Why have Arsenal been so crap

[Spindryer]

10 days > 3 competitions > dumped out all 3

Why?!

[KONSPIRACY]

Henry and Van Persie have been injured, and your defence hasnt been strengthened...basically your forwards dont hold the ball up enough n the defence is immediatey back under pressure. Also as a passing team, Arsenal spend too much time arsing around playing pretty football n most teams now counter this by simply gettin players behind the ball. End of.

[Xg Corkin]

Mainly because they just overplay, don't get me wrong they are brilliant to watch but when they have to battle and scrap to get the win they just cannot do it. They don't really have a leader in the whole squad but Chelsea have Terry, Utd have Neville and Liverpool have Carragher. All they need is one player who can lead the team.

[KONSPIRACY]

Lets not forget the old Alan Hansen quote "you cant win anythin with kids"...esp if they arent good enough. Arsenal will be a force to be reckoned with in a few seasons once the current crop of players have matured a bit.

[Burning Toast]

They don't have any English players in the starting eleven - need that grit and determination. Injuries may have played a small part!!

[Hursti]

I'd so love to see Arsenal with a new manager...see what tactics they use with a bunch of kiddies and a few oldies...

[KONSPIRACY]

They don't have any English players in the starting eleven - need that grit and determination. Injuries may have played a small part!!
Very good point about the English plyers actually...you can only get so far with pure skill before you get hacked down! lmao :D

[Gaskin]

Because we rely (sp?) on Henry too much.

[IcemanLeigh]

*giggling to himself*

BECAUSE THEY ARE LAME!

In all honesty though, I do think that there is alot of reliance on Henry. Who wouldnt though to be honest.. Also, dont forget that one of the competitions that they lost in was the Final, and not just any old round..

Did you know though, that if Arsenal had lost in the Premiership to Reading, they would have been the first team ever to have lost in 4 consecutive games, in 4 consecutive different trophies..

[NeoKubrick]

They don't have any English players in the starting eleven - need that grit and determination. Injuries may have played a small part!!
Ah, such is the deluded notions of a nation determined to carve some aspect of football as their own. Yes, Burning Toast, only English players can have that true grit and determination.


First, it's not like Arsenal were dumped out of the Carling Cup: it was the final and they lost. They lost with a second-string team. Are Chelsea permanently staying in the competition until it starts up, again? So, I can hardly see where Arsenal got "dumped" out of that competition, unless it's from the pen of a writer who is reaching for hyperbole - as is the case with most tabloid hack-journalists.

Second, PSV and Blackburn were lucky, and Arsenal were poor in front of goal. Arsene Wenger has to take some of blame for placing Senderos in the right-back role against Blackburn (it led to Benni easily turning that dolt, and going on to score). It's as simple as this: Arsenal didn't take their chances in those games, and it has been a recurring theme running through this squad.


And all teams rely on their big players: Terry (without Terry, Chelsea look like a shoddy defence), Scholes (without Scholes, Man Utd don't have the guile to marshal a midfield), and Henry (without him, Arsenal lack the threat to score).

[Pie In The Sky]

In one or two years time, Arsenal will be the best team in England.

[Gaskin]

Could possibly be next season.. but most likely the one after that.

[Hursti]

Or maybe never again...they peaked a couple of seasons ago with their old players, going unbeaten.

To be honest, i believe that Arsenal are a great team but need more experience in the team and only time will tell if the youngsters there now will actually mould together and actually shoot more often and they really need to stop looking for Henry to influence all their games.

[IcemanLeigh]

In one or two years time, Arsenal will be the best team in England.

Doubt it. Expect half the team that got to the Carling cup final to be gone by the time they could of been influential to fund Arsenal buying a more established player, who ends up being a big disappointment..

[BlueHoopedMoose]

Ah, such is the deluded notions of a nation determined to carve some aspect of football as their own. Yes, Burning Toast, only English players can have that true grit and determination.
Maybe not grit and determination - I would word it "lacking fight" Besides, I think Toast was being a bit tongue in cheek re: not having english players.

Second, PSV and Blackburn were lucky, and Arsenal were poor in front of goal. Arsene Wenger has to take some of blame for placing Senderos in the right-back role against Blackburn (it led to Benni easily turning that dolt, and going on to score). It's as simple as this: Arsenal didn't take their chances in those games, and it has been a recurring theme running through this squad.
PSV were lucky? I wouldn't say an own goal and a well worked free kick count as "lucky". You can't look at Arsenal's woeful finishing and say the opposition were "lucky".

And all teams rely on their big players: Terry (without Terry, Chelsea look like a shoddy defence), Scholes (without Scholes, Man Utd don't have the guile to marshal a midfield), and Henry (without him, Arsenal lack the threat to score).
No, not all teams - name me Reading's "big" player and how they've relied on him? Same could be said for Newcastle, Blackburn and Everton.
Oh and I think you meant Cech when referring to Chelsea's shoddy defence - they started to get problems as soon as he got injured.

[Burning Toast]

Oh and I think you meant Cech when referring to Chelsea's shoddy defence - they started to get problems as soon as he got injured.

Go on the Hunty:eek:

[NeoKubrick]

Maybe not grit and determination - I would word it "lacking fight" Besides, I think Toast was being a bit tongue in cheek re: not having english players.


PSV were lucky? I wouldn't say an own goal and a well worked free kick count as "lucky". You can't look at Arsenal's woeful finishing and say the opposition were "lucky".


No, not all teams - name me Reading's "big" player and how they've relied on him? Same could be said for Newcastle, Blackburn and Everton.
Oh and I think you meant Cech when referring to Chelsea's shoddy defence - they started to get problems as soon as he got injured.

Erm, how many of those involved in the Carling Cup brawl were English? How many of those sent off were English? So, where do foreigners demonstrate this lack of fight and does it equate to the majority of foreigners to satisfy your claim that they are "lacking fight" (by the way, who are you quoting?). If we're to go by the UEFA Fair Play Rankings (the only tangible indicator available to test your claim; conjecture doesn't test anything, Moose):

http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/fairplay.html
The fair play conduct is assessed by the appointed UEFA match delegate. Following the game he has to complete a Fair Play assessement form in consultation with the referee and the referee observer.

On the assessement form are six criteria:

1. Red and yellow cards: max 10 points
Deduction from a maximum of 10 points: yellow card = 1 point, red card = 3 points. Two times yellow equals red, but yellow + direct red = 4 points deduction. The total of this aspect may become negative.
2. Positive play: minimum 1 point, maximum 10 points
Positive aspects: attacking tactics, acceleration of the game, efforts to gain time, and continued pursuit of goals. Negative aspects: deceleration of the game, time-wasting, tactics based on foul-play, play-acting, etc. In general terms positive play correlates with the numer of goal-scoring chances created and the number of goals scored.
3. Respect of the opponent: minimum 1 point, maximum 5 points
Assessement should be based on positive attitudes (e.g. helping an injured opponent) rather than infringements. Double counting against the item "red and yellow cards" should be avoided. Blameless behaviour, but without any particularly positive attitude, should be assessed with a mark 4 rather than 5.
4. Respect of the referee: minimum 1 point, maximum 5 points
A positive attitude towards the referee (and assistant referees), including the acceptance of doubtful decisions without protest, should be rewarded. Double counting against the item "red and yellow cards" should be avoided. Normal behaviour, but without any particularly positive attitude, should be assessed with a mark 4 rather than 5.
5. Behaviour of team officials: minimum 1 point, maximum 5 points
Postive and negative aspects of the behaviour of team officials should be assessed. E.g. whether they calm or provoke angry players or fans, how they accept the referee's decisions, etc. Co-operation with the media should also be considered as a factor. Blameless behaviour, but without any particularly positive attitude, should be assessed with a mark 4 rather than 5.
6. Behaviour of the crowd: minimum 1 point, maximum 5 points
Encouragement of teams by shouting, singing, etc. may have a positive influence on the atmosphere. The spectators are, however, expected to respect the opposing team and the referee. The should appreciate the performance of the opposition even if they emerge as the winners. The must in no way intimidate or frighten the opposing team, the referee, or opposing supporters. This item is applicable only if a substantial number of fans of the team concerned are present.

Note the highest points?

2001/02
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/news-template.html?020527
Association Points Matches
-- ------------------ ------ -------
1. Norway 8.361 49
2. Sweden 8.249 57
3. Finland 8.226 51
4. Iceland 8.163 39
5. England 8.162 119
6. Denmark 8.160 66
7. Germany 8.141 132
8. Estonia 8.103 26
9. Russia 8.101 55
10. Belgium 8.095 83
11. France 8.076 119
12. Israel 8.072 50
13. Wales 8.066 30
14. Hungary 8.042 46
15. Czech Republic 8.032 90
16. Switzerland 8.015 80
17. Yugoslavia 8.003 59
18. Spain 8.000 127

2002/03
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/news-template.html?030602a
Rank Assoc. Av. Mark Matches
--- --- ----- ---
1 ENG 8.202 134
--- --- ----- ---
2 SWE 8.187 52
3 FIN 8.167 45
4 FRA 8.135 103
5 DEN 8.131 58
6 RUS 8.105 71
7 POL 8.102 64
8 SUI 8.083 70
9 NOR 8.057 53
10 IRL 8.006 42

2003/04
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/news-template.html?040603
Rank Assoc. Av. Mark Matches
---- ------ -------- -----------------------
1 SWE 8.314 65
2 DEN 8.231 68
3 NOR 8.206 74
4 ENG 8.204 108
5 GER 8.135 98
6 UKR 8.134 74
7 IRL 8.108 43
8 FIN 8.089 60
9 ESP 8.056 158
10 ALB 8.032 33
11 ARM 8.023 39
12 ISL 8.008 40

2004/05
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/news-template.html?050601
Rank Assoc. Av. Mark Matches
---- ------ -------- -----------------------
1 NOR 8.243 52
2 DEN 8.224 54
3 SWE 8.158 67
4 EST 8.095 33
5 GER 8.058 114
6 ENG 8.056 109
7 SUI 8.028 63

2005/06
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/news-template.html?060601
Total Points Matches played
---- --- ------------ --------------
1. SWE 8.159 61
2. FIN 8.156 64
3. BEL 8.126 88
4. EST 8.125 30
5. LAT 8.114 29
6. NED 8.111 81
7. NOR 8.084 71
8. SUI 8.049 79
9. SLO 8.038 46
10. WAL 8.037 40
11. GER 8.002 147
------------------------------------
12. FRA 7.993 136
13. ENG 7.984 119

2006/07 (preliminary ranking)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/news-template.html?070212
Rank Assoc. Total Points Matches played
---- ------------------- ------------ --------------
1 Sweden 8.258 57
2 Norway 8.193 46
3 Denmark 8.133 61
4 Finland 8.132 42
5 England 8.131 75
6 Germany 8.104 82
7 Wales 8.087 32
8 Slovakia 8.068 43
9 Switzerland 8.059 55
10 Estonia 8.047 37
11 France 8.025 88

Are you noticing a pattern, here?


Second point: you say that one free-kick which resulted in a goal and one corner-kick which also resulted in a goal are diametrically opposed? Yeah, sure. PSV weren't the better team over the two legs:

First Leg - http://uk.matchcast.sports.yahoo.net/yahoo/mc/en/5/f124966/
Arsenal PSV
59.4% Possession 40.6%
1 Goals Scored 1
19 Attempts on Goal 7
5 Shots on Target 1
8 Shots off Target 5
6 Blocked Shots 1
7 Corners Won 4
18 Fouls Conceded 15
1 Offsides 9
1 Yellow Cards 1
0 Red Cards 0
21 Tackles 38
66.7% Tackle Success 78.9%
81.1% Passing Accuracy 76.6%

Second Leg - http://uk.matchcast.sports.yahoo.net/yahoo/mc/en/5/f124974/
PSV Arsenal
44.7% Possession 55.3%
1 Goals Scored 0
11 Attempts on Goal 13
4 Shots on Target 5
2 Shots off Target 6
5 Blocked Shots 2
1 Corners Won 9
9 Fouls Conceded 8
0 Offsides 2
0 Yellow Cards 1
0 Red Cards 0
30 Tackles 22
73.3% Tackle Success 81.8%
82.7% Passing Accuracy 84.0%

PSV were lucky that Arsenal were "woeful" in front of goal (unless you want to argue the semantics of the word "lucky").


Third point: Sidwell (or Doyle), Given (or Martins), McCarthy, Johnson (or Arteta). And Petr Cech isn't a bigger loss than Terry, considering that Terry is indeed the captain, and Cech doesn't marshal the defence as Terry does. You can argue that the center defenders have less influence than the goalkeeper, but that would only demonstrate that you don't understand football. But according to you, foreigners lack "fight", PSV weren't lucky, and teams don't rely of their big players.


Why don't you take another stab at refuting my argument in the 2001: A Space Odyssey discussion? ;)

[IcemanLeigh]

Wow.. Neo.. Just Wow.

Who are you arguing against? The Person who started this thread was an Arsenal fan, and i know that at least one other person posting in here is also.

You seem to be very defensive for completely no reason whatsoever. Lets face it, Arsenal have had a tough time of late, a bad few weeks I would even say. Doesnt it make more sense to admit this and claim that now Arsenal can concentrate on aiming for third spot in the league this season to advance on last seasons fourth place (after relying on another team to get Ill.. thats for another time ;) )

There have been people taking cheap jabs at Arsenal for not having any English players, and you have responded like someone was talking about your mother or something. Even you must admit that its an absolute shambles to play most games with no, or very little english players.. (Please.. no more stats)

What do the fair play rankings prove about anything? I dont remember anyone claiming that english players get sent off the most.. They said that they have a certain grit and determination. Yes other players from other nationalities can also have grit, but there are a few who are less likely to chase back players, go in for a hard challenge, or stand up to hard challenge. Prime example of this.. Watch Henry, then wacth Rooney. Rooney fights for every ball, he is always chasing, and no matter what will do what he can to try and win the ball for his team. Henry on the other hand, whilst has more raw talent and skill, goes quiet for long periods of a game, wanders around and looks as if it isnt his job to get the ball. This is what people are talking about, not any fair play rankings...

[BlueHoopedMoose]

Erm, how many of those involved in the Carling Cup brawl were English? How many of those sent off were English? So, where do foreigners demonstrate this lack of fight and does it equate to the majority of foreigners to satisfy your claim that they are "lacking fight" (by the way, who are you quoting?). If we're to go by the UEFA Fair Play Rankings (the only tangible indicator available to test your claim; conjecture doesn't test anything, Moose):

I wasn't quoting anyone - I was using quotes as a way of trying to say that "OK, not the right phrase but for want of a better one it will do". If I was quoting someone, I'd have used the quote function... I wasn't actually trying to say that the Arsenal players are incapable of having a scrap, and I honestly don't think anyone else would think that's what I meant. I could use many more footballing terms to describe what I mean ("bottle", "up for it", "dedicated to the cause", etc) but as this is a football section I was hoping that it wasn't required...

One thing I will say about the Fair Play leagues, even though I don't think they have any place in this discussion - they are fundamentally flawed in the way they are calculated, especially when something like "The[sic] should appreciate the performance of the opposition even if they emerge as the winners" is included. Absolute bobbins - what do they expect to happen? fans clapping the opposition off? Only seen that happen twice in all my time watching football.

Second point: you say that one free-kick which resulted in a goal and one corner-kick which also resulted in a goal are diametrically opposed?
I never said they were opposed - I said that scoring an own-goal can't be classed as lucky, nor can scoring a well-worked free kick.

PSV were lucky that Arsenal were "woeful" in front of goal (unless you want to argue the semantics of the word "lucky"
So, PSV were lucky that Arsenal were ****? I'll remember to use that excuse next time I get beaten at a game...

You bought the phrase lucky into this discussion, not me so it's up to you if you'd like to discuss the semantics of it. Personally I would class unlucky (in a football game) as things like:
- disallowed goals due to bad decisions from the officials
- hitting the crossbar, etc several times over

Even if we do agree that Arsenal *may* have been unlucky, that doesn't automatically make PSV lucky. Hleb chose to needlessly give away a free-kick which lead to the goal - how is that lucky?!

Third point: Sidwell (or Doyle), Given (or Martins), McCarthy, Johnson (or Arteta). And Petr Cech isn't a bigger loss than Terry, considering that Terry is indeed the captain, and Cech doesn't marshal the defence as Terry does. You can argue that the center defenders have less influence than the goalkeeper, but that would only demonstrate that you don't understand football. But according to you, foreigners lack "fight", PSV weren't lucky, and teams don't rely of their big players.

Sidwell: Has had an okay season but not the BIG player you make out. Gunarsson makes a perfectly adequate replacement for him, one I think would make the Reading midfield a lot more resilient. As for Doyle - well, he's been out since before the New Year. Up to a couple of weeks ago Reading had the best Premiership record in 2007 - seemed to be doing ok without him, non? I certainly think that Mr Lita may have something to say about your comment.

I think the point is that the teams that rely on their big players are those that are, perhaps, struggling to make sustained and meaningful challenges. Strength and depth is what is required and Arsenal certainly lack that in key areas - up front, and in defence.

And Petr Cech isn't a bigger loss than Terry, considering that Terry is indeed the captain, and Cech doesn't marshal the defence as Terry does.
Results in games where Chelsea have dropped points since Cech was out injured (Saturday, 14 October 2006):

Barcelona 2-2 Chelsea
Tottenham 2-1 Chelsea
Werder Bremen 1-0 Chelsea
Man Utd 1-1 Chelsea
Chelsea 1-1 Arsenal
Chelsea 2-2 Fulham
Aston Villa 0-0 Chelsea
Wycombe 1-1 Chelsea

Terry was only missing in the last three of those - make of that what you will.

You can argue that the center defenders have less influence than the goalkeeper, but that would only demonstrate that you don't understand football.
Yes you could argue that but I don't believe I said that anywhere - that's just what you are assuming I am saying. Please don't misquote me again or infer that I am saying something I am not.

But according to you, foreigners lack "fight", PSV weren't lucky, and teams don't rely of their big players.
And the point of that was...? You really did yourself a disservice with that as it adds nothing to the debate does it?

Why don't you take another stab at refuting my argument in the 2001: A Space Odyssey discussion? ;)
errm, you mean this one? http://community.matchbox360.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11821#post11821 There have been many replies since yours so not sure what you were expecting from me? Not sure what relevance this has to the current conversation to be completely honest...

[Xg Corkin]

Oooooh, lets all laugh at Arsenal, oooooh lets all laugh at Arsenal, ha ha ha ha. :)

Man Utd - Treble Winners 2006-2007!

[BlueHoopedMoose]

Oooooh, lets all laugh at Arsenal, oooooh lets all laugh at Arsenal, ha ha ha ha. :)

Man Utd - Treble Winners 2006-2007!

where are the Liverpool fans when you need them? ;)

[NeoKubrick]

Oh, where was Cech, yesterday, and where was Terry?


kHz IcemanLeigh, son, you say that I'm defensive, when my argument has been clearly offensive (id est, I've been challenging the validity of several claims from Burning Toast and Moose). So, I don't know where you plucked that thought out of. In fact, where did I oppose the claim that Arsenal have been having a bad few weeks? As for your comment about it's as if someone was criticising my mother, take a glance at this paragraph of butt-hurt bitterness:

I dislike the way Arsenal play football. Straight out. Everyone always claims that they go for the pretty goal with 5 or 6 passes around the box instead of scoring the easy goal. I think this is complete and utter nonsense. Once you take your Andy Gray glasses off and watch Arsenal, this is not true at all. They ALWAYS look to pass to henry when near the box, when he is marked, they try to find a way to get it to him, or instead get very stuck for creativity, pass it around the edge of the area until one player grows the balls to have a long range shot. If not, they are usually defending so deep, allowing pressure, and then simply breaking with their pacy players.. Whats good about that?

At least, I backed up my opinion with statistics - you know, those dirty things that get in the way of your self-serving opinion? :)



I wasn't quoting anyone - I was using quotes as a way of trying to say that "OK, not the right phrase but for want of a better one it will do". If I was quoting someone, I'd have used the quote function... I wasn't actually trying to say that the Arsenal players are incapable of having a scrap, and I honestly don't think anyone else would think that's what I meant. I could use many more footballing terms to describe what I mean ("bottle", "up for it", "dedicated to the cause", etc) but as this is a football section I was hoping that it wasn't required...

One thing I will say about the Fair Play leagues, even though I don't think they have any place in this discussion - they are fundamentally flawed in the way they are calculated, especially when something like "The[sic] should appreciate the performance of the opposition even if they emerge as the winners" is included. Absolute bobbins - what do they expect to happen? fans clapping the opposition off? Only seen that happen twice in all my time watching football.

Ah, so, you weren't specifically quoting any footballer writer or pundit when you wrote, "lacking fight". You used "lacking fight", because you acknowledged that it's not up to the task of explaining explicitly what you were trying to convey. Is that right? But, you go on to condescend to me that I should have comprehended the connotations of this inferior phrase that you're so intent in distancing yourself from with quotation marks. You missed my point: surely someone who goes to the lengths of fighting an opposing player, doesn't lack "fight" or isn't "dedicated to the cause".

First, it was "grit and determination"; second, it was "lacking fight", and now, it's "bottle", "up for it" and "dedicated to the cause". How many times do you plan on chopping the term to weasel out of the small patch you've left for yourself to argue in?

I certainly didn't say that the UEFA Fair Play rankings is the perfect indicator for testing the validity of your claim, but it's the closest thing you'll get to try to prove your claim - a claim which is laughable.



I never said they were opposed - I said that scoring an own-goal can't be classed as lucky, nor can scoring a well-worked free kick.


So, PSV were lucky that Arsenal were ****? I'll remember to use that excuse next time I get beaten at a game...

You bought the phrase lucky into this discussion, not me so it's up to you if you'd like to discuss the semantics of it. Personally I would class unlucky (in a football game) as things like:
- disallowed goals due to bad decisions from the officials
- hitting the crossbar, etc several times over

Even if we do agree that Arsenal *may* have been unlucky, that doesn't automatically make PSV lucky. Hleb chose to needlessly give away a free-kick which lead to the goal - how is that lucky?!

You said that one free-kick was "well-worked" (it wasn't therefore lucky), but Arsenal's corner-kick wasn't "well-worked" (therefore unlucky to PSV).


How does one be lucky without it implying that someone is unlucky? If I swiped the last Wii off of the shelves in a store, I'm lucky at the expense of someone who just missed the chance to.
So, logically, I don't see how Arsenal can be unlucky without it therefore implying that PSV were lucky (it's obviously automatic). I mean, even your criteria for classing 'unlucky' represents the two sides of the coin. Wouldn't a team that was disallowed a valid goal be unlucky and the other team lucky by having a valid goal against them disallowed? Wouldn't the team that hit the crossbar be unlucky, and the other team lucky because the ball hit off their crossbar and not the back of their net? Your reasoning doesn't make sense, Moose. If you agree that Arsenal were unlucky (and all the footage and statistics can prove that PSV were certainly not the better team, let alone over-powering Arsenal), then you have to agree that PSV were lucky. It's as simple as that.



Hey, Moose, where do I get me those fancy cheerleaders you have? ;)

[Xg Corkin]

I didn't understand a word of that :) Please keep it idiot proof please, and they aren't cheerleaders, its just fact that Arsenal are playing **** (like normal) and were DUMPED out of every competition because of many reasons:

1. Don't have a leader
2. Can't dig deep when its needed unlike Utd or Chelsea

[NeoKubrick]

I didn't understand a word of that :) Please keep it idiot proof please
No, I won't dumb down my writing just to "idiot-proof" it.

[Gaskin]

Arsenal have beaten United twice this season and drew with Chelsea. Don't dig deep eh?

[Xg Corkin]

No, I won't dumb down my writing just to "idiot-proof" it.

Aw, well i'll have to ignore your post then.

Arsenal have beaten United twice this season and drew with Chelsea. Don't dig deep eh?

Dig deep? You've been beaten by Sheffield Utd, Fulham, Bolton, West Ham, Man City and more. There the games you've to dig deep in to win the league. The strongling teams will always make it hard to break down and they'll just try to defend a draw against bigger teams.

[Gaskin]

Oh like Man United trying to get a draw against Arsenal? Yeah. You are a weak side :p

Yeah we lost to some pretty shabby teams, due to injuries and what not. But let's be honest, Baaariistol!

[Xg Corkin]

Yeah we lost to some pretty shabby teams, due to injuries and what not. But let's be honest, Baaariistol!

Don't you mean Portadowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn! Come on the Rovers!

[BlueHoopedMoose]

NeoKubrick could you be any more patronising? Calling people "son" really doesn't do you any favours. Perhaps you should remove your head from your ass?

First, it was "grit and determination"; second, it was "lacking fight", and now, it's "bottle", "up for it" and "dedicated to the cause". How many times do you plan on chopping the term to weasel out of the small patch you've left for yourself to argue in?

I never mentioned "grit and determination", so please don't attribute someone else's comments to me. Also, re-read what I wrote - I wasn't chopping and changing, nor trying to weasel my way out of anything - I was simply expressing how I could use any one of those terms.

Fighting other players doesn't equal commitment to the cause - Robin Friday was constantly fighting with the opposition, referee's, lino's and yet he really couldn't have given two hoots about any of the clubs he played for.

I really can't be bothered to answer any more of your witterings - to be honest they add very little, they bore me senseless and you seem much more interested in launching personal attacks against people.

Oh, and the cheerleaders? You can get yourself one from the room out back, next to "Stalkers" - I'm sure you know it well.

[NeoKubrick]

"Summoned, one shuffles guiltily into the department of trivia." - John Banville

I really can't be bothered to answer any more of your witterings -
I never mentioned "grit and determination", so please don't attribute someone else's comments to me. Also, re-read what I wrote - I wasn't chopping and changing, nor trying to weasel my way out of anything - I was simply expressing how I could use any one of those terms.

Fighting other players doesn't equal commitment to the cause - Robin Friday was constantly fighting with the opposition, referee's, lino's and yet he really couldn't have given two hoots about any of the clubs he played for.

You took the time to answer a couple of points, but can't be bothered to answer any more? A few exceptions don't break a rule, Moose. I'd suspect to find that most fights on the football pitch aren't caused by sociopaths who just want to fight for the sake of landing a blow on another person, and I think that you know that too, because you seem intelligent enough. Wouldn't you agree that most fights on the football pitch are as a result of a team losing the match and hence losing their rag? Most recent examples illustrate this: Carling Cup Final, Inter vs. Valencia et cetera. If those players weren't committed to the cause, it would be a given that they don't care enough to act out a reaction to the loss of said cause.

If you're going to answer my post, acknowledge all points and not just the couple which you're comfortable with. If you concede those points you failed to acknowledge, you shouldn't claim that "they bore me senseless" in a desperate attempt to divert attention away from the absence of rebuttals.

Your reasoning bores me, Moose; hence, why I chose to leave your reply's (and the other person's) botched reasoning go stale in the Kubrick argument, rather than disposing of it.


to be honest they add very little, they bore me senseless and you seem much more interested in launching personal attacks against people.

Moose, here's a little tip: don't claim to be slinking up the clean high-road, while wading knee-deep in the muck and dirt of the low-road. No, you're very interested in launching personal attacks in lieu of an argument, which was cut clean off its head for botched reasoning. True, my post wasn't diplomatic, but calling Leighman "son" or "bitter", or a "cheerleader" is hardly an attack (if he deems it is, he has more problems than arguing with a stranger on the 'Net) on his personal character, but rather his argument and point. Less can be said of you. The author of the high-horse pomposity who claims, while ignoring the majority of the points being debated, that I'm more "interested in launching personal attacks", but shuffles on to remark and imply that I know "Stalkers":

Oh, and the cheerleaders? You can get yourself one from the room out back, next to "Stalkers" - I'm sure you know it well.

So much for that high-moral ground that you were setting-up camp on. Here:

Perhaps you should remove your head from your ass?

[IcemanLeigh]

I have absolutely no idea what your point is?

The reason I say that you are always on the defensive is because not once have you made a single point with any relevence to the world, let alone the thread and the topic. You simply quote other peoples personal opinions and claim that they are untrue because they do not have 'statistics' that are relevant to nothing, to back them up..

The only original points that you have made, without them being a pure irrational defense of a team who have had a bad few weeks, have been personal attacks. You can call me "son" all you like, it just simply makes you look patronising. I'm not quite sure where the idea of a cheerleader came from though, you might want to run that one by me. Two (in fact probably more) people do not agree with you and so that means that they must all be following one person? That is a very narrow minded view of the world isnt it?

Now, ive got to go out so im gonna have to cut this post short, but your arguement defending against arsenal having no players with fight is massively flawed. You seem to know about football, so im sure if you thought about it then you would realise so. Are you claiming that you would rather have a player who gets in a punch up and gets sent off, than a player who works hard for the team, never gives up, never lets a ball lie, and even in an nie on impossible situation, still attmepts to get the ball? That is the definition of any of the terms that you are complaining to be completely different. The term 'fight' is not literal, it doent actually mean that teams want a player who gets pissed up before a match and starts a punch up. That would be fight, in the same way that player who does everything he can to win a ball, but doesnt get involved in a punch up, or get himself sent off, can indeed still have 'fight', or whatever other term that is used for the exact same quality in a player.

[BlueHoopedMoose]

Moose, here's a little tip: don't claim to be slinking up the clean high-road, while wading knee-deep in the muck and dirt of the low-road.
Pretty sure that I haven't claimed to be on any high ground, so once again not really sure what your point is / was?

[Chet Webley]

ooh! this looks fun! can i put my two-penneth-worth in? please?

i don't watch much footy, nor do i support a team, so i can claim to be "non-partisan" or "neutral". i do, however have my eyes connected to my mind, and i like watching people of all trades/sports displaying their skill.

1) when i do watch footy, i like watching arsenal - they're skillful players who do play footy that's nice to watch. is there anything wrong with that?

2) when players start fighting each other, it seems to me to be mainly started by things like horrific tackles, or being spat on, or verbal abuse. i don't think "commitment to the cause" really comes into it.

3) NeoKubrick - you really do have a rather high opinion of yourself, don't you?

4) maybe you SHOULD get your head out your arse:p