Arsenal vs Paris St Germain - 29.04.2025 - KO 20:00 GMT

I think you've misunderstood the 'rule' I am referring to - and that is that winning momentum - or at least consistency in an approach to games is a thing. The point Maccy was making - with which I agree - is that Saturday's game was not played with the level of professional, focussed approach that we should have shown with the PSG leg on the horizon. @ Letters - no I don't think that winning against Paris would have of itself meant a win on Tuesday night, but in my view we might well have gone into the CL Semi with a different mindset. People far more qualified to speak to these things say that the best performers in any sport focus on executing their game plan and maximizing their performance in each game, regardless of the opponent or the stage of the season.

I don't think we did this on Saturday. And I think that this lack of composure continued into the early part of Tuesday night's game. The performances against RM - also coming after draws - is no argument against this view. Nor is this an empirical argument that is won by citing historical results. For one, you can drop points without performing in as sub par a manner in which we did against Palace. I'm not really sure why the point I have made is so contentious.

And also @ Letters, I am also not saying that this 'momentum' (as a shorthand way of referring to the factors mentioned above) is the be all and end all, but I think we can all agree that at this level fine margins are important and Saturday was not good preparation for PSG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

Should have beaten them last night, if we cut out the BS and get stuck into them in Paris they'll crumble. PSG have a good midfield but their defence is lousy. Put our shooting boots on and we could fill them.

Concerned about the ref though. Twice now we've had refs that actively came out to influence the result.

---

UEFA don't want an English team to win the CL - we'd have too much dominant representation in European competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HCZ_Reborn

I don’t think they’ll just sit back and defend, but they absolutely won’t leave any space for us to exploit and the game will resemble the second half last night. Like a damp towel over a pan fire

---

They aren't as defensively solid as us when we have our main starting 11 though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IBK

I think you've misunderstood the 'rule' I am referring to - and that is that winning momentum - or at least consistency in an approach to games is a thing. The point Maccy was making - with which I agree - is that Saturday's game was not played with the level of professional, focussed approach that we should have shown with the PSG leg on the horizon. @ Letters - no I don't think that winning against Paris would have of itself meant a win on Tuesday night, but in my view we might well have gone into the CL Semi with a different mindset. People far more qualified to speak to these things say that the best performers in any sport focus on executing their game plan and maximizing their performance in each game, regardless of the opponent or the stage of the season.

I don't think we did this on Saturday. And I think that this lack of composure continued into the early part of Tuesday night's game. The performances against RM - also coming after draws - is no argument against this view. Nor is this an empirical argument that is won by citing historical results. For one, you can drop points without performing in as sub par a manner in which we did against Palace. I'm not really sure why the point I have made is so contentious.

And also @ Letters, I am also not saying that this 'momentum' (as a shorthand way of referring to the factors mentioned above) is the be all and end all, but I think we can all agree that at this level fine margins are important and Saturday was not good preparation for PSG.

---

Firstly the game was on a Wednesday, which isn’t just pedantry it’s making the point that it was a full six days before hand

Secondly, the suggestion that we played badly against Palace because we were focused on the PSG game (and I suggested it as well) is speculative.

Mac’s argument about momentum rests on the idea that if we’d taken the Palace game seriously, we’d have done better against PSG. You can be poor in a game and still have taken the game seriously. Probably a bit unfair on Palace simply to say if we were at the races we would have wiped the floor with them.

They lost heavily against Newcastle and Man City, but is it not possible that unlike those games they executed a gameplan that we were decidedly uncomfortable with (quick transitions, heavy press on the second ball so we found it harder to play out). The other suggestion is that we sat on a one goal lead, but I think that’s far too oversimplified….i think a) we clearly tried to get the third goal b) I think they had us worried about losing the ball and having to face a quick break.

Now id argue that those same conditions existed in both games, and that PSG and Palace exploited clear weaknesses of ours. Whilst it’s quite troubling that we are phased that easily, I just haven’t been given anything coming close to solid evidence that a) we were complacent against Palace and b) there’s an actual causal link that can’t be dismissed as post hoc fallacy between the two games

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

They weren't that good, but you know what the pundits are like. Dembele, apart from one scuffer which was entirely unintentional was anonymous. That beardy guy who flopped in the box, he was the main threat from their previous matches and he was neutralised too. Their defence was a shambles every time we decided to go at them instead of tap it around in front of them. We basically played right into their hands, except for a brief spell in both halves where we dominated them and should have scored at least 2.

But we were also extremely loose in the middle, first goal was a joke, and had several brainfarts at the back which are unusual. That constant fucking around at the back also put unnecessary pressure on us. We did enough things wrong to make it a 50/50 game with both teams being wasteful up front. particularly us.

I also don't get that dumb FK routine where we have to get everyone onside by barging through a wall of defenders. Surely that's an open invitation to VAR every time?

---

Agreed. We were the architects of our own downfall, nothing to do with PSG being 'better' IMO.

All our routines are weird tbh, the time wasting on throws, FK's, GK's, etc.

I still think the Fk where we scored was incorrectly called too.
If you look when the ball is actually played, their defender nearest the camera angle, makes a jump back and brings himself bang in line with Merino. Yet the focus was when Rice's foot was about to hit the ball(??) Hmm.

But yes, we also can't allow Odegaard to take another bloody FK in the next game - just let Rice do it as he is clearly better at it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

Not at all. He was deliberate in everything he did. Booked us early and for nothing to send a message. Waited an eternity to book them, despite the relentless fouling. Were many, many examples of one rule for PSG another for us. He heavily influenced the game for the whole 90.

---

Yep, everyone I was watching with said the same, dodgy as fuck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KSE Comedy Club

Yep, everyone I was watching with said the same, dodgy as fuck.

---

I think as Letters pointed out, if he was deliberately going for us…he’d have given that pel for Timber foul

Weak and incompetent

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HCZ_Reborn

Firstly the game was on a Wednesday, which isn’t just pedantry it’s making the point that it was a full six days before hand

Secondly, the suggestion that we played badly against Palace because we were focused on the PSG game (and I suggested it as well) is speculative.

Mac’s argument about momentum rests on the idea that if we’d taken the Palace game seriously, we’d have done better against PSG. You can be poor in a game and still have taken the game seriously. Probably a bit unfair on Palace simply to say if we were at the races we would have wiped the floor with them.

They lost heavily against Newcastle and Man City, but is it not possible that unlike those games they executed a gameplan that we were decidedly uncomfortable with (quick transitions, heavy press on the second ball so we found it harder to play out). The other suggestion is that we sat on a one goal lead, but I think that’s far too oversimplified….i think a) we clearly tried to get the third goal b) I think they had us worried about losing the ball and having to face a quick break.

Now id argue that those same conditions existed in both games, and that PSG and Palace exploited clear weaknesses of ours. Whilst it’s quite troubling that we are phased that easily, I just haven’t been given anything coming close to solid evidence that a) we were complacent against Palace and b) there’s an actual causal link that can’t be dismissed as post hoc fallacy between the two games

---

My bad re Saturday.

I take your point re Palace playing well, but my impression was that we lacked focus. It's only an impression but to me we looked nowhere near as on it as we had against RM, and carried this into the first part of the PSG game. Unlike with Palace we corrected this after 35 in the PSG game, so it's not too far a stretch that (if the Palace gameplan was as similar to PSG's as you suggest) to feel that had we done the same, we would have had a better blueprint for PSG.

When is there ever solid evidence when trying to argue an impression? It's all opinions and conjecture. There's no verifiable evidence that we were complacent against Palace - just a conclusion drawn from the way the game played out and a similarity with this and the first part of the PSG game...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IBK

My bad re Saturday.

I take your point re Palace playing well, but my impression was that we lacked focus. It's only an impression but to me we looked nowhere near as on it as we had against RM, and carried this into the first part of the PSG game. Unlike with Palace we corrected this after 35 in the PSG game, so it's not too far a stretch that (if the Palace gameplan was as similar to PSG's as you suggest) to feel that had we done the same, we would have had a better blueprint for PSG.

When is there ever solid evidence when trying to argue an impression? It's all opinions and conjecture. There's no verifiable evidence that we were complacent against Palace - just a conclusion drawn from the way the game played out and a similarity with this and the first part of the PSG game...

---

I’m sure it was just hyperbole but i felt that Mac (the likeable one, not the one who acts like a 12 year old school prefect) was saying he was objectively right and I said “arguing afterwards, therefore because of” is a post hoc fallacy

The fact is do I know for definite that the palace game had no impact on the PSG game? No. I just don’t think anyone else has any overwhelming evidence that it did.

I just happen to think that there’s far more compelling examples of where one can argue for the importance of Momentum than this particular one.

I respect that after a result like Tuesday people can be a little less reasonable in how they make a point than they might otherwise. I of course am never guilty of this which is exemplified by my level headed and fair minded post match ratings :lol:

So yeah I’m being a hypocrite, it’s something we are all guilty of on here. But it felt a bit like people were saying “it’s all about Momentum and there’s no room for any other possible interpretation”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IBK

And also @ Letters, I am also not saying that this 'momentum' (as a shorthand way of referring to the factors mentioned above) is the be all and end all, but I think we can all agree that at this level fine margins are important and Saturday was not good preparation for PSG.

---

I don't entirely disagree with that. It's always annoying to concede a late equaliser. But it was from an individual mistake, I don't think there's any way you can legislate for that.
I just don't think it's as big a factor as some are supposing. Possible it's not completely irrelevant either.
I just think we lost to a better side. It happens, especially at this level. Even then we had our chances - so did they of course but as you say there are fine margins in football and it could have been a better result on Tuesday, or a worse one. I still think with Partey back in the second leg the tie is not completely dead.