Match Day Thread Spurs v Leeds

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Left on the Shelf said:
<laugh>

Sadly true...
Click to expand...
I think people would look at a footballer from Brazil. In other words being Brazilian opens doors in football but, they then have to perform. There must be some pretty awful scouts about and Spurs seem to have more than their share.

Look at Richarlison's career

America Mineiro 2.6
Fluminense 3.35
Watford 7.6
Everton 3.13
Spurs 3.80

As youngster he did ok then he goes to Italy and it drops to 3.35. Watford sign him and clearly he was awful at 7.6. Why did Everton sign him? but he was slightly better with them. Oh! say Spurs he will great with us here's 60 million. Who made that decision? A lot of this makes no sense. I could understand Fluminese signing him but the rest?
Then you look at his performances for Brazil and it's 2.7 Is that the stat that fooled the rest including us.

So who will buy our top Brazilian striker? A goal every 2.7 games, this is your chance.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Dier Hard and Left on the Shelf
Spurf said:
I think people would look at a footballer from Brazil. In other words being Brazilian opens doors in football but, they then have to perform. There must be some pretty awful scouts about and Spurs seem to have more than their share.

Look at Richarlison's career

America Mineiro 2.6
Fluminense 3.35
Watford 7.6
Everton 3.13
Spurs 3.80

As youngster he did ok then he goes to Italy and it drops to 3.35. Watford sign him and clearly he was awful at 7.6. Why did Everton sign him? but he was slightly better with them. Oh! say Spurs he will great with us here's 60 million. Who made that decision? A lot of this makes no sense. I could understand Fluminese signing him but the rest?
Then you look at his performances for Brazil and it's 2.7 Is that the stat that fooled the rest including us.

So who will buy our top Brazilian striker? A goal every 2.7 games, this is your chance.
Click to expand...
Sorry, pedant warning! Flumimense are Brazilian.
 
  • Like
Reactions: humanbeingincroydon
Spurf said:
I think people would look at a footballer from Brazil. In other words being Brazilian opens doors in football but, they then have to perform. There must be some pretty awful scouts about and Spurs seem to have more than their share.

Look at Richarlison's career

America Mineiro 2.6
Fluminense 3.35
Watford 7.6
Everton 3.13
Spurs 3.80

As youngster he did ok then he goes to Italy and it drops to 3.35. Watford sign him and clearly he was awful at 7.6. Why did Everton sign him? but he was slightly better with them. Oh! say Spurs he will great with us here's 60 million. Who made that decision? A lot of this makes no sense. I could understand Fluminese signing him but the rest?
Then you look at his performances for Brazil and it's 2.7 Is that the stat that fooled the rest including us.

So who will buy our top Brazilian striker? A goal every 2.7 games, this is your chance.
Click to expand...
One thing to note: Poch was looking to sign him when he was at Watford

Which mainly suggests either
a.) His numbers were so bad as Watford were utter ****e that season
b.) Poch's eye for a player has been grossly overestimated (see also: Janssen, Ndombele)
c.) All of the above
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurlock
Apparently Mads may be in trouble because he came out and said that the deviation of the ball in the non-penalty was caused by him and not the defender. He said he told the ref at the time too. Whatever your opinion of the incident I think the VAR check, so often cited for taking way too long, was over astonishingly quickly. Almost as if the ball moving in "that direction" meant that it was "obviously" the defenders touch. Clearly there is another option though.

So VAR could/should have changed the hasty on field decision.

They would have done it for Randolph Scott.

...... "Randolph Scott".
 
vimhawk said:
Apparently Mads may be in trouble because he came out and said that the deviation of the ball in the non-penalty was caused by him and not the defender. He said he told the ref at the time too. Whatever your opinion of the incident I think the VAR check, so often cited for taking way too long, was over astonishingly quickly. Almost as if the ball moving in "that direction" meant that it was "obviously" the defenders touch. Clearly there is another option though.

So VAR could/should have changed the hasty on field decision.

They would have done it for Randolph Scott.

...... "Randolph Scott".
Click to expand...
Will be just our luck, Madders finally returns then gets a suspension.
 
  • Like
Reactions: remembercolinlee
vimhawk said:
Apparently Mads may be in trouble because he came out and said that the deviation of the ball in the non-penalty was caused by him and not the defender. He said he told the ref at the time too. Whatever your opinion of the incident I think the VAR check, so often cited for taking way too long, was over astonishingly quickly. Almost as if the ball moving in "that direction" meant that it was "obviously" the defenders touch. Clearly there is another option though.

So VAR could/should have changed the hasty on field decision.

They would have done it for Randolph Scott.

...... "Randolph Scott".
Click to expand...
There's also the minor point that getting a toe on the ball doesn't negate clattering the man

As we were told by pundits when conceding a penalty to Chelsea a couple of seasons ago when Romero got a toe to the ball while also sending (IIRC) Enzo Fernandez into the stands
 
  • Like
Reactions: paulthewire
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back