Ok
Michael Owen has always been a cringe monster
- Thread starter Murder on Zidane's Floor
- Start date
As far as Beckham , I hate to admit it but he is the most likable person on earth so he gets a pass.
Is this a real opinion you actually hold, or one of those subtle attempts at trolling. Christ
I was replying to a point about being upset about Owen to united. Owen going there did not upset me, united going after him did. They didn’t need him so obviously it was a jab aimed at Liverpool. Hence the lack of class in my opinion.
Is this a real opinion you actually hold, or one of those subtle attempts at trolling. Christ
Liverpool signed Heinze, and Ince.
Did they?
Absolutely, it's comical
Did they feck?
No. My bad. Memory is getting a little frazzled in my dotage.
They tried to sign Heinze when he lost his will to fight Evra for his position...
That's what I was remembering. Didn't he try to push through the move or am I wrong on that as well? I'm sure there was good reason to be miffed with him.
United blocked it, I might be remembering this wrong but I think he tried to take United to court over them blocking the move and lost or he tried to sue them retrospectively and lost.
How have you just made this up? Amazing.
I knew there was good reason for not liking him.
This was what I was thinking about. I knew I hate Heinz, and that it was because of a move to Liverpool but couldn't remember the outcome. Shoot me.How have you just made this up? Amazing.
Wish we just gave Liverpool Heinze.
At 2:04 Fergie having a laugh with the fourth official winding up Hughes is glorious
I'd say that's entirely possible. Few trophies under his belt in a, pretty much, one team league, then back home. Great for Harry...
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Context?
I think I'm actually siding with Owen on this. Firstly the Mail is definitely filled with scumbags and secondly, shows like that can help people get why certain decisions were made.
I dont get the recent demand to "challenge" refs. Telling refs they're shite won't make them get the next call right. If anything, it'll make it harder for them to do their job with even more shrill screams heading in their direction.
I dont get the recent demand to "challenge" refs. Telling refs they're shite won't make them get the next call right. If anything, it'll make it harder for them to do their job with even more shrill screams heading in their direction.
My take as well
That's how media works. But I'm interested in this battle between gobshites.
I like Owen.
A Liverpool hero, scoring the winner for United in a Manchester vs Manchester game.
A really good moment.
A Liverpool hero, scoring the winner for United in a Manchester vs Manchester game.
A really good moment.
Owen raises a fair point. It's very annoying when the like of the mail use a couple of controversial takes from complete randomers and portray it as a general consensus and even use as a headline. See it a lot with United related news also, often to do with ETH
You can agree with him all you want, the point is that Owen has a) never watched a movie and b) never had a cup of tea.
In other words, he's either an incredibly boring maniac, an incredibly boring alien or an incredibly boring cyborg.
(Or a combination. But if so, an incredibly boring combination.)
In other words, he's either an incredibly boring maniac, an incredibly boring alien or an incredibly boring cyborg.
(Or a combination. But if so, an incredibly boring combination.)
Comments on there are mainly from butthurt arsenal fans still annoyed over the Newcastle game. Some do have a point though; that programme will be a waste of time as they'll largely avoid the decisions they get massively wrong and nobody will ever question them over it on the show, It's exactly the same when they have Dermot Gallagher on sky too.
Giggs.
It didn't help me get anything at all. I'm still none the wiser why they randomly pick and choose when rules apply and use VAR to make highly subjective calls yet sometimes don't use it to correct factually wrong ones.
Maybe for example if they sat and explained why Mctominay's goal vs Fulham was ruled out for the most vague non interfering offside in history, while Rashford last season was allowed to have the ball directly passed to him while offside and then run after it until it directly created a goal, and that was ok, I might find it insightful...but of course there is no explanation other than incompetence/inability to interpret and apply the rules consistently. Why is VAR interfering at all if its purely to force a different subjective down the ref's throat as opposed to showing him something he missed?
Maybe if they talked about why Mike Dean over a very large sample of games, booked one specific team's players twice as often as any other team, despite no other ref doing this during the same period, I might find it insightful. It would be very interesting to know why that was allowed to happen.
I do like that they release that audio but I don't know why Michael Owen needs to be involved in that, and Howard Webb does not inspire me with confidence at all. Also the audio doesn't really help them in some cases.
For example the Liverpol offside vs Spurs. Also didn't inspire me with confidence when they released the audio and footage for the Romero penalty/red card. The lines they use for the offside some guy just guesses where they should go, and he kept putting them in completely the wrong place and the other guy had to keep telling him to move them. How is that part not automated? Then they started looking at the wrong tackle, then eventually got to the Romero one and nearly brusjed it off as a good challenge. The only one who looked OK out of that was Oliver who kept asking them to show him the challenge at full speed, which they didn't except from one really stupid angle. They got to the right decision but it seemed to be half through pure luck. If there was no offside on the original goal they wouldn't even have looked at Romero trying to break someone's leg.
The Newcastle goal is one where I'd have sympathy with them anyway as there's no decision you can give that isn't going to result in an uproar.
Anyway in summary Michael Owen is a very boring man.
c) dribbled through school boys in PE outfit just to show his talent superiority
As a historian I believe he’s a throwback.
Quite possibly. I saw an interview he did recently and he actually indirectly referenced this in a roundabout way. From memory, he said something like being neurodivergent (without actually using the term). Even talking about his career he was more reflective and humble than my previous perception of him.
Scumbags can also be correct in their observations, and it's fairly obvious that the intention, atleast from Webbs side, is to get a more positive spin around the use of VAR in the Premier League. Like talking about the brilliance of VAR in the situation where Chelsea got a penalty against Tottenham, such great use in what as an absolutely obvious call they had to make. They are being selectively transparent in terms of the audio they release and the decisions they debate, and there's no real attempt to ask Webb any difficult questions, like Webb in some cases releasing the actual audio and in other he's giving his interpretation of what the referee might have been thinking.
It's like a complete reset every episode. Aaah, now we understand why these decisions were made, it's the complete opposite from more or less identical situations last weekend but lets not focus on that.
It's not as if it's about challenging the refs in public, telling them that they're shite, it's about challenging the implementation of a system that's clearly causing controversial decisions due to thresholds put in place , like clear and obvious, by people like Webb, and how it's being handled. If anything, it should be about challenging Webb and not the referees doing what they are told. An example: Go back to our match against Arsenal last year, where Arsenal had a disallowed goal due to VAR reacting to a foul in the build up that the referee waved on. This was listed as a VAR mistake because the higher ups didn't agree that the thresholds for clear and obvious had been met, their feeling was that the referee on the pitch accepted the level of contact and VAR should've stayed out. Everyone could see it was a clear foul, where Eriksen was taken out before the ball was even touched, but the entire focus was the threshold for on the pitch decisions and not re-refereeing games.
Then you have the penalty situation between Wolves and Newcastle, It's easy to understand why Anthony Taylor, with his view of the situation, thought there was more contact and that it was a penalty. VAR looks to see if it's clear and obvious that the on pitch decision by Taylor is wrong, and while you can see it's not really a penalty you can also see Hwang connect with the Newcastle player and VAR is stuck with Taylors subjective on the pitch decision. YET, in this case, we suddenly have a turnaround where Webb is now asking VAR to send the referee to the monitor to have another look at it.
If i had Webb in a studio, the obvious route would be to bring up the amount of very similar situations and ask why there's such a big difference in reactions, and why the solution isn't to consistently ask the referee what he saw and then compare it to the video, rather than Webb's suggested solution of only doing it in some cases. The outcome of the Wolves penalty decision, that really wasn't mental compared to other decisions, is that Taylor got demoted as punishment. Now, i'm not much of a fan of Taylor, but the use of demotions as punishment for a situation like that seems strange.
What about the audio from the match against Brighton, where the ball was deemed to have crossed over the line by VAR, yet the situation was more or less identical to the Newcastle goal against Arsenal where the angles of the recording means that they can't accurately state if the ball is over or not. I would love to hear the audio from our match when VAR decides the ball has crossed the line, because it seems to be nothing but guessing and completely against their directives which is that if they can't clearly determine it then they revert to the on the pitch decision.
What about the audio from the decisions not to recommend red cards for Havertz, Nketiah, Udogie?
The lack of consistency was understandable without VAR, decisions are made in split seconds based on not always ideal angles, with VAR in place it's no longer understandable or acceptable.
I agree that the Mail are scum but the show is terrible. Owen is not capable of challenging Webb about stuff and basically just serves as a puppet for VAR.
Heinze celebrated his impending transfer by purchasing an expensive sportscar. When the transfer fell through, we gave him to Madrid, but he was refused permission to use the car in Spain.
To his credit, he later admitted being ignorant of how English football rivalries work. In Spain, Italy et al players join rivals all the time (save for 'blood derbies'). It isn't really done in English football and when it is, it's serious.
Still delightes to lose him but I'd be lying saying he wasn't a favourite of mine, for a time.
I doubt they know themselves, much of what they do seems to be completely arbitrary. Rules are applied one way one week and a completely different way the next. All VAR has done has added an extra layer of incompetence which seems to have been turned up to 11 since Webb took over.
Which team was this?
I ber Owen irons his socks/underwear
It's absolutely everywhere these days and bottom feeders absolutely love it. You can find a tweet by a dumbass saying anything you want, and boom there's your 'article'. Just title it 'Viewers slam X' or 'Fans FUME with Y' and you can pack up and go home for the day.