The Footie Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 15344
  • Start date Start date
You said "he was almost certainly going to have a 1 on 1 with the keeper"

So, you seem to have posted that, almost exactly word for word. What am I missing?
The difference between 'going to have a' and 'been'!! Also probably explains your incredulousness in previous posts
 
Last edited:
So, to clarify:

You do not think he would have BEEN one on one with the keeper had he not been fouled.

However, you think he almost certainly would have had a one and one with the keeper had he not been fouled?

Must say, this makes no sense, as they are effectively two ways of saying exactly the same thing, yet you claim that you didn't say he would have been one on one, but claim he almost certainly would have had a one on one!?

Going back to your original comment, I will happily and confidently say that he certainly would not have been one on one with the keeper had he not been fouled.
 
So, to clarify:

You do not think he would have BEEN one on one with the keeper had he not been fouled.

However, you think he almost certainly would have had a one and one with the keeper had he not been fouled?

Must say, this makes no sense, as they are effectively two ways of saying exactly the same thing, yet you claim that you didn't say he would have been one on one, but claim he almost certainly would have had a one on one!?

Going back to your original comment, I will happily and confidently say that he certainly would not have been one on one with the keeper had he not been fouled.

Even if he had he wouldn't have scored, cant hit a barn door that bloke. :ROFLMAO:
 
So, to clarify:

You do not think he would have BEEN one on one with the keeper had he not been fouled.

However, you think he almost certainly would have had a one and one with the keeper had he not been fouled?

Must say, this makes no sense, as they are effectively two ways of saying exactly the same thing, yet you claim that you didn't say he would have been one on one, but claim he almost certainly would have had a one on one!?

Going back to your original comment, I will happily and confidently say that he certainly would not have been one on one with the keeper had he not been fouled.

Jeez, are you LiverpoolPhil under another handle?
 
Jeez, are you LiverpoolPhil under another handle?
Why, because I can't understand the point someone is making.

Presumably, if it was felt Grealish was going to be 1v1 with goalkeeper, then the defender would have had a possible red card (given he didn't try and make a challenge)? Of course, not one person ever brought that up, and Grealish was never going to be 1 on 1 with goalkeeper in a million years in that incident.

It would be funny if I WAS Liverpoolphil though, as some of our debates would suggest he has multiple personality disorder :)
 
Why, because I can't understand the point someone is making.

Presumably, if it was felt Grealish was going to be 1v1 with goalkeeper, then the defender would have had a possible red card (given he didn't try and make a challenge)? Of course, not one person ever brought that up, and Grealish was never going to be 1 on 1 with goalkeeper in a million years in that incident.

It would be funny if I WAS Liverpoolphil though, as some of our debates would suggest he has multiple personality disorder :)

You understand the point Muirasfan is making, your just arguing the semantics, it's petty and tiresome.

Your constant argumentative, must have the last word, persona that is dsiplayed in this thread Is likened to that somewhat of LiverpoolPhil.
 
You understand the point Muirasfan is making, your just arguing the semantics, it's petty and tiresome.

Your constant argumentative, must have the last word, persona that is dsiplayed in this thread Is likened to that somewhat of LiverpoolPhil.
It is ironic that you are the one prolonging this conversation then, by being argumentative. Are you Liverpoolphil in disguise?
 
Unbelievable Jeff!! It doesn’t matter what your opinion’s are it won’t change anything! It’s not worth the arguing or disagreement 🤣😂 go get your golf clubs out and have a round of golf. Happy Monday!!
 
Jeez, are you LiverpoolPhil under another handle?
Why, because I can't understand the point someone is making.

Presumably, if it was felt Grealish was going to be 1v1 with goalkeeper, then the defender would have had a possible red card (given he didn't try and make a challenge)? Of course, not one person ever brought that up, and Grealish was never going to be 1 on 1 with goalkeeper in a million years in that incident.

It would be funny if I WAS Liverpoolphil though, as some of our debates would suggest he has multiple personality disorder :)
You understand the point Muirasfan is making, your just arguing the semantics, it's petty and tiresome.

Your constant argumentative, must have the last word, persona that is dsiplayed in this thread Is likened to that somewhat of LiverpoolPhil.
It is ironic that you are the one prolonging this conversation then, by being argumentative. Are you Liverpoolphil in disguise?

The obsession is touching

But keep me out of your little pedantic spats please
 
Gets Penalties easy enough.

Which part of Neville’s summary “ that was a poor tackle by the defender” don’t you get. He and every one else goes into meltdown because Grealish theatrically went down. It was a foul, it was a soft foul and it was one of many fouls on Grealish yesterday. If the defender had made a good tackle we wouldn’t be discussing this now. But he didn’t. Talking of tackles how comes no one talks of the excellent Tackle by Dias earlier in the game
 
Which part of Neville’s summary “ that was a poor tackle by the defender” don’t you get. He and every one else goes into meltdown because Grealish theatrically went down. It was a foul, it was a soft foul and it was one of many fouls on Grealish yesterday. If the defender had made a good tackle we wouldn’t be discussing this now. But he didn’t. Talking of tackles how comes no one talks of the excellent Tackle by Dias earlier in the game

Staying on your feet gets you nothing

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/west-hams-matt-jarvis-hammered-3420556

Jarvis many years ago against arsenal, hacked in the box. Stays on his feet..no pen given

Match of day was very much on the side of it should have been a pen

I mean var these days you "should" get the pen but still the case why stay on your feet?
 
Presumably, if it was felt Grealish was going to be 1v1 with goalkeeper, then the defender would have had a possible red card (given he didn't try and make a challenge)? Of course, not one person ever brought that up, and Grealish was never going to be 1 on 1 with goalkeeper in a million years in that incident.
Had it been a deliberate foul, then certainly Yellow, possibly Red. However this was simply a 'careless' one, so no further disciplinary action is needed. As it wasn't already an obvious goal scoring opportunity - though, as my first post on the mini-topic I think it would have developed into one if not for the foul - Penalty only was appropriate. Whether that was what the Ref thought, I have no idea!. And remember that opinions are like anuses. . . . everybody has one!
 
Last edited:
Staying on your feet gets you nothing

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/west-hams-matt-jarvis-hammered-3420556

Jarvis many years ago against arsenal, hacked in the box. Stays on his feet..no pen given

Match of day was very much on the side of it should have been a pen

I mean var these days you "should" get the pen but still the case why stay on your feet?
For me, Football has gone too far the other way and simulation is now far too omnipresent - at least in Premier League. It was refreshing to see very little of it in the World Cup and a bit depressing to see 'back to normal' in EPL!
 
Top