Last edited:
Football The 2014/2015 Season Thread
- Thread starter megadave
- Start date
I edited the post to put the better version in but it's still going to the old one for some reason. 
http://www.gfycat.com/AdorableWhirlwindHorsemouse
http://gfycat.com/IncredibleElatedFugu
http://www.gfycat.com/AdorableWhirlwindHorsemouse
http://gfycat.com/IncredibleElatedFugu
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,691
That's not domination. That's two wins and eight fails out of ten.
Yet, It seems a bit odd that they chose to give Serbia the win and deduct them the points, letting them keep the "goals"
Shouldn't it have been flipped the other way? ...ah well...
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2003
- Messages
- 44,800
Yeah, but they are part of a group of teams that dominated the period (a bit!) Exactly like I said. If 2 Premiership titles, 3 FA cups, not being out of the top 3 in 8 seasons and having a period of 59 games (wasn't it?) unbeaten doesn't qualify you to being one of the best teams at in the decade then I have no idea what would...
Callous is just a pissy little shitweazle that has to jump on everything I say, no matter how much of a clown it makes him look. Its frankly hilarious.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,691
Possibly - but they were certainly never dominant...
Very good team. Occasionally a great team.
To be fair, I have seen him jump on what you say. But this time he was right.
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2003
- Messages
- 44,800
I didn't actually say they were singularly dominant, I said they were part of a group of teams that have dominated. I also said (A bit)
No, he isn't right. The statistics speak for themselves.
Anyway, the point is, its swings and roundabouts, the top teams change over long periods of time but either way the less teams we have in the champions league the worse it is for the Premiership.
No, he isn't right. The statistics speak for themselves.
Anyway, the point is, its swings and roundabouts, the top teams change over long periods of time but either way the less teams we have in the champions league the worse it is for the Premiership.
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2003
- Messages
- 44,800
Yup, its the need to back every comment up with independently verified data because some weirdo has some sort of strange grudge that gets tedious.
I did put him on ignore but it just makes things too confusing at times with out of context comments and whatnot, I just choose to ignore him, I wish he would do the same.
I did put him on ignore but it just makes things too confusing at times with out of context comments and whatnot, I just choose to ignore him, I wish he would do the same.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,691
You can't dominate a bit. You either win the league a lot for a long time or you don't.
Arsenal have never dominated anything apart from the odd individual match and one dominant season - but that's different from dominating the league. They're not part of the group of two that can have been said to have done that.
They're also not part of the group of one english club which can have been said to dominate Europe for a while either
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2003
- Messages
- 44,800
Then you are also incorrect then Statistically and factually wrong.
He didn't even understand my point, let alone agree or disagree. He seems to think I meant Arsenal singularly dominated when I clearly said "Teams" (plural) several times.
But meh, I agree, boring to keep labouring the point.
Statistically and factually wrong.He didn't even understand my point, let alone agree or disagree. He seems to think I meant Arsenal singularly dominated when I clearly said "Teams" (plural) several times.
But meh, I agree, boring to keep labouring the point.
Last edited:
Liverpool dominated and then United dominated. Nobody else has dominated. It's that simple.
Notice nobody is saying teams like Arsenal, Chelsea and City haven't achieved great things but none of them have dominated. That's what people (notice the plural there, it's not just me) are disagreeing with you about.
I have no idea why you're still trying to argue tbh. Please look up the verb to dominate, I'm sure you'll realise your mistake once you actually know what it means.
Notice nobody is saying teams like Arsenal, Chelsea and City haven't achieved great things but none of them have dominated. That's what people (notice the plural there, it's not just me) are disagreeing with you about.
You said a few teams (plural) have dominated and then you went through and listed each one. There's literally no way to misunderstand your point.
I have no idea why you're still trying to argue tbh. Please look up the verb to dominate, I'm sure you'll realise your mistake once you actually know what it means.
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2003
- Messages
- 44,800
Er yeah, a group of teams that I named.
Do you actually have special needs? If so I apologise for using complex concepts such as plurals.
Or I dunno, maybe they haven't been the top 5 clubs for the last 20 years and I have been looking at the wrong table all this time.
Do you actually have special needs? If so I apologise for using complex concepts such as plurals.
Or I dunno, maybe they haven't been the top 5 clubs for the last 20 years and I have been looking at the wrong table all this time.
You didn't just name them though; you said that each one had been individually dominant by adding things like "had their turn", "for a bit" and "now it's City's turn".
Honestly, if this carries on I might have to break the crayons out to provide a familiar medium for you so that you can understand why you're wrong.
Honestly, if this carries on I might have to break the crayons out to provide a familiar medium for you so that you can understand why you're wrong.
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2003
- Messages
- 44,800
No, that is not what I said at all, you just think it is.
Yes it is City's turn to be part of the group of teams that dominate English football. Arsenal were part of that group (and still are I suppose, they just scraped through to the champions league again) Liverpool have been in or around the top clubs, though admittedly inconsistently.
Seriously, you are just being thick for the sake of being thick now, if you can't understand simple English then I just can't be arsed to try and explain it in even simpler terms.
I know what I said and meant, you know what I said and meant but you have just got yourself into a bit of a mess and are trying to dig further.
Yes it is City's turn to be part of the group of teams that dominate English football. Arsenal were part of that group (and still are I suppose, they just scraped through to the champions league again) Liverpool have been in or around the top clubs, though admittedly inconsistently.
Seriously, you are just being thick for the sake of being thick now, if you can't understand simple English then I just can't be arsed to try and explain it in even simpler terms.
I know what I said and meant, you know what I said and meant but you have just got yourself into a bit of a mess and are trying to dig further.
So you say a "handful of clubs" and a "few teams" (lots of plurals) but then you say each one had an individual period of dominance (unless more than one club at a time can have a "turn").
Stop trying to alter the meaning of what you said after the fact. You're making yourself look silly.
Stop trying to alter the meaning of what you said after the fact. You're making yourself look silly.