Premiership weekend discussion 21/04 & 21/04

OwenThomas4 wrote:So considering everyone said we choked against Pompey, did Chelsea choke today?

Nonsense. I don't think it matters whether you play second or first.

Yes we did.

Hardrada wrote:

OwenThomas4 wrote:So considering everyone said we choked against Pompey, did Chelsea choke today?

Nonsense. I don't think it matters whether you play second or first.

Yes we did.

Nah, just out fought by a hardworking Newcastle side.

Another twist in the title race! The best we have had for a long time. Even better than 2002/2003 now.

The next round of games should be brilliant as well. The Manchester derby will have extra spice to it now.

Typical performance, some players perform, others are average, and a few are shite. Roeder out!

Milner and Taylor were ace, Kimbo.

OwenThomas4 wrote:Hahahaha, Bramble was fucking awesome!

Well done NUFC. Worked your socks off and deserved a point.

:newcastlebrown:

So am i the only one that saw him charging around like a moron in the first half? Second half he was better though.

@ Kimbo

What is your view on, Andrew Carroll

Rai Krol 14 wrote:@ Kimbo

What is your view on, Andrew Carroll

He looks good, strong, good touch, and scores goals for fun in the reserves. I reckon we should let Sibierski go and have him as the replacement next season.

Hardrada wrote:

shazlx wrote:

Hardrada wrote:

Rai Krol 14 wrote:Chelsea, the luck has ran out ?

What luck ?!

$h!t performance.

you had many $h!t performance this season but usually a goal would come from something like the J.Cole chance at the end, 1-0 and the leviathan moves on.

Again, how is this luck ??

It's simple: the team scoring the most goals in 90minutes wins. If we play $h!t but manage to score legally then there is no luck involved.

Luck only really comes into football in terms of injuries and refereeing decisions.

Well you yourself recognize that it was a poor performance. Would the ball going a foot to the right f the post off J.Cole make the performance better, or would Chelsea have stolen another 2 points.

Hardrada wrote:

Rai Krol 14 wrote:

Hardrada wrote:

Rai Krol 14 wrote:Chelsea, the luck has ran out ?

What luck ?!

$h!t performance.

20 goals in the last 24 mins ..

How is scoring late luck ??

The game lasts for 90mins and you have that long in which to score

Many of them in injury time...

Chelsea do get a lot of luck though...you beat us 4-1 the other night and yet we were by far the better side in the first half. Your 2nd half goals came from a scramble and a slip.

Every team has a certain amount of luck...and you certainly have your fair share.

Kimbo wrote:

Rai Krol 14 wrote:@ Kimbo

What is your view on, Andrew Carroll

He looks good, strong, good touch, and scores goals for fun in the reserves. I reckon we should let Sibierski go and have him as the replacement next season.

He done well today

shazlx wrote:

Hardrada wrote:

shazlx wrote:

Hardrada wrote:

Rai Krol 14 wrote:Chelsea, the luck has ran out ?

What luck ?!

$h!t performance.

you had many $h!t performance this season but usually a goal would come from something like the J.Cole chance at the end, 1-0 and the leviathan moves on.

Again, how is this luck ??

It's simple: the team scoring the most goals in 90minutes wins. If we play $h!t but manage to score legally then there is no luck involved.

Luck only really comes into football in terms of injuries and refereeing decisions.

Well you yourself recognize that it was a poor performance. Would the ball going a foot to the right f the post off J.Cole make the performance better, or would Chelsea have stolen another 2 points.

That would have meant that ultimately our finishing was good enough to have won us the game. As it happens Joe Cole isnt quite a good enough player to score that chance every time, hence we didnt win. It's a question of quality not luck.

Lucas Deano Neill wrote:

Hardrada wrote:

Rai Krol 14 wrote:

Hardrada wrote:

Rai Krol 14 wrote:Chelsea, the luck has ran out ?

What luck ?!

$h!t performance.

20 goals in the last 24 mins ..

How is scoring late luck ??

The game lasts for 90mins and you have that long in which to score Doh

Many of them in injury time...

Chelsea do get a lot of luck though...you beat us 4-1 the other night and yet we were by far the better side in the first half. Your 2nd half goals came from a scramble and a slip.

Every team has a certain amount of luck...and you certainly have your fair share.

So what if it's in injury time ?! Teams play to the final whistle for a reason.

The 4-1 win was deserved because we took our chances when they came and you didn't. I fail to see how this is in any way to do with luck as opposed to quality. I could say that Tevez was "lucky" to score given Cech was within range, but in reality it's just that Cech is not good enough to be 100% perfect and you have to be prepared for that.

Aston Villa
01 Sorensen
24 Bardsley
05 Laursen
04 Mellberg
16 Bouma
26 Gardner
11 Petrov
23 Berger
06 Barry
15 Agbonlahor
10 Carew
Substitutes
13 Taylor, 17 Young, 18 Hughes, 22 Moore, 28 Maloney


Portsmouth
01 James
10 Lauren
02 Primus
23 Campbell
03 Stefanovic
26 O'Neil
22 Hughes
19 Kranjcar
14 Taylor
27 Kanu
25 Mwaruwari
Substitutes

15 Ashdown, 04 Johnson, 11 Pamarot, 32 LuaLua, 34 Mvuemba

Ref: M Atkinson

Line ups for Villa Pompey-predictions?

Can someone explain to me where the fook 4 minutes of injury time came from today?

You said a game lasts 90 minutes...I said and some were in injury time, so what point are you arguing?? Now you say to the final whitsle which is fine.

No the 4-1 win wasn't deserved...it flattered you. You could win 7 nil and take 7 chances and not deserve the scoreline because, the performance of the other team was as good. I didn't mention quality either. I said your goals came from a scramble and a slip...these are chances that league two strikers wouldn't miss.

You have to see the other view in that your team gets a fair bit of luck.

Kimbo wrote:Can someone explain to me where the fook 4 minutes of injury time came from today?

Ask the person that gave 6 at Upton Park yesterday

Kimbo wrote:Can someone explain to me where the fook 4 minutes of injury time came from today?

Nowhere just added on hoping Chelsea would score. Mourinho probably had something to say about that.

Lucas Deano Neill wrote:You said a game lasts 90 minutes...I said and some were in injury time, so what point are you arguing?? Now you say to the final whitsle which is fine. :k:

No the 4-1 win wasn't deserved...it flattered you. You could win 7 nil and take 7 chances and not deserve the scoreline because, the performance of the other team was as good. I didn't mention quality either. I said your goals came from a scramble and a slip...these are chances that league two strikers wouldn't miss.

You have to see the other view in that your team gets a fair bit of luck.

ok youre right I should have said 90mins+stoppages.

Why would that team not deserve the 7-0 ?? If your offence is good enough (and the oppo defence bad enough) to score 7 then you deserve it. Clearly the other team has not performed as well since they have not been good enough to score even once.

Scramble = Chelsea strikers were better positionally and in terms of reaction time compared to West Ham defenders ==> Not luck. West Ham qoalkeeper was not good enough to deal with it properly.

Slip = west ham defender made an error with balance, chelsea striker was good enough to capitalise on this and finish. Again this is clearly to do with quality.

This isn't about my team at all.

e.g. I don't think ManU were lucky when they beat Munich in 99. I think they were good enough to take their chances over 90mins + stoppages.

Yeah Yeah...error with balance=slip.

Quciker reactions=You were quicker in the scramble...as for Green not good enough to deal with it Not exactly his fault at all...

You miss the point, sure taking your chances is the most important thing obviously, BUT a scoreline doesn't mean that the score is deserved. It can just show that the team took their chances. It has nothing to do with not deserving a win...but the 4-1 scoreline was flattering...as this score says we were $h!t and you were magnificent...which is far from the story of the game.

Taking chances can still mean you were lucky (not just Chelsea). We beat Arsenal at the Emirates. We took our chance...but overall throughout the game we were LUCKY to come away with all 3 points. Arsenal are a great example. Many times they have dominated a game but haven't won due to failing to take their chances. Doesn't mean the other team deserved their win though...

Both teams have decent benches so its going to be hard to call.

looks like the title race may all have been decided by the ref bottling the stonewall pen for boro yesterday

Shame

hopefully chelsea play as $h!t on wednesday

You miss the point, sure taking your chances is the most important thing obviously, BUT a scoreline doesn't mean that the score is deserved. It can just show that the team took their chances. It has nothing to do with not deserving a win...but the 4-1 scoreline was flattering...as this score says we were $h!t and you were magnificent...which is far from the story of the game.

but to me that doesnt mean we were incredible and west ham were a joke it simply means that we put the ball in the net 4 times whereas you only did once. Normally this would be associated with a dominating performance, but it doesn't have to be.

I think I will just have to agree to disagree, I don't believe in this kind of luck. I don't believe Arsenal are overwhelmingly unlucky.

Hardrada wrote:

You miss the point, sure taking your chances is the most important thing obviously, BUT a scoreline doesn't mean that the score is deserved. It can just show that the team took their chances. It has nothing to do with not deserving a win...but the 4-1 scoreline was flattering...as this score says we were $h!t and you were magnificent...which is far from the story of the game.

but to me that doesnt mean we were incredible and west ham were a joke it simply means that we put the ball in the net 4 times whereas you only did once. Normally this would be associated with a dominating performance, but it doesn't have to be.

I think I will just have to agree to disagree, I don't believe in this kind of luck. I don't believe Arsenal are overwhelmingly unlucky.

Fair enough...but I think you got the point I was getting at...in which scoreline doesn't necessarily mean that score was deserved.

Ah well

Hardrada wrote:

You miss the point, sure taking your chances is the most important thing obviously, BUT a scoreline doesn't mean that the score is deserved. It can just show that the team took their chances. It has nothing to do with not deserving a win...but the 4-1 scoreline was flattering...as this score says we were $h!t and you were magnificent...which is far from the story of the game.

but to me that doesnt mean we were incredible and west ham were a joke it simply means that we put the ball in the net 4 times whereas you only did once. Normally this would be associated with a dominating performance, but it doesn't have to be.

I think I will just have to agree to disagree, I don't believe in this kind of luck. I don't believe Arsenal are overwhelmingly unlucky.

I agree with that point, for the possession they have and the players they possess luck has nothing to do with some of their sub-standard play in the final third.

villa game doesn't sound like it's a thriller. carew's had one disallowed for offside.

this is the sort of game we should be winning, but have tended to draw this season

Football Genius wrote:

Hardrada wrote:

You miss the point, sure taking your chances is the most important thing obviously, BUT a scoreline doesn't mean that the score is deserved. It can just show that the team took their chances. It has nothing to do with not deserving a win...but the 4-1 scoreline was flattering...as this score says we were $h!t and you were magnificent...which is far from the story of the game.

but to me that doesnt mean we were incredible and west ham were a joke it simply means that we put the ball in the net 4 times whereas you only did once. Normally this would be associated with a dominating performance, but it doesn't have to be.

I think I will just have to agree to disagree, I don't believe in this kind of luck. I don't believe Arsenal are overwhelmingly unlucky.

I agree with that point, for the possession they have and the players they possess luck has nothing to do with some of their sub-standard play in the final third.

No...but dominating a match and coming away with nothing for any side is unlucky...

bah. 0-0. james gets his damn clean sheet record. could've predicted that.

Bramble kept a clean sheet against Chelsea

Taylor had Drogba in his pocket all game long


And typical Mourinho, trying to deflect attention of his own team's failure at the end of the game and talking about Man. Utd.'s lucky penalties, etc. this season. I wonder how long he'll last under the supposed "4 new rules" that have been set down for him to stay at Chelsea.

Usual bullshit from Roeder today. He quite humbly takes credit for Taylors form and gives BRAMBLE credit for keeping Drogba quiet. Pr!ck, i bet hw wants to give him a new contract.

http://www.nufc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10278~1014829,00.html

I thought Bramble is definitely leaving in the summer.