CI Posted July 13, 2012 Author Share Posted July 13, 2012 I think John Terry is in for a tough time once he hangs his boots up All the shenanigans will eventually catch up with him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 It was offside mate. Not a goal. Yours, The_Rev. For most goals that have ever been scored you can point to something in the build-up that means it shouldn't have been allowed. But the simple point - was John Terry's clearance good enough to stop the ball crossing the line? The answer is that it wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 It was offside mate. Not a goal. Yours, The_Rev. For most goals that have ever been scored you can point to something in the build-up that means it shouldn't have been allowed. But the simple point - was John Terry's clearance good enough to stop the ball crossing the line? The answer is that it wasn't. You cant gloss over the bits which ruin your argument though. It obviously was good enough or the Ukraine would have scored. Ukraine fans will argue that if you look at a TV replay then the ball clearly crosses the line. England fans will argue that if you look at the same TV replay then there is a clear offside in the build up. Neither argument matters because John Terry's clearance is the reason why the referee didnt give the goal. It's as simple as that. The man is a massive cock, but you have to give credit where credit is due and his actions saved England in that game. I think John Terry is in for a tough time once he hangs his boots up All the shenanigans will eventually catch up with him He will get a coaching job at Chelsea and probably be the manager before he is 40. If he **** that up then he will retire to a nice house in Surrey and £50m+ in the bank and turn up on TV as a pundit from time to time (how could somebody with such an ego resit TV?). He never got a fat signing on fee from a big money transfer, but he has been one of the best paid players in the world for the best part of ten years. He'll be alright whatever happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 It was offside mate. Not a goal. Yours, The_Rev. For most goals that have ever been scored you can point to something in the build-up that means it shouldn't have been allowed. But the simple point - was John Terry's clearance good enough to stop the ball crossing the line? The answer is that it wasn't. You cant gloss over the bits which ruin your argument though There's no argument to ruin. Did the ball cross the line - yes. Should a goal have been given? It doesn't really matter one way or the other as that's not what I am arguing. My only point was the he didn't make a great goal-line clearance. As to do that the ball can't be behind the goal-line. He very nearly made a great goal-line clearance. By the same logic, Roy Carroll made a great save in that Man Utd - Spurs game a few years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 He made a great goal line clearance because he prevented a goal from being awarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 For most goals that have ever been scored you can point to something in the build-up that means it shouldn't have been allowed. Really? I normally agree with everything you say but that doesn't sit right with me. I think if there is something a clear as an offside one pass before the "goal" then it's hard to justify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 It was a great clearance regardless of the semantics. How about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 He made a great goal line clearance because he prevented a goal from being awarded. I refer you to my Roy Carroll point that I edited in after you posted this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 For most goals that have ever been scored you can point to something in the build-up that means it shouldn't have been allowed. Really? I normally agree with everything you say but that doesn't sit right with me. I think if there is something a clear as an offside one pass before the "goal" then it's hard to justify. Possibly fair, but I'm looking at this as two passages of play. It should have been stopped earlier for offside. That's perfectly fine. But I'm not looking at this as trying to justify whether it should have been awarded as a goal or not. In the same way that the England offside trap worked even though it wasn't deemed not to have worked, Terry's clearance didn't work even though it was deemed to have done. It was a great clearance regardless of the semantics. How about that? I'd say that it was great attempt at a clearance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 He made a great goal line clearance because he prevented a goal from being awarded. I refer you to my Roy Carroll point that I edited in after you posted this. And I'd say he did. His "save" that night earned Manchester United three points instead of just one that evening. Everybody associated with Manchester United would have been delighted. Of course Carroll dropped the ball into the net before scooping it away so he looked silly doing it whereas Terry's clearance looked more heroic, but the point remains they both gained an advantage for their team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMFy Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 For some to say he was our best player is ludicrous. England were shockingly shit and never deserved to get out of the group. So why did they win the group and who should have qualified instead of us? We were average against France. We were totally outplayed by Sweden, who made us look like we had absolutely no ideas in midfield. We were totally outplayed by Ukraine who were incredibly unfortunate to not get a point from the game, be it not for a bad linesman's decision. So we somehow stumbled to winning the group and had to play a runner up from another group. Italy totally outclassed us but couldn't score. We played uninspiring shit for 120 minutes and were eventually put in our place. Does anyone actually believe we have a chance of winning any international honours when we are totally outclassed by the teams that are not expected to have a chance in these competitions? The international team needs an overhaul, and I would start by getting rid of Terry and a couple of others... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalmleyVilla Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 John Terry just strikes me as a person who has never apologised for anything in his entire life. This x 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 For some to say he was our best player is ludicrous. England were shockingly shit and never deserved to get out of the group. So why did they win the group and who should have qualified instead of us? We were average against France. We were totally outplayed by Sweden, who made us look like we had absolutely no ideas in midfield. We were totally outplayed by Ukraine who were incredibly unfortunate to not get a point from the game, be it not for a bad linesman's decision So which two teams deserved to go through? France outplayed Ukraine. Ukraine outplayed Sweden. Sweden outplayed France. England turned up and did alright against all three teams. I'd say that's the most consistent out of all four. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMFy Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 For some to say he was our best player is ludicrous. England were shockingly shit and never deserved to get out of the group. So why did they win the group and who should have qualified instead of us? We were average against France. We were totally outplayed by Sweden, who made us look like we had absolutely no ideas in midfield. We were totally outplayed by Ukraine who were incredibly unfortunate to not get a point from the game, be it not for a bad linesman's decision So which two teams deserved to go through? France outplayed Ukraine. Ukraine outplayed Sweden. Sweden outplayed France. England turned up and did alright against all three teams. I'd say that's the most consistent out of all four. Sweden & France. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 He made a great goal line clearance because he prevented a goal from being awarded. I refer you to my Roy Carroll point that I edited in after you posted this. And I'd say he did. His "save" that night earned Manchester United three points instead of just one that evening. .... but the point remains they both gained an advantage for their team. I worry about the logical extension of this train of thought. Josip Simunic deserved to stay on the pitch in 2006 because there was no red card. Maradona's 'header' in 1986 was perfectly legal because a goal was awarded. Schumacher didn't foul Battiston in 1982 because there was no free kick. All gained an advantage for their team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRS-T Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 For some to say he was our best player is ludicrous. England were shockingly shit and never deserved to get out of the group. So why did they win the group and who should have qualified instead of us? We were average against France. We were totally outplayed by Sweden, who made us look like we had absolutely no ideas in midfield. We were totally outplayed by Ukraine who were incredibly unfortunate to not get a point from the game, be it not for a bad linesman's decision. So we somehow stumbled to winning the group and had to play a runner up from another group. Italy totally outclassed us but couldn't score. We played uninspiring shit for 120 minutes and were eventually put in our place. Does anyone actually believe we have a chance of winning any international honours when we are totally outclassed by the teams that are not expected to have a chance in these competitions? The international team needs an overhaul, and I would start by getting rid of Terry and a couple of others... So we got totally outplayed yet we still topped the group? Shows how crap the other teams are. Also I don't blame the players for our performances at Euro 2012. I blame the manager. He set them up to play in a negative, ultra-defensive fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 For some to say he was our best player is ludicrous. England were shockingly shit and never deserved to get out of the group. So why did they win the group and who should have qualified instead of us? We were average against France. We were totally outplayed by Sweden, who made us look like we had absolutely no ideas in midfield. We were totally outplayed by Ukraine who were incredibly unfortunate to not get a point from the game, be it not for a bad linesman's decision So which two teams deserved to go through? France outplayed Ukraine. Ukraine outplayed Sweden. Sweden outplayed France. England turned up and did alright against all three teams. I'd say that's the most consistent out of all four. Sweden & France. Ukraine outplayed Sweden though. And finished ahead of them in the group. Why don't they get to go through? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oaks Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 We didn't get outplayed by Sweden at all, they had a good 20 mins granted but she wasn't outplayed. Also our game was built on soaking up pressure and hitting the other teams on the counter. In every game we had the best chances, even against Italy, in 90 mins we had the most clear cut chances, they just pummelled us in terms of possession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Also I don't blame the players for our performances at Euro 2012. I blame the manager. He set them up to play in a negative, ultra-defensive fashion. This. (Don't think we were outplayed by Sweden at all, apart from a 20-min spell like Oaks said) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 He's rightfully been charged by the FA link After seeking advice from an external Independent QC, and having considered the evidence and Magistrates' Court decision in the John Terry case, The FA has today charged the Chelsea player following an alleged incident that occurred during the Queens Park Rangers versus Chelsea fixture at Loftus Road on 23 October 2011. It is alleged that Terry used abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Queens Park Rangers’ Anton Ferdinand, contrary to FA rules. It is further alleged that this included a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Anton Ferdinand. This charge is the result of The FA’s long-standing enquiries into this matter, which were placed on hold pending the outcome of the criminal trial, and relates to rules governing football only. During this period John Terry remains available to play for England. Terry has until 3 August 2012 to respond. The FA will make no further comment during this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts