Ramar Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 We've been saying that for seasons! We've hardly spent anything in years! http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/2006-2011.html Barely spent anything?
dazzybee Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 You know dazzy we could try having a decent football discussion, but you always clamber for insults and misplaced higher ground. What's the logic for Spurs deserving a win, being hard done by? Because of the one thing that counts (the scoreboard) Spurs got embarrassed. Well I was joking with the dipshit, what with me saying the situation was even worse than you originally said. But that seems to get lost on this board sometimes, very serious. And I never said we deserved to win. When did I? I'm just saying its beyond simplistic to say Chelsea did deserve based on the scoreline. Do you think we had the better of the first half? Do you think their second was a goal? The answers are yes and no. And this is the reason Chelsea didn't "deserve" to win. But who cares. They did. And that's all that matters. But as per usual, spurs at the centre of the latest clamour for goal line technology and not because it benefitted us
dan-likes-trees Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 You know dazzy we could try having a decent football discussion, but you always clamber for insults and misplaced higher ground. What's the logic for Spurs deserving a win, being hard done by? Because of the one thing that counts (the scoreboard) Spurs got embarrassed. Did you watch the game? Until 77 minutes in it was 2 - 1, and should have been 2 - 2 with chelsea a man down. Spurs didn't deserve a win no, but it's a completely different scenario with 11 on 10 at 2 - 2. Obviously. Urgh. Like (I think) Flink said, they got thrashed because they had to go attacking to try and get back in the game. The last ten minutes were a drubbing but only because of that. It all depends on whether Bale was onside or not. It doesn't matter now as the game is over and I guess yellow probably is the right punishment. Exactly. You haven't added any significant players to the squad since then, so why would the team perform that much better. It makes sense as to why they haven't. Harry needed to buy more strikers and more defenders. Yeah. I agree, I don't think it's anything to do with the England job, more about the total lack of rotation in the squad. Even the midfield is lacking in decent backup. Most of all is the persistant problem of not having any strikers who can do the job. If we can get a couple names in this summer Spur could be really strong next season. But they won't get the big names if they don't get this damned champions league spot...
bob Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/2006-2011.html Barely spent anything? I'm surprised that Arsenal are bottom of that table....
Ramar Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 (edited) And I never said we deserved to win. When did I? I'm just saying its beyond simplistic to say Chelsea did deserve based on the scoreline. Do you think we had the better of the first half? Do you think their second was a goal? The answers are yes and no. And this is the reason Chelsea didn't "deserve" to win. But who cares. They did. And that's all that matters. But as per usual, spurs at the centre of the latest clamour for goal line technology and not because it benefitted us You say Chelsea didn't deserve a win, which would imply you think Spurs did. A game of football is 90 minutes not 45. Of course the second 'goal' wasn't in. But Chelsea didn't sit back after that and they punished a flagging Spurs defence. Did you watch the game? Until 77 minutes in it was 2 - 1, and should have been 2 - 2 with chelsea a man down. Spurs didn't deserve a win no, but it's a completely different scenario with 11 on 10 at 2 - 2. Obviously. Urgh. I missed the first 5 minutes. Where's this second Spurs goal coming from? Because after they scored I don't remember any clear cut chances. I'm surprised that Arsenal are bottom of that table.... I think the table is ordered by Nett per Season and not Gross Spent. We've been flogging marquee players the passed 4-5 seasons. And it doesn't include last summers transfer dealings which would alter ours quite a bit. Edited April 15, 2012 by Ramar
dazzybee Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/2006-2011.html Barely spent anything? That is so misjudged as it includes huge sales from players BEFORE those years (we had no decent sales). And I did say the past few few years. Also, we spunked a lot of money on Bentley and bent etc I know you can say that doesn't matter, but it does, commoli is pure evil for spending lots on crap, ask Liverpool fans. Look at the past 4 transfer windows. Arsenal have spent LOTS more than tottenham You say Chelsea didn't deserve a win, which would imply you think Spurs did. A game of football is 90 minutes not 45. Of course the second 'goal' wasn't in. But Chelsea didn't sit back after that and they punished a flagging Spurs defence. I missed the first 5 minutes. Where's this second Spurs goal coming from? Because after they scored I don't remember any clear cut chances. I think the table is ordered by Nett per Season and not Gross Spent. We've been flogging marquee players the passed 4-5 seasons. And it doesn't include last summers transfer dealings which would alter ours quite a bit. Huh. Are you being serious? Just because Chelsea didn't deserve it in now way must mean spurs did. Life isnt that simple.
Mr-Paul Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 One team has to deserve it more than the other, otherwise it'd be a draw. In football, deservedness is measured in goals. And Chelsea scored more than Spurs. It may well have been a different game if the goal was rightly disallowed, but I think overall Chelsea were the better side.
Charlie Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 You say Chelsea didn't deserve a win, which would imply you think Spurs did. A draw, the forgotten result in all football discussions and one of the main reasons why bookies win every single time.
dan-likes-trees Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 I missed the first 5 minutes. Where's this second Spurs goal coming from? Because after they scored I don't remember any clear cut chances. Yeah, that was a typo, my bad, lolz.
dazzybee Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 One team has to deserve it more than the other, otherwise it'd be a draw. In football, deservedness is measured in goals. And Chelsea scored more than Spurs.It may well have been a different game if the goal was rightly disallowed, but I think overall Chelsea were the better side. Are you drunk? You're talking gibberish. What is deserved and what happens can be completely different things. In football deservedness is measured in goals? NO IT ISN'T. What are you saying. My mind is absolutely stunned at what you're writing... Are you on the wind up or being sarcastic or something because surely you don't think this. Chelsea were the better said SINCE the dodgy goal. Not before.
Mr-Paul Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 Are you drunk? You're talking gibberish. What is deserved and what happens can be completely different things. In football deservedness is measured in goals? NO IT ISN'T. What are you saying. My mind is absolutely stunned at what you're writing... Are you on the wind up or being sarcastic or something because surely you don't think this.Chelsea were the better said SINCE the dodgy goal. Not before. If you have loads of chances but don't score, you don't deserve to win. Spurs didn't deserve to win. Ignoring the non goal, Chelsea overall played better and scored more goals. They deserved it more. If the game was won by the dodgy goal, you can say Chelsea didn't deserve it. However, it wasn't. Spurs didn't want it enough throughout the game, not just after the dodgy goal. When it went to 2-1 I thought Spurs would get right back into it, but nope, they bottled it and Chelsea deserved to win and were the better team.
Fierce_LiNk Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 Hmm, I don't really know which side deserved it more. Spurs disappointed me a little, but they created some chances. Chelsea (or rather, Drogba) created chances too and he was dangerous throughout. 5-1 is a very harsh scoreline. A narrow Chelsea victory, exposing Spurs' midfield and defence would probably have been the right result.
Mr-Paul Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 PS. I have to say the 5-1 scoreline totally flatters Chelsea, they weren't that good. Spurs were just worse.
Ramar Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 Just seen this posted on twitter, a lot closer than I had previously thought.
flameboy Posted April 15, 2012 Author Posted April 15, 2012 Just seen this posted on twitter, a lot closer than I had previously thought. That's a ever so slightly a different angle to what ITV showed it, every angle they showed it looked no where like it was in but that one makes it look closer.
dazzybee Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 If you have loads of chances but don't score, you don't deserve to win. Spurs didn't deserve to win. Ignoring the non goal, Chelsea overall played better and scored more goals. They deserved it more. If the game was won by the dodgy goal, you can say Chelsea didn't deserve it. However, it wasn't. Spurs didn't want it enough throughout the game, not just after the dodgy goal. When it went to 2-1 I thought Spurs would get right back into it, but nope, they bottled it and Chelsea deserved to win and were the better team. But they ONLY created more chances and played better BEACUSE of that goal. If it was 2-1 or 5-1 it makes no difference that goal is a major factor The 5-1 blinds you to that fact.
ipaul Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 But they ONLY created more chances and played better BEACUSE of that goal. If it was 2-1 or 5-1 it makes no difference that goal is a major factor The 5-1 blinds you to that fact. Ah here man.....what? Chelsea didn't go on to score more just because of one goal. Yes, perhaps if they hadn't gotten a lucky break in that manner then the game might have turned out differently. But as it happened the ref was useless and Spurs, rather than coming back and being strong, (much like Wigan did after being disallowed a goal for eff all against Man U) they simply fell apart - well at the end anyway. You can't possibly claim after losing 5-1 that the team who won 5-1 did not deserve to win, unless all the goals were like the second one. You can say the scoreline flattered them but that's pretty much it.
Jon Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 You can dispute the dodgy goal, you can't dispute the other 4. End of story.
Fierce_LiNk Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 I'm kinda with Dazzy on this one. Ish. Once Chelsea scored two, then Spurs had to press harder to get back into it. That meant sacrificing the midfield battle and putting another striker on (Defoe). They were weaker in midfield as a result. Whether or not this would have happened had the score only been 1-0 is complete guesswork. But, Chelsea scoring second certainly did them no favours. If the ref doesn't give the goal and Spurs then get back into it, who is to say that Harry would have changed the team or not.
Ramar Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 That's a ever so slightly a different angle to what ITV showed it, every angle they showed it looked no where like it was in but that one makes it look closer. Yeah, I'm not too sure if it's legit. I mean everything I'd seen before that had me convinced the ball was a yard from the line.
gmac Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 well I knew it was close, but I didn't think it was that close, I thought it had been stopped with only a tiny bit of the ball over the line. Still not a goal though, and surely if it's given it has to go to Terry since he was the last Chelsea player to touch it? And I do agree with Dazzy, the game would be totally different at 1-0 than 2-0, Spurs would not have played as open and got drawn out of position so easily. I still think Chelsea would have won though, they just had more players who know how to win these big games.
Mr-Paul Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 But they ONLY created more chances and played better BEACUSE of that goal. If it was 2-1 or 5-1 it makes no difference that goal is a major factor The 5-1 blinds you to that fact. I think you're giving a lot more significance to that goal in the game than it really had. In my view at 1-0 it looked like Chelsea were most likely to push on and win. When it got to 2-0 Spurs actually pushed on and started playing better. But at 2-1, Spurs started to bottle it, Chelsea played better, scored more goals and deserved to win. We could debate all day who was the better team, our view will no doubt always differ. But you're making it sound like Spurs ONLY lost because of the non-goal. They didn't. Chelsea deserved the win.
dazzybee Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 I'm not saying that, so i don't meant imply it. I'm saying Chelsea won like they did BECAUSE of that goal and it spoilt spurs chances of it, it affected the game in a big way. And I'm staggered people are saying the goal didn't make that much of a difference. The mindset that yes that one goal was wrong but the other 4 were okay... I literally can't believe people think in such simple terms.
dan-likes-trees Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 I'm kinda with Dazzy on this one. Ish. Once Chelsea scored two, then Spurs had to press harder to get back into it. That meant sacrificing the midfield battle and putting another striker on (Defoe). They were weaker in midfield as a result. Whether or not this would have happened had the score only been 1-0 is complete guesswork. But, Chelsea scoring second certainly did them no favours. If the ref doesn't give the goal and Spurs then get back into it, who is to say that Harry would have changed the team or not. Exactly. It's butterfly effect for Dummies. Basic causality. A massive incident that forces a change of tactics in a match is going to change the outcome. Given that the last two times they've played it was 0-0 and 1-1 it's pretty clear that they're pretty evenly matched, it's just that Spurs are shit once they go a couple goals down, massively open up - re when Arsenal ran away with it the other week, or the City rout at the beginning of the season. Spurs collapsed, but they wouldn't have collapsed if it wasn't for those decisions, end of. As I said it was pretty even until 70 something minutes. If Chelsea did deserve the win it's because their strikers are fantastic in comparison.
Retro_Link Posted April 15, 2012 Posted April 15, 2012 Just seen this posted on twitter, a lot closer than I had previously thought. If that's legit, that looks pretty much in to me.
Recommended Posts