English League Football ** spoilers ** [17th - 21st September 2010]

K1LLSW1TCH said:
Who cares about the whole "it was over the 4 minutes" thing? We should have had this game won with the kick of the penalty, but Rosicky is too inept.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't have needed the penalty either, imo.

Although Song was lucky to not get yellows earlier than the ones he actually did (especially the silly foot trip thingy).
 
BaZ87 said:
94mins 10seconds is the 95th minute :confused:
Click to expand...

Yes my maths are wrong:p....im thinking 94min 60secs makes it 95mins....bahhh its too complicated for me to figure out as im still raging at our ineptness of failing to kill off the game:p.
 
dante6491 said:
What is your maths like?

90-91
91-92
92-93
93-94

There is four minutes of added time. 94.15 is over four minutes of added time. There was a clear break in play which happened after 94.00 which is where the whistle should have blown.
Click to expand...

A minimum of 4 full minutes is the amount the ref indicated. What's your comprehension like?
 
syke said:
Shouldn't have needed the penalty either, imo.

Although Song was lucky to not get yellows earlier than the ones he actually did (especially the silly foot trip thingy).
Click to expand...

No, exactly. Arsenal had 94 minutes to win this game, we could have pressed on after the fluke goal and really put our intentions out to win the game but instead we just stayed in our shell and were happy to let Sunderland have the lion's share of possession, it is not the fault of the referee that we lost this game, I don't agree with the majority of the Arsenal fans on this occasion.
 
Nothing to complain about regarding the timing of the goal, 94:15 is definitely not unrealistic when there is a MINIMUM of 4 minutes added time.

Seriously gentlemen, engage your brains for a few seconds and think about it. Stoppages last a random amount of time, they are not in handy chunks that all add up to a precise multiple of 60 seconds. If the ref reckons there should be 4:30 of injury time, he'll signal 4 minutes, because signalling 5 would be inaccurate (game ending before the minimum allotted time).

One thing that surprised me was that Chamakh wasn't subbed for Vela, he looked quite tired towards the end and it could have run the clock down a bit.
 
HangTime said:
Nothing to complain about regarding the timing of the goal, 94:15 is definitely not unrealistic when there is a MINIMUM of 4 minutes added time.

Seriously gentlemen, engage your brains for a few seconds and think about it. Stoppages last a random amount of time, they are not in handy chunks that all add up to a precise multiple of 60 seconds. If the ref reckons there should be 4:30 of injury time, he'll signal 4 minutes, because signalling 5 would be inaccurate (game ending before the minimum allotted time).

One thing that surprised me was that Chamakh wasn't subbed for Vela, he looked quite tired towards the end and it could have run the clock down a bit.
Click to expand...

I'm still not sure on that Chamakh, he looks good in build up, but infront of goal he doesn't seem comfortable. I was expecting Vela when Arshavin went off
 
DanH84 said:
A minimum of 4 full minutes is the amount the ref indicated. What's your comprehension like?
Click to expand...

Precisely, it was a minimum of four minutes. Nothing happened in the 4 minutes to warrant any further additional time and thus only the minimum should have been added.
 
Spawn said:
Well here the thing skippo...ill write you a letter to sony seeing as your poor PS3 just died and your too scared to fight it and you can send a strongly worded letter to the FA...sounds fair enough??

Im just making a point thats all...fact is we should have killed the game off if it wasnt for Rosicky completely messing up the penalty but he did and it cost is 2 pts in the end coupled with our hilarious defense that cant seem to kill a game off when it matters.

I said after we missed that penalty that Sunderland were gonna score and i was right...just a shame i didnt put a few £'s down on them to score in the last minute:p
Click to expand...

Oooh! Get her!

Put your handbag away Spawn, tampons are flying everywhere.
 
dante6491 said:
Precisely, it was a minimum of four minutes. Nothing happened in the 4 minutes to warrant any further additional time and thus only the minimum should have been added.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? You honestly don't understand the way in which the term 'minimum' is being used? You think it's reliant on additional things happening in injury time?

Bloody hell

Anyway hard luck arsenal and well played Sunderland. Much like united over the last couple of weeks you paid for not finishing it off.
 
Alan Shearer clearly didn't even watch the Sunderland v Arsenal game.

We were all over them in the first 20, MOTD start the action from after the 20 and then remove all of Sunderlands chances and only show the Arsenal action.

The highlights give the impression that Sunderland were lucky to get the win.
After watching ALL 90 mins on ESPN anyone can see that Arsenal were lucky to walk away with a point.

MOTD are starting to really get to me these days, low amounts of highlights, over criticism and its beginning to kinda make me sceptical of the highlights they show being a real replication of what actually happened.
 
Bit of a stretch to say Arsenal were lucky, they were much more inventive and incisive in the final third and missed a penalty to put the game to sleep. Sunderland did press well but were very, very poor in the final third. A draw was ok
 
Watching MOTD at the moment as well. I didn't see any of the games today but i do like the analysis MOTD provides. I never claim to know everything about the game but when they point out individual players not supporting another player, being in too much space all the time and all these little things, i find it extremely helpful and interesting. :o

Wow at Fab's goal for Arsenal. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom