That's because a lot of people on here are completely unable to separate performance from result.Quote:
Originally Posted by Özim
Printable View
That's because a lot of people on here are completely unable to separate performance from result.Quote:
Originally Posted by Özim
Based on me watching the game and thinking that we were the better side and that both goals were against the run of play. If you disagree then fair enough, but that's the way I saw it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie
Watched it all :tiphat:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dein-machine
You can't win the league in the first 10 games but you can certainly lose it. If we start like last season then yeah, we're back to 'there's always next season' and #WengerOut. I'm not panicking just yet but it's not an ideal start, to say the least!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kano
You'd struggle to find many fans anywhere that thought we played well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Letters
Six shots on target does not equal domination or a team bang on form. Just because we had possession that doesn't mean we were in charge of the game. West Ham didn't come to boss the game, we played right into their hands, they set up to sit back, hustle us off the ball and hit us on the break. They were the team in control of the game because they knew what we'd do and performed their tactical plan perfectly. When you have over twenty shots at goal you would expect at least half of those to be on target, that's the sign of a team on form but lacking a finishing touch. I can't remember a single chance that had me on the edge of seat or really rueing our misfortune. Their keeper wasn't pulling off great saves or doing anything out the ordinary. We were allowed plenty of time to have the ball because West Ham knew when you play that system right against us, we struggle to break it down. Ball possession doesn't necessarily mean domination.
Speak for yourself. You're the first to pull up numbers and stats on our games before analysing what actually happened on the pitch. Pointless winning streaks without any context to what was going on in the season or where we were in the table. Even if we win a game where we play badly, you'll shut down negative comments about the performance as if everyone should be happy about the actual result and ignore the performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Letters
Nobody is panicking. Yawning more like. It's not like we haven't seen this before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Letters
I don't think there has been as much optimism in the last few years as there was before kick-off. That was quickly deflated as reality bit in. There's always this feeling that with these players we should be right up there challenging for everything. The players are good enough to do that - most of them anyway. It's the organisation, the preparation, consideration of the opponent in front of us, the ability to change track in-game when things are bogged down. These areas are where the predictability lies. Same patterns, same story. We'll do okay this season but it'll be these problems which we haven't solved that will cost us when those fine margins between winning and almost doing something crop up. We'll almost do something again this year. Nearly.
It seems to me to be a meaningless statistic, United won the title in 2008 despite not winning any of their opening three games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kano
City won the title in 2014 despite only getting four points from their first six games away from the Etihad.
Of course you don't want to be playing catch up, but after one game you can only be three points behind
I think if we fail to get a minimum of 15 points from our next seven games we can count ourselves out of the title race.
I'd agree if it wasn't so resoundingly in favour of one outcome. What convinces me is that it is a 'fair' or 'equal' stat in that it compares how a team starts against their final position. Given the consistency of the two there is definitely an alignment there. Looking at the first few games or six away games is like many of the 'new' stats you hear in modern football that appear to either enhance a short term positive or negative perception of a team. You can do that across any number of games or short term permeations to come to a conclusion. I think looking at the first set of games this weekend you get a sense of who is going to be making a serious fist of it, it's the same every season. Maybe I'm nuts for putting myself behind this stat but it feels quite logical to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie
Spend 10 minutes composing a post then lose it after pressing post as a result of the auto log out. :doh:
Anyway the full backs have got off lightly on our first goal the other day and the interchanging needs to work both ways. Giroud might be able to run it down the wing from time to time but we then need somebody who is going to do what he would do or be where he would be!
Hmm, I'm not sure I completely agree with Letters, but he's not completely wrong either. Their goals were agains the run of play and were completely avoidable. We just didn't create enough. Or anything.
Tony Pulis "I got the tactics wrong and I'll take responsibility for the result" - video
Not like Wenger saying they had Europa League, it's not fair they were more prepared
We are the better side, but we weren't the better side on Sunday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Letters
I think that is it. We didn't play well and lose, we didn't create a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw
I still think we need a defensive player, I don't Merte is going to cut it all season and I worry if Coq's performance was a one off or with added pressure and expectation now going to be the norm.
Yep. There are plenty of games where we keep knocking on the door to no avail but on Sunday we was not one of those. We just didn't react at all to conceding the first goal, the game completely passed us by after that. West Ham looked far more likely to score a third than we did a first due to hitting us on the counter when our powder puff attacks broke down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw
The better team on the day definitely won, possession means sod all if you're not stretching a defence and working the keeper. We made it very easy for West Ham, Bournemouth will probably give them more of a game.
I can never understand why Merts gets so much attention. It must be the height thing. I’d say he should have done better and made sure our line wasn’t so high for the freekick but other than that he wasn’t bad. I’ve seen people mention him for the second goal and say he should have done better to close the shot down. I’ll have to look at that again, but what caught my attention for that goal was the way Kos just put his hands behind his back and stood like a statue when he could have also charged the shot down. Also, I wasn’t impressed with Kos for the first goal and the lack of awareness on the runners. But overall I don’t think either player are a big problem. I’m just knit picking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bumble
Coquelin didn’t have a bad game either. He just made some bad passing decisions and I think that boils down to the fact that he was left alone in the middle of the park so he was taking more risks with his passing. When next to Cazorla we won’t have that problem. It’s the Ramsey effect. When he advances too far up the field it leaves our DM’s exposed. With Arteta we had a similar problem Arteta would go for the sideways safety pass instead of risky.
Now that's just mean! :lol:
Give the WUMming a rest. I deleted that post, in future I'll just start banning people from threads.
I literally don't see the harm in it, I don't like using WUM because I can't abide some of these acronyms
But what is the problem?, if people get wound up than that's their problem. If stuff is posted that is meant to attack someone on a personal level I can understand (but with a few exceptions we are all strangers here). I've personally never said anything to another poster that I regret saying, and equally I've never received anything that I seem to be unacceptable abuse.
People have said it doesn't contribute to discussion?, well I'm sorry to say this but we aren't the panel on Question Time we aren't always going to confine ourselves to the hot topics of the day.
Letter's is a funny guy. Deletes my post about the way he and Doug wums and then leaves his own threat up about banning people. :lol:
Here are some recent examples of Doug and Letters on the 'WUM'
http://www.goonersweb.co.uk/forum/sh...373#post467373
http://www.goonersweb.co.uk/forum/sh...578#post467578Quote:
Anyone seen Zim?
Another example. Maestro asks you genuine question, Doug wums and you encourage it with a :gp: instead of a banning threat and delete.Quote:
Yeah but you're an idiot.
http://www.goonersweb.co.uk/forum/sh...?t=3321&page=6
Hypocrisy at its finest.
HCZ makes a valid point.
:lol: OK, fine. Guilty as charged on some of the above. But let's all (me included) try and cut out the personal stuff.
Fuck off you twatQuote:
Originally Posted by Letters
You're not nice :upset:
Maccy's absence is proving costly. Letters make me mod, I'll clean this shit up.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG
Shut the fuck up you poo pants!Quote:
Originally Posted by Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie
Seriously though, censorship and threats - :doh:
:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn
Not funny matey - censorship can't be justified under any circumstances, ever. Yes you can say it's your property so your rules, fair enough. But all that achieves, with respect to censorship, is an attempt to excuse yourself the inexcusable. If it makes you feel happy then great, but the principle remains entirely intact and unharmed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Letters
Another thing I can't get my head around. What can't we have the odd punch up? What's wrong with that between a bunch of blokes and football fans? It's not like anyone is actually suffering harm. And I say this without sarcasm, but it's not as if there's an avid readership to protect. It's just us drunken fucks here, so what's the problem with the odd punch up? What do we need a nanny?
I should add that I do appreciate the effort certain people put into providing this forum, for free, so we can spout a load of shit and blow off steam. Definitely appreciated. But if we aren't going to make a mark by being the most visited Arsenal fan forum in the world (despite the fact I'm posting here), the let's make a mark by being the most anarchic, fucked-up, anything goes Arsenal fan forum on the Internet.
But for fucks sake, don't be ordinary. Anything but run-of-the-mill.
I'll start.
Maestro - come on then mate. If you think you are hard enough. Let's have it.
N_Q 's mum is bitch.
And his kids are gay.
Like his dad.
Anyway, the community itself is the most effective censor - based on humanitarian responses rather than bullshit rules or vague and unilateral ideas of what is acceptable and what's not. If somebody persists in being an arsehole they'll end up getting shunned. That's how it used to work long before the censor's pen and wank PC came along. And if people are being unjustly targeted then other will jump in to help target themdefend them. You know how it happens. The community can police itself and does.
You should ask Cripps back btw. He should never have been banned. He was banned for nothing.
I'm fucking telling! :censored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Splinter
Anyway, you are probably talking about that fake NQ bloke on TV - in which case I agree.
I think he may have been banned for persisting in his arseholey tendencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn
So he followed the crowd - why is that a banning offence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Splinter
He had long ago left the crowd behind and ascended a new plane of internet warriorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn
You could say he was the best in the world at what he did.
You swore you'd never mention the time i shat myself!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn
You overlooked the fact I'm a lying cunt, like you always do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie