(11-30-2009, 11:09 PM)Sean3 link Wrote: imo i dont think losing 3-0 makes you a better team, if arsenal was good enough like your saying, it would of been 0-0 or 1-0 for arsenal.

(12-01-2009, 09:57 PM)Alpha link Wrote: Nice post Munch, I agree with you, Everton were the Better side but we just took our chances better.

(12-02-2009, 01:47 PM)azerty link Wrote: with people like u 8ball we can't even talk about football without flaming so stop posting here thank you

(12-01-2009, 09:49 PM)Munch link Wrote: The score only means Chelsea were the better side infront of goal and took their chances (and for the second goal, the Arsenal guy). They did play the better side. Arsenal had like 68% - 74% of the ball all the way through, but with that small percentage Chelsea had the ball they made good use of it, which is how Liverpool failed to win so much this season (same reason why we drew so much last season too).

Liverpool won 2-0 at the weekend the game before the London Derby and I can tell you Everton were the better team, but Liverpool had the luck infront of goal (they were pretty much luck. If Yobo weren't in the way Mascherano wouldn't of got that first goal and perhaps the second goal was a bit of skill but it was also due to the defender's inability to read our players properly when it was important). Everton had the bad luck of getting two goals disallowed due to offside (the first goal was nice too) and the guy who caused the first offside goal was only slightly offside, the other two were miles off.

Just goes to show that the end result only shows the winner, not the better team.

When United drew 3-3 against Moscow I was just watching the results on Sky Sports News and saw Moscow kicking United's arse 3-1, I didn't watch to see if Moscow prior to the last two goals really were kicking Man U's arse or were they just really lucky, all I saw was Man U down 3-1 (and happy too). And then seeing them get them two quick late goals would of also made the average viewer think (a young)King Kenny came on or something, we never knew if Man U were really lucky and got two easy late goals or if they were really good.

(12-03-2009, 12:22 AM)Sean3 link Wrote: I could agree that luck sometimes has to do with the match, but really when it comes down to scores you know which team played better on that game.

(12-03-2009, 01:07 AM)Munch link Wrote: How many times do I have to repeat myself? The score ONLYdetermines who were the better side infront of goal and ONLY infront of goal. It does NOT determine the better team all round. Arsenal were the better team throughout that whole game, but every time Chelsea got the ball there was a goal, because they knew how to make good use of the ball infront of goal.

What if Chelsea got them 3 goals from penalties (thanks to Drogba probably)? Would that still mean they were the better team?

(12-03-2009, 01:15 AM)Sean3 link Wrote: So your saying arsenal was a better team in that game? If arsenal were good enough just like your saying, they wouldnt let chelsea make 2 goals now would they?

(12-03-2009, 01:15 AM)Sean3 link Wrote: What if Chelsea got them 3 goals from penalties (thanks to Drogba probably)? Would that still mean they were the better team?
Im not that retarded, i know a good game when i see one.

(12-03-2009, 01:43 AM)Munch link Wrote: They let them two Chelsea goals in because Chelsea were the better team INFRONT OF GOAL