This. I actually think Stoke play very good football - they are able to give any team problems despite not having the same resources or technical / aesthetic quality. I rate the ability to get results much higher than some arbitrary "prettiness" index that is usually adhered to by fans teams who are currently under performing. See above. I would judge effectiveness as a more objective measure of quality than any opinion based measure of attractiveness. Although, as I'm sure you and Red will be quick to point out, that is just my opinion
If wining the league was about playing better football yeah, but it aint and you know it otherwise arsenal would have more titles, a team can play lovely football and be unlucky and lose 1 0, they still played better football than the team that sneaked 1 0. To put it into context, if you lost 1 0 to QPR after the chances ye had, if a QPR fan said to you, we played the better football, they'd be laughed off the board. Better football is a vague term anyway. The bottom line is ye have talented individuals and a good defence, that has been the mainstay of your progress this season, not good football, that we can all agree on I think we've created more chances than ye this season, I think with our better football, just our finishing has cost us
Depends on how you define "better football". I would say the side playing the better football is the one that can still win games or get results when they are unlucky or having a bad day - all the pretty passing in the world doesn't constitute objectively "better football" in my book if it doesn't get you goals or win you games. My point exactly. You can debate the relative merits of short passing, long ball, physical play, being organised, showing flair, dribbling, shooting from distance etc all you want. Ultimately I would say that better football is the football that gets results on a more consistent basis. Actually no, I wouldn't say our defence has been a mainstay this season - we've shipped some pretty poor goals at times, especially in Europe, and have never had a settled defence. Our mainstay has been scoring important goals - we've scored in every match so far this season, so even when we've conceded goals we've won more often than not. That, and having a team that isn't reliant on a single player for goals - even when Rooney was having a bad patch we had other players who would take over the scoring duties. Au contraire, the PL site says we've had pretty much the same number of shots as you this season. And like I said above, if the play doesn't lead to a goal then it doesn't matter how pretty the football is, it can't be said to be objectively better than approach play that does lead to goals. Prettier yes, more technical yes, but not better.
I think it's ironic that the last trophy Arsenal won was achieved by playing 10-0-0 and defending for 120 minutes then winning on penalties. All the tippy toe 'better football' bollocks since has won them precisely **** all.
Its come to my attention that Liverpool has recently got worse. Can one of you scouse lot explain this....... http://www.e4.com/scousewives/ I suspect you have a bloody good explanation for this dogshit program.
That was one of the most one sided matches I've ever seen. And the Arsenal players afterwards were claiming they deserved to win having been thoroughly outclassed
Has to be one of the most undeserved victories in history and they had the cheek to claim they deserved it.
It was hard to stomach, it still makes me seethe to this day! Still, it was the last thing they 'won' so justice has prevailed! Perfect Karma, go against your own alleged principles in order to steal a trophy then win bugger all since as penance.
Yeah, was quite amusing that one I have to say. The thing about that one was they had the opportunity to get the 'no trophy for X years' monkey off their back and blew it! Idiots. Wait a minute, I correct that. They have of course won the Emirates cup in that period so it's all ok.
