Football Talk 2006/2007 Season

[sherer]

i've never been a fan of Lawrenson as all the time when he commentates he does snide and sarky comments that are meant to be funny every 2 seconds that just don't work.. he's not there as a gag man so stop doing it

not a great fan of Andy Gray either though as sometimes a player just hits the ball and it goes it.. you don't have to analyse everything.. several times i've seen the ball been miskicked but it's still worked ok and a team has scored and he says that's from the training ground

he used to play so he should know that isn't always the case.. sometimes you whack it and it goes in

plus AG isn't the FA, FIFA of the IFAB and what he says isn't always correct and to the rules of football

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by Gareth

Gutted for Martin O'Neill and the players... Villa deserved a replay really.

ps - Anyone else fed up with the Beeb's commentators being so one-sided whenever one of the Top-5 teams plays? For example, Lawrenson said, with 20 minutes to go and before Villa has scored, that they'd had their last chance and it was in the bag for Man U, blah blah blah. He had to change his tune a few minutes later of course

To be honest, I don't mind Sky having the rights to Premiership footy, because their commentators are so much better. Andy Gray is such a better commentator, imo.

I thought Villa played well but, to be honest, if we'd got a replay, we'd probably have been beaten then . Anyway, well played Man U

As for Lawro? He's always done my head in, and probably always will. He's just a massive fan of the 'bigger' teams but he was worse than ever yesterday - he's always been snide and supportive of Man U etc but, as soon as Villa scored, he just started patronizing them. And he's not funny as he thinks he is anyway...

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

What I cant understand is everyone saying how Villa deserved a replay. Before they scored their goal Man U should have had about 6, if only Rooney and Park had hit the target, and Larrson could have had a hat trick. I didnt see much from Villa to justify not losing that game. You'd have thought that they would have done more to try and trouble a new boy in goal.

By the way Im not a Utd fan so im not being biasied.

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

What I cant understand is everyone saying how Villa deserved a replay. Before they scored their goal Man U should have had about 6, if only Rooney and Park had hit the target, and Larrson could have had a hat trick. I didnt see much from Villa to justify not losing that game. You'd have thought that they would have done more to try and trouble a new boy in goal.

By the way Im not a Utd fan so im not being biasied.

Thing is, Man U didn't hit the target as much as they should have, so didn't trouble Kiraly that much. Don't get me wrong, Man U were by far the better team, but the game's all about goals - defensively, Villa were pretty good, and it was down to an individual error that Man U got the winner

[Gareth]

SLM, based on their 1st half performance, I'd agree with you... and yeah they were lucky to not have conceded anything in the first 45, but Rooney and Park didn't hit the target - due as much to Villa's defence as Rooney's & Park's misfortune (I think Rooney was massively under-performing, whereas Park had a good game overall).

In the 2nd half their performance was worthy of a replay, imo (by the way, I am a Villa fan, so I am being biased )

Nug, you're probably right, if we'd had a replay then the result would still have been the same, with United going through instead of us. Would still have been nice to have shut up the Man U fans though

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by Gareth

SLM, based on their 1st half performance, I'd agree with you... and yeah they were lucky to not have conceded anything in the first 45, but Rooney and Park didn't hit the target - due as much to Villa's defence as Rooney's & Park's misfortune (I think Rooney was massively under-performing, whereas Park had a good game overall).

In the 2nd half their performance was worthy of a replay, imo (by the way, I am a Villa fan, so I am being biased )

Nug, you're probably right, if we'd had a replay then the result would still have been the same, with United going through instead of us. Would still have been nice to have shut up the Man U fans though

You know what? Us Villa fans should stick together, so stuff it - we wuz robbed!

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Nugget

Thing is, Man U didn't hit the target as much as they should have, so didn't trouble Kiraly that much. Don't get me wrong, Man U were by far the better team, but the game's all about goals - defensively, Villa were pretty good, and it was down to an individual error that Man U got the winner

So we'll just have to say "Villa deserved to draw because even tho Man U were the better team, and their attacking movement was subliminal at times, the link up play between Larson, Rooney, Ronaldo, Giggs and Park a beauty to watch, because they didnt score the winner till the 90th min then Villa deserved the draw"

Can anyone else tell its a quiet day in the office?

[sherer]

well i've never been a fan of Kiraly after seeing him at Palace a lot and i was expecting us to put him under more pressure than that.. thought we were the better side but as has been the case all year we were on top and never killed the game of.. for all the chances very few were clear cut on target chances

never rated Park and again he ran about with no ideas and didn't do anything at all

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

So we'll just have to say "Villa deserved to draw because even tho Man U were the better team, and their attacking movement was subliminal at times, the link up play between Larson, Rooney, Ronaldo, Giggs and Park a beauty to watch, because they didnt score the winner till the 90th min then Villa deserved the draw"

Can anyone else tell its a quiet day in the office?

Yup, that's pretty much it

It doesn't matter if Man U had 100% of the possession, and the link up play was better than Brazil - the simple fact is that they were unable to score a second goal until the 90th minute, so they're rubbish

Oh, and where the hell did 4 minutes of injury-time come from? I know it's academic cos Man U got their goal in the first minute of it, but where did the other 3 come from?

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

They allowed 4 mins to give Villa just enough time to equalise if Utd scored in the 1st minute of it

Anyway why does Kiraly where pyjamas on the pitch?

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

They allowed 4 mins to give Villa just enough time to equalise if Utd scored in the 1st minute of it

Anyway why does Kiraly where pyjamas on the pitch?

Hmm, I don't think we'd have scored again if there'd been 40 minutes of injury-time

I'm not sure, but I think the pyjamas are for the nap that he took just as Solksjaer took his shot

[sherer]

Originally Posted by Nugget

Oh, and where the hell did 4 minutes of injury-time come from? I know it's academic cos Man U got their goal in the first minute of it, but where did the other 3 come from?

i hate that stupid board as it never makes sense.. a few years ago before it came in at the end of the first half we would have had 10 seconds now they fell the need to have 2 mins all the time just to use the board

there was very little in the second half and I only made it about 2 mins iff that.. the thing is during that 4 mins we then got an extra one

[Gareth]

Heh, surprised you didn't hear me screaming at the telly when they showed 4 mins. 1 min at ½ time was correct, and should've been all that was needed for the 2nd half too. With only 1 min of ET, Villa would've just sat on the ball and played it out to get the replay, but with 4 minutes, we were doomed.

[Shadow Demon UK]

There had to be more than 1 minute because there was two goals and five substitutions in the second half.

[sherer]

Originally Posted by Shadow Demon UK

There had to be more than 1 minute because there was two goals and five substitutions in the second half.

that's where the system doesn't make sense... in the first half even with no stoppages you get about 2 mins as standard now

in the second half they are meant to add on 30 seconds for each sub so if both teams make three each then that is three mins so are they saying when they put the board up with 3 mins for the second half as they do alot that without the subs there wouldn't be any stoppage time ?