I respect your views Dave but dubbing it "Payback" immediately leans in favour of Arsenal and United. That was the ploy Sky used to sell this Super Sunday. Sky could have gone the other way and dubbed it "Double Trouble", after all Chelsea and Spurs doubles over Arsenal and United respectively are rare. Sky did a similar thing after you lost 6-1 to City, dubbing it "revenge" or something like that rather than a title decider.
Agreed. The trailers for this weekend really annoyed me. I guarantee they wouldn't have called it 'Payback' if it was the other way round - with Spurs hoping to avenge a defeat earlier in the season. It's clear United bias and essentially predicting them to win the game. West Ham have a good chance of getting something against Arsenal, they should have beaten QPR who are playing out of their skin at the moment. Everton though are pretty much nailed on for three points at St Mary's I fear.
Bias? Why? Sky are interested in selling their product- nothing more, nothing less. They hype up every game in an attempt to do so. Spurs v Utd has produced some good games in the past and is 4th v 1st, even if the clubs have different ambitions for the season and are not close rivals. That should be enough be attract most armchair viewers to watch the game, but Sky like to add their gloss. However, Utd have no interest in revenge or "payback" or whatever Sky want to call it, nor will be the games v Everton or Norwich take on any greater significance later in the season because they also recorded wins. Utd lost at home to Blackburn last season, the reverse fixture in the title run-in was as important as it could be for both sides for differing reasons without the hype. And hype is all it is. Chelsea v Arsenal needed the hype. It's no longer a match between two title contenders, but a game fraught with tension and anxiety between two sides failing badly to meet expectations.
Total dive, looked stonewall in real time though, only when they slow it down on TV can you see what a poor decision it is. Arsenal can feel hard done by, and, I was hoping those two would draw today...
Never a dive, what game were you watching? Szcesney and Ramires both said after the game it was a stonewall pen, not one Arsenal player even appealed, Sczesney only pleaded it wasn't a red as it should have been. Clear pen not given when Oscar was hauled down by Diaby and foul on Torres not given for their goal. All things permitting more decisions went against us. If you play as badly as Arsenal did in that first 45 against top quality sides there's nothing in the game for you, they deserve no sympathy for that sham logic first half display. Easy to play when you are 2-0 down with nothing to lose.
Other way round. Chelsea v Arsenal sells itself, always is and always will be a standout fixture that will produce plenty of goals, especially at Stamford Bridge. 5 years ago Spurs v Man Utd would have been your standard 3pm Saturday fixture, but now it's contested by high quality sides and closely matched teams. In terms of importance the Chelsea v Arsenal game was bigger as it had wider implications on the league table. Spurs v United two in form sides, was always going to be a tight game.
The "payback" line was clear bias and poor marketing If you want neutrals to watch games you can't advertise them with a slogan that only favours one team
I'll see it for myself and judge. Supporters are always biased when it comes to penalties. The awarded say it was and the recipients against say it wasn't etc etc. Now I'm totally neutral when it comes to Chelsea so as soon as I find a link I'll see ok.
MOTD2 were unanimous in saying that it was never a foul on Ramires, who saw Szcesney on the floor and purposefully fell over him despite the fact that the ball was travelling in a totally different direction. MOTD also said that Arsenal were unlucky for Mata's goal, as there should have been a foul on Coquelin in the build up, that is hard to deny. I don't remember these other decisions, and I wasn't talking about the refereeing standard over the whole match, just the Ramires incident.
What Ramirez did was undoubtedly very clever. I have to say that it looked a stonewall penalty to me at the time, so I'm not at all surprised it was given. The Goons were so comprehensively outplayed in the first 45 mins that it should have all been more than over at half time. The Goons only have themselves to blame for their dismal first half performance. If you play like that, you can have no complaints if you get beaten.
Benitez says people quoting stats to say Torres is having a(nother) bad season don't a clue what they're talking about. Noting that a £50m striker is not scoring goals, doesn't look like scoring, and gets jeered when he fluffs the umpteenth chance is clueless, apparently...
If MOTD pundits say it, it doesn't make it right. We need to get out of this culture. Their opinion on this is no more or less valid than yours or mine. If Ramires says he was fouled, Sczcesney says he fouled him and no Arsenal players that witnessed it even appeal I'm not sure what the argument is. The whole "diving" thing is just malicious and defamatory, it looked to me as though Ramires slipped and the contact was made afterwards so the contact was made as an after-effect of the challenge not the cause. The real issue is would you want your GK lunging in as Sczesney did twice during that game? This is why for me we will forever lag behind our foreign counterparts. We're sat here talking about the contentious decisions rather than the build up play that led to them. Arsenal's defending for both goals was shocking at best and Spurs fully deserved at least a draw but all we hear about is a penalty that should have been given that might or might not have won United the game.
what a diving basterd that Ramires is...clear dive all day long...he had no intention of trying to round the keeoper or have a shot.
