GreenNeedle
Vital Squad Member
Liverpool kicked it long over the top non stop last night for Salah and Mane to chase. Milner went in with brutal force to every challenge man and ball. All the pundits agreed they were sensational, played very exciting beautiful football.
Lincoln kick it over the top and it is a hoof or longball. Our players play like Milner did and they are fouling, bullying monsters.
Liverpool and Roma players clutching their body parts for half of every minute following any kind of contact is "just the modern game."
How come it is all beautiful and part of the modern game for Liverpool yet it is back to the old dark days of a bygone era for us?
Funny how Robins says Accrington are the same yet the pundits are banging on about how they play fast flowing football.
Even Colin Murray seems to be hedging hid bets when talking about us by joining the "they play a certain way" when he is praising us. I suspect though with Colin Murray he is just pre-empting what the pundit might say in his answer and thus getting it out of the way to not waste time.
Getting bored of 60-70 yard Gerrard or Beckham balls being praised as glorious for the past couple of decades yet we just hoof it.
Rhead's goal last night was equal to any of Liverpools and their whole game plan was get it forward as quickly as possible, get into the opposition and give them no time. I see no difference other than the level of the players and both are glorious examples of what is best about British football. Fast, furious, exciting, attack is the best form of defence (jumpers for goalposts. lol) and what we should have been doing all through the 90s as a nation, not continually repeating the cliche "you have to play differently in Europe or Internationals."
This is English football and why it is the best and instead of the cliches they should take their pretentious hats off, realise that you are going to have more chance of winning things if you play your own game.
We might have done better in Europe through the nineties and England might do better if they dropped this BS tag cliche "go to", played to their strengths, what they do week in, week out in the league (including PL) stopped labelling unfashionable teams as "direct" but fashionable teams as "exciting" and got back to loving English football for what it is and what dominated the European stage throughout the 70s and 80s.
Fast direct battling exciting football minus the ridiculous cliches only decided upon by who you are and a preconceived idea of superiority or pretensiousness.
John Beck's side was exciting and I loved it. Schofield's side was exciting an I loved it, Alexander's sides were exciting and I loved it and the Cowleys follow that on. I would suggest Schofield's side potentially played the "prettiest" football but would you rather have Liverpool/Lincoln of last night or some side tapping the ball around in the middle rather than "attack, attack, attack?"
I daresay most people will be on the side of fast paced exciting football without the ridiculous labels.
Lincoln kick it over the top and it is a hoof or longball. Our players play like Milner did and they are fouling, bullying monsters.
Liverpool and Roma players clutching their body parts for half of every minute following any kind of contact is "just the modern game."
How come it is all beautiful and part of the modern game for Liverpool yet it is back to the old dark days of a bygone era for us?
Funny how Robins says Accrington are the same yet the pundits are banging on about how they play fast flowing football.
Even Colin Murray seems to be hedging hid bets when talking about us by joining the "they play a certain way" when he is praising us. I suspect though with Colin Murray he is just pre-empting what the pundit might say in his answer and thus getting it out of the way to not waste time.
Getting bored of 60-70 yard Gerrard or Beckham balls being praised as glorious for the past couple of decades yet we just hoof it.
Rhead's goal last night was equal to any of Liverpools and their whole game plan was get it forward as quickly as possible, get into the opposition and give them no time. I see no difference other than the level of the players and both are glorious examples of what is best about British football. Fast, furious, exciting, attack is the best form of defence (jumpers for goalposts. lol) and what we should have been doing all through the 90s as a nation, not continually repeating the cliche "you have to play differently in Europe or Internationals."
This is English football and why it is the best and instead of the cliches they should take their pretentious hats off, realise that you are going to have more chance of winning things if you play your own game.
We might have done better in Europe through the nineties and England might do better if they dropped this BS tag cliche "go to", played to their strengths, what they do week in, week out in the league (including PL) stopped labelling unfashionable teams as "direct" but fashionable teams as "exciting" and got back to loving English football for what it is and what dominated the European stage throughout the 70s and 80s.
Fast direct battling exciting football minus the ridiculous cliches only decided upon by who you are and a preconceived idea of superiority or pretensiousness.
John Beck's side was exciting and I loved it. Schofield's side was exciting an I loved it, Alexander's sides were exciting and I loved it and the Cowleys follow that on. I would suggest Schofield's side potentially played the "prettiest" football but would you rather have Liverpool/Lincoln of last night or some side tapping the ball around in the middle rather than "attack, attack, attack?"
I daresay most people will be on the side of fast paced exciting football without the ridiculous labels.
