Aha CJ, I never said I liked such a game, like you and everyone else I prefer attacking play for a spectacle, but I don't find a solid defensive performance tedious, lets say, less pretty!, but I think just as much applause should go to Rooney for his lung busting chase back and clean dispossession of Ramires, as his overheadkick v City for example.
Ah ok I see! Good points well made! On a tactical level I can see how the match could be appreciated.
I agree with some of these aspects notso (Inter vs Barca under Mourinho for instance) however in the first half, simple passes were going astray, defenders were smashing it long....to no one. That aspect was terrible The Defensive side is different. Benitez's Liverpool used to negate people, but still have some offence. Especially in Europe. Chelseas striker never looked like scoring once, and that is piss poor. On that evidence (provided we start to gel soon or get in a playmaker) I think we can give them both a good looking over. Imo Capoue + another (Sandro, Paulinho or Dembele) could dominate against Ramires and Lamps or Carrick and Cleverly. We just need to fashion some chances.
I'm now concentrating on the goons who have come good since their first match,why people wrote them off baffles me. I'll be happy with a point.
7 points from 9, I would have taken it at the start of the season. But when it comes down to it a draw always feels more like 2 points lost rather than 1 point gained (unless we come from 3-0 down )
They're at home and will be keen to expunge that reverse by Villa,we'll do well to get anything from it. We MUST start scoring from open play with this match. With Utd and Chelsea dishing up crap and City faltering we stand a good chance of a good league finish here.
Hi SG, we've been fashioning plenty of chances. PNP posted some stats we've fashioned the most so far. Don't know if that's correct, what I do know is we're creating plenty. Seven goals in 3 games is a good indicator. Who created the most in the Swansea game, us by far. Who had travelled all the way to Georgia, us. Who was missing their best player, us. Yet still we 'outcreated' a team often praised for their creativity.
That is by virtue of having better players than all of the three sides we have met so far. Despite which it was still obvious that we had creativity problems otherwise why would we have invested in a 26 million striker! Not just to take the odd penalty that's for sure, he needs the ball and he had precious little of it. It would be a shame to not take advantage of the team we have for want of one player just like it was with Redknapp's team. Imagine if we had signed Soldado instead of Pavlyuchenko, we might now be an established CL side with Harry and Bale. Not that I am not impressed with AVB so far.
Was browsing through some threads on the Gooner board, and came across one thread where various Gooners (the usual suspects) were discussing the quality and merits of the United/Chav match, and extrapolating it to their chances of competing with them, this season. All of them were of the very firm opinion that neither United nor Chavski was impressive and both would struggle in the league; also, they were all of the view that Arsenal would be able to challenge for the title this season. Not one of these prime muppets stopped to consider that perhaps - just perhaps - the reason why the United v Chavski match seemed unimpressive is simply because we were witnessing the two strongest sides in the league neutralise one another to a dull stalemate. Not a single one of these numpties considered the possibility that if one were to put and Everton, or a Swansea, or an Arsenal up against either United or CFC that the results would be very, very different, and that the likes of Wellbeck, RVP, Lukaku, or Torres would go on a goal-feeding frenzy. The degree to which the Not606 Gooners are deluding themselves is utterly sickening, and it soils me to my core.
Utd and Chelsea weren't poor at all. The game was played to a high standard and the defending was of a very high standard, as has already been pointed out. The game wasn't interesting as a spectacle because of the tactics employed by Morinho and because we didn't have the usual errors which many goals result from and make games exciting. Moyes was fairly conservative too - under SAF we'd have seen more ambition from Utd, especially late on - but ultimately the two sides cancelled each other out. Anyone spotting any signs of weaknesses are deluding themselves. City and Arsenal have each conceded three goals in a game against modest opposition - now that's a cause for concern for their fans.
I disagree. Neither side wanted to gamble and both played extremely conservatively. The defending was pretty decent, but there was virtually no creativity. Jones was injured for a large chunk of the game, yet nobody got at him. They'd have strolled past him if they'd have tried to go wide.
Excellent point, Little Luke! It's the same for us. Gooners and Chavs all quick to point out that we'e scraped two 1-0 wins in the league with penalty decisions for each, but they fail to recognise the fact that we've also kept two clean sheets. Isn't the first rule of a title-winning side the ability to not concede to the lesser sides?
The Walcott could be as good as Bale thread http://www.not606.com/showthread.ph...son-Be-Walcott-s-Time-To-Shine-ala-Bale-style is also a good laugh. Apparently stats show that Walcott is faster and generally about as good as Bale. Piskie deduces that Bale looks a lot better because he stands out amongst our generally crap players. Pity he is not advising Real Madrid
I concur. I like to think there is a lot of realistic views on the Spurs forum, i think our inbred pessimism from generations of Spurs supporting helps. The amount i see on the Chelsea/Arsenal/Liverpool board which is, frankly, complete and utter fiction and jibberish is quite alarming.
