offers so much more apparentely.
since he's been back playing regular we've lost. most of the time.
offers so much more apparentely.
since he's been back playing regular we've lost. most of the time.
Havertz is a better footballer, Pat. Not convinced he finishes as well as Gyok but we are clearly a better team with an in form Havertz up front.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat Vegas
Quite why he's been so rarely available and in form this year I don't know or understand. :shrug:
Odegaard is a weird one. seems to appear every 3 weeks or so for a game then vanishes again.Quote:
Originally Posted by WES
Our perma crocked captain who never seems to be around and fit when we really need him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat Vegas
He played 90 min on Sunday, Pat, so I'm expecting to see him next in pre-season training at some point.
If we can keep Kai and Odegaard (who was also suberb against City) fit for the remaining 7 or 8 games of the season, I think we can win the league. Newcastle is our biggest test and they?ve nothing to play for.Quote:
Originally Posted by WES
I don?t expect City to win all their remaining games but even if they do we can still do it.
I also think we can get to the CL final at which point it?s the flip of a coin. PSG and Bayern aren?t as good as City imho. And we gave them a good game on their home patch.
UTA.
You cant help wondering what certain people would have said if Gyok had missed those two chances that Havertz missed.Quote:
Originally Posted by WES
You can't help wondering what certain people would have said if Havertz had scored those two simple chances which Gyokeres oafishly missed against AFC BournemouthQuote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I guess they would have been delighted with the win and please for Havertz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich
Not really an equivalent situation, is it....
He scored one, would have scored another if Odin didn't overhit the pass and was inches over with the header while still linking play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat Vegas
Kai isn't the problem.
Btw, Haarland putting his head against Gabby's. Why is that ok? It's trying to provoke a reaction. It's deliberate. There's no need for it. He should have been off.
This is what I was saying. Haaland provoked the entire incident. Are we really going to say that you can put your forehead ahainst someone and if they attempt to move it away THEY have committed violent conduct? Absolute nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult
Two yellows was the right decision.
I've watched that tackle on Havertz again about 10 times, it was on XQuote:
Originally Posted by Peter
If that isn't a free kick then someone has changed the rules. City player not only made no attempt to play the ball, he ran across Havertz deliberately and took his legs out, without ever coming near the ball.
Foul, and a red card. And I agree on Haaland and Gabriel. I also agree with Taylor that the Haaland goal should have stood. They were grabbing each other, Haaland was just stronger.
I actually haven't seen the challenge on Havertz at all since the one replay they showed in game.Quote:
Originally Posted by WES
Ive just watched it again. Not sure there is any contact on the legs. I'm not convinced it is a foul.Quote:
Originally Posted by WES
If we had a player sent off for that i would be furious.
You watched a different tackle than I didQuote:
Originally Posted by Peter
No, i watched the same one and reached a different conclusion. Hardly a first for us, is it :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by WES
I will give you one thing though. Dermot Gallagher, on 'ref watch' came up with this brilliant explanation of why it wasnt a foul....
'You'll see that Anthony Taylor has a very clear view of it, and clearly says it is not a foul. That is why it isnt a red card'
If this is his best defence of the decision, maybe you are right.
Absolutely, clear foul :redcard:Quote:
Originally Posted by WES