Villa had scored four away goals all season before today's game. Conceding that to them in a half is pathetic. No doubt who came out of that battle of our ex-players and coaches with more credit. Lots of work for Sherwood to do this summer, but he's getting the team scoring and playing better football. Consecutive wins in their position is a massive boost. Apparently not this time. I suspected that they'd lose quite badly. They've got some injuries, but I think that their season is basically over now and they're struggling for motivation. They can raise themselves to play us, as it's their big game, but they're just going through the motions now.
Amazing how Arsenal regularly beat up on the little boys while we can't.That's the only reason they are above us. Funny that Arsenal can come unstuck against the big boys!
The only reason arsenal are above spurs is because they win more games than you... And you find that amazing?
On a slightly more serious note, are you not embarrassed making sweeping comments like these? I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that you're an adult with children.
Almost everyone else who posts comments like this though it's easy to detect the sarcasm or joking tone. I really can't see it in his comments. I've seen various comments over the years of his which clearly aren't joking. No doubt he will make them, realise the comments are a bit stupid and then claim afterwards he was joking and ridicule anyone who thinks he wasn't.
They have a better more experienced squad and a very experienced manager who has them playing exactly the same way week-in week-out. They are therefore very consistent and usually beat the teams that are worse than them and lose to those that are better than them. We have slightly inferior players nd also lack experience and that means we make more mistakes which gives the poorer teams more chance against us.
If your theory was correct (that Arsenal are simply better at beating the 'poor' teams), then one would therefore assume that Spurs were actually just as good as Arsenal at beating the 'good' teams. Indeed, if your theory also included that Arsenal were better at beating the 'good' teams as well as the 'poor' teams then it's not much of a theory... it would just be that Arsenal are better full stop at winning all games. So if we go on the assumption that your theorizing that Arsenal are only better against the poorer teams, we would expect similar results between Arsenal and Spurs against the 'good' teams. So let's compare our competitive results in all games against Chelsea, City, United and Liverpool this season: Arsenal P6 W2 D2 L2 Spurs P8 W1 D1 L6 Doesn't look particularly even to me. Might it just be that there are more teams better than Spurs than there are teams better than Arsenal?
You've left out games between the two teams and have played 3 less games against the rest. Include the two fixtures between the sides and it's the same number of wins and draws, assuming your stats are correct.
Why do you reply to my comments assuming I'm being serious if you think I should not take his seriously? OK we can include them if you want (not that would make for a fair comparison given it's not the same opposition as that would be impossible of course as you can't play yourself). But if we include those two games then: Arsenal P8 W2 D3 L3 Spurs P10 W2 D2 L6 How does that become the same number of wins and draws? It's still not equal. Even if we lost our extra two games we still have to play then we'd still have a (admittedly tiny) better record than you.
Are you high? Also, we've played 11 but only have 10 results, I can't be bothered to check which is wrong but one of them is We've also played Chelsea 3 times as much as you at the moment so I'd hold off on any "we're much better than Spurs against top sides" analysis until the season is over and you've played them and others a second time.
Yeah whoops miscounted... it's 10 not 11... i've edited it all now to make sense. You've played Chelsea 3 times and lost twice... not something to brag about (although I'll admit we're shocking against them too). We've finally starting performing in some of the big games now and have drawn away at Liverpool and won away at City and United. You've got no points from those three games, shipping 10 goals in the process. We've got Liverpool (draw/win) and Chelsea (draw) at home to come and United (draw) away. You've got City (win/draw) at home. It could be more even at the end of the season... Can't see it though. For the first time in a good long time we're actually not quite so shockingly bad at the 'good' teams.
So Sunderland have done the inevitable and sacked Poyet. They will find it easier to attract a new man than it will be for Poyet to get another job.
Who was bragging? Seriously you need to go back and read again, especially what PowerSpurs said because that's where you went wrong. I'd agree with you that being better against the lower sides is more of a perception about Arsenal this season that doesn't necessarily ring true, certainly not as much as it has done in past seasons anyway. The flaws in your theory about us having to have an equal or greater record against top sides are easy to spot, however. You're including cup games for a start, not the point PowerSpurs was making. Also as you've pointed out yourself, you've played less games against the top sides than us which means you've played more against the lower sides so why does that mean "one would therefore assume that Spurs were actually just as good as Arsenal at beating the 'good' teams"? The simple answer is it doesn't.
