The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This is the first paragraph of the Chelsea v Arsenal match report on Football365.com ...
"Chelsea's title pretensions were exposed as an expensively-assembled sham by a dominant Arsenal side, who ran out 2-1 winners at Stamford Bridge."
I don't know how many of you saw the match on Sky, but I did - and no way would I claim Arsenal were the dominant side.
Chelsea had what seemed to me to be the majority of the possession, even if Sky did show a final possession statistic of 50-50.
There were long spells - particularly 2nd half - when Arsenal really struggled to get the ball off them, and even after Gudjohnsen's dismissal in the 2nd half, Chelsea still seemed to have most of the ball.
In fact, it seemed to me like Arsenal were playing with 9 men from beginning to end. I don't think Henry had fully recovered from his foot injury, because he was hardly mentioned. And Pires - apart from a few intermittent good spells - was also most noticeable by his lack of involvement.
Vieira also had a terrible first 15 minutes, up to the point when he scored our first goal.
Over all, I would put this down as one of those "what Champions are made of" games that pundits always refer to. Arsenal were not the dominant force the report would have you believe; on the contrary, they dug deep and - although nowhere near their best - managed to do enough to win.
So I don't really know what the reporter in question was watching.
"Chelsea's title pretensions were exposed as an expensively-assembled sham by a dominant Arsenal side, who ran out 2-1 winners at Stamford Bridge."
I don't know how many of you saw the match on Sky, but I did - and no way would I claim Arsenal were the dominant side.
Chelsea had what seemed to me to be the majority of the possession, even if Sky did show a final possession statistic of 50-50.
There were long spells - particularly 2nd half - when Arsenal really struggled to get the ball off them, and even after Gudjohnsen's dismissal in the 2nd half, Chelsea still seemed to have most of the ball.
In fact, it seemed to me like Arsenal were playing with 9 men from beginning to end. I don't think Henry had fully recovered from his foot injury, because he was hardly mentioned. And Pires - apart from a few intermittent good spells - was also most noticeable by his lack of involvement.
Vieira also had a terrible first 15 minutes, up to the point when he scored our first goal.
Over all, I would put this down as one of those "what Champions are made of" games that pundits always refer to. Arsenal were not the dominant force the report would have you believe; on the contrary, they dug deep and - although nowhere near their best - managed to do enough to win.
So I don't really know what the reporter in question was watching.
Totti, your penalty against Siena was poor, but your still a legend.
I agree, I think Arsenal should give Dennis Bergkamp and another year.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> I can't imagine life after Bergkamp! :-(
David Bentley's looking a decent player and Reyes can also play in that role, so Arsenal do have adequate replacement for Bergkamp when he hangs his boots up. However I think Arsenal should extend Bergkamps contract for at least another couple of years because he is playing well again and in the meantime it allows the other two to find their feet in the Premiership/Europe.
> I can't imagine life after Bergkamp! :-(
David Bentley's looking a decent player and Reyes can also play in that role, so Arsenal do have adequate replacement for Bergkamp when he hangs his boots up. However I think Arsenal should extend Bergkamps contract for at least another couple of years because he is playing well again and in the meantime it allows the other two to find their feet in the Premiership/Europe.
Nah, I said it in jest, I know what you mean =P (I'd respond with a longer post, but for some reason, when I press ENTER, it's not doing anything :-/ it did this last week aswell :(
Absolu† Neó wrote:
> and Dennis Bergkamp seems to have been born again.
Agreed! Bergkamp - or "God" as he's known in our house - has really turned back the clock in the last few games. He was good today, but last weekend in the FA Cup, he was awesome.
I'm hoping Arsenal extend his contract by at least one more year - he deserves it, and is definitely still good enough.
I can't imagine life after Bergkamp! :-(
> and Dennis Bergkamp seems to have been born again.
Agreed! Bergkamp - or "God" as he's known in our house - has really turned back the clock in the last few games. He was good today, but last weekend in the FA Cup, he was awesome.
I'm hoping Arsenal extend his contract by at least one more year - he deserves it, and is definitely still good enough.
I can't imagine life after Bergkamp! :-(
Virtuoso wrote:
> You're going the through "My team's win the League now, so I'll
> support someone else for a little while" phase.
Not at all!
Though Chelsea have always been my "2nd team" since I was but an Ewok-sized WookieeMonster!
This is just an example from today, though. I notice it week in, week out, and I'm always saying "what bloody game were they watching?"
> You're going the through "My team's win the League now, so I'll
> support someone else for a little while" phase.
Not at all!
Though Chelsea have always been my "2nd team" since I was but an Ewok-sized WookieeMonster!
This is just an example from today, though. I notice it week in, week out, and I'm always saying "what bloody game were they watching?"
That is an over exaggerated comment, but i'd expect that from the media at the best of times.
Im not sure why they put in comments like that because Chelsea did play well and made Arsenal make the odd mistakes now and again (like the opening goal)
In the end Chelsea ran out of steam and Arsenal's defending was second to none and Dennis Bergkamp seems to have been born again.
Im not sure why they put in comments like that because Chelsea did play well and made Arsenal make the odd mistakes now and again (like the opening goal)
In the end Chelsea ran out of steam and Arsenal's defending was second to none and Dennis Bergkamp seems to have been born again.
You're going the through "My team's win the League now, so I'll support someone else for a little while" phase. =D
This is the first paragraph of the Chelsea v Arsenal match report on Football365.com ...
"Chelsea's title pretensions were exposed as an expensively-assembled sham by a dominant Arsenal side, who ran out 2-1 winners at Stamford Bridge."
I don't know how many of you saw the match on Sky, but I did - and no way would I claim Arsenal were the dominant side.
Chelsea had what seemed to me to be the majority of the possession, even if Sky did show a final possession statistic of 50-50.
There were long spells - particularly 2nd half - when Arsenal really struggled to get the ball off them, and even after Gudjohnsen's dismissal in the 2nd half, Chelsea still seemed to have most of the ball.
In fact, it seemed to me like Arsenal were playing with 9 men from beginning to end. I don't think Henry had fully recovered from his foot injury, because he was hardly mentioned. And Pires - apart from a few intermittent good spells - was also most noticeable by his lack of involvement.
Vieira also had a terrible first 15 minutes, up to the point when he scored our first goal.
Over all, I would put this down as one of those "what Champions are made of" games that pundits always refer to. Arsenal were not the dominant force the report would have you believe; on the contrary, they dug deep and - although nowhere near their best - managed to do enough to win.
So I don't really know what the reporter in question was watching.
"Chelsea's title pretensions were exposed as an expensively-assembled sham by a dominant Arsenal side, who ran out 2-1 winners at Stamford Bridge."
I don't know how many of you saw the match on Sky, but I did - and no way would I claim Arsenal were the dominant side.
Chelsea had what seemed to me to be the majority of the possession, even if Sky did show a final possession statistic of 50-50.
There were long spells - particularly 2nd half - when Arsenal really struggled to get the ball off them, and even after Gudjohnsen's dismissal in the 2nd half, Chelsea still seemed to have most of the ball.
In fact, it seemed to me like Arsenal were playing with 9 men from beginning to end. I don't think Henry had fully recovered from his foot injury, because he was hardly mentioned. And Pires - apart from a few intermittent good spells - was also most noticeable by his lack of involvement.
Vieira also had a terrible first 15 minutes, up to the point when he scored our first goal.
Over all, I would put this down as one of those "what Champions are made of" games that pundits always refer to. Arsenal were not the dominant force the report would have you believe; on the contrary, they dug deep and - although nowhere near their best - managed to do enough to win.
So I don't really know what the reporter in question was watching.