turtmcfly

Catching up on this thread. I'm ashamed to say it's via the site above that the team represented below have, ahem, come to my attention after 40 years of watching football. Where do they site on the Rumsfeld circle of known/unknowns? https://www.terracegear.com/collections/concept-kits/products/deportivo-wanka-2020-2021-home-concept-football-kit-airo

I think it works well when the decisions required are of the empirical kind e.g. offsides, balls over the goal line, hand balls leading up to goals. I understand some of the related rules are questionable, but in terms of its role in make sure the rules are followed (which is the point of VAR) I haven't seen many errors. Where is has failed is when the empirical gives way to opinions of 'intent', where the only aid is slow motion repeats. At this point your left with experts on rules (but crucially, not on actually playing football), erring far too much on the side of sticking with the original decision. No doubt this is exacerbated by the 'blue on blue' nature of colleages not wanting to criticise each other. Perhaps this specific area is one where ex-officials/players could be involved. Or perhaps decisions of this kind should (for a season at least) be removed from being covered by VAR. The sport that has done it best, cricket, has gone for the latter approach. It has pretty much limited its decisions to the former, empirical kind. Apart from the judging rare occurrences of 'did a caught ball hit hand/or ground first', the decisions are all made using technology which provides binary outcomes - did the ball touch the bat, would it have carried on to hit the wicket. As such, 'opinion' comes into it very little - third man umpiring could pretty much be done by AI. This seems to me to be more a function of the game itself than a specific decision by e.g. the ICC. What they have done well is gradually introduce (and update!) the various bits of technology used to help make the decisions.

Garry Parker. Overturning every single ****ing decision every single ****ing overweight slightly-above-slightly-above-average-IQ, middle-management-dodging, medium-sized pedigree dog owning blackshirted twat makes. Never forget. Never forgive.

I've read your detailed account tonight on what feels like a dozen of your posts, explaining just what the full picture is. It amount to 'IT'S A FIX'

Really? As (to my knowledge) the earliest, most vocal advocate of the conspiracy theory on here, why not explain who you think is in on it, how long it's been going on etc. instead of just shouting 'fix'. AFAICS it would need to be all the officials and most of the Premier League hierarchy. The idea that lot could hold their water this long is laughable. The idea they'd do it in the first place is nearly as daft.

Really, 'corruption'. It's not. It's Hanlon's razor, with cowardice added to stupidity. At full speed it probably looks like a pen, and VAR is toothless when there's not a line or a hand involved.

At the risk of sounding a bit Turty, I already mentioned this. I hope by now you've read my monologue on the 'should have/deserved to' dichotomy (organ grinding courtesy of @Manwell Pablo) to its entirely unthrilling conclusion.

Struggling to see how it depends on anything given the (entirely correct!) lack of ambiguity of your second comment. Ultimately, 'we should have won' would be a stoic recognition of a missed opportunity, with no hard feelings etc. It's a line I would have plenty of sympathy for. 'We deserved to win' (which is what he actually tweeted) sounds like the mewlings of an entitled, whiny tw*t blaming someone else for his teams' failings.

I think they should have won! But he didn't say they should have won, he said they 'deserved to win'. And if you take the corollary of that, that we didn't deserve a point, then I do think it's a pretty laughable comment

Is this you 'voicing' Mustafi's opinion, or your own take, because it's a very one-eyed view of what happened? In my opinion you can't say you should have won a game if you only dominate 25 minutes of it, don't take your chances, end up playing for an equivalent amount of time with 10 men, and for the rest of the game are arguably second best.

They were vastly better for 25 minutes of the first half, after 15 minutes of not being able to get it out of their own half. Us being on top 'once down to 10' amounted to almost 25 minutes of play. It's hard to be sure what you're saying with 'was a little more even' for the first part of the second half, but I read it as 'but Arsenal were still better'. IMO we looked more threatening before the red card. Possession was 60-40 to us. Shot/shots on target almost identical. It's really not a poor call to question whether they deserved a win at our expense.

Rinse. repeat.

Hmmm. There's a Two Ronnies sketch in there... My issue with F365 is their writers' pretence that they've seen any of the teams outside of the Clickbait 6 play more than a few times. The odd in-game occurrence, along with the team's trajectory, is extrapolated to create a faux position on a particular player's form. It's a less honest version of the 'Leicester are a counter-attacking team' form of shite punditry, which they hypocritically laugh at. A proper 'expert' might have mentioned e.g. that it was our first unforced outing with a back 3. Of course, if there's a general feeling on here that Soyuncu has been poor over 'the last 6 months'(!) then I'll go for a long walk in the rain with my Gaulouises/trench coat combination

I've only got to point 6 of this, but already I've got the 'you've seen us play twice, haven't you' vibes... https://www.football365.com/news/arsenal-1-1-leicester-city-16-conclusions-martinez-nketiah-vardy

That type of form eh?