flyin' said:
You're too serious.
But on the matter of entertaining football. 4-1 and 5-1 aren't entertaining enough eh? If scoring goals isn't a sign of good football, I don't know what is. You mean "passing" football, right? I remember Big Sam saying something about Arsenal playing for penalties with a 4-5-1. So much for entertaining football.
Btw, funny signature.
my post was made in jest pal. if you're entertained by hack hack hoof, then there you go. two games where teams pretty much rolled over and died doesn't suddenly make you entertaining.
using big sam as a yardstick for all performance is funny though. like him you musn't have watched how arsenal have played over the past decade since wenger came around, but instead choose to isolate one game? jeeze, i'm a young'n but i'm not that stupid, and to top it all off i'm a spurs supporter. maybe you should take the blinkers off, or stop trolling perhaps?
bazookajoe said:
And yet Chelsea have scored over double the amount of goals that Tottenham have, in the same amount of games.
Chelsea have attempted 118 shots with 60 on target, Tottenham have attempted 86 with 44 on target.
Chelsea haven't gone a game without scoring, Tottenham have had three.
What more do you want?
chelsea have also spent around 250m more than spurs over the past three years, you'd expect them to have a better attack than lil' old spurs wouldnt you? a team with no contraints whatsoever in comparison to any other team in the world, and they decide to play the most sterile type of game imaginable.
but don't worry, at least mourinho doesnt tell his players to go out and hack the shit out of other teams like fat sam does. wonder how his half time talk went on the weekend?