aieromon:

The Owen deal shocked me.i just pray it turns out well like the Larsson deal.
Why can't AF buy Huntellar?

Because you guys dont have the money!

dayokanu:

Man Utd sold CR7 and Tevez to buy Michael Owen and Antonio Valencia,

Ferguson = Senility

dayokanu:

Man Utd sold CR7 and Tevez to buy Michael Owen and Antonio Valencia,

Ferguson = Senility

~Sauron~:

Man Utd + Owen + Valencia will still beat Bayern Munich home n away.
Such is the quality of the squad that we can take any half-decent player and still win the title.
Didn't we sign Henrik Larsson at 35 some seasons ago?

Dayo, something happened to your retentive memory?

Phony200:

Lol, I'm tired of all the talk about Owen, let him play first. If Larsson can do it, I wonder why Owen can't.

~Sauron~:

Another David N'Gog coming to OT.
I saw the lad play in the Toulon tournament when they were taken apart by Chile and he was very brilliant.
He needs at least 2 years to break into the first team of Man Utd but i would take him.

FBS:

I would say France played better than Chile only that they (French team) had no clinical finisher and wasted a host of chances.
Chile scored their only chance.
But Obertan is good. He was very brilliant. I would take him W.I.E. (with immediate effect).

~Sauron~:

The Chileans were better with counter-attacks and short samba passes.
I enjoyed watching em move the ball around with little triangles a la Barcelona.
It didn't surprise me they took France apart.

FBS:

Well, it does depend on how you see it, me still think the Croissant Boyz were better.
The Chileans were rough IMHO just like the touts from Argentina (Whats up with Diego Buonanotte?).
And yes, they counter attacked very well but overall they were lost in the game. One single chance fell to Martinez and that was all that was needed.
France on the other hand played like their senior brothers. All fancy with no result.

tkb417:

why is the sudeen noise about Owen?

FBS:

Well, it does depend on how you see it, me still think the Croissant Boyz were better.
The Chileans were rough IMHO just like the touts from Argentina (Whats up with Diego Buonanotte?).
And yes, they counter attacked very well but overall they were lost in the game. One single chance fell to Martinez and that was all that was needed. France on the other hand played like their senior brothers. All fancy with no result.

Emperoh:

And thats the difference btw the winner and loser, an experienced and inexperienced side.
Remember SA v Brazil Confed 2009?

~Sauron~:

I thunk Football is about taking chances, no?
Chelsea were better than Barcelona @ SB but lost because they didn't take their chances.
Chile played like MEN. . . . .They were playing the host country in a final so they soaked up the pressure and hit on the counter.

FBS:

Again I'm not disputing this and you are right but NOT 100%. Why? because the better team does not always win. That is also football.

~Sauron~:

Are Arsenal the best side in England going by this theory of yours?

FBS:

No pun intended but Arsenal are a lost entity. Sorry to say. 
That theory does not apply to them.
Arsenal were not always the best side even when they were red hot.

FBS:

But do you agree than the better team does not always win or do you mean to say because USA beat Spain then The US are now kings?

~Sauron~:

Arsenal rarely fails to put up a majestic display everytime they play but they have not won the league in half-a-decade.
Football is about working as a team and outscoring your opponents.
100% possession, 100 shots on target, 500 corner kicks and 800 free-kicks don't mean nowt.
The name of the game is SCORING GOALS and that is where Arsenal have come short.

~Sauron~:

It depends on what you mean by the better team.
There is a better team OVERALL and a better team on the day.
When United lost to Fulham. . . . .Fulham were the better team on that DAY without a doubt. . . . .
In the USA V Spain game, USA were the better team on the night. . . . .they defended well and they outsmarted SPAIN.

~Sauron~:

Arsenal rarely fails to put up a majestic display everytime they play but they have not won the league in half-a-decade.
Football is about working as a team and outscoring your opponents.
100% possession, 100 shots on target, 500 corner kicks and 800 free-kicks don't mean nowt.
The name of the game is SCORING GOALS and that[b] is where Arsenal have come short.[/b]

~Sauron~:

Arsenal rarely fails to put up a majestic display everytime they play but they have not won the league in half-a-decade.
Football is about working as a team and outscoring your opponents.
100% possession, 100 shots on target, 500 corner kicks and 800 free-kicks don't mean nowt.
The name of the game is SCORING GOALS and that is where Arsenal have come short.

~Sauron~:

Arsenal rarely fails to put up a majestic display everytime they play but they have not won the league in half-a-decade.
Football is about working as a team and outscoring your opponents.
100% possession, 100 shots on target, 500 corner kicks and 800 free-kicks don't mean nowt.
The name of the game is SCORING GOALS and that is where Arsenal have come short.

kay_pumpin:

Arsenal's problem has never been that of scoring BUT conceeding cheeky goals.
Not just last season but since the trophyless streak started.

FBS:

Ha. Now you see my point. On the day and overall.
France IMHO were the better team overall but Chile on that day.
Thats how I see it.

The only disappointing player as I see it was the guy playing RB. None of his passes reached its target. But as a whole, I love the French team.

debosky:

WRONG!!
And I thought you were an astute observer.  

We scored the same number of league goals as Utd and Chelski last season (with Dudu out for the whole season, and Ade out for long periods), only Liverpool outscored us - we lost because we couldn't defend properly.

FBS:

tell me which team ain't guilty of that?

kay_pumpin:

Compared to the other big 3,Arsenal's folly at the back is preposterous.This shouldn't be up for argument at all.