There is a similar argument about goal keeping. Fans rate howlers worse than more moderate errors yet goals have the same value either way.
because howlers are ********ed up saves with a lower difficulty level to complete. they should be rated worse.
Lynne, I feel your pain. But eventually I just gave up. Rio never gets much credit. Nani never really gets any credit. Carrick obviously [even from his own fans] etc. It pisses me off when I turn on a game and Utd are rated lower than the teams they finished ahead
Its a classic example of the availability heuristic. Because we remember bad screwups by a player - we believe they are more likely, versus mundane mistakes by another player which we forget or don't notice. Going back to Joe's point - we can think the zonal system is inferior - because when it goes wrong it looks terrible. Yet it doesn't matter how it looks.
Shame to see another major club supporting racism. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/oct/06/editorial-john-terry-ashley-cole-chelsea-england http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/oct/06/said-and-done-chelsea-racism
Southhampton playing some hard pressing, attractive stuff again. They don't have as much natural talent as Fulham, but they are fun to watch. Still, not sure they can do this for 90 minutes. If they don't get a 2nd, I think it might catch up with them around 60 minutes.
I think Fulham have been sub par for sure. They clearly miss Berba out there already. However, given the pace Southampton have tried to press with when not on the ball, which has been often, I see them tiring a lot by about 60. I then expect Fulham to up the pressure for the final 30 minutes. They should have enough talent to get 2 in that space of time. I think a 2nd is still crucial for Southampton if they want a win out of this game. It's been a bit of repeat pattern for Southampton so far in the league. I'm not convinced either the team, or Adkins have learned anything by it yet.
So the Guardian, and a bunch of other papers apparently, are writing editorial after editorial about the JT/Cole thing. All with the comment section closed btw, which says something about what they think of their readers btw. Seem to be blaming Ashley Cole instead of the Chelsea person who apparently arranged the testimony. Anyway, I guess they're expecting Chelsea to do something.
It shows they don't want to be sued for defamatory comments made by posters. Both were blamed - but naturally one reserves special mention for the person who is found to have cooked their own testimony no?
Woah just checked Espn and they not showing the Classico . Did they not buy the rights to the Spanish la liga?
Its one of the stupid aspects of the internet. You can't contract out of republishing defamatory comments. Of course that rule was designed for old media.