toonotl

Every element of that comment is an exercise in meaningless. It's just a mishmash of platitudes thrown together. Pretty typical of your average football "analyst" though. She's no worse than Carragher or whoever.

We're heading for another bore draw and an anemic performance served up from our iron deficient press to satisfy our vegan overlord. Until, by the force of infinite sausages posted on a internet message board in another slither of the multiverse, the space-time continuum is torn asunder, and, in an impossible turn of events, a diet suitable only for rabbits suddenly becomes a viable means of nourishment for human beings, powering us to victory as, through the thick fog of spinach farts, "sausages", made from only the dead carcasses of our friends the animals, begin to rain from the heavens. Hail Caesar! 3-0 to us.

It was a joke. That performance by Karius was horrendous. THATS THE JOKE. Read the thread. Look at the context. Fuck me. What a moron.

I guess I'd be best to make sure that my sarcastic comments designed to be ridiculous and over the top which are clearly meant to be a joke for the exact reason that they're beyond the pale work first and foremost as advanced analysis without undue abstraction or exaggeration in the future.

I'm a tad confused. What's appalling about a sarcastic analogy between a goalkeeping error (or two) leading to a goal and a shocking miss (or three) by an attacker?

This debate reminds me of Karius' MotM performance in the CL final. Apart from stopping goals, he was brilliant. Played some wonderful passes and looked hot as fuck while doing it.

This. If your performance costs the team points then that needs to be taken into account when evaluating the performance. Gordon, for all the positive aspects of his performance, cost us points by spurning several absolutely golden opportunities to score. He didn't hide. He kept trying. The effort was exemplary. But when it came to the crunch, he bottled it -- three times. In many many instances that had limited influence on the outcome of the game, Gordon did well. In three instances when he had a clear chance to win the game, he did horribly. For me, the former does not even come close to negating the latter.

That's Gordon's worst performance for us. He should've scored a hattrick. A penalty, a free header 5-yards out, and a one-on-one 10-yards out. What an absolute dog's breakfast of a performance from him. It isn't often you can attribute a result to a single player, but given his lack of quality in front of goal today I think it's fair to say that he has cost us two points. You'd imagine he accumulated more xG than Everton's entire team. Going back to Everton clearly plays on his mind. In fact, we have to recognise that going away from St. James' in general has a markedly detrimental effect on his performance. Today was only the worst example owing to the added circumstances of it being his former club. And the rest of our attacking players weren't far behind him. We created heaps of chances and almost had free reign in the midfield. But too many wayward passes, too many poor touches in in the final third, and our finishing was truly abysmal. I was also slightly perplexed by the decision to substitute Barnes. He hadn't had the worst game of the front three up to that point. In fact, I'd argue he was our best of the front three by default in having a quiet if completely unremarkable match considering how bad Murphy & Gordon were performing. But most importantly, for me, Barnes was the only natural finisher on the park today. In a game that clearly was waiting for a moment of quality from someone to finish one of our many chances, he was the clear candidate to get the job done. I have only just finished watching the replay so perhaps he was injured or had a niggle. If not then it's a strange decision for me. I can only assume that Howe valued the added defensive output of Murphy and so kept him on instead. Otherwise it just doesn't make any sense to me. Of course, we also lacked a bit of luck here and there. If Bruno's effort goes in from the corner it's a different game. And it was a solid performance defensively. And further praise where it is due, at least we avoided throwing it away altogether at the end like we would've last season. But really a point against a side that offered us that many opportunities to score and countered with very little going forward themselves is two points dropped. A truly uninspiring run of results from Gloomy. We've moving from Charles III, to Charles I, to Charles II of Spain.

Hard work against a team that seemed happy to lose 1-0. Good to see a few of the bench players getting minutes. Considering we had 80% of possession that would've taken minimal energy from our usual starters. So all-in-all a positive evening for us.

If only the two teams agreed to not swap ends at half-time this game could've easily been played at Plough Lane.

It never ceases to amaze how little football the average co-commentator watches. They're forever getting basic stuff completely wrong. In the modern age where they'd have access to replays of every game and access to scouting/statistical information for every player there really is no excuse. It's pure laziness from ex-footballers living off the assumption that producers seem to accept that the average football supporter gives a shit about the half-baked opinion of some second-rate ex-professional.

The Dons player trying to slag off, Miggy. Unless he speaks Spanish he's got no hope.

There we go. Nice work. Wimbledon have defended very well at 0-0. Game changes completely now that they need to score.

That's a pen for sure. Why did he take ten years to give it? Big-headed hobbit mong. But thanks for the pen ... little fucker.

Nice run from Miggy. I'll leave it at that.