They also normally start the season terribly. Maybe they are doing the reverse this season, well I am hoping they are. Also, they still have to go to Old Trafford, Stamford Bridge, Anfield, White Hart Lane and the Emirates.
Sky sports fan eh? Liverpool, playing away to a good attacking side, defended and disrupted well, make plenty of good challenges in the area without giving penalties away. Picked ye off when the chance came along, twice, passing well and retaining the ball for long periods in the first 60 minutes, what game were you watching. It was very one sided even though you huffed and puffed Liverpool were the effective team, that and the course of the game changed in a mere few minutes. As only them were Liverpool under and serious pressure was after the first goal from Arsenal, otherwise the chances were far apart with no concerted pressure. Ye could have won it after that but we could have snatched it at the death too. I definitely think Liverpool were worth the point, which goes against your own version a wee bit
Are you kidding? You think Liverpool kept and moved the ball well? What game where you watching... Liverpool defended well, disrupted our play enough to stop us scoring in the first half and put away there chances when they came. But Liverpool barely created any chances and other than Suarez none of your attacking players looked likely to make anything happen. And not sure why you asked if he is a Sky fan - Sky where raving about how well Liverpool played all the way through the game.. Arsenal may have gone 2 goals behind but it was 2 moments in the game, the rest of it (bar the saved suarez shot) Liverpool didn't look like they would make anything happen. Arsenal always looked like they where going to get goals. Liverpool did some things very well, they where well organised and concentrated - but they were definately the worse of the two teams overall.
afcftw , fortunately , i only see about 5 per cent of the crap you write as i have ignored you ,. Unfortunately , sometimes some people quote you in their replies. When that happens, im very glad for the ingnore feature.
Ok.... I fail to see what that has to do with you being randomly rude to me. I gave my opinion on the game (which by the way was not aimed at you and i genuiney would prefer not to talk to you). And you chose to reply to me with "clam off you divvy". It's pathetic that you feel the need to randomly insult me and be rude at any opportunity. As i said in my last post - grow up. If you have put me on ignore please keep it that way and avoid replying to my posts. You clearly have an issue with me but please keep it to yourself.
The goals were both down to defensive error. The first was a comedy of errors including Vermaelen dumping himself on the ground, the second was 4 men & a GK unable to defend one man with a ball after Santos got the wrong side. After the awesome start tot he season, it really looks like Bould is either not doing a good job, or not being given the time to do a good job. A poor first half, much better second. Rogers went very defensive when it got to 2-2 - really surprised me. I thought they'd go for the win.
He feels the need to comment to me for some reason . But he stated that we played well in the first half and were "unlucky" to concede. I wont lets such crap pass without a response. It is remarkable how quickly some people can forget the first half , when we have a blinding spell in the second. Its like the 2 calamitous abortions of defending never even happened. " 2 lucky goals " my arse . ! watch them again afcftl and see if they were " lucky "
I didn't reply to you at all. I make a point of not replying to you after the last time you where rude. I made a comment on the game which had nothing to do with you and was very cleary not aimed at you, yet you replyed to my post being rude. Again - grow up.
Oh and he gets even better "he stated that we played well in the first half and were "unlucky" to concede. I wont lets such crap pass without a response." - so im not allowed an opinion without you being rude to me? To somehow put me in my place for daring to have a different opinion to you?
And the best bit is his comments don't even go in line with what i've said. I haven't forgotten the first half - my half time comments on this thread show i don't think we had a poor first half. And i've explained in a couple of posts how i think the goals had an elemnt of bad luck for us. I've also said the defending was poor and it's obvious to everyone that those errors need to be wiped out. So i'm not sure exaclty what i've said that needed his desperate response...
ok ill explain it again. someone quoted the crap he had just written. It was absolute bollox so i pointed it out to him . I dont NORMALLY have to point out the rubbish he writes because i dont see it. as you can see , he has written something else above which i cant see (fortunately)and can therefore ignore. I try as hard as i can to not see anything he writes but , the system isnt perfect . Hope that clears it up.
That does not explain how 'he felt the need to comment to you', when he didn't. He never mentioned anything about you, so clearly it was you that made the first move in this little dispute.
If your so desperate not to interact with me you would simply not reply when i post something. I also don't mind you replying to me if you want to have a reasonable debate, but please refrain from being rude for no reason.
Will you please stop having personal digs at other members because you choose to disagree with them.You have your own opinions but it does not mean you are right
