They had the better first half, we had the better second half, the difference being we actually scored and but for **** officials we would of won the game. For me, not losing a game due to a perfectly good goal being disallowed is lucky. It wasn't a fair result, that is a completely inaccurate use of the English language I'm afraid. Fair would suggest the result was fully correct within the rules of the game. Since a goal should of stood, but didn't, it was clearly not a fair result but in fact the opposite. Whilst on the balance of play you may have thought liverpools performance deserved a draw, a fair result it most definitely was not.
Here's some fachkts for you @astroturfnaut .... We're second in the conversion to chances table http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/chancenverwertung/wettbewerb/GB1 105 attempts - 36 goals Note the side propping up the table has a very similar amount of attempts - 102 but seemingly can't hit a cows arse with a banjo as they've only netted a paltry 22......
I'm sorry afcftw, but you're looking at this with rose tinted specs. Ramsey's goal should have stood. There's no question about that. You could argue that had it stood, it may have changed the complexion of the game, but I've always believed that if you play well enough, the referee would be a small part of the game and if you play poorly, the referee would be a big part of the game. Our response after the first 15 minutes was not good enough and were it not for Cech and the frame of the goal, we were fortunate to be going into the second half with a 0-0 scoreline. Trying to point-score over semantics is just pathetic, really. On the balance of play, it was a fair result. I'm not sure why you're still so upset about it because you're making it sound like we had dominated the game and created chances in abundance so it was a crime for us not to have won. We had chances in the second half that we didn't put away and if you can't put the ball in the net, you have no-one to blame but yourself. Blaming the officials for what was an otherwise mediocre Arsenal performance over the course of the 90 minutes is just ludicrous, frankly.
As for Benteke, I think he's a good player and he does have his strengths, like his aerial ability and his hold-up play with his back to goal, but the argument that he may not fit into Klopp's preferred style of play is a valid one. He isn't mobile enough with his feet and he can slow the game down too much. Whilst he has demonstrated that he has good technique when striking the ball e.g. the goal against United, question marks remain over his first-touch and his profligacy in front of goal. He's not the kind of player that will stretch defences with runs in behind the defence, so if that's the type of centre-forward that Klopp wants, Benteke does not fit the bill.
Also, I don't think you should be criticising my use of the English language when you fail to distinguish between 'could have' and 'could of'...
I'm not looking at anything with rose tinted specs, everything I've said is 100% correct. They had the better first half, we had the better second half, they failed to score, we scored but it was disallowed. Had the rules of the game been correctly applied Arsenal would have won. Feel free to point out which bit of that is incorrect? As far as, if you play well enough the ref doesn't matter, I personally think that's a massive pile of ****. That assumes you play considerably better than your opposition to the point you can dominate them beyond any influence of the officials, how many games are won comfortably by one side, and how many are decided by small decisions? There are loads of games every season where the ref makes the difference. And there are plenty of good games of football where both sides play well which end with ref decisions. I don't buy into the idea that if you play well then refs don't matter. In fact I think it's nonsense. As for point scoring over semantics, you waded into a conversation which was basically a light hearted argument over the word "should". No need to get your knickers in a twist And finally, I'll point out to you that I haven't blamed the ref for any preformance related issues. Ive said if the rules of the game were applied properly the result would have been a win. I haven't at any point related the refs performance to our performance. So your last line is just ludicrous, frankly.
My general grammar, punctuation and post construction is pretty poor when im on the Internet. However since you chose to use your usual condescending tone with me I thought I'd be a **** and point out that your use of "fair" to describe the game was incorrect.
Have you two finished scratching each others eyes out now? As this is a thread for the kopites to scapegoat Benteke
But football is played over 90 minutes and there are other factors to take into account. Poor decisions happen. If it doesn't go your way, you get on with it and we had time. Such as the fact that we 75% of the game left to try and win it, which we didn't do. Of course you do. It's totally unlike you to blame the officials for our results and not the team or the manager... The referee does have an influence on the game. But if the players are good enough, and ours are, we should have enough in the locker over 90 minutes to get a result. What games can you complain about that we've lost points in this season due to an official's bad decision? Better yet - what games have we dropped points in this season that we haven't deserved to win on the balance of play? And what about the games we've won due to officials bad decisions or due to inept team performances yet being lucky enough to get a win? It works both ways. Actually, this is wrong. I waded into a conversation where you were discussing the Arsenal-Liverpool game and I felt your assessment was not entirely correct. Am I not entitled to do so? This is assuming that all the factors of the game would have gone the same way. It may have, but equally, it may not have.
Don't criticise my grammar when you can't get yours right, then. As for my usual condescending tone with you, what absolute nonsense. I don't speak to you on here in a condescending tone. With other posters on the Arsenal board, sometimes I do when I think they're talking absolute bollocks. But I don't think this applies to you.
May i ask what exactly arsenal will do with the rumoured troy deeny buy? just as a question as... if benteke is not good enough for a mid table LFc how can deeny be good enough for a side challenging ofr the title. and don't mention fee please just the fee is sunk, its not coming back. this is baout what do we do now.
