no, not arrogant. check how many times stoke get put on tv season after season. they get the least televised games because the broadcasters know people wont watch.
I'm sorry but the narrow-minded view of broadcasters and their obsession with televising the likes of Man U (who are frankly televised a ridiculous amount) is symptomatic of what is wrong with football as a whole. Completely dismissing a team and the possible entertainment quality of a match merely because of who is involved is arrogant and extremely condescending to the teams involved, in this case West Ham, Stoke, West Brom, etc. Football is not just about 5-6 teams and you can get painfully dull games involving the likes of Chelsea and Man U.
Can't say that I was particularly entertained by that Chelsea performance. I doubt the Spurs fans were either. Zouma starting as well as Terry and Cahill. But Chelsea won, with a clean sheet to boot. That's what it's all about.
I'm not saying everyone wants to watch saints, but people want to see attractive attractive football. This is what the PL is all about, although I can't blame you for forgetting that can I?
Exactly, which is why it's a bit rich if we're going to start complaining about teams making our games less watchable simply because the 1-0 scorelines have reversed.
Sure, but many of our games weren't that. Entertaining to us because we had the lone goal, sure, but I wouldn't imagine that, I dunno, the 1-0 away win against Hull where Wanyama scored from 40 yards before the game ground to a halt for 80+ minutes was much of a treat for neutrals, but we enjoyed it because it was three points.
Barcelona play attractive football but their matches are as dull as anything. I care about entertainment, not tika-tika nonsense. There's more than one way to play entertaining football, it's arrogant to suggest that yours is the right way and everyone else's is wrong. Heck, a well placed ball from defense or a cross field pass received with skill from a forward can be entertaining to watch. Also, that PL comment is implying that football outside of the PL is worthless. Newsflash: there's football outside of the Premier League. Also football existed before 1992
I admire and agree to an extent with your view PL..... just wonder where you go for that 'entertaining' football; can't possibly be to Krap Nottarf eh?
Great game at Eastleigh on Saturday!! Perfect example of goals changing games. First 15 minutes or so, Macclesfield bossed the game, then Eastleigh had one chance, put it away and went on to win 4 - 0.
With so many teams sitting back, with two banks of four, do we really need to play with two defensive midfielders? Why not Victor OR Morgan, rather than both? Then we could have two attack minded players, supporting Pelle, with the option of going more defensive, if defending a lead, later in the game.
Yes, that is certainly an option. I did suggest that Morgan could play further forward. I like it when he does break into the box.
We could play 4-1-5 with mane elia tadic Pelle long and djurgjrjic and still not score. Just don't feel its about numbers up top but about chemistry in attack. I don't believe our forewards have suddenly become rubbish but wee seem to lack dynamism/energy/passion/insert cliche here.
Agree ... which is why I suggest a change. Sometimes that is all that is needed. I do think Pelle has been not offering the right play for more than the last few games though. I have mentioned it quietly before and this is why I would change him, now Long is available.
