The Official Dempsey at Fulham Thread - Part II [R]

Good grief, this is just an impossible conversation. Clearly we have either a transatlantic communications barrier, or I'm not very smart, or you're not very smart. I know which option I'm going with.

 

Well maybe question my motivation, but keep it yourself, it gets tiresome and to be honest it doesn't really do a lot.

Like I said, benefit of the doubt, but if you think it's unbelievable he might of meant it as a cross, I'd say sop and think for a minute. The corss from that psotion was by far a more sensible play than an outrageous lob. I think if you were being vaguely reasonable you'd see this.

 

Well, that's all I've got. You should allow for the possibility you might be wrong. I'm not 100% certain myself, just like I would still allow for Lampard's being somehow a fluke. I'd put my money on both being intentional. Clint is crazy.

 

Look, your pattern is unmistakable. Others see it, but yet you persist. It sucks because you really do affect my enjoyment of these boards, and perhaps that's my fault for letting you get to me. Then again, I certainly don't seek you out; rather, you make a point of coming to any thread celebrating a YA's achievements in England and do your thing. I'll try to do better in the future to ignore.

 

I was done with this yesterday, theres nothing worse than a debate dragging on and on but my posts seemed to be quoted a lot so I had to defend my views. So please people dont quote anything more so your normal service can resume

 

In life you're going to meet people with different opinions to you, deal with it.

I'm sorry I really don't think you're being reasoanble at all, can you not see that when someone scores a chip across the face of goal from outside of the area without even looking up there is a) a chance it may've been a fluke b) that people are quite likely to question whether it was intended. Yes Dempsey claims it was intentional, but Roberto Carlos claimed he meant to make the ball swerve when he scored that free kick in the Tounrnai de France, before admitting a long time later it was a fluke, so it's not conclusive.

Like I said I am giving him the benefit of the doubt Demspey does try outrageous things, he does shoot a lot. This goal was only a bit more difficult than the one he scored against Stoke.

 

This roykeanes_troll ruined the Duece thread. If there's any debate about Dempsey's goal, it should be at the gameday thread. But there should be none because it was a shot. He said it himself at the post game interview.

Dempsey has a shot first tendency, he will never pass on an oppurtunity to try to score. If you really believe he was crossing in that area, then you are experiencing the symptom of a disorder called PSD.

Look, Dempsey grew up playing with Latinos. He's not your typical american player. You'll see this kind of goal in Mexican league.

 

Course there is going to be a debate and no thinking that it was intended as a cross does not mean someone is psychotic. Yes Dempsey claims it was a shot, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was.

Lets me honest if the ball had drifted a 2 yards outside of the far post and Zamora had met it with his head abd put it in, no-one would even think that Dempsey had tried to shoot and I'm sure Dempsey would've kept quiet about his intentions.

I agree Dempsey does like to shoot a lot, but at the same time crossing instead of shooting n the postion he was in was hardly passing up a gold-plated scoring opportunity.

Like I said again I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, a big part of that is the goal he scored against Stoke, which undoubtedly was a shot and was both extremely audacious and well-0executed. However I can quite easily see why a l;ot of people think it was a fluke and on the other hand struggle to see why people can't see why some are saying it was a fluke.,

 

I've got a little debating tip for you. Hypotheticals are never evidence. It just makes you look silly. Hypotheticals about something that happened in the past are even worse.

It doesn't matter what we would think if the ball drifted 2 yards outside, because it didn't. There is no point in discussing it. Coincidentally, the way he struck it meant that there was going to be no bend whatsoever, so the chances of it "drifting" 2 yards out would be about nil.

No one crosses the ball like that. When was the last time you saw a cross-goal chip cross? Never? Yeah, me neither.

 

The ball takes an ever so slightly different tradjectory, as the angle it was at all that would've been needed to make it out by a couple of yards was half a degree or less change in the angle, and no-one would even think it was a shot except Dempsey. It's not like I am saying "well if the pitch was sudddenly invaded by a herd of roving wilderbeasts".

Is there any player in the world that can strike the ball straight where they want it 100% of the time? I think not.

I would argue that someone chipping a cross is more plausible than soemone trying such an outrageous shot. I.e. you see a lot more chipped crosses than you do see goals scored from such a postion.

I keep on reiterating thsis, but I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and I'm assuming he meant to score it, but at the same time there is doubt to give him the benefit of and I don't think the postion that some are taking is very reasonable at all.

I've had my motivation questioned, but the reason I am psoting these psots is that I don't like the way people are jumped on for taking what isn't all that unreasonable psotion as if they'd declared the world was flat.

 

Except that Zamora wasn't near as deep as you contrarians are saying he was. Zamora was central in the box, not outside the post, and he never made it to the 6 yard box. To say that Deuce was crossing it, he would have had to miss Zamora by 10 yards in an area where the angle makes less logical sense than Demspey actually trying that shot. That's the weakest argument to make.

 

Why are we still arguing this?! Who gives a sh--? It went in, Dempsey gets the goal, Fulham won. Full stop.

 

I'll just present the argument of fans who know Clint Dempsey because for us, when you know Clint's play so well, the evidence is pretty conclusive. Then those who take opposing views can finalize their arguments (hopefully).

1. That is exactly the type of shot Deuce takes. 35 yard blasts, bicycle kicks, etc. He has acquired the nicknames like "almo-golazo" because he has hit the posts on more than a dozens occasions for trying such audacious shots on goal.

2. Deuce doesn't cross. He's always looking for goal, making him even less like your traditional winger. He rarely cross from the wing, why would he cross from a far more central position?

3. Zamora is nowhere as close to a finishing position as the contrarians assume he is. Zanimal was far more central and Deuce had no idea where he was. If he was making a run from outside the post, this argument would make infinitely more sense.

4. The goal's position on the field is fixed. People keep saying that he didn't look up, why would he have to look up to know where the goal is? Its always in the same spot, and if you hit it as perfectly as Clint did, it almost doesn't matter where the goalkeeper was. Even Timmay would have had a tough time getting to that shot in the upper 90.

5. He made no attempt to get around the ball. He chipped it. Who chips a "cross" to the top of the 6 yard box? Chipping from that area is more characteristic of a guy like Fabregas, and Dempsey doesn't play like Fabregas at allllllll.


I think these are all of the arguments of Dempsey fans, though I might have missed one or two. When we had the "sitter" debates about Donovan, there were plenty of US fans agreeing with the foreign posters, but this has everything to do with Dempsey's style and tendencies. Every American/Fulham poster who knows Dempsey's history knows this was a shot.

 

I've been replaying this goal over my head the past couple of days. LOL

I call it the "Last Goal Syndrome" or "LGS" for short.

 

I cannot believe what I'm hearing. I never enter this thread. And after reading a few post arguing whether dempseys goal was intentional? Give me a break. Have you seen the goals against Stoke City and Brazil? Pure Brilliance... If it were cristiano ronaldo, ibrahimovic, or rooney no one would have questioned it. Don't Bother responding to this post cause I wont be on here for a long time.

 

It's what happens when the mods let trolls stick around.

It's becoming quite common on this site.

 

I love how he raises his arms a split second after he shoots. He knew it was a goal while the ball was only about 1/4 of the way there. Badass.

 

This is moronic. You know what makes far less sense than shooting for the far post, which is always in the same place? I'll tell you: trying to chip the ball onto your teammate's head without looking. A pro knows where the goal is in relation to his position on the field and the keeper, unless he is making mistake, is shading toward the ball side of the field, leaving the far post somewhat vulnerable. Not a cross. No professional player or former pro who has commented on it has said anything but that it was clearly a deliberate shot. This debate isn't really one at all. I'll check back on this thread before the game and not sooner, because apparently before then it's only going to get trolled like mf'er.

 

I was at the game, and there is no doubt it was a shot.

 

i'm pretty sure that at this point anyone arguing it's not a shot is just trying to get a reaction out of us "sensitive" yanks.

So let's please ignore them and move on with life, right?

 

I jsut looked up "golazo" in the dictionary and found a clip of this goal.

 

How many times in basketball do you see players, who are in the zone, just know with full certainty that they just buried it. Clint's like.... you put me in... I win you matches... whatcha want Roy!

 

I'm bored of arguing, that's simply not true, like I say give him the benefit of the doubt, the reason that people think it is a cross is the sheer outrageousness of it. I understand the sensitivity, but when someone does something that is such out pf the oridinary there's going to be a bit of doubt about their intentions

You have people saying it's unlikely Dempsey would cross, but it's just even more unlikely tha a player, any player, would attempt such a shot. But like I say benefit of the doubt.

 

man, you always are tearing down our players/team. i'd give your argument more weight if it wasn't so much a part of your schtick. why do you even post around here?