance outside the box.

When the opposition defence is playing deep there's a huge difference between shooting from your side of their backline (largely outside of the box) and getting behind them and creating chances in the box. This is quite a basic tactical element of football, I wouldn't have thought I'd have to spell it out to someone as (sic) wise and informed as you are.

I have pointed out the numerous chances Arsenal had in the game, identified the ones I think class as clear chances. This doesn't mean that I'm ignoring Milan's chances, it means I'm highlighting Arsenal's in order to counter your suggestion that they didn't have many, and that Milan's gameplan worked.

Once again, pointing out that Arsenal had some chances doesn't disprove my claim that they didn't have many. Some is less than many, or at least can be and is in this context. I said this in my last post yet here you are again, flogging the same point as though nothing has been offered to counter it.

Really, if my posts are dull to you then stop posting. Like I say, it can only be egotism that is making you continue this.

Of course, when someone argues with another person, they suggest that their point of view is wrong or at least missing something, and so it's ineluctably somewhat of an insult. However, it's a calmer, less personal, more resolvable manner of insult than one that involves lots of swearing and comments that move away from, and so obfuscate the matter at hand - insults like 'f@ck you', 'you're egotistical', 'if you've just written what you've written, then you're a fucking idiot - and you've written it, so you're a fucking idiot'. I read your post this morning and I read it now as an attempt to muddle the issue in order to detract from Arsenal's performance. And I think such a reading is well supported by the general nature of your posts regarding Arsenal, and by your various posts regarding yesterday's game made before we started to argue.

You have praised Fabregas, but said that 'Flamini had a very good game, but the Milan midfield were so poor that it's hard to judge'. I initially objected to you seperating the issue of fitness from the issue of the teams' overall footballing performance - which I consider you did in the way you highlighted Arsenal's fitness levels but ignored the quality of their passing and the way they managed to win the midfield battle; in the way you suggest that Milan more than matched Arsenal in quality for as long as they matched them in fitness; in positing that Milan lost the game because they ran out of steam and messed things up.

There is a difference between you saying that something could have happened which didn't happen by some margin and Fabregas saying what can happen. The former is either irrelevant or a strained attempt to manipulate the way the past is viewed; the latter is a projection of the future, which doesn't really influence the way the future is or will be seen. I disagree in general with the idea that Arsenal were only marginally the better team.

I consider that your analysis of Milan's gameplan is a dubious one. If their gameplan was simply to sit back and restrict Arsenal to shots from outside the area, then their gameplan did largely work until the 85th minute - though Arsenal had enough space in front of Milan's area that they should have done better with the opportunities they were afforded. However, considering how Milan started the game, that they were at home, how they tend to dictate the play, I think it's hard to see the game as following a gameplan they set out. A 0-0 was not especially in Milan's best interests, and to sit back and try and restrict Arsenal was particularly risky given that an away goal was ruinous to Milan's chances. If their gameplan was to restrict Arsenal to shots from outside the area, then it was successful to a degree, but it was a poor gameplan; if their gameplan was more than this, then it failed.

I'm not disparaging the quality of Ambrosini or Gattuso in comparison to the quality of Fabregas, Flamini and Hleb. But the latter three have a greater range of abilities than the former two, are able to play in more positions. The fact that the latter three complemented each other better is an ability issue, not a tactical one.

You argued that Arsenal only had two clear chances, I've suggested that they had three or four more than that and I've pointed out the chances I'm referring to.

Bashmachkin wrote:
There is a difference between you saying that something could have happened which didn't happen by some margin and Fabregas saying what can happen. The former is either irrelevant or a strained attempt to manipulate the way the past is viewed;

All statements about the past are an attempt to manipulate how it is viewed. Likewise every statement you've made on this thread about the game. What's your point?

the latter is a projection of the future, which doesn't really influence the way the future is or will be seen.

Prove it. I'd say that one's prediction and desire for the future has a massive impact on what happens and how it is seen.

I disagree in general with the idea that Arsenal were only marginally the better team.

Fortunately for me, as with so many of your criticisms, I never said this and it isn't my opinion. That you keep attributing opinions to me that aren't mine (despite the ease of using the 'quote' function built into the forum) speaks volumes for the desperation of your argument, and how it has become (if not always was) a personal battle for you.

Bashmachkin wrote:Of course, when someone argues with another person, they suggest that their point of view is wrong or at least missing something, and so it's ineluctably somewhat of an insult. However, it's a calmer, less personal, more resolvable manner of insult than one that involves lots of swearing and comments that move away from, and so obfuscate the matter at hand - insults like 'f@ck you', 'you're egotistical', 'if you've just written what you've written, then you're a fucking idiot - and you've written it, so you're a fucking idiot'. .

This has come up many times. Saints constantly argues that a gentle dig at him is an insult and justifies him launching into a stream of foul mouthed abuse. He can't or won't see the distinction.
No matter how many times Arsenal fans comment on the team performing way above our expectations this year Saints persists in his abuse of Arsenal fans and insistance that we are the most deluded fans on the board. It was a great performance against Milan but like Man U found in the FA Cup it will be worthless if we crash in flames in the 1/4 finals.