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

[IBK]

If we showed our professionalism in the previous game I'd have no case to present.

I've seen this so many times from us an yet I'm being told I am creating fallacies.

Your example is ridiculous and you know it. How many times have you heard about momentum in football.

Now how many times have you heard about sneezing in preparation for a game of this magnitude.

Why you don't want us to be leaving no stone unturned and leaving nothing to chance I cannot fathom.

You said we were pussies so clearly you don't think we've left everything out there, so why not?

Sneezing and car alarms I guess.

I find those who dismiss the importance of momentum in football, or indeed professional sport baffling. Whether it was distraction; attempting to avoid injury or deliberately trying to conserve energy in the Palace game, my view is that the weekend did have some consequences for PSG. We were not sharp and focussed for the first part of the PSG game, and it's very difficult to escape the feeling that had we used the Palace game as a primer for Tuesday's game this might not have happened. You could even turn it around and say that we were too wild (and therefore agitated) initially at the Emirates on Tuesday, having placed the emphasis on this, rather than the Palace game.

People point to the draws before the 2 Madrid games as somehow being evidence that league form has no effect on the CL, but for me this is trying to use an exception to prove a rule. Like I've said, you cannot turn professional performances on and off - it's a habit. At this level, the margins are super fine, and our preparation for Tuesday was not good. Dropping points to Palace has also affected our preparation for the return fixture - as our league position and even finishing in the CL places for next season is now considerably less secure, which makes Bournemouth almost a must win - given our remaining league games.

[Mac76]

People point to the draws before the 2 Madrid games as somehow being evidence that league form has no effect on the CL, but for me this is trying to use an exception to prove a rule.

Oh dear, not the 'exception proving the rule' argument - are you HCZ in disguise?

...how about we turn it round and say drawing the Palace game not helping us before this was the exception...?

PSG lost their game before they played us - is that another exception...?

OK if someone lost 10 games straight prior to an important match, that's a momentum issue but not teams with limted squads seeking to protect their resources immediately prior to a very big game

The ony mistake in the Palace game aas the inexplicable decision to start Sterling and not Nwaneri

[HCZ_Reborn]

Oh dear, not the 'exception proving the rule' argument - are you HCZ in disguise?

...how about we turn it round and say drawing the Palace game not helping us before this was the exception...?

PSG lost their game before they played us - is that another exception...?

OK if someone lost 10 games straight prior to an important match, that's a momentum issue but not teams with limted squads seeking to protect their resources immediately prior to a very big game

The ony mistake in the Palace game aas the inexplicable decision to start Sterling and not Nwaneri

Still waiting on you to explain how Jamie Vardy makes every concern I have about a 26/27 year old having not played top level domestic football outside of Portugal null and void?

Exception that proves the rule is simply stating that just because something can happen, doesn’t make it likely to happen.

Outside courtroom arguments trying to establish precedent, most people make their case based on what happens more often than not, not on outliers. I can’t believe you would have made it to your late 50s and not realised this.

The problem with the Momentum argument is the tendency a lot of people who argue online have, which is to argue an all or nothing stance. If I say Momentum doesn’t appear to be relevant in this particular case, I’m saying it’s not relevant ever.

Equally to say if we had beaten Palace we’d have done better against PSG is unfalsifiable.

I don’t rule out that beating Palace meant we might have had more confidence going into this game given that we played a pretty strong side. But to assert that it’s objectively the case as the other Mac did, is a post hoc fallacy

Afterwards therefore because of, is a pretty weak argument in my view

[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.

[HCZ_Reborn]

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

[IBK]

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...

[HCZ_Reborn]

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

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”

[Letters]

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.

[HCZ_Reborn]

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.

I think the problem people have is I don’t think they take issue with it being said that PSG were the better side on the night, but the better side overall.

Donnarumma is better than Raya but I don’t think there’s that much in it

Dembele is better than whoever we play up front.

I don’t think Doue nor the Georgian lad are better than Saka or Martinelli

I could go on.


The problem is we played into their hands and didn’t show. Partey was a miss but it shouldn’t have been that big a miss.


Odegaard was horrible, Saka was slow, Rice was embarrassing, Merino is so poor that we all arguing that he’s much better off playing up front rather than his natural position.

Timber let himself down.

That wasn’t acceptable by the standards we’ve set for ourselves. A 105 million pound midfielder shouldn’t be shown up in terms of courage and sleeve rolling by an 18 year old Hale end graduate.

Our Captain shouldn’t be so terrified of even trying anything but the most basic of passes


We had to beat them, we didn’t come close and as far as I’m concerned in the last twenty minutes the players looked satisfied with a 1-0 defeat

[HCZ_Reborn]

I’ve seen someone suggest that for the second leg (yes I still think we are fucked and that it’s over, but doesn’t mean you can’t try for a Hail Mary pass) that Odegaard is dropped (that’s not the revelatory opinion, I think everyone bar Arteta seemingly wants this) but to play Saka in the middle and he can play interchangeably with Nwaneri wide right.

I think we should have tried this when Odegaard was injured last year, let alone now

I absolutely would go for this