lol, nasri headbutts vardy (if you can call it that, nasri initiated but vardy leaned in too). second yellow for nasri. vardy gets a first yellow. really just stupid from both and playacting and all that, but that's something that every players know NOT to do. Sevilla down to 10.
huh, i'm kind of confused by this. Sevilla just got a pk because schmeichel takes a player out, but he got the shot off and the chip over the keeper. it was a shot on goal that was cleared off the line by the keeper. that's not a pk, contact was made after the shot. no advantage was taken away. BUT IT'S SAVED!!!!!!
i know Leicester are pretty much strictly a counter attack team but the lack of possession they've had here at the end with a man advantage is pretty incredible. though they've squandered a couple of REALLY good counter attacks. but they've been under pretty constant pressure as well.
Just because he got the shot away doesn't mean it wasn't a foul. It's this sort of thinking that makes players go down. I'm actually glad it was given, and not because of any anti-Leicester reasons. I wish these were given more often.
Strange match. Vardy is a bastard. Nasri is a dumber ********ing bastard. Just a strange match. On the bright side, Leicester have outdone Arsenal again.
You mean the Sky Sports that has commentators who go on two minute rants about how lucky Silva is to have the Hull job, which should go to an English manager? Please. Most punditry is bad, some is just worse than others. Sky isn't great.
Relax. Espn FC is garbage. Sky offers comprehensive analysis and coverage of all things Prem related. Yes, I'd rather listen to Frank Lampard than anyone on ESPN FC. 1000%. It is a shit program and Sky Sports comes off as a class above, easily.
Lampard is on Sky rarely, but you know who's not? Jamie Carragher. You want to listen to him for a half hour at a time? Hard pass. The best stuff about football is on the internet anyway. Most of the punditry is bad.
The actual product Sky delivers is superior. Nowhere did I say their punditry is world class or something I want to sit down and listen to for 24 hours. ESPN FC, for me, is of poor quality. Maybe a more apt example of something good is what NBC SN does with the Prem. That behind the scenes show with Watford was excellent.
1. The real product is the feed from the cameras. It's the same. The only differences is the punditry/announcing. So I don't understand what you're getting at with that comment. 2. As far as the punditry/announcing, Arlo, Graeme LeSaux and Dixon are perfectly fine (although I found Dixon's karate chop comment a few weeks back offensive, and I'm not Asian). In which case, how is Sky better? I lived in London for over two years. I don't miss Sky, as they have some questionable people on the air. Merson and Thompson being on the air is.........well.......yeah. The real issue I have is that there simply isn't a program devoted to in depth analysis of football the same way there is in England, but frankly often those programs are terrible. Many former pros are bad at analysis! Watching Alan Shearer do punditry does not enhance my understanding of football much. 3. NBC doesn't really do analysis - they have Goal Zone, and that's it. 4. I can't comment on the Watford "behind the scenes" show, as I did not watch it, but that is not stuff I find interesting. If that's what's more your speed (and the reason I don't watch it is purely a preference on my part), then I agree, Sky and NBC will have better stuff because they have access which ESPN don't*. But that's not superior content, that's different content. If you want that type of content, yes, Sky and NBC are better, but that's a very disingenuous way of framing it. *FOX, of course, could have produced stuff like that, but I think we all agree FOX are awful at soccer content. Gus Johnson ladies and gentlemen!
While I appreciate your unflinching desire to disagree with me in any and every capacity, my opinion is that ESPN FC sucks (a lot) and yes, the analysis offered by shows on Sky would be far more preferable. You are reading way too deeply into this.
Having watched Sky for years while living in England, I didn't think it was very good and don't miss it.
Most tv analysis is pretty ropey. Nothing holds a candle to BBC back in the day. These days podcasts often are the way to go for insightful analysis. Sky is okay but was always more tabloid than the more broadsheet approach of BBC and itv. I wouldn't put sky on any kind of pedestal though I always enjoyed the Tyler/Gray combo. The studio stuff did nothing for me outside of soccer Saturday which was always played for laughs.
which podcasts do people around here go for. i like meninblazers but obviously that's more humor related and it's just for a laugh. there's a couple of others i try to listen to but honestly the personalities are pretty awful. they talk slow, dance around points they are trying to make, and just bore. i've honestly been frustrated enough i wish they were radio shows so i could call in and tell them all about what they are missing .