“Your Gerrards your Lampards”

“Your Chelseas your Arsenals”

comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Fabián Caballero (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
Also that Sky and the Daily Mail and others later did analysis on the England 1966 goal and faked computer graphics showing that it went in.

Some actual analysis showing it was at least 3 inches from being a goal:

https://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~ian/wc66.html

Watch the side on clip as well. Pretty conclusive.

Here is a link to Sky lying:

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/12016/10119554/geoff-hursts-crucial-second-goal-in-the-world-cup-final-of-1966-should-not-have-been-awarded


It would be like Maradona being adamant that he did not handball it against England all his life. At least he admitted it.

Time for England to admit that it shouldn't have stood. We can all see the evidence.

Bit of a tangent. But anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really. It's about things that annoy you in football. And this one clearly does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wouldn't annoy people really if the English were just honest about it. It would just be accepted as an error by the linesman. These things happen.

The fact that they have faked images and analysis of it to prove it went in instead of just doing the normal thing in saying they got away with it, is possibly the worst thing in football history.

It's good as a wum, but I am pretty sure they are serious about their analysis.

Also, ex-footballers who've never been in the position of a goallkeeper, and pass their "'keeper should've done better" sentence upon watching the super-slow motion replay.
---------------------
Ahh, this is a great one. They're normally the ones who come out with bollox like 'you should never be beaten at your near post'.

You should've seen the amount of United fans who became experts on GK diving techniques last year, after Onana failed to stop shots that flew into the corner.

"setting traps"

comment by Fabián Caballero (U1734)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Fabián Caballero (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
Also that Sky and the Daily Mail and others later did analysis on the England 1966 goal and faked computer graphics showing that it went in.

Some actual analysis showing it was at least 3 inches from being a goal:

https://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~ian/wc66.html

Watch the side on clip as well. Pretty conclusive.

Here is a link to Sky lying:

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/12016/10119554/geoff-hursts-crucial-second-goal-in-the-world-cup-final-of-1966-should-not-have-been-awarded


It would be like Maradona being adamant that he did not handball it against England all his life. At least he admitted it.

Time for England to admit that it shouldn't have stood. We can all see the evidence.

Bit of a tangent. But anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really. It's about things that annoy you in football. And this one clearly does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wouldn't annoy people really if the English were just honest about it. It would just be accepted as an error by the linesman. These things happen.

The fact that they have faked images and analysis of it to prove it went in instead of just doing the normal thing in saying they got away with it, is possibly the worst thing in football history.

It's good as a wum, but I am pretty sure they are serious about their analysis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think they fear the potential slippery slope.

Imagine the Germans demanding reparations.

comment by Fabián Caballero (U1734)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Fabián Caballero (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
Also that Sky and the Daily Mail and others later did analysis on the England 1966 goal and faked computer graphics showing that it went in.

Some actual analysis showing it was at least 3 inches from being a goal:

https://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~ian/wc66.html

Watch the side on clip as well. Pretty conclusive.

Here is a link to Sky lying:

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/12016/10119554/geoff-hursts-crucial-second-goal-in-the-world-cup-final-of-1966-should-not-have-been-awarded


It would be like Maradona being adamant that he did not handball it against England all his life. At least he admitted it.

Time for England to admit that it shouldn't have stood. We can all see the evidence.

Bit of a tangent. But anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really. It's about things that annoy you in football. And this one clearly does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wouldn't annoy people really if the English were just honest about it. It would just be accepted as an error by the linesman. These things happen.

The fact that they have faked images and analysis of it to prove it went in instead of just doing the normal thing in saying they got away with it, is possibly the worst thing in football history.

It's good as a wum, but I am pretty sure they are serious about their analysis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PhDs versus Carra!

When the keeper and defenders do that thing from a kick off for like 30 seconds where it looks like they’re gonna do a short goal kick and play out from the back then eventually the keeper decides to do a long goal kick. Why?

===

Because, if successful, it opens up loads of gaps to exploit in midfield. A lot of the time the gaps are cut off though, so goalies end up launching it.

comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 5 minutes ago
Also, ex-footballers who've never been in the position of a goallkeeper, and pass their "'keeper should've done better" sentence upon watching the super-slow motion replay.
---------------------
Ahh, this is a great one. They're normally the ones who come out with bollox like 'you should never be beaten at your near post'.

You should've seen the amount of United fans who became experts on GK diving techniques last year, after Onana failed to stop shots that flew into the corner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And more generally, the whining, moaning breed of pundit who after each and every goal, no matter how excellent or skilful, immediately finds an opposition player at fault.

Finished 4-2 anyway

Didn't we win that game 4-2 though ? So rightfully take one goal away and it's still 3-2

I know a lot of people on here like him but Peter Drury annoys the fkin life out of me, Guy Mowbray isn’t far behind either

comment by Glen Bulb (U1449)
posted 46 minutes ago
Guardiola’s non stop spitting

Surprised someone hasn’t mentioned it to him, he’s was being interviewed before by a female reporter and was actually rolling one round on the end of his tongue, disgusting
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Being a United fan

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 6 seconds ago
Finished 4-2 anyway
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this, you actually make another good point. Like if the first goal shouldn't have stood but a team goes on to win 2-0, it is claimed that it then doesn't matter that the first goal shouldn't have stood.

Also related is when a team have missed 3 chances so people claim they should be 3-0 up. Goals change games so going 1-0 up would change the dynamic and they wouldn't necessarily have those next two chances.

Also people/bots who don't understand that if a team is winning, they don't need to attack as much. Having fewer attempts at goal than the opposition whilst winning, does not mean that the other team deserves to be winning..

Conceding goals. Facking annoying when that happens.

Corners hitting the first man

My number 1 gripe in football

Kids with homemade cardboard "Can I have your shirt?" placards.

comment by Fabián Caballero (U1734)
posted 40 minutes ago
Also that Sky and the Daily Mail and others later did analysis on the England 1966 goal and faked computer graphics showing that it went in.

Some actual analysis showing it was at least 3 inches from being a goal:

https://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~ian/wc66.html

Watch the side on clip as well. Pretty conclusive.

Here is a link to Sky lying:

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/12016/10119554/geoff-hursts-crucial-second-goal-in-the-world-cup-final-of-1966-should-not-have-been-awarded


It would be like Maradona being adamant that he did not handball it against England all his life. At least he admitted it.

Time for England to admit that it shouldn't have stood. We can all see the evidence.

Bit of a tangent. But anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like when Sky (I think it was them) used some FIFA 96 graphics to try to convince people our goal against Chelsea wasn't a goal.

"The referee can't book him , he is already on a yellow"

Commentators having an set idea about something at the start of a game and then fitting the whole narrative of the match around that.

Diving. I hate it with a passion. Anyone who drives to get a penalty should get a red card.

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 seconds ago
Diving. I hate it with a passion. Anyone who drives to get a penalty should get a red card.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

time to put your foot down

comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 9 minutes ago
Corners hitting the first man

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really wish Neil Armstrong would stop getting on the field at corners

VAR
Players talking whilst putting their hands over their mouths
International Breaks

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 0 seconds ago
Diving. I hate it with a passion. Anyone who drives to get a penalty should get a red card.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dives* But banned if they use a car to get there.