Maybe but I saw A highlight of one amazing kick save at the base of his left post. P.s. Son is off to the Asia cup soon so spurs may have a bit of a striker crisis on their hands. Hopefully our trajectory will go up just as theirs is going down.
Its funny reading the criticism of DDG after todays match. The post match comments are summed up as either "he has had a worldie and turned into the brick wall from Wayne Gretzky Hockey" or "Spurs kept hitting them straight at him even I could have saved them." His positioning in the half I saw was on point with getting into the right positions.
No I mean, pretty objectively, your club would be like current West Ham without the aid of a Russian gangster/money launderer/literal murderer. That isn't subjective
Yeah We suck, Chelsea have been infinitely More successful since roman came Just shows how money killed the game in a traditional sense An average side turned world class with insane funding, same as city Just shows the ‘size’ argument is bullshit because realistically we have more fans, bigger stadium and a ten times richer tradition but Chelsea would sign anyone over us in a two horse race
to be fair, Chelsea had been fairly successful in the run-up to Abramovich - winning a few domestic cups and a Cup Winners Cup in recent years prior - so the comparison to West Ham probably isn't accurate. my understanding, though, is that Cuddly Ken had rather overspent for that success, and Chelsea were staring at some pretty stark financial straits when said villain came calling. so maybe Leeds Utd would be a better analogy.
Remind me, what was the nickname for Arsenal when you first came to prominence in the 30s? Because I remember. It wasn’t “the fiscally prudent club”. Also, remind me, who owns 37% of your club? Get that shit out of here. I was a Chelsea fan before Roman, I’ll be a fan after he’s gone.
Lol, mate, how did you acquire that tradition? Fiscal prudence? Splooging excessive amounts on players 100 years ago doesn’t make “tradition” exempt from the same criticism.
Cuddly Ken mostly overspent on his vanity projects like the hotel, not the club itself. We were never overly big spenders during his charge; the bigger names we acquired were often on the back ends of their careers. We were having financial issues, no question, though we weren’t likely going to pull a full Leeds. However, we might also have been bought by someone other than Roman, which might have been even worse for you and bigman
Chelsea were an average side when roman took over. They hadn’t won the league for decades Just a cup team Arsenal won the league and fa cup a lot more in their history than Chelsea had pre roman. You won the league once in 55 and a couple of fa cups etc Arsenal won the league under chapman, in the 50s 70s 80s 90s and 00s They are older and have a richer tradition There is no argument Why did u CHOOSE Chelsea?
I agree he is world class, but this is a game that Spurs would normally expect to win with the quality of chances they had. So the spectacular kick save was amazing - but also Kane put it too close to the keeper Or Llorente was completely open and hit it straight at the keeper for 8 yards. Good positioning? Both things can be true. Which is why fapping over Utd's/ DDGs peformance can be dangerous. They had very easy schedule then got outplayed against the first decent team they played. xG map for Tottenham - Manchester United sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes, well, he eats you pic.twitter.com/tJB7ajz0FO— Caley Graphics (@Caley_graphics) January 13, 2019
One of the main reasons I listen to Totally Football podcast is James Richardson and his never-ending clever puns. In today's opening headlines there was this:
So any day now, we should be hearing about which top club / national team has secured the services of our former manager. Any day now . . .
Damn Nicephoras, you have really, truly, outdone yourself with this one. Like, in this moment, I'm Salieri in Amadeus reading this comment and, in silent reverie, dropping it to the floor, wheeling around and demanding an answer: "This post. It's an original?!?" I mean this post should be your signature, sincerely. It has everything! It has: Evasive whataboutism Complete prevarication of the relevant topic Claiming you "remember" some detail of club ownership (of a club you don't support) from the 1930s, when you read it in a Wikipedia article Spouting wholesale inaccuracies that are at least a year out of date Smug appeal to your impregnable integrity as a Chelsea "fan" This is Jordan. This is Lebron 2013. This is Steph 2015. Or perhaps, a contemporaneous (to you) reference you would understand: this is 1936 Jesse Owens. This is the pinnacle of your posting career and I, for one, am going to savor it. To be fair to you, I really don't know the intricacies of the Arsenal ownership situation in the 1930s. Sure, I do know that due to the renovations of Highbury that led to Arsenal being the first team to clear gate receipts of 100,000 pounds in one year, they had higher revenue than pretty much every other team in the division and concurrently spent more on transfers, perhaps similarly to a modern-day Manchester United. I also know that because of the suspension of play during the war, and due to the fact that Highbury was bombed and nearly destroyed, any income advantage Arsenal had pre-war was swiftly eliminated, and their financial successes in the 1930s didn't equate to further-cemented prosperity or success in the future, as the investments of Chelsea and Man City in the 2000s did for example. I know all of this from reading Wikipedia, mind you. So I don't know if there's some hidden history II'm unaware of when you bring up 1930s Arsenal so I'll ask you: were there any owners of Arsenal in the 1930s who murdered, stole, extorted and terrorized their way to their riches which they then laundered through the club of Arsenal, as the current owner of Chelsea has done? If not, explain how your comment is in any way relevant to this conversation, or to our present-day following of Arsenal or Chelsea? I also want to make one thing very crystal clear to you Nice. In the case of Arsenal, if the man who previously owned a 37% stake (a stake that was, at every time that he owned it, not one that afforded him any power or executive direction over Arsenal) were to have ever become the majority stakeholder of Arsenal, I would not be an Arsenal fan any longer. That's the main difference between you and me--specifically as you stated it. You are perfectly okay with a man who is a criminal--a gangster, a money launderer, a murderer, a racketeer, and above all, a thief--buying you shiny things, and you will be a willing accomplice in his attempts at laundering, not just of money, but of reputation, so long as he smites your imagined adversaries. If I was put in the same position, I would walk away without hesitation. Perhaps that makes me a lesser fan than you. In that case I say: there is no value in being a fan and there never has been. Anyways, none of this would be germane if you didn't accept the fact that some of your gains as a fan are ill-gotten. But it's your intransigence regarding this, combined with your pedantry and need for factual accuracy from the rest of the commentariat, that is particularly rankling when you post here.