It’s just pathetic.
Keïta and Oxlade-Chamberlain both played important roles in our Champions League and Premier League wins, but this will never be recognised by the reactionary crowd.
2 Likes
I find these sort of takes really odd. One could also argue that losing 7-2 to Aston Villa at home makes you undeserving of Champions League, or perhaps losing 4-0 to Brentford, or losing 7-0 at all?
It’s also very myopic, and deserves the @Rambler treatment of going to other “fan” forums and looking at what gets said about their teams.
1 Like
In the interest of balance, I think this would be a more rounded statement:
Keïta and Oxlade-Chamberlain both played important roles in our Champions League and Premier League wins, but both did fuck all since.
Wasn’t Benzema’s goal which was disallowed in last season’s CL final ruled out under similar circumstances?
Erm…
1 Like
They did play important roles in getting us as close as we did to the quad. Just off the top of my head, Keïta played nearly every single game he was fit, while Oxlade-Chamberlain even provided vital assists in the league and League Cup, while scoring in the latter to keep us in.
They just haven’t been fit often enough, nor at the right times. They’re both rarely fit when we have an injury crisis, which is pretty much the main reason why they haven’t quite appeared, especially since it’s easier to trust the players who have been playing regularly together for a while.
It’s all subjective, personally don’t think either of them contributed enough over the last two years. I have sympathy for Ox, because he had a desire to succeed and I think his body just failed him. Naby, on the other hand, put his country before us time and time again, playing even when he knew he wasn’t fit, allegedly threw his toys out of the pram when we didn’t offer him a bumper new contract and has more or less completely downed tools over the last 4 months.
As I said, it’s all subjective, but you’re support/praise for their contributions does seem to be in the vast minority (doesn’t mean you’re wrong though, most people just think you are 
)
2 Likes
I think my stance is pretty much summarised as, I would have loved it if they both could have turned their careers around here, but as it stands, they often get trashed unfairly by fans who supposedly stand behind YNWA, and sometimes based on innuendo and gossip like the alleged throwing of the toys out of the pram.
Did they “earn” their pay over the last two seasons? Probably not, although that again goes back to the point about injuries. Virgil didn’t “earn” his pay in 2020-21 either, but no one talks much about that.
Did they contribute to the successes we’ve had, and to the fight when we didn’t have the successes? Yes, but that’s always going to be caveated with the problem of how often they were unavailable.
2 Likes
Personally, I’d rather have judged him by what he did on the pitch… but therein lies the problem.
Anyway, we’ll agree to disagree. You’re never going to change my opinion and I’m not going to change yours. Let’s use our energy to cheer on Leeds instead.
2 Likes
I don’t disagree with you here, and that is precisely my entire point.
1 Like
He plays the ball.
What is difficult about that? By playing the ball he puts VVD onside.
1 Like
It has been explained about 30 times.
Think about the version of the rule people are trying to argue is preferable. A forward is in an offside position and so all defenders ignore him and leave him be. Meanwhile a liverpool player lines up a shot from outside the box. The goalie dives to save it (a "deliberate play by the definition trying to be used), but cannot hold on it. There are no onside liverpool players anywhere near the ball, but it does fall straight to the offside player who the entire time was just standing offside. He puts away the rebound and it is given because the goalie, by making a deliberate save, plays him onside.
I think most accept that is absurd, because when we had a version of that rule everyone complained when these bad outcomes were produced by it. But that is what people are arguing for by trying to suggest the rule should allow him to have been onside
Yes, this is exactly why that goal was also disallowed.
That really isn’t what people are arguing for. As you said, that scenario is absurd…
What people are saying, well what I am saying is that the defender in this instance plays the ball. He attempts a clearance which doesn’t work, and therefore plays VVD onside.
The rule was misinterpreted yesterday, and repeatedly defending it or producing the rulebook doesn’t change that.
If it happens the other end you would be glad the decision was given, but you would appreciate that it was lucky.
3 Likes
The outcome is absurd, but it uses the exact same considerations as you claim should be used. The fact this outcome is absurd is why this is not how the rule is applied.
https://twitter.com/premierleague/status/1659946281492443136?s=20
The reason the goal was disallowed was that Brooks sees the contact with the defender as a deflection rather than a deliberate attempt to clear the ball.
So here is the subjectivity…
I think he deliberately plays the ball, only badly.
Brooks makes the incorrect decision.
2 Likes
Only if Konsa doesn’t deliberately play the ball.
And he was correct because none of this applied…or do you think it did?
- The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it
- The ball was not moving quickly
- The direction of the ball was not unexpected
- The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control
- A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air
Thanks for taking time to point out the rules Rambler. Again.
I think he plays the ball.
So do others.
You dont.
Others also agree with you.
2 Likes
Of course he played the ball but that is not what the law says. For instance did the ball travel from distance and did the player have a clear view of it all the way? That negates it right away.
You might want the offside law changed but at the moment it is what it is.
1 Like
The ref in this instance decided it was a deflection, not a deliberate play.
Thats the official line.
Do you think Konsa didn’t play the ball?