FA Cup (ManU v. Chelski) - Horrible!

Originally posted by Palynka
I'm starting to agree with Seitse 😞 in that you're a bunch of anal-retentive people.

Hey, that's nothing to be ashamed of! 😛

Originally posted by Palynka
I'm starting to agree with Seitse 😞 in that you're a bunch of anal-retentive people.

Re-read the successive posts, this discussion is about being the FA cup final being representative of the Premiership quality or not. You know it, I know it, and everybody knows it. I'm not about to waste my time dragging out all the quotes from everyone, though.

[b][text shortened]
I have to go, but I'll answer this later after you edit it...[/b]

unedited - relevant point highlighted.

The FA Cup Final is not necessarily representative of Premiership Quality. See my previous post for the reason why.

Originally posted by Rooney Once a Blue
Obviously RHB needs fast action supported by TV adverts to get his sporting fix.

2006 - Italy won, I would say that is representitive of world football.

2002 - RONALDO WAS THE BEST PLAYER IN THE WORLD.

You are slagging off football all the time, maybe you should follow another sport instead of posting negative posts all the time Mr Self Appointed Moderator.

Actually, I prefer a swim, followed by a bike ride, followed by a run for my sporting fix. But there you go.

2006 - was the final representative of the quality of world football? No.

2002 - so what? was the final representative of the quality of world football? No. The "BEST PLAYER IN THE WORLD" didn't display any of the quality he was supposed to bring to the game.

I'm not here to slag off football. I'm defending the premiership, against a very narrow minded view that one Cup Final can be used to judge the quality of an entire footballing nation!

Edit - Your "slagging off" comment strikes me as sour grapes over my comments following your posts in the leeds thread. It's quite amusing to look on your other threads where you slag off most teams / players that are nothing to do with Man U. Hypocrite.

Originally posted by rhb
Edit - Your "slagging off" comment strikes me as sour grapes over my comments following your posts in the leeds thread. It's quite amusing to look on your other threads where you slag off most teams / players that are nothing to do with Man U. Hypocrite.

There's no point trying to debate anything with him, he's as ignorant as he is retarded.

Originally posted by Palynka
I'm starting to agree with Seitse 😞 in that you're a bunch of anal-retentive people.

Re-read the successive posts, this discussion is about being the FA cup final being representative of the Premiership quality or not. You know it, I know it, and everybody knows it. I'm not about to waste my time dragging out all the quotes from everyone, though.

[b][text shortened]
I have to go, but I'll answer this later after you edit it...[/b]

Why? Because they don't agree with your and Seiste's moronic, small-minded opinion?

The FA Cup Final is ONE match. The English Premier League is HUNDREDS of matches (per season). Unless you're a complete retard, there is no way you can claim that a ratio of around 1 in 400 is representative of anything, let alone something as variable as a football.

Personally, I don't think the Premier League is the best in the world either, but then again, I'm not the dick sitting there now desperately trying to use my personal opinion of the League to try and back up my original ridiculous claim that one match represents it's entire quality for the last year because my argument was torn apart and I can't admit I'm wrong, eh Seiste?!

Would you mooks still be saying that the Cup Final is representative of the League if Chelsea had won 10 - 0, or Man Utd forfeited it by having too many players sent off? No, didn't think so! Refer back to my second paragraph for reasons why.

Originally posted by Daemon Sin
because my argument was torn apart and I can't admit I'm wrong, eh Seiste?!

When was my argument thorn apart, sugar pie?

By rhb's flawed argument that the world cup is representative of the world footie? Ha, as if a 2 unit sample in a 200000 units universe is the same as a 2 unit sample in a 10 unit universe, lol lol

No, pumpkin pie, my argument was not thorn.

I guess you are doing too much of that wacky tobacci 😉

Originally posted by Seitse
When was my argument thorn apart, sugar pie?

By rhb's flawed argument that the world cup is representative of the world footie? Ha, as if a 2 unit sample in a 200000 units universe is the same as a 2 unit sample in a 10 unit universe, lol lol

No, pumpkin pie, my argument was not thorn.

I guess you are doing too much of that wacky tobacci 😉

Would you care to list all 200,000 teams eligible to play in the world cup qualifiers, and thus the finals?

There are as many teams with the potential to play in the premiership, as there are the world cup.

Originally posted by Seitse
When was my argument thorn apart, sugar pie?

By rhb's flawed argument that the world cup is representative of the world footie? Ha, as if a 2 unit sample in a 200000 units universe is the same as a 2 unit sample in a 10 unit universe, lol lol

No, pumpkin pie, my argument was not thorn.

I guess you are doing too much of that wacky tobacci 😉

Christ, you really are sinking to new levels of stupidity today!

rhb's World Cup argument was satirical. He was using the 'logic' from YOUR argument in his World Cup example to point out how ridiculous YOUR argument was. You're calling your OWN argument flawed, you moron!

Way to go, Brains. Keep up the good work.

Originally posted by Seitse

Your examples do not prove that the English football is technical, entertaining, technical, and with the ball to the foot.
[/b]

Hmmm, yes, but other than crowd sizes (which are huge) how can you prove something is entertaining? The league is certainly more technical than it was ten years ago thanks to its recovery from our long European ban, but you'd have to consult OPTA for the full dataset. As for parochialism, Premiership fans certainly are - but so are most of the other European leagues (notoriously Germany, for example).

Originally posted by Daemon Sin
Christ, you really are sinking to new levels of stupidity today!

rhb's World Cup argument was satirical. He was using the 'logic' from YOUR argument in his World Cup example to point out how ridiculous YOUR argument was. You're calling your OWN argument flawed, you moron!

Way to go, Brains. Keep up the good work.

Kid, you are very confused.

But, hey, you are entitled to your opinion... after all, we are in an era of giving equal opportunities to challenged people, isn't it?

😉

Originally posted by Amaurote
Hmmm, yes, but other than crowd sizes (which are huge) how can you prove something is entertaining? The league is certainly more technical than it was ten years ago thanks to its recovery from our long European ban, but you'd have to consult OPTA for the full dataset. As for parochialism, Premiership fans certainly are - but so are most of the other European leagues (notoriously Germany, for example).

Well, actually, I think English football is currently the most effective. No wonder English teams are making the finals of big name toruneys.

That does not mean that, as I said, for my taste it is boring... and, due to that taste of mine, the FA Cup Finland is representative of English footie.

No need for stats, mate, because they will only demosntrate what I mentioned already: English footie is effective. The show... oh well... at least I am not feeling that I receive it everytime I turn on the TV.

Simple as that.

Originally posted by Seitse
Kid, you are very confused.

But, hey, you are entitled to your opinion... after all, we are in an era of giving equal opportunities to challenged people, isn't it?

😉

Now, now, Johnny-No-Stars. You can't go backing out of the discussion just because you're losing it again. Lets hear your explanation as to why rhb's World Cup argument wasn't satirical and why I'm so confused. Then we can hear from rhb and see which one of us is right.

Or would you prefer to use your standard escape clause and drag it down into a personal insult fight instead? If so I'd advise you go for one of your stereotypical "sex with your mom" comments.

Originally posted by Seitse
Well, actually, I think English football is currently the most effective. No wonder English teams are making the finals of big name toruneys.

That does not mean that, as I said, for my taste it is boring... and, due to that taste of mine, the FA Cup Finland is representative of English footie.

No need for stats, mate, because they will only demosntrate ...[text shortened]... ll... at least I am not feeling that I receive it everytime I turn on the TV.

Simple as that.

I don't disagree with you, but I think the irony is that the game here is more European than ever - and the games which are least well-attended (by some margin) are European games. The primary reason for this is that most Liverpool fans would rather watch their team play Everton than Auxerre, but it's probably also true that they know the tempo will be slower. And of course just about every team in Europe plays to a slower tempo in European competitions.

Your point about Newcastle may have been accidental, but as a fan of theirs I can tell you that we've played misfiring football without the long ball for years without success. Our latest manager is notorious for long ball tactics, but his first retort to negative criticism at his first press conference was to point out that what is known as the "long ball" at smaller clubs is referred to equivocally as the "long pass" at successful clubs like Chelsea and Liverpool. He has a point.

Originally posted by Amaurote
I don't disagree with you, but I think the irony is that the game here is more European than ever - and the games which are least well-attended (by some margin) are European games. The primary reason for this is that most Liverpool fans would rather watch their team play Everton than Auxerre, but it's probably also true that they know the tempo will be slow ...[text shortened]... cally as the "long pass" at successful clubs like Chelsea and Liverpool. He has a point.

So we agree it is effective footie. And it is. Unfortunately, it does not entertain me nor other people I know and that have posted here.

Mate, I am only a common fan looking for excitement everytime I turn on the telly to watch some ball.

I think rooneyonceablue made in other thread a very good proposal of giving 1 point per draw, 2 points per win at home, and 3 points per win away. I think it's a good idea, moreover if we had one extra point if the victory is by a margin of 2 goals or more.

What do you think?

Originally posted by Daemon Sin
Now, now, Johnny-No-Stars. You can't go backing out of the discussion just because you're losing it again. Lets hear your explanation as to why rhb's World Cup argument wasn't satirical and why I'm so confused. Then we can hear from rhb and see which one of us is right.

Or would you prefer to use your standard escape clause and drag it down into a pers ...[text shortened]... ead? If so I'd advise you go for one of your stereotypical "sex with your mom" comments.

Sweet cupcake... I don't understand you. Maybe I don't have your tuned, sparkly Benny-Hill-sense-of-humor or I am missing some cromosoma. Please teach me.