Was it even over the line? I know Niall Quinn was super confident it was but whenever I saw it it was impossible to tell and the camera was bang on the line.
It's strange that it was awarded to Walcott seeing as how the linesman didn't appear to award the goal until Jenkinson had smashed it in.
I'm fairly sure it was over the line, though hearing Quinn is confident it was automatically makes me think it didn't
I wouldn't be surprised if whatever the hell that panel is called, "dodgy idiots panel who judge over something that really doesn't matter" give the goal to Jenks, not least because as you said, they didn't give the goal till he put it in the net, but after the keeper saves it, it looked to be going wide before the Reading guy hand balls it over the line.
walcott scores a hat trick yet he didnt play well. ok....................
Another person who misquotes on purpose, the person I quoted said he outperformed Arshavin by a margin and did pretty well, I said he didn't.... because you know, two tap ins isn't a huge performance. As always people can be utterly awful and get 2 goals, or brilliant and get none. Two goals isn't an indication of quality, outside of his goals he did NOTHING. How many times did Arshavin run the ball 30-40yards deep into the opposition area and create a chance, or a goal, or merely relieve the pressure on the side, multiple times, how many did Theo, none.
How many times did Arshavin help out at left back, dozens, how many did Theo, basically none, how many chances did Arshavin create for Chamakh, Giroud, Walcott, Jenks, and everyone else, a crapload, how many did Theo(outside of a corner), none.
Misplaced passes aren't a bad thing, except in the world that Joe Allen is the bestest player in the league because he does nothing, including not giving the ball away much. In the real world, Arshavin's attempt to create both won us the game, and leads naturally to plenty of passes going amiss. If Arshavin wasn't on and our offence was reliant on Walcott to both create the goals and more importantly, to turn the game with his driving the game to the other end of the pitch and creating chances, its as simple as this, we'd have lost 4-0.
ANyone we have on the team could have done what Walcott did, outside of maybe Santi, Wilshire, Podolski, no one could have create the type, or number of chances Arshavin did for us.
Arshavin is both, not match fit and has no form, and he still provided all the creative output, workrate, drive and ultimately goal creation the team desparately needed in that and the past 3 games as well. Imagine how much better he would have played being match fit, and in form, a few less of the misplaced passes and a few more making their target and a couple of his shots being goals.
He was by a country mile our best player, Walcott did what he always does, when people put him in behind 1 on 1 with the keeper, he's not a bad finisher, most players aren't. Arshavin is the guy who put the goals on a plate for him, playing THROUGH a defence is hard, being the guy who gets the ball beyond them and beats a keeper one on one is a pretty easy part of the game.
If Walcott played as the lone striker then his contribution would have been far more acceptable, he wasn't, he did smeg all in 2/3rd's of the pitch and his job on the right is to defend, attack and create, not one single thing.
Chamakh, the lone striker, did far more defensively, far better passing/interplay(outside of the disgracefully poor first half performance) than Walcott a guy expected to do more for the team.
