Yes, fair enough i didn't watch so was making that comment blind but still i don't think they were the best options pre-game with Kiwior and Trossard available , but sure I can't prove itQuote:
Originally Posted by HCZ_Reborn
Printable View
Yes, fair enough i didn't watch so was making that comment blind but still i don't think they were the best options pre-game with Kiwior and Trossard available , but sure I can't prove itQuote:
Originally Posted by HCZ_Reborn
Kiwior was awful at left backQuote:
Originally Posted by Mac76
And Trossard wasn’t great when he came on
If Tomiyasu was fit, yeah doubtless I’d pick him over Zinchenko. But on current form i don’t think I’d have picked Trossard over Havertz
Well why not tell us so we can all make some money then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn
Didn’t see the game but it’s not really a surprising result.
Hopefully bounce back next week against Brighton before the inevitable disaster at Anfield.
Games like yesterday give me doubts that I don't think we can win the league. We got most right yesterday, we didn't play well, but we didn't play badly either, despite that we totally controlled the game for the best part of an hour after the half hour mark. We simply weren't ruthless enough. Odegaard alone could have won us that game with the 2 relatively easy chances he fluffed, in fact one of them was a sitter. I thought Jesus should have had a penalty, the same thing happened in the Palace v Liverpool game and Palace were awarded a penalty, not sure why the rule appears to change when it was us yesterday. Havertz goal ruled out was correct even though I think the handball rule in that context is misused. But whatever....we have a difficult game next up against Brighton at home which is "MUST WIN", followed by the Liverpool away game on the 23rd which is a "MUST NOT LOSE".
:gp:Quote:
Originally Posted by selassie
Agreed on all counts. There were a few games last year where I thought "if we win this game then I reckon we'll win the league" and we didn't win one of them. Yesterday was possibly one of those. I feel a bit better having seen the highlights. Villa took City apart. They didn't do that to us, on another day we could have won it or certainly got a point. The lack of a clinical striker is a known problem. The penalty was one of those "if that's anywhere else on the pitch then it's a foul" ones, so why wasn't it a penalty? I don't buy into any "anti-Arsenal" conspiracy, some things go for you, some go against. It's natural to focus on the latter and forget the former. But I would say that it's increasingly clear that VAR isn't working, it was interesting to see Lineker say much the same thing. Ultimately, you don't win the title in December. If you're there or thereabouts around Easter then you have a chance. So far we're in the mix and that's enough for now. But we have to win next week and yes, a loss at Anfield while maybe not fatal would be a big red flag.
Chose the most obscure place to imply everyone is doing it. Except the hapless English fans who still think it's a sport. Absolutely anything and everything that has a revenue stream attached that exceeds 50 pence is now corrupt. Totally, overtly corrupt. In your face. It's an actual business model and the most "respectable" are far worse than the legacy rogues, who probably don't know what the fuck has happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by HCZ_Reborn
Take the disallowed legitimate goal. A Villa player "handballs" it in the box, mostly because the ball randomly deflected onto his arm. So, by the standards applied by the compromised individuals posing as authority figures, penalty, right? Then the ball randomly ricochets off the Arsenal player's arm. So, by the double standards applied by the compromised individuals posing as authority figures, disallowed, right? Well, it all depends on the betting odds. Wouldn't be surprised if the VAR team have a direct feed to the markets that matter.
In days gone by when sport was sport, the ref wouldn't have even seen all the bobbles and bounces and the goal would be allowed. And later, some fuck like Neville or Lineker would slo-mo the whole routine and add some spice by claiming it should have been disallowed. And the fans from one team would have said, on no it shouldn't. And the other lot would have said, oh yes it should. But the tiny little bullshit things that now get picked up (selectively) by VAR would have been brushed away in the moment. Because human mistakes occure and are expected. Whereas VAR mistakes are fully intended.
Jeez, seems like none of you watched it. And for once, I did. At least some of it. Was so boring I had to take breaks.
Obviously the best team didn't win. Mainly because they have decided to tackle the season without a striker, but also - as usual - because the officials were blatantly corrupt. Not the ones on the pitch, I don't think. Although they probably were on standby if needed. But the cosy little rig squad they have set up in booths who can wave a wand and justify the ridiculous with the support of Should-Be-Sacked-For-Being-Unprofessional-Gary types.
For those that didn't watch, most of the match involved Arsenal players tapping it around aimlessly and playing at a super low, almost stealing a living, tempo. Excruciating. Meanwhile the opposition have a very well drilled offside trap that becomes particularly hilarious when the poor old lino can't raise his flag until something other than the offside offense happens.
And that was about it.
Other than a bit of poor defending and a perfectly good goal that was disallowed because some Asian blioke bet big.
As far as football goes, not much to see. Eddie is a tragic figure, yet still the leading scorer along with Saka, who mostly enjoys rolling on the ground and screaming like a bitch. Not sure what all the fuss is about that Rice bloke. Some of us have seen Vieira play, in the flesh. I saw somebody making a comparison the other day. Anything for attention, eh?
The team misses Xhaka, a lot. He was a basic player, but at least he had that in his locker. And Auba is a big miss too, leaving all the other to literally miss big. That Odegard bloke is a complete waste of space. For every "wonderfully cultured" thing he does, he fucks up 5 times. He's the captain, right?
Can't understand the hate for the gypo full back. He's one of the few who looks like he knows what's going on. The new guy Saliba looked competent too. But that White geezer, it's comical. Can you imagine him in an Arsenal team of old? Or that Peter Crouch wannabe for chavland. If you planted a turnip in the centre circle it would have more on-field awareness.
And yet, this standard of this league is so appalling, this bunch of shitkickers could actually win it. Don't see why not. Especially of they put a few quid on themselves and move the market.
I just fucking told you what to check out? You want me to place the bet for you too? And pay for it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Letters
One thing that completely baffles me is that if a ball hits an attacker on the hand/arm, its handball and if htey score the goal is disallowed.
If the ball hits the same attacker but their teammate scores, it’s not handball & goal stands.
If the ball hits the defender then no handball either and they can clear it etc.
Same situation results in 3 completely different decisions. How?
Take the one on Saturday, it clearly hits cash on the arm (i dont think thats a penalty) but if the touch by Havetez is enough to deem it handball and disallow the goal then surely the touch by Cash on his arm is a penalty
Good point, but it's hard to be certain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie the Optimist
First, you have to try and decipher the rules of the game - which change every game, every week, depending on who the ref is, who the VAR team is and who is playing.
Second, you have to take into account the corruption and bias that seems to happen blatantly, with the full backing of the FA, with officials who are completely unaccountable for anything & answerable to no one.
Third, I think it might also have something to do with "not being able to tell how much pressure was applied" to the handball........ maybe, who fucking knows these days!
No, I want you to test your hypothesis that you can foretell results because it's all rigged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn
I don't believe that, but if you were able to use the odds you mentioned to post results ahead of time accurately then I'd be convinced.
If that were true then they wouldn't release the audio and open themselves up to scrutiny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn
VAR is clearly not working (inb4 you reply "it's working exactly as intended"). I've been an apologist for it because it feels like the right thing to do, but it's made the game worse.
The issue with your thesis is VAR doesn't actually have as much sway over results as you seem to think, nor do officials.
There are too many fine lines and other factors - Ødegaard should have scored at least 1, maybe 2 on Saturday. Had he done then we'd have got a result despite the VAR calls. The officials can't control stuff like that.
Spot bets are easier to control - wasn't there some thing some years back where there was some player in collusion around the timing of the first throw in, he agreed to hoof it out of play straight from kick off or something. Stuff like this can be controlled. The result of a game - there's just too many fine lines. Our win at Luton is a good example. How the fuck do you orchestrate that?
But hey, as I said if you start accurately posting results ahead of time based on your reading of betting odds then you'll convince me.
The offside rule is utterly nonsensical these days. The main thing lacking is common sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie the Optimist
The question is, why would they make the rules so vague at all? It gives them scope to be as incompetent as they like, but it allows introduces scope to cheat. The rule used to be hand to ball, and not ball to hand. Can't see what was wrong with that or why it needed to be changed. Well, not officially, at least. And now this orange card bullshit is on the way. More and more of these rule changes open up more scope for the officials to decide the result rather than the players. Are these officials simply egomaniacs? And even if they are, why are FIFA and UEFA pandering to them? When you consider FIFA and UEFA are tow of the most corrupt entities on the planet, and (being generous) you pile the egomaniac officials on top - it's not a good recipie. Nothing good can come of it and thoughts of nefarious intent aren't unrealistic at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie the Optimist
How have so many donkeys ended up controlling literally everything?
What are you on about? So what if they release the audio? All it tells you is they are either blind or corrupt. You can see for yourself a video of a defender shoving the attacking player in the box, more than enough of a foul in comparison to hundreds of others that have been given. And yet, in the official video or audio analysis the ruling is inconclusive - despite it being conclusive beyond doubt. Just because they say something doesn't make it so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Letters
What's with all the substitutions btw? WTF? They can basically replace the whole team now. This favours clubs that like to kick the player rather than the ball. Send five of them out to do some damage and sub them before the ref gets his cards out. We should go back to one sub and only for injuries. Instead, with the orange card on the way, it'll be more like a game of musical chairs.
If only teams did that against Son I'd be happyQuote:
Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn
Well, if they're trying to influence results then releasing the evidence is a strange thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn
It's the former. Well, I'd go with incompetent rather than blind. The Liverpool debacle against Spurs - the VAR guys actually got it right. The trouble is they thought the ref had too and by the time they realised it was too late to go back. Utter incompetence and failure of communication all round.Quote:
All it tells you is they are either blind or corrupt.
Decisions in football are inherently about interpretation. You must have had plenty of conversations in pubs with people who you disagree with about football decisions. You're certain it was a clear foul/penalty/goal/sending off, they're equally certain it wasn't. That's football. That's a lot of sports. The trouble is VAR was sold as bringing certainty and "right" decisions. It hasn't. Partly due to the aforementioned incompetence, partly due to the inherent impossibility of doing that. All it's led to is more scrutiny over decisions, more stoppages in games and less common sense being applied. They should stick with the goalline technology and scrap the rest. They won't of course, but they should.Quote:
You can see for yourself a video of a defender shoving the attacking player in the box, more than enough of a foul in comparison to hundreds of others that have been given. And yet, in the official video or audio analysis the ruling is inconclusive - despite it being conclusive beyond doubt. Just because they say something doesn't make it so.
In brief: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Yeah, it's always incompetence. In sport, in politics, in commerce. Just a series of mishaps by the same crowd of well-intentioned yet inept individuals. And they all get to keep their jobs, so they can be incompetent again, and again. It's all perfectly reasonable. The idea that the incompetence theory is a bulletproof shield that so many people somehow buy, each and every time, and is therefore the ideal mechanism for corruption is a cynical suggestion that doesn't fit with the lofty character self-assigned by people whose behaviour is often very different behind the scenes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Letters
But you have a point. Because they don't sit in the booth whispering in conspiratorial tones is proof enough there can't be any corruption, even as we fondly recall the entirely above board World Cup in the entirely appropriate Qatar. Just because shady arabs and Russian gangsters are the bedfellows of our incompetent heroes at the FA and FIFA doesn't mean the wrong sort are running and ruining the game. Corrupt refs have been a thing in English football for years - holy hell, look at Bennett, and the twat who's actually in charge of all these incompetent victims today. Corrupt doesn't have to mean you took an envelope from some bloke in a sheet. Maybe sometimes it's just be pure bias. Regardless, I have an issue with such reliably incompetent individuals prospering instead of being held to account, if we take the perpetually naive angle on their behaviour.
I don't think it's reasonable at all, but it does seem to be the way of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn
Come on, dude. You work, right? You have colleagues, probably people you're accountable to. Is the organisation you work for a hive of competence? Are your colleagues beacons of aptitude and good decision making? Are the people who rise to senior positions the most competent?
Because that's a hard no to all the above questions in my organisation.
I'm in a very bureaucratic organisation where senior people routinely make terrible decisions. And, weirdly, there's no consequence. If anything that incompetence seems to be actually rewarded, or they leave for an even more highly paid job elsewhere. Getting into senior positions seems to be based mostly on the ability to speak the right way and network with the right people, and a confidence in their ability which is baffling given their record. The people who sit on high have no idea what's happens on the ground and that leads them to make poor decisions.
From the people I know who have left this organisation, things aren't better elsewhere. They see incompetence everywhere they look too. So incompetence isn't really a theory. It's most people's experience of the world. You can hear it in the Liverpool disallowed goal at Spurs. You can hear it all unfold, the lack of communication, the frustration when they realised what an utter mess they've made of it. Now maybe they're just very good actors, but I'd suggest a more plausible explanation is that they made a mistake.
And no, that doesn't mean there is no corruption, why does everything have to be so absolute with you?
But I'd suggest it's much less prevalent than you imagine. It's clear that money was exchanged before the awarding of the World Cup to Qatar, I've no doubt that sort of stuff goes on all the time. But I don't buy that all the VAR chaps have earpieces linked to their paymasters in Asian betting cartels.
But as I said, if you think you can interpret betting odds to predict results to demonstrate collusion or corruption then let's see the results.
I have an issue with it too. The lack of accountability is maddening. I'm not sure what can actually be done about it though.Quote:
I have an issue with such reliably incompetent individuals prospering instead of being held to account, if we take the perpetually naive angle on their behaviour.
Counter-intuitively, I think the way to improve refereeing competence is to massively increase penalties for dissent.
The reason referees are so shit at the moment is because so many would be refs are hounded out of the game at the grass roots level because they can't hack the abuse. I know that's why I stopped doing it, how many talented refs have we lost because of that?
If, at the top of the game, we started giving anybody but the captain for talking to the referee without being asked a yellow card, we'd see about 2 weeks of (very fun to watch) chaos, then dissent would be essentially eliminated.
They've started giving refs at grass-roots the ability to sinbin players for dissent which I'm fully behind, but the whole culture needs to change from top to bottom in order to get to a place where the refs are the top are the best at the job, not the best at dealing with abuse.
:gp:Quote:
Originally Posted by WMUG
This is definitely a big problem in the game. One of my dad's mates back in the day reffed to quite a high level. Possibly did some games in the lower leagues. He gave it up in the end for the same reason. Even in some of the amateur games he was getting a level of abuse he just couldn't be doing with.
No, no, no, don't be silly. Yes I do work. But with "colleagues" - are you kidding me? What made you think I work with "colleagues"? That's a pretty severe insult, right? How the hell would you ever get things done if you worled with "colleagues" - by "colleagues" I assume you mean rivals?Quote:
Originally Posted by Letters
I did that when I was young and figured things out pretty quickly. So I changed the landscape. I get the argument you are making and I don't dispute it on the surface. But you are also making another argument, when you look beneath the surface.
Take your own life. If you make a string of terrible decisions, what happens? Do you end up getting rewarded? Say you rack up your credit card, cheat on your wife, let your kids run riot, become an addict, what's the outcome? A better life?
So you have ACTUAL experience in the reality of life, yes? Put the effort in, get something back. Put no effort in, get fucked. Would that be fair?
Now tell me how and why the reality of life suddenly changes when you get a title attached to your name. What's different - in terms of reality?
You just defined corruption - didn't you? A different set of rules for one class. Regardless of their performance.
Now tell me, what's to stop that privileged class abusing their position? Do we just assume they are always virtuous? Let me ask you, if you COULD rack up your credit card, cheat on your wife, let your kids run riot, become an addict - and there were no consequences, what would stop you doing it? Your character, right? You'd know it was wrong. You'd have the self-respect and desire for personal dignity that defined the boundaries. Of course you have to be a moral person to exercise such restriant.
But if you aren't a moral person?
Coincidentally - not - it's easier for immoral people to get to the top because they are prepared to do things that moral people would never do.
Assuming you are a moral person, is it possible you can't even conceive just how fucking abhorrent and immoral people can be?
Certain people, by no means all people. Most people are moral. If not fucked up in other ways.
If the players were actually professional there would be no dissent. But they aren't. They are a bunch of cunts - let's face it. With the few exceptions. Wasn't like that in the past. In fact Arsenal has a great history of sportsmanship, though they are not alone. Once it was the norm. The players are total cunts. You give a bunch of little shits a ton of money, or the prospect of making a ton of money if they trample over everything in their path. You think a ref is going to curb their cuntishness?Quote:
Originally Posted by WMUG
You could make the rule change but it wouldn't stop the modern player being a bone fide, fully paid up, piece of shit.
However, this could be one good rule change along with a thousand rescinded rules and the application of a few more obvious rules.
This should be a sport, not an industry. That's where you have to begin with your revolution.
Oh, and the orange card is the shittiest idea of the lot. We've opened our throats to more American sewage than can be swallowed. Why do we need second helpings?