₦airaland Forum

Jodera:
Is seems you missed the second question

Is penalty not another platform for winning?

If it is a platform, it is not the objective. Did you see Mbappé smiling after the WC finals? LOL

Jodera:
You're the one arguing for nothing.

What are the means to an end (which is winning)?

Answers
1... Winning through normal time
2... Winning through Penalties (ie if you cannot win through normal time)


So how will you say most teams don't play to participate in penalties when time and time again history have shown every year that team does

Once you say winning THROUGH. . .

Your statement ends. You have now checkmated yourself. You have identified the objective.

Jodera:
So City can't win through penalty?

Is penalty not another platform for winning?

See it again. Just incase it walked by you.

Jodera:
Lol... This is childish talk na


So one can't win through penalty or what?


England knows it'll be difficult to win Nigeria through regulation time. Why would they walk out when the best bet to win Nigeria is through Penalties?

You have answered yourself.

Jodera:
So City can't win through penalty?

Is penalty not another platform for winning?

Since it is a means to an end but not an end itself can you see that you have been arguing for nothing?

Jodera:
when he made those subs in the dying minutes

Did Arteta play to get to penalties or not? Yes or No

Did Trossard goal get us to penalties? Yes or No

You can keep beating around the bush when the answer is staring at you

Sorry but your argument is just getting silly at this point.

So Arteta wanted to get to penalties just to get to penalties?

Jodera:
Just say you did not watch the ball, especially after the red card

England played to win. If they did not, they could have walked off the pitch as soon as it was time for the shoot outs. LOL.

Jodera:
City wasn't playing to get to penalties but getting to penalties is not the worst result if you can't win in match in normal time.

And that's what Palmer's goal ensured it did

No it did not ensure it. Trossard's goal ensured it.

Nobody is talking about worst result. City played to win.

Jodera:
Lol, and who told you this misconception again??

When Arteta was bringing in Trossard, Nketiah and Smith Rowe, what do you think the plan was especially as time was running out, knowing fully well there's no extra time?

What do you think the average arsenal fan was praying for to happen in that few minutes?

You think I and my friends was seated that day hoping and praying for us to score Man city two goals just so that we'll win the match?


Abeg no make me laugh with this your funny takes this night. You're more than that biko


NB: There are many examples of Matches teams play just to participate in penalties.

Example, England Vs Nigeria just ystdy is a very very good example. Everyone who watched that ball knows fully well that the England team was just playing to participate in penalties in order for them to win that game.

Stop thinking football in black and white. In fact, football is the last thing to think it such!

England played to win.

Jodera:
I did not say you dragged Palmer and I never insinuated so

Palmer have created the platform for Man city to win through penalty shootout (since it wasn't enough through normal time).

It's up to the penalty takers to do their job which fortunately for us, Kdb and Rodri didn't do theirs.

How then does that make Palmer's goal inconsequential?

Palmer's goal would have been the DECIDER had we won 1-0. It would have been consequential if we won the PK shootout.

As long as City did not win the game, we did not achieve our objective thus the goal Palmer scored was inconsequential.

Jodera:
Lol, and who told you this misconception again??

When Arteta was bringing in Trossard, Nketiah and Smith Rowe, what do you think the plan was especially as time was running out, knowing fully well there's no extra time?

What do you think the average arsenal fan was praying for to happen in that few minutes?

You think I and my friends was seated that day hoping and praying for us to score Man city two goals just so that we'll win the match?


Abeg no make me laugh with this your funny takes this night. You're more than that biko

Ok, Arteta was making subs so that he could get to penalties to lose? Trossard's goal was consequential because Arsenal won. So his goal helped Arsenal achieve her objective. If you got to the penalties and still lost to City, the goal would have been inconsequential.

It is not that hard.

How don't you get it?

Jodera:
Lol... You're just evading the question sha. You're so smart with that and it was expected

A goal gave you a platform to win a game through Penalties.

Whether the team uses that platform judiciously or not is another discourse entirely.

As long as that goal provides that platform, It's never ever inconsequential.

Maybe the word "inconsequential" have a new meaning that I'm oblivious to

So City were playing to get to penalties?

OVA200:
Person go dey yarn rubbish with full chest.

How can a goal that push the team to penalty be inconsequential?

Without palmer's goal arsenal win in the 90 minutes.

Penalty is different reality.

Without Palmer's goal why will Arsenal not win if they would have scored the only goal of the game?

Victor Oladimeji. If you were not a Chelsea fan I would have been surprised.

You don't play to participate in penalties. You play to WIN.

If your goals don't win you the game in a final, they were INCONSEQUENTIAL. Period.

FakeNEWSevryday:
I think his position was that @ the end of the day, Arsenal won the trophy🏆
Look at Kane he has scored hundreds of goals without winning any trophy but Foden has not scored half of his goals but had trophies, so Kane's goals is inconsequential (less important) to the trophies foden had won.

I am surprised at Jodera tbh. Some other people less so but Jodera has always been someone who thinks logically.

He asked that I did not "drag" KdB and Rodri - I dragged Palmer?

Haba. How can I be dragging the team I support?

They think I am saying the player did not play well or what?

MorataFC:
🤣🤣🤣
Android17 Oya answer the question
Is Mbappe hat trick also inconsequential?

What was the consequence of Mbappé's goals to France's objective?

Jodera:
I asked a question

A goal that determines one's team to [b]participate in penalties, how is it inconsequential?[/b]

When you answer that, we can now go to the next stage whether city won it or not.

I had to make sure it was you many times before responding.

Just read what you wrote again then think deeply.

I highlighted the part that shows you are rushing to respond without understanding what is being discussed.

Jodera:
I do respect your views most times cos you've a way of giving very valid points but Omorr you see this bolded..... Lai lai!!!

Anywhere you read that stuff or anything that made you believe that hogwash is what I don't understand.

A goal that made both teams play Penalties to decide the winner is what you termed INCONSEQUENTIAL because his team lost on penalties?

How can a goal be Inconsequential when it's the main decider for penalty shootout?

Imagine someone calling Mbappe WC final hat trick inconsequential France eventually lost out on penalties?

Do you know how light Inconsequential means for you to degenerate Palmer's goal to such extent?

Did City win?

MorataFC:
I know you registered to this forum in 2017 and your moniker is android17 and am dead sure also that you are still using an Android phone that was manufactured in 2017 that's why you are not updated on the new trends, bros wake up we are in 2023, not 2017.

BTW, someone should help me tell this guy the meaning of inconsequential 'cos his phone is outdated and can't perform such a task.

Says the dummy that could not even tell from his analogy that the reason a consolatory goal is regarded as inconsequential is because it did not affect the game to favour the scorer of the goal. You may score a goal but your team lost = INCONSEQUENTIAL.

BTW, stop making jokes about how advanced I am etc. I've been wavy since forever.

MorataFC:
You are the one that is speaking nonsense with confidence, do you really know the meaning of the word inconsequential?
You sounded as if Arsenal is leading like 3 to 4 goals to nothing, then Man City now score a consolation goal in die-minute.
How can a game that end up as a 1-1 draw and one of the goals is tagged as an inconsequential goal?
You need to be charged for this blunder, walahi.

This is not a league game where both teams would have shared points. That is when you bring up a draw.

Palmer's goal did not influence the result in City's favour. It was INCONSEQUENTIAL.

OlodorabataFC.

Jodera:
You go need explain that bolded sha.

Are you saying Palmer's goal was inconsequential because we equalised and eventually won through Penalties?

For a goal to be consequential it means it affected the outcome of the game in the scorer's side.

Did Palmer's goal affect the outcome of the game in City's favour?

MorataFC:
You are the one that is talking off tangent, I never said Arsenal had more shots on target than City, so if you don't know the core of the debate you better read well in order not to misyarn.
I said I was shivering the way Arsenal play against City to the extent that City did not have a single shot on target in the first half.
How does that translate that Arsenal have more shot on target than City?

Mr xG, maybe you need to tell FIFA to begin to award trophies for the team that has more xG now.
A fluke goal is better than a 1 trillion xG failed goal, is that hard for you to digest?

Off Point


Smh
. Another Off point.
So you mean man city's goal was inconsequential?

Another Off point, how is my prediction from last season collaborating with what we are saying here?

I realized I am chatting with someone who has problems with comprehension.

If a goal was consequential why did City still lose the game? Yea. You don't know what it means for something to be inconsequential.

Read. Digest. Reply.

Till then, not wasting my time trying to educate you.

MorataFC:
Shot on target & Stats can't win you a match but goal(s)
...and again do I need to remind you that a single goal >>>>> 1 million shots on target?
So rest

You are now typing off tangent. You were arguing about shot on target and which team had more, have you now confirmed you were wrong? It was City not Arsenal like you alluded to.

Who better xG help?
So FA will now give the trophy to a team that has a better xG against the one that has goals?
As I said earlier 100 xG is less than a fluke goal
So, rest

Off point again. The xG was to tell you that City's chances with Rodri and Foden were rated as better quality than Havertz' hence why I said they SHOULD HAVE scored more probably than he should have. Stop replying for the sake of it. Read, digest then reply.

You are the one that use the word "should have scored" and such a statement is invalid in a game of football because nearly does not kill a bird.

for the Umpteenth time, if someone had a penalty, the expression will be the person should have scored it since it is rated as an 8/10 chance. You don't say Palmer should have scored his because that is a lower quality chance. Read. Understand. Reply.

Hmmm, clap for yaself.
An Inconsequential moment in a game of football?
Have you not watched a match and the goal is scored in the very first minute and that settles it?
There is nothing like inconsequential moment in a game of football, it is a game of 90 minutes and every minute counts, you lose guard and you're punished for it.

Won't you first acknowledge you responded without understanding? Next, I don't eat waffles for lunch so please stop sending them my way. You don't have to reply if you have nothing to say. There is nothing like inconsequential moment of a game yet City that scored first did not win? LOL

Oga, the better team won so rest.

Who decided the better team? You who were cocksure City won't beat Inter? LOL

Kantebets:
if we get caicedo our midfield overtakes theirs and we are already better in defense than those bottlers also united edges ahead of them so maybe they end 4th

No your midfield does not overtake theirs. They got the 2nd best midfield last season and guess what? They added Declan Rice to it. The team that finished 2nd in the league added Declan Rice to their roster.

Give yourself brain.

MorataFC:
What are you saying sef?
It was counted as a blocked shot for a reason.

Foden and Rodri should have scored?
What do you mean by saying "should have scored"
Maybe we should begin to award trophies to players who should have scored but failed to do so.
Chelsea should have won premier league last season if not for Sterling's lacklustre display in front of goal
Chelsea should have won UCL last season if not that our supposedly goal-bound shots became blocked shots.
In short Chelsea should have won treble last season if not that we sacked a champion league manager and replaced him with a Potty.

Harvetz's chances are inconsequential but Foden and Rodri are not? Dey play, just dey play.

1. A blocked shot is not a shot on target. City had more shots on target according to the stats. That settles your argument with the other guy.

2. Foden and Rodri had shots on target with better XG because they were closer to the goal post when the keeper made the save. Just like you can say someone should have scored a penalty.

3. Your use of should have does not filter through the logic test. Chelsea did not miss more chances than the number that City and Arsenal made and scored to finish 1st and 2nd. You can say Arsenal should have won the league when they led by 8 points. . .because they were on course to even getting 99 points which would have won them the league. Use the same logic for the UCL etc. Stop throwing words around.

4. Havertz chance was at an inconsequential MOMENT. One rule of thumb for reading is to read all the words in a sentence. Then pause and make sure you understand it before hitting reply.

By the way, inconsequential moment means at an earlier time of the game that City had more than enough time to react. That is why City still scored first and then went on to have the better chance to score again from Fodens 1 v 1 against the keeper.

Unlimited22:
At least not yet. He's a clever player, he eventually will. Which was the point I was making but Oga Alphabet Inc. started talking about friendly and formation from nowhere.

You can't mention 3 players since Pep has been in City, who picked up and blended with the team faster than Kovacic. You don't need to believe me. Just read the comments of majority of the City fans and pundits alike. In fact, if you were watching Kovacic and Haaland, one would have thought that Erling was the new player and Kovacic had been there for 5 years.

You guys and your penchant for hot takes. SMH

A wise man once said, If you find yourself in a hole. Just stop digging.

Godx:
You are quite right in a way. Kovacic doesn't offer anything significant in this Pep system.

LOL.

MorataFC:
How many on target did Man City get?
I think we should start from there.

You will lose the argument you are trying to make. When a defender blocks a shot, it is not counted as a shot on target.

Both Foden and Rodri should have scored when City already led that would have put the game out of sight.

Usually, football matches are about moments. When Leicester beat City 2 years ago, it was because they got a last minute penalty following a Nathan Aké mistake. So bringing up the Harvertz chance(s) at inconsequential moments is not the mic drop moment you think it is.

Kantebets:
let me remind u that leicester and liverpool beat this city team in charity shield and yet finished outside top 4 same season.That aside i didnt see any special thing about arsenal attack today bar their lucky goal

They are better than 90% of the league and will finish top 4. That is what you said would not happen that I have challenged. Nobody is saying they will win the league. Atleast not me.

Greatihex:
No dey talk rubbish, Oga. Pep was trying formations, but looked devastated when Arsenal equalised.

Yea, he should be happy that his team conceded a goal in the 101st min of the game.

Clap for yourself.

Unlimited22:
I said one thing, you read another.

Oga rest.

Mtcheww.

hensben:
You are not making sense bruv. Enzo need a defensive partnering like Kante and Jorginho. Santos too inexperience for that while Gallagher is not a CDM nor box to box, he is average too or you want us to turn into mid table team. When Madrid tried to use Kroos as CDM last season we all saw how they were pummeled by city and some la liga teams.

I like Enzo. I'm just dragging him because of agenda.