[Marc]

We had 4-5 very good chances, Liverpool had one.

What were they? I don't recall any real chances.

And if as Arfy says Liverpool had two chance away from home, and you had two more at home... hardly night and day difference.

 

[Deano]

I thought we played alright against Man U, but they played catenaccio like usual English teams for the first 60 minutes and were clinical.

Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea and Barca will be the SFs... would like to see Fener go through, but at home Chelsea are strong.

 

[Marc]

I thought you did OK when getting to the final third, then just choked every time and/or Man U's defence cleaned up. I don't think you did any better than Liverpool quite obviously.

 

[Osman]

Well duh, they lost haplessly 2-0 at home, while Pool held off the constantly hyped Arsenal at home 1-1.

Which wasnt suprising at all, because despite Arsenals obvious quality, its obvious they will suffer against organized defense like they have constantly these past months (Pools being the masters of that trade), and most importantly they dont have the clinical enough players to finish games with the few chances they get. Bit like how Roma lack finishers too, even if their usuals are quite different.

 

[Deano]

Lets be fair though, Arsenal deserved to beat Liverpool two times over and indeed Liverpool scored with basically their only chance. If Bendtner could move out the way or the ref could give a blatant OK the result would be different.

 

[arfy05]

Kuyt had two chances and arsenal did have a lot of shots but very few open ended chances, they built up well and whatever but they didn't play with conviction in the final passes or the finishing, they deserved to beat us but not to the exaggerated levels you and others make out and secondly it was not Livepool's purpose to entertain and lose but to get a result. arsenal did the same in the madrigal and on other occassions, its been a formula which served even the likes of Milan and Real in tough situations well and Liverpool as well. :hopeful:

 

[Osman]

If you used the pk that should have been called as the basis, I would get it. But no one deserves to win just for attacking but not scoring. That means you are just ineffective.

It has been Arsenals issue for a while, passing around neatly, finding little space behind a deep defence, get off few shot (tell me actual free open chances they had last night? Hardly much, they have issues finding them with that kind of defence). They shouldnt get win due to effort and flashy huff and puff, but get what they deserve by actually finishing well (thats why you are saying they deserve to win two times over, believe me of all the EPL teams they are my favs, but deserve this or that is hogwash). If you dont, then you deserve shit.

Its like saying Roma deserved something out of the Man U game for passing around neatly but getting nowhere.

 

[Glen]

If you used the pk that should have been called as the basis, I would get it. But no one deserves to win just for attacking but not scoring. That means you are just ineffective.

Don't tell me you watched that game not feeling that the best team got a rough deal ::googly: ?


There's nothing wrong with Liverpool playing whatever way they feel gives them the better chance to win. I would never harp on about that as a principle. But you don't have to like watching it, or like the team playing that way.

Arsenal in comparison always try to bring the football and are a generally a treat on the eye for that reason. Sometimes they're very inefficient and that is a problem for them, but it rarely takes away the 'awww schukcs' moments of delight you get from watching them.

 

[Osman]

Ofcourse thats a given, and one sympathize with Arsenal to the point of reacting like a fan (instead of a neautral, one really isnt, I prefer them over all of EPL put together). And the point wasnt them playing great football, and Rafas bunch being cynical bunch, but despite dominating the game, you dont deserve wins simply for effort. They have to get the job done. Not be applauded for being ineffective (its not like its one off, its a clear flaw and side effect of their team).

In their poor EPL run of late, it has allways been the same of dominating games in possession, but not getting anywhere in effectiveness due to not being able to penetrate deep defensives.

 

[Deano]

Arsenal had some chances and really 2 blatant goals not go in... 1 because of Bendtner and the other which should have been a PK... its not like Arsenal were ineffective in the attack... they had their chances to win the match.

 

[Osman]

A pk case, and a sitaution where Bendtner was just there, even if he jumped over the ball and it got in, it would still be an offside. So basically that sitaution isnt a goalscoring chance, but an offside ruling.

And yeah, it actually means they were ineffective in the attack, not that they had much of clear chances, more like suffered to create enough direct chances, but dominating so much and coming out with nothing means one is ineffective in attack.

 

[Deano]

I believe if Bendtner jumped over theball the goal woul have stood simply because the ball would have gone in anyway (its not as if Bendtner was impeding any defenders from getting to the ball)... however because he touched it the offside was there.

Having possession but not creating 10 clear cut chances a match doesnt make you ineffective. Its hardly as if Liverpool are a team which is easy to break down. Probably apart from sloppy defending on the goal, Arsenal did well yesterday, they created sufficient chances to have at least scored 2 (which they should have)... while they werent troubled the other side apart from one crappy moment. I am quite sure Arsenal will still go through aswell... I think they will score at Anfield... Arsenal is not Inter, they can still play football... unlike Inter who went to Liverpool with 3 full-backs, 2 DMs and 3 CBs... Arsenal will go there with a footballing team... and I believe will come away with the result needed.

 

[Osman]

No, he would be in the direct path of the ball, and jumping over it even means he is in active play and would be called offside. He wouldnt be an inactive player in that sitaution.

 

[Deano]

I would like to ask the assistanr referee but he wouldnt have been given offside... its just loike a case where a player shoots from 20 yards, it flies just past a player offside and goes in, does it make it offside? Of course not... only if he interfers with the GK or the movement of the ball... If Bentnder had just waled away or moved out the way, he would have not interfered with anyone and the ball would have gone in unotuched by anyone else... clear goal.

 

[The Infamous_LFC]

Then what's the point of coming here if it's going to annoy you. Just stay in your Liverpoo forum where you seem to have this idea where everything is fine and dandy.

Don't comment on my posts again.

 

[Nerazzurri4life]

Tomorrow's matches:

Chelsea 3-1 Fenerbahce (AET)

Liverpool 2-2 Arsenal

 

[totti_the_king]

Chelsea 1-0 Fenerbache
Liverpool 1 -2 Arsenal

Barcelona 2-0 Schalke
Man utd 3-1 Roma

 

[Alter Ego]

get ready for another Chelsea vs Liverpool
semi final

4th in a row (counting the fa one )

 

[Dmitriy]

Chelsea 3 -1 Fener
Arsenal 1 - 1 Liveprool ( Arsenal on pk's.)

 

[Cruyff14]

Don't comment on my posts again.

Why?

Freedom of speech man.

If you're going to say something and expect to let it slip under the radar, you got another thing coming p

If you say something I disagree with this, Ima let you know about it