₦airaland Forum

BlueMann:
It's not cap. Many people generally regard shots as being in two categories: shots on target, and shots off target. By this logic, off target is the one that is not on target. If e no dey on target, na off target.

I'm not saying that's that it is, I'm saying a lot of people generalize like this.

Even if we had only off target and on target. A blocked shot can be on target do you agree?

OVA200:
That's what I'm saying now.

That shot can be deflected and be on target or off target.

And we know a shot can be deflected by attempting to block it.

Let me show you something you are not considering. When a player takes a shot and it gets deflected but goes into the goal post, they still have to decide if the original shot was on target before the deflection. If it was, the goal is credited to him, if it was not, the goal is considered an own goal. That should tell you that the only condition a deflected shot is ruled off target is when the original shot was already off target (which is harder to tell by the way).

BlueMann:
I think attempts can be categorized into three: on target, on target and blocked. All these put together amount to total shots.

What uncle dayo has been doing is smartly throwing 'on target and off target' around, making it seem as though Chelsea didn't manage a single shot in the game, since shots off target and blocked shots are usually classed as the same by many.

I can't speak for him but I think the point he is making was how sterile Chelsea attack was made to look. The italicised part of your statement is cap sha. lol

OVA200:
What of a shot that deflected and narrowly missed the goal?

That shot off target bro.

If it missed the goal it will still be a blocked shot. I am talking about how data is curated. That is why you have a category for blocked shot, off target, on target and shots (which signifies total shots). Chelsea had shots (which came from blocked shots) but no shot off or on target. An off target is a shot that goes off the mark without a deflection.

OVA200:
Okay
What about a deflected shot?

Deflected to what direction? If towards the goal where the keeper saves it or it goes in, it will be on target, if away from goal such that it goes out of play it will be a blocked shot, if still in play it will be a blocked shot.

Great100000:
Please Sir, list there achivement in the past 5 Years

Use Google

City have won 10 trophies in the last 5 years.

OVA200:
Shot is either on target or off target; a blocked shot is still an off target strike.

We don't have shot on target but we have off target.
So stop the fallacy.

Nah, this is cap. Completely bogus. A blocked shot is not an off target shot. You are the one being fallacious.

Great100000:
The person you're quoting is a Chelsea hater, he even said is Man City Chelsea mate? imagine an insult to Chelsea, is it the same Man City or other Man City he dey talk about, or is it not the same Man City Chelsea raped left right center last season, so just they scored deflection Goal yesterday now Man City no be Chelsea mate again.... Some people don't even understand football at all.

FYI, Arsenal, Man Utd, Chelsea & Liverpool are not Man City mate at all, if that person know then he know....

They will just be saying as if Man City is Barcelona or Bayern Munich.

This makes no sense. CFC winning goal in the 2-1 league win against city was also a deflected goal.

Stop with the selective amnesia.

Great100000:
Maybe according to them, City mate na Real Madrid, Bayern, Barcelona,

City is currently better than both RM and Barcelona. They are on par with Bayern.

Great100000:
How is city better than Chelsea?

Play better than Chelsea.
Win more than Chelsea
Achieved more than Chelsea in the past 5 seasons.

Simple enough?

Angelfrost:
...And why exactly will City be an exception but not Chelsea?!!! Please, explain how City is more unlikely than Chelsea to lose to Arsenal this season.

City are better than Chelsea.

NinjaMetahuman:
oga, if you don't understand what prime Messi means in this context of the argument we are having, then I have nothing to say than I have heard you o.

There is no context in the world that will make anyone claim Messi of 2008/09 was prime. Same way no United fan will tell you CR7 was at his prime in 2006/07 when he won his first EPL title.

NinjaMetahuman:
right

He played 12 champions league game and scored 9 goals.
Still upcoming.

Do you know what a player's prime means?

See the attached and explain how 2008-2009 season was prime Messi.

Jodera:
Everything is about Havertz, Havertz, Havertz!!!.
Kilode!!

Even Barca fans wey been get prime messi no bring up agenda upon agenda to structure barca around messi the way you're doing with Havertz.
Let Havertz prove his worth both with goals and assist and influence and Chelsea team will be structured around him automatically. It's a normal thing all clubs do right from ikorodu fc to Real Madrid.
No dey force this thing down anyone throat cos nobody go swallow am!

I agree with you completely even though I agree with him about Harvertz' potential. Harvertz has the talent to be worldclass. He is just not there yet.

NinjaMetahuman:
Tuchel didn't have prime Messi to win UCL for him.

And now he has shown he doesn't need Messi or ronaldo to win UCL unlike apari that bottled UCL final with 1billlion pound team to the likes of Mason mount

Where is fraudiola's UCL without Messi?

Messi was not at his prime in 2008/09

Lordemperoris100:
Boss check well, those matches were under Jose Mourinho

one of them was Pellegrini as well. The Rashford 1-0 United win. The 1-0 Mata goal was Mourinho but in the Carabao cup.

Havertz10:
England playing fluid football

I wonder why

raumdeuter:
This is very funny when you find out why it's funny you will be very ashamed

popizaino:
It is always straight red card till it is man united in Chelsea position, na there you go know say rule dey change instantly.

Refs favour United everyone knows it.

iamoyindamola:
Bros he touched his thigh first na

No, after ricocheting off his thigh the ball was spinning into the post. If it just hit his hand, it would have been a penalty with no card but Reece put out his hand to direct the ball away from goal thus stopping a goal scoring opportunity. That is a red card offense.

Nah, it was a straight red. Upon seeing the replay, the Ref was right. Sad but true.

Havertz10:
Pep guardiola announced last night that once his deal ends 2023, he will take another sabbatical

Ronaldo's return will trigger a cascade of events in football, I expect plenty more moves

Nah, he came out today to debunk this. He said after his time in MCFC he will go on to attempt national team coaching. He said he could sign a new contract or even be fired in 2 months but he was not limiting his stay till 2023.

3minssex:
You're a wise man. Ronaldo's arrival doesn't change anything for man u,they won't lift any trophy. Even spoon they won't see.

Chelsea FC is the team to beat. CR7 in United is like adding Knorr cubes inside an already sour soup.

Havertz10:
Jude Bellingham, I don't rate british players but he is someone I regard, good player, very technical, hopefully he goes to a big team and becomes a star, how England can have a quality player like that and be playing those idiots in midfield

The boy is one for the future. Him, Musiala at Bayern, at their age, are something else.

ChristoBam:
Juve values him at 25m. And there's a chance at negotiation. If Ronaldo wanted to come to United, we'd be all over the deal.

Juventus still owe RM 30M euros of CR7's transfer fee, so they want MCFC to help them cover it so they can take the player. CR7's salary in Juventus was 31M euros/year gross and MCFC offered him 20M euros/year net.

Khanben:
His name is Kareem Abdul jabbar

His name is Lewis Alcindor

Don't be in a hurry to comment @ Mendy news. Remember CHO had his and he ended up being not guilty.

Roland17:
What you are saying is at total variance with what he is saying.

What is the need of saying other HOF players have become Mayors and Business Moguls? What exactly? if not to measure success? And for the records he did not clarify when I asked him if being on TV is a yardstick for measuring success..His response was [b]"Not really?" [/b]is that a definitive answer to you? As for being liked, there is nothing new about @birdman and his choice of narrative being linked to his likeness or hatred for a player.. It is his normal MO. Talking about likeness, where and which world is KG hated in the NBA? @Birdman is the same person who erroneously argued that CP3 was very much liked in the NBA community which is obviously false. Is it every NBA HOF that has a show? What you are speaking about is at huge variance from what he is alluding to..

I can be a huge critic of Lebron's game but I am neva and have never being shy to admit how much influence he exerts in the AA community or the degree of work he has put in the AA community.

Remember I said in my opinion, because it is based on how I understood him. To me, he was not talking about KG as though he was an unsuccessful bum. His HOF credentials is why his jersey is being retired, but birdman felt like a player of his status should be getting interviews on many basketball shows and his opinion should be sought after. That is how I understood his dig at him with respect to his attitude. When you asked him if that was his way of measuring success i.e doing shows, getting interviews, he accepted that there are many ways to quantify success but he was only establishing the like-ability dynamic to success. Mayors are voted right? Which means they are charismatic and likeable. Moguls are successful but what type of mogul? Dwayne Wade, Barkley, Shaq have become media moguls if you please. They might be controversial but people do like hearing their opinion etc because even with their controversy, they are like-able. Bill Russell and Lew Alcindor are people still revered even for their opinions but that is not really the case with KG even though he is rich. That does not mean I think he is not likeable FYI. I am telling you how I understood what birdman was saying.

Roland17:
I respectfully disagree

I don't speak for Birdman but it was clear he was praising KG for getting his jersey retired and suggesting that his attitude was the reason he was not gracing shows, making appearances and interviews like other HOFs. You asked him if doing those things equated to success and he admitted that KG might have money but that he is not liked like Kobe was. You bringing up his wealth does not relate with what Birdman was saying IMO.

Roland17:
This is absolutely petty coming from you especially since you live in America. What exactly is the purpose of this argument? I have asked you initially.. Is appearing on mainstream media as a pundit or having a show the most important yardstick for measuring success (including financial) for a HOF player?

Coherence, eloquence is not the greatest skill for many African American players. I mean we read their tweets and know many of them can't spell correctly, worth more writing.. This man was drafted out of high school and the only thing that mattered to him was getting out of poverty which is the same story for many African American men playing in the NBA..

I ask you again, what is your point? Is KG poor now? Is he hungry? Is he broke because he is not on TV? What exactly is the purpose of this debate? I already know you don't like KG or the Celtics for that matter but what is the goal here? Someone proposed $200M of his money to invest in the purchase of the Timberwolves, has financial stakes with the Boston Red Sox, has invested portfolios in tech business and other numerous investments yet, it is not having a show on mainstream media that is his biggest downfall?

Because who is on TV? which HOF is on TV doing TV? Chuck/Shaq? who else? What are you trying to achieve here is what I want to know..

I know Birdman hates the Celtics like he does the warriors but I think you misunderstood him.

ChristineC:
they may be expecting club a, b, c, d & e to throw in their hats, but what if there's no bidding war? don't think that's impossible, after all only Chelsea made any attempt to sign him this summer.
we could as well get to the next transfer window and it's only one club making any serious moves for Haaland, what then?
the reported reason United backed out of an earlier deal was because they wanted a buy out clause inserted.
the guy and his reps will be hoping for another cash out sometime in future anyways because they are clearly out to make money. they may not have it all their way this one time.

You are right. There may not be a bidding war with that many teams which is why I mentioned 2/3 that could really do it. Of course, that depends on MCFC getting Kane. If they don't, they'll join the party. Chelsea's attempt failed because Dortmund wanted a figure above 160M GBP. Of course CFC would have done it if that was all it was. The issue was, Mino and his dad had already told CFC what their fees will be, and with all that put together, CFC knew the figure would be ridiculous. The United deal that fell through was when Haaland was leaving Salzburg, right? Because United made no bid for the player this season. And even if only one club was still interested and capable of getting Haaland this coming season, it will still be on his own terms because he still has a contract with Dortmund. He can decide to sign a new contract with them and they will offer him more than Jadon had before he left. The ball is really in his court no matter how anyone looks at it. See his mate, Kylian for example.

Oasis007:
I get you Bro, but still it shouldn't in no way pass £100m. Release Clause is €60m+. €30m should be enough to take care of Mino and his Dad. €20m for Mino and €10m for his Dad.

Haaland is currently earning £141k pw at BVB, £200k/230k should be ok to nail him down on a 7yrs Contract.

lol. Impossible. You say these things like Mino and his Dad want to do you a favor. As for his wages, the reason it is that low is, Haaland refused to sign a new deal which is why he would have all the control next year. He is not going to be paid less than Mbappe. Just watch and see.