|
|
Post by junior1 on Jan 13, 2011 16:39:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Jan 13, 2011 16:48:49 GMT
Coming from fabregas that's a corker. Though he likes to shroud himself in a veil of holier-than-though pronouncement about fair play and bad challenges he is one of the mosy cynically odious players in the game. His sly method of conducting foul play is not at obvious as a two-footed challenge but is often even worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Belgian Yellow on Jan 13, 2011 17:43:56 GMT
You two make yourselves sound a bit stupid.
At no point in the article does he compain about their fouls or physical approach - he is merely mentioning the fact that they relied on long rugby style punts downfield.
It worked a treat of course - Arsenal defence against this tactic was shocking.
There is no mention of fouling in the article - but hey don't let that get in the way of having a dig at someone.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenskeen on Jan 13, 2011 18:56:53 GMT
Seconded a bit of Sky spin and you all jump to the Premier League agenda.
As for Fabregas being one of the "most Cynically odious players in the game".. I'm sorry but you are completely barking mad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Agadoo on Jan 13, 2011 22:17:35 GMT
Cesc is a World Cup Champion - show a bit of respect
|
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Jan 13, 2011 23:12:41 GMT
Seconded a bit of Sky spin and you all jump to the Premier League agenda. As for Fabregas being one of the "most Cynically odious players in the game".. I'm sorry but you are completely barking mad. Explain? I agree about the sky spin bit but it had to be said. Cesc is a cheating tw*t. |
|
|
|
Post by Agadoo on Jan 13, 2011 23:17:01 GMT
Seconded a bit of Sky spin and you all jump to the Premier League agenda. As for Fabregas being one of the "most Cynically odious players in the game".. I'm sorry but you are completely barking mad. Explain? I agree about the sky spin bit but it had to be said. Cesc is a cheating tw*t. Really? do enlighten us |
|
|
|
Post by Worcester Yellow on Jan 13, 2011 23:50:43 GMT
I'm a touch fed up with (and im sure there are others) Arsenal's constant moaning when a team beats them with long ball tactics. Ipswich would be mad to think that they could beat arsenal by outplaying them on the ground, and so they found a tactic which worked. I must have missed the part of the rules that says a team must play pretty football to get a result.
If you are not good enough to beat a team set up in a certain way then just be gracious in defeat and accept it. It's long been proved that Man U and Chelsea, when not beating a team can adapt and win ugly.
|
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Jan 14, 2011 10:52:15 GMT
I'm a touch fed up with (and im sure there are others) Arsenal's constant moaning when a team beats them with long ball tactics. Ipswich would be mad to think that they could beat arsenal by outplaying them on the ground, and so they found a tactic which worked. I must have missed the part of the rules that says a team must play pretty football to get a result. If you are not good enough to beat a team set up in a certain way then just be gracious in defeat and accept it. It's long been proved that Man U and Chelsea, when not beating a team can adapt and win ugly. Great point and well made. The whole point of football is sticking that bag of leather between those two white sticks, nothing else matters. Some people talk as though caressing the ball around the pitch is, somehow, more admirable than scoring a scruffy goal. That view is the biggest load of bollocks you will ever hear. Winning ugly is perfect, winning beautifully is just as perfect but no more so. |
|
|
|
Post by Belgian Yellow on Jan 14, 2011 11:04:46 GMT
I'm a touch fed up with (and im sure there are others) Arsenal's constant moaning when a team beats them with long ball tactics. Ipswich would be mad to think that they could beat arsenal by outplaying them on the ground, and so they found a tactic which worked. I must have missed the part of the rules that says a team must play pretty football to get a result. If you are not good enough to beat a team set up in a certain way then just be gracious in defeat and accept it. It's long been proved that Man U and Chelsea, when not beating a team can adapt and win ugly. Great point and well made. The whole point of football is sticking that bag of leather between those two white sticks, nothing else matters. Some people talk as though caressing the ball around the pitch is, somehow, more admirable than scoring a scruffy goal. That view is the biggest load of bollocks you will ever hear. Winning ugly is perfect, winning beautifully is just as perfect but no more so. If nothing else mattered, then you'd be equally happy watching rugby, hockey, or anything else that has white sticks. |
|
|
|
Post by amarillo on Jan 14, 2011 11:10:27 GMT
Yep I agree. One of the great things about football compared to other sports is that the team that plays the best football doesn't necessarily win.
|
|
|
|
Post by SteMerritt on Jan 14, 2011 11:17:05 GMT
That view is the biggest load of bollocks you will ever hear. Winning ugly is perfect, winning beautifully is just as perfect but no more so. I would say that sentence is a load of bollocks, of course you would rather your team won with flowing movement, incisive passing and skillful goals rather than lump it forward, score from the scraps. Winning with glorious football is obviously more perfect than winning ugly. What the Arsenal crew fall into the trap of thinking, however, is that drawing beautiful is better than winning ugly, which of course it isn't. As I have said before, Arsenal, when on form, play the best football UNQUESTIONABLY in the Premiership. BUT (and it is a big but) they are too inconsistent with it, and too quick to blame the games of others when the results go against them. This is why they won't win the league, and most probably Man Utd, a team with less flair but much more consistency and a game that can handle more tactics than Arsenal's game, will win it. |
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jan 14, 2011 11:29:40 GMT
I'm a touch fed up with (and im sure there are others) Arsenal's constant moaning when a team beats them with long ball tactics. Ipswich would be mad to think that they could beat arsenal by outplaying them on the ground, and so they found a tactic which worked. I must have missed the part of the rules that says a team must play pretty football to get a result. If you are not good enough to beat a team set up in a certain way then just be gracious in defeat and accept it. It's long been proved that Man U and Chelsea, when not beating a team can adapt and win ugly. Great point and well made. The whole point of football is sticking that bag of leather between those two white sticks, nothing else matters. Man Utd and Arsenal are way ahead of the other team in the league in goals scoredSome people talk as though caressing the ball around the pitch is, somehow, more admirable than scoring a scruffy goal. That view is the biggest load of bollocks you will ever hear. Winning ugly is perfect, winning beautifully is just as perfect but no more so. Why do you seem to make out that scoring a "beautiful" goal is a "bad thing" |
|
|
|
Post by Agadoo on Jan 14, 2011 11:43:05 GMT
Baldy's just trying to justify Man U, Chelsea and City's dull win-at -all-costs football, which now includes diving and conning refs, which is also making the premiership a turn off and uncompetetive.
Arsenal should be praised for their approach and football philosophy because you have a team that entertains and is a contrasting style to others. Would you prefer it if Arsenal played exactly the same way as Man U, Chelsea et al? That would make the premiership even more boring and predictable than it already is....*Yawn*
|
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Jan 14, 2011 11:43:32 GMT
That view is the biggest load of bollocks you will ever hear. Winning ugly is perfect, winning beautifully is just as perfect but no more so. Rubbish! Football is a spectator sport, and people want to be entertained. Take the World Cup for instance - Brazil, Germany and Italy are all very successful in the World having won it eleven times between them. But if you ask the average person on the street (being neutral as we're British) who they would prefer to watch out of these three, Brazil would be head and shoulders above Italy and Germany. Italy is all defend, defend, defend. Zzzzz Germany is keep a strict regimented position and follow the game-plan with military precision. Zzzzzz Brazil have attacking wing-backs, midfielders and wingers pushing forward. In fact they even had a reserve goalie who took their penalties and free-kicks! They are all about flair and making it pleasing on the eye. As for Fabregas, what exactly is the problem? Reading his quotes in the article, he has said that they Ipswich played hoofball - FACT, Arsenal had most of the play - FACT, and that they were disappointed to lose. Well, well, well - what a bad loser he is being disappointed about losing a game. How do you suggest they react? Maybe Cesc and the boys should be cracking out the champagne and having a big party. Or how about hiring an open-top bus and driving it through the streets of Islington?  A bit of a nothing story really. |
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jan 14, 2011 12:17:52 GMT
Baldy's just trying to justify Man U, Chelsea and City's dull win-at -all-costs football, which now includes diving and conning refs, which is also making the premiership a turn off and uncompetetive. Arsenal should be praised for their approach and football philosophy because you have a team that entertains and is a contrasting style to others. Would you prefer it if Arsenal played exactly the same way as Man U, Chelsea et al? That would make the premiership even more boring and predictable than it already is....*Yawn* You can add Arsenal and all the other teams to the diving and conning. It's a problem that, if not dealt with properly, will ruin the game. |
|
