kurtsimonw

8 hours ago, Delphinho123 said:

Is this a serious post?

When there's not much to complain about on the pitch..

7 hours ago, Captain_Townsend said:

We played a uefa Cup campaign I'm 1994 with a half built Holte. Their reasoning made zero sense.

The UEFA Cup in '94 and Champions League in '24 aren't really comparable.

If it is the reason, it makes sense, and honestly it would be negligent not to.

Only thing I don't like is the drop shadow

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

They have (genuinely) complained to the PGMOL that everyone is beastly and horrid to Bakayo Saka and keeps picking on him.

Honestly, they have.

Amazing.

Because he' 3rd on the foul list, apparently. Interesting that the clubs of however are the 2 most fouled players haven't complained.

Grealish and Zaha used to have the shit kicked out of them every week and get booed for it.

The only thing they've done wrong is 2 of the very few decisions they've had to make so far? Okay.

1 hour ago, villa4europe said:

Well then why don't Liverpool who at times have been comfortably 2nd best and at other times has been miles ahead of everyone bar city win what city don't? 

That's not how football works, though.

If City are the best team, why haven't they just won every single trophy available? Are they under achieving because they've had the best team in World football for the last 4 years and only have 3 league titles and 1 CL to show for it?

You don't just win every trophy, and Klopp is arguably the biggest reason Liverpool are up there. the fact they are competing with City is a massive overachievement in itself.

Agree with @bobzy. It's worth remembering the Liverpool side he took over had finished in the top 4 once in the previous 6 years and won 1 trophy in 8 years. Combine that with competing with clubs with not only better sides, but spending power that did (and still does) dwarf what Liverpool could spend.

I'd say that it's comparable with suggesting Simeone has underachieved at Atleti, though I'd argue Atleti have less competition for trophies overall.

The fact Liverpool have been competing with City is an overachievment in itself, them wnning a European Cup and title is ridiculous. I think it'd barmy to suggest anyone other than Klopp has been the best PL manager over the past 5-10 years.

2 minutes ago, HalfTimePost said:

QPR are doing terribly with their new manager note unfortunately, they had a bump in November and early Dec but they haven't won any of their last 6 and lost 4 of them.

Shame as Blues would be right in the thick of it else

Fair enough. I remember them winning 3 in a row but that was a month ago now.

This genuinely looks like Liverpool against some lower league side in the FA Cup.

Just now, osmark86 said:

I dunno, I just hate diving and think it has no room in this sport and should be punished. Looking at the replay, there was contact first and the call for a pen was correct. But kinda wish we'd be harsher on blatant embellishing diving tbh.

Unfortnately refs actively encourage it. You can get hacked to death in the box, but unless you go to the ground you will never, ever get a penalty.

Just one of many reasons that refs are not fit for purpose.

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

This is exactly right. It’s a blatant pen and then he puts that leg down and then it’s a dive

Yeah it's mad they people think it's not a penalty. Another case of a player being 'punished' for being honest and getting nothing, then criticised for going down. Players can't win sometimes.

3 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I’ve had my house broken into. It’s horrible. And not because they took a load of stuff. Because the thought of someone breaking into your house is really scary. 

Yep. It's not what they take from you, it's what they leave behind.

35 minutes ago, nick76 said:

Oh I’d put Liverpool in that category of getting shock loses as well.  I don’t think they are complete enough to do what City could do.  Liverpool are in the same category as the rest of us imo.

I don't think Liverpool will blow away teams like City can, but they just don't lose. Genuinely think a talking point at the end of the season might be abou the Spurs VAR debacle costing them an undefeated season.

They have the (joint) best keeper in the World, and probably more options than anyone else up top.

Wednesday seem to have turned a corner and picking up points at a decent rate, QPR have improved under their new manager despite their loss today. Worrying times for these lot.

18 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

That's what I mean, arsenal have spent £700m

Man city have spent more... Nearly double 

It's like us a few years back when people were saying we spent £300m we should be better and it's like hang one a minute mid table teams have spent 2x or 3x that 

Arteta has spent £700m there's 2 teams below him that have spent over £1bn

Only Chelsea have a higher net spend than Arsenal in Arteta's time there. 

Give how frequently Chelsea change managers, I wouldn't be surprised if that means he has the highest net spend of any manager in World football in that period. 

And, as I said, arguably his 3 best players were inherited. 

29 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Or.... Saka played 60 games last season whereas Grealish foden and Mahrez played 40...

I'm looking already at the business end of this season thinking declan rice has started 25 games, rodri has started 20, not only will that gap get bigger but man city have kovacic waiting in the wings and then you say OK but arsenal have jorginho and then you say but man city have £50m phillips (!)

but seriously man city's rotation is untouchable, I'm not a believer that arsenal bottled it last year more that man city's rotation is inevitable, it's what won them the trebel and for as exciting as they'll make this year out to be they will win it all again

 

Arteta has spent £700m, whilst inheriting Saka, Saliba and Martinelli who Emery bought in to the side.

Pep does have a few misses when it comes to transfers, but Arteta seems to get it horribly wrong most of the time and leaves him with no depth.

Love Daboll but good Lord have we had some terribly managed games.

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

So it was the wrong decision but you wouldn’t expect VAR to correct it?

bizarre

Did the defender make contact with the ball, Duran, neither or both?

1 minute ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

If that was given against us I’d be fuming at the ref as it was really soft. But I wouldn’t expect VAR to overturn it. They should only get involved when it’s a blatant error. That in my opinion and many others was not a blatant error. There was contact and the ref gave it so VAR should stay out of it which they did.  If the ref didn’t give it I wouldn’t expect VAR to overturn it either.  
 

Look at Ramsey reaction. It was of someone that had been tricked by a dive.

This is pretty much how I see it. Where do you draw the line for 'enough' contact? You're just adding grey areas to grey areas.

If you're overturning a penalty when there is 100% certainty that the defender didn't get the ball AND kicked the attacker, then you may as well flip a coin over every decision.

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

The ref gave a penalty which was the wrong decision. VAR reviewed it and didn’t overturn the wrong decision. 
 

That’s the issue. If people think the decision was correct then fair enough that’s their prerogative. But it’s a VAR issue because it’s being reviewed by VAR and still not getting the decision right

So what you're saying is that it's a difference of opinion. The on field decision is a penalty. The fact we're debating it means the outcome is correct as you don't overturn a 'difference of opinion' decision.

I don't think VAR should be being used in a grey area like the one yesterday, where there is definitive contact. The only time it really need be used was the foul on Ollie before their 2nd goal tbh.

I think clear and obvious is generally good, whatever others may think. In the NFL, you only overturn something if you can prove the initial decision is 100% wrong, and given that Duran is kicked, it's not 100% wrong. Again, it's soft, but he does kick him and referees encourage players to go down.

3 hours ago, villa4europe said:

This is why I never wanted VAR on the first place 

It's still opinions, there is no definitive right or wrong 

To me it should be treated coldly and factually, like goal line tech, one day offsides will get there but fouls etc will always be opinion, so what are they doing? Killing the game to get us exactly where we would be without it

That is more or less what VAR is for though, really. The use of it is just often poor.

But in this instance, I stilldon't understand the point anyway. The ref on field gave a penalty, this is a penalty with or without VAR? I've no idea why people make something about VAR when it's literally nothing to do with it.

4 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

No. It isn’t. 
 

VAR exists to correct wrong decisions. It failed in this instance. 
 

Im thrilled that it did. Absolutely thrilled. I just find it funny how outraged everyone would be if that happened to us

VAR is there for 'clear and obvious'.

The referee gave a penalty in real time. The defender make contact with Duran and didn't get the ball. There's no 'clear and obvious' wrong here. You can absolutely argue its soft, but the ref deemed the contact enough for a penalty, which is a grey area. If there was no contact, then yes VAR should overturn.

But I think this is why VAR will never be accepted in general. Peopple seem to both want VAR gone and never to make decisions, but also want it to make decisions. It's not there to flip a view on a grey area, it's there when something is obviously wrong; like a handball that the ref didn't see, a foul that the ref didn't see was studs up, something that was in the box and the ref has given a free kick, etc.

Only thing holding Arsenal back is the man in charge.