save a F*CKING penalty, like, ever?
Has he actually saved one for us since joining? We concede about one in every two games...
Printable View
save a F*CKING penalty, like, ever?
Has he actually saved one for us since joining? We concede about one in every two games...
He's not saved any of his last 13 (and not even looked like saving one). They showed Wilson's heat map of his previous pens and it was pretty bloody obvious he was going to go down the middleQuote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
Watched Goals on Sunday the other week and Chris Kirkland said that he felt he had to dive otherwise everyone would say he didn't even try to save it, wonder if players realise this now as sure more pens are being placed in the middle than they ever were
Drop him imo. Beaten twice at his near post. Who does he think he his, Manuel Almunia? Give the Columbian a go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
I think a lot of players tend to watch the keeper go one way or another and then just hit it slightly to the left/right depending on the way they're diving. One assumes that if the keeper stands still, they have a corner in mind to hit it.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSRB
I think most players have made their mind up what they're doing before they hit it. Baines certainly does, probably why he's rather good at itQuote:
Originally Posted by Rich
Le Tissier said he would visualise where it was going to go before taking it, and then put it there.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSRB
I mean in the modern game. You see so many penalties scored these days where the ball goes left/right centre and the keeper dives full length the other way. If you're good it at and well practiced enough, you can be sure that you'll score virtually all of your penalties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
I think the key to being a great penalty-taker is having limited intelligence and no imagination or spontaneity. This is why James Milner is a very good penalty taker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
I read he hasn't saved one for 6 years. But I wasn't paying attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
I am not so sure of the rebounds he gives away too.
I visualise being loaded but yet to happen. I will just put it there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
These extra 10-15 points a season that he is meant to save us...... I can't think of too many occasions where he has really done that this season. Sure he has been solid and saved pretty much everything you would expect him to save but has be pulled the proverbial rabbits out of the hat over and above an Ospina or even a Chesney?
Boro he had a blinder and definitely saved us a point and there were a couple of games around that time where he played really well but yes, I do think Ospina deserves a chanceQuote:
Originally Posted by Alberto Balsam Rodriguez
Good point re:the Boro game. I think one of those saves was a blinder but most of them were regulation weren't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by PSRB
Honestly you lot amaze me sometimes.
Bellerin and Mustafi were hopeless, most of midfield utterly anonymous, Ramsey was played in the Ozil role and didnt do a single thing of any note that wasn't bad, for 60 minutes Giroud barely touched the ball and the entire team lacked focus and seemed completely unprepared for Bournemouth. Not Madrid, not Barcelona, not Munich, Bournemouth.
And you think Cech is a problem? Jesus lord.
Wenger seemed to think we were leeetle bit jaded and had knocks from the Palace game. Says that we had 3-4 players who were simply not match fit, including Bellerin. The reason Ox started on the bench was because he couldn't risk having all of our knackered/injured players starting, as he had no idea which of them would last the distance and need to come off.Quote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
Not sure how other teams have done with the two games in three days schedule.
Palace lost Watford lostQuote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
See! Wenger IN!!!!!!11111111!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokster
To be fair Palace and Watford also lost on sunday, so their excuse is not related to being jaded, simply being ****.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokster
The team that seemed to have far more energy than us played a massive 24 hours before we did and have spent a fraction of the money on their squad that we have on ours. And if fatigue was the issue, why did we get so much better after 60 minutes of football?Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
Did Vic Akers pass around the Mo Farah juice and no one noticed?
Indeed, well said that man.Quote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
We both know jaded and/or fatigue is just manager *******s used as an excuse to deflect attention.
Bournmouth got tired. They'd been pressing hard which we can't cope with.Quote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
Come, come! No denying our first half performance was woeful, but to ignore the difference an extra day's rest can have is simply silly. Playing a game two days after the last one simply oughtn't to happen to any team.Quote:
Originally Posted by SWv2
We plainly did not have energy for the fight in the opening stages. I mean we were completely waxed. It's a good point and to argue otherwise is foolish. Chelsea just has to lose a couple games, go off the boil. They are sh!t-hot right now, as evidenced by their last game. Can't-do-anything-wrong mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
:nod: Completely, simply can't recover fully both mentally and physically. Worth noting that Bournemouth ran an additional 9K to our players (and with 10 men for 15 minutes). We got a goal and Bournemouth got jittery. I believe its now 10 days to a PL match, so plenty of time to recover and get 9 points from next 3 games before the big one at ChelseaQuote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Of these six winnables that was always going to be the toughest. Win the next three and that's not a bad haul. We're clearly not good enough to win the title, and when Chelsea win over a dozen games in a row that's a title-winning run and you just have to say well done.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSRB
So the additional days rest is enough to provide a significant advantage but not so much that it would overcome the jitters associated with going from 3-0 up to 3-1 up?Quote:
Originally Posted by PSRB
Sorry mate, I'm seeing some serious holes in this theory.
As their energy levels dropped to somewhere nearer ours, the superiority of our players and squad started to make a difference and we were able to get back into the game. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
So the question that was raised was that if the additional day's rest put us at a disadvantage, why did we improve significantly after 60 minutes of football? If anything, I would expect that we should have started more strongly and then faded as the game went on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Alongside the fact we have better players and as Ash says, they'd been pressing (and covering a considerable additional distance) for the whole gameQuote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
I don't really see how it's that hard to fathom that an additional 24 hrs rest, especially over a congested period of football, must be of considerable benefit.
This is really quite simple. They had more energy at the start of the game and came at us hard, covering more ground and reaping the rewards. However, as they inevitably tired to match our level of f*ckedness, the superiority of our players and depth of our squad told and we got back into the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
It is a benefit, no question. Considerable? That depends on your definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSRB
I didn't see a team with more energy take a 3 nil lead over a tired team. Had I seen that, I never would expect us to come back to 3-3 as we did.
I saw an unprepared team who lacked focus and who didn't seem to know how to handle a much less talented team pressing them. I saw two very good players (Bellerin and Mustafi) have off days one of whom (Mustafi) was just back from injury and hadn't played in the previous match. In fact, Hector has only just returned as well so I would expect him to be able to handle 2 games in 3 days, especially at his age. I saw some poor performances from players who have been poor too often (Ramsey, Iwobi) to merit a place in the team on a regular basis but who continue to get played anyway.
In short, I saw Arsenal of the past 10 years, not a team that dropped two points because they were tired.
If you don't think that and extra 28 hrs rest helps then you know nothing about football... ohQuote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
The congested argument is *******s, sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSRB
Prior to Sunday we had last played on the 26th so 6 full days rest and then before that another 6 days to the City game.
48 hours between the Palace match was not ideal but to use it as an excuse for that pitiful first 70 minute performance last night is wrong. Perhaps a factor among others but not a sole reason for such a poor show.
Bellerin was playing with ankle injury, apparently and the Ox was originally on the bench as he had a knock as well........granted one could rightly say, then why bring the Ox on rather than Perez?!Quote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
Quite. You might also point out that of the 10 outfield players who started the Bournemouth match, only 6 started the Palace match.Quote:
Originally Posted by SWv2
There were plenty of reasons that we dropped two points, the disadvantage of having played a day later than our opponent was one of them, but a very, very small one based on the evidence of how the game actually played out.
How long we had before the Palace game is irrelevant to the fact that we had no recovery time from the previous game, I'm afraid. That's like saying that the fact that you hadn't run a marathon for months makes it fine to do two in two days. That's not how the human body works.Quote:
Originally Posted by SWv2
Quote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
If that is what was being said then you would be right but it isn't therefore, you are wrong!
We actually had approximately 49.45 hours recovery time between the end of the Palace game and the beginning of the Bournemouth game which is slightly more than 'no recovery time'. Bournemouth had approximately 74.45 hours. Although you would have to adjust that based on the number of players who started both games for both teams, if you wanted to be strictly accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
However, as you can see from the posts above, it would be a waste of time because no one is saying that there is no impact, the point that is being made is that the impact of the additional days rest does not justify the poor play from Arsenal for the first 60-70 minutes nor the fact that we dropped 2 points to a team with far less talent than ourselves.
We had 48 hours B, not "no recovery time" as you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Not ideal as I have stressed but not a complete handicap either.
I don't think anyone is suggesting it excuses anything completely, merely that it is a serious mitigating factor with a demonstrable impact on the outcome of the game. No-one can seriously believe that, if the two sides had equal time between games, Arsenal's first half performance would have been as bad as it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
And if you don't believe that, you are effectively conceding that the lack of recovery time played a large part in costing us those two points.