Walcott scores to give Arsenal 1-0 lead. And he was offside. Our luck just continues to roll along.....
Arsenal fans pouring out of the Emirates during injury time when the score is 1-1... seriously? Absolutely pathetic.
Sturridge has averaged about 24 passes a game for Liverpool, Suarez about 36. Torres, just shy of 19 for Chelsea this season. So to answer your question, he's apparently been involved in more possession for Liverpool than Torres has been for us. And as mentioned earlier, he's completing a significantly higher percentage of those passes than Torres is. "Technically capable of playing a short passing game" was meant to convey that he has the requisite technical ability. In the way that players like Agbonlahor or Carroll clearly don't. I agree that he's not ideally suited for it, but I don't think he's incapable. I don't think any amount of coaching would make Carroll an effective possession player. Sturridge has the tools, IMO, he just needs to be taught how to use them. Sorry, but this idea about Sturridge not being able to hold the ball up...what is based on? His time out wide for us, his handful of games for City or his 4 month loan at Bolton? He's no Drogba, but he's no Mario Gomez either. He's not as obviously proficient at it as someone like Welbeck, but I've genuinely very little idea how this part of his game was adjudged to be so useless when he had so few chances up front for us. The reason I initially mentioned his performance against City for Liverpool was to draw attention to that. He was excellent in that game, everything Liverpool punted up at him stuck, he showed that he knows how to use his body to shield off defenders and that his touch was sure enough to maintain possession with his back to goal. Of course consistency is another issue, but it was the type of performance that a player like Defoe (who truly contributes almost nothing, although he's improved a bit in that regard) could never produce. Sturridge can play with his back to goal effectively, it's not to my mind a valid reason as to why he wasn't given a serious chance this season. I'm not suggesting something as simplistic as "Sturridge is scoring for Liverpool, so he would have scored for us". I'm suggesting that based on his performances as a whole for Liverpool, particularly his demonstration of his ability to play well in a possession oriented side and to play effectively with his back to goal, he would have been a better option than Torres in the first half of the season. Even though he's not the ideal player for what Chelsea are trying to accomplish, he would have been better than the underwhelming Torres. The 'cutting losses' reasoning only becomes relevant in January. It doesn't speak to why Sturridge, when fit, was given so few chances in the first half of the season.
our points record for the Prem is also safe- so hopefully Utd will have a little less to play for (hopefully)
I think the result today was all that we could ask for. If, if, if and it's a big IF, we can win our next one we'd be 4 points clear of Le Arse. That would go along way towards ensuring a CL spot for us.
Arsenal max points is 73, Spurs max points is 74 (this would mean our max points is 74), our max points is 77 (this would mean Spurs max points is 71). It's all still up in the air. Our game against Spurs is huuuuuuge.
And when do Liverpool look the most toothless? When in possession. Prior to the game with us, they had several no score draws. That's where those passes are, that's where Sturridge's passing isn't great. If you want to argue that Torres isn't great at it either, sure. But who's been arguing he's fantastic? He's not THAT young though. He has a pretty specific skill set that's good for what he does. But is he that talented that we should reconfigure his game to fit ours better? I don't think so. We gave him some chances, he was decent but not great and wanted starter minutes. That's not going to happen. He's basically a more selfish slightly less well rounded version of Wellbeck, whom I don't rate that highly either. Those types of players are solid options off the bench, but Sturridge wasn't happy with that. Because he doesn't play that way at all. He looks to spin in behind all the time - he doesn't hold up the ball. Look at his play for Liverpool, who are playing him on top. Is he doing it for them? No. Again, he's a very 4-4-2 player, where that's not as essential. I couldn't disagree with you more. He had a few decent takes; that's about it. And, again, he played off Suarez, not alone up top. Nor do Liverpool have a lot of possession in games against top sides - that's not where their possession numbers come from. He hasn't demonstrated any of those things. Look at where his goals have come from - in open games where he plays in what is effectively a 4-4-2. Did either of Liverpool's goals against us come from possession play? Of course not. And when you use statistics about Liverpool's possession play, it again shows that Sturridge plays best when not part of it. Look at his goals against Newcastle - was there any possession play involved there? Of course not. Because he wasn't any better at what we needed than Torres, and we're stuck with Torres. Simple as. Besides, not all possession is equal - ours is a lot more intricate than the completely aimless back and forth Rodgers preaches. The less Liverpool play their possession game, the better they and Sturridge look. As was the case against us, too. As others like Michael Cox have also noted.
I usually disagree quite strongly with the PFA TOY but for the most part it looks quite solid with the obvious exception of DeGea and Ferndinand
TBH I can't disagree with that. When he's on form he's almost unplayable. Certainly, out of him, Luis Suarez, Robin van Persie and Michael Carrick he's the one guy that could turn a good team into a great one on his day. The other two guys we've already got, so...
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/so...BzdGNhdANibG9nBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3#more-id Another reason for me to hate Jay-Z.
Can someone explain to me one thing? Who, precisely, IS Jay-Z? I keep hearing/seeing the name but I've never been entirely sure what he does.
Hes one of many mediocre rap music artists that claim to be the best alive, and due to the commercialization of his image and the fact that he married Beyonce and his freindship with Coldplay (kinda youth version of Beatles, thats the best i can come up with atm) most people (aka idiots) agree.
LOL at the description of Coldplay as "kinda youth version of Beatles". Besides, I don't think anyone's impressed with Jay Z because he's friends with Mr. Gwynneth Paltrow.
You underestimate the susceptibility of the pop music demographic. There are many that never ever listened to rap that started liking jigga just cuz of huffpo stories of the 2 couples hangin doing swagger shit, which was obviously part of an extensive cross music PR campaign aimed at the pop demo. Also, besides writing lullabies for their babies etc , plus they also made a couple songs together. Anyway, from a purely rap music standpoint, jay z is aight at best.