It's really not a difficult concept to grasp. Lets say for a second that it was great effort by Torres. It still doesn't mean that it was unlucky not to go in. Luck is something beyond one's control. Is Torres in control of his body? If they answer is yes then it was not bad luck that he missed. And it was not good luck that it was that close either!

And I'd be saying the same thing if it was any other player. It wasn't bad luck that Hazard missed that golden opportunity in the first half. It was a bad shot.

Nothing to do with Torres: If you miss the target (from any range) and you were in total control of the situation it is not bad luck.

Whether its a good shot or not is up for debate.

If you can't understand this then I give up.

(and for the record, I didn't criticise Terry for the header. He had no time to think about it so simply hit the target with power, nothing wrong with that but also not unlucky)

So by your logic, if I hit a 30 yard curler that beats the keeper all ends up, hits the under side of the bar, bounces down on the line and then out. As I run away when 1 of my teammates says "unlucky mate" u should say "not unlucky it was a sh*t shot!"

Edited April 28, 201313 yr by shedpensioner

I think most people with a footballing brain feel sorry for nando. People who have never played the game or who are just pricks will say " I don't feel sorry for him he earns thousands of pounds to play football" but for me this is wrong on so many levels. Yes the money is great and he doesn't exactly have a sh*t life but imagine the frustration of once being one of worlds best strikers only for a few years later to pretty much be a laughing stock to most people just because of a price tag. 

 

He hasn't been what we all hoped he would be but to to some he hasn't been as bad as others think. If he had cost 20 million then he wouldn't get half the abuse he gets at the moment. 

 

 

Kinda misses the point I feel. Whether he cost £50, 20 or 5 million is completely irrelevant. He isn't good enough and shouldn't be playing full stop.

 

We have had other, better players such as Sturridge and Lukaku who, had they been afforded the opportunities Torres has had, would have produced more and made us a stronger team.

 

Regardless of his wages no other top team would have him as their regular starting centre-forward. It really is that simple.

So by your logic, if I hit a 30 yard curler that beats the keeper all ends up, hits the under side of the bar, bounces down on the line and then out. As I run away when 1 of my teammates says "unlucky mate" u should say "not unlucky it was a sh*t shot!"

 

 That wouldn't be a sh*t shot. It just isn't unlucky.

When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea. Thank you very much

It's really not a difficult concept to grasp. Lets say for a second that it was great effort by Torres. It still doesn't mean that it was unlucky not to go in. Luck is something beyond one's control. Is Torres in control of his body? If they answer is yes then it was not bad luck that he missed. And it was not good luck that it was that close either!

 

And I'd be saying the same thing if it was any other player. It wasn't bad luck that Hazard missed that golden opportunity in the first half. It was a bad shot. 

 

Nothing to do with Torres: If you miss the target (from any range) and you were in total control of the situation it is not bad luck. 

 

Whether its a good shot or not is up for debate. 

 

If you can't understand this then I give up. 

 

(and for the record, I didn't criticise Terry for the header. He had no time to think about it so simply hit the target with power, nothing wrong with that but also not unlucky)

 

I never asked for an explanation I know what you are saying but completely disagree and for exactly the same reasons that other posters have posted above.

You say you would be critical of any other player so if i go into a Hazard topic will i find a post of you moaning about hazard??

 

You're going to some length to have a pop at Torres. Fair enough if u wanna say his first touch was poor or his runs weren't good you know the 'usual' but what you're saying is desperate.

This is turning (or has turned?) into a "Yes but.. No but.." conversation.

 

I think there ought to be a count made of the number of times a poster says "You clearly know nothing about football."  After a pre-determined number they should be banned - or maybe temporarily banned!  Resurrected after a grovelling acknowledgement that others have a right to hold different opinions without being accused of ignorance.

 

What would be an appropriate number of times a poster is allowed to post the accusation "You know nothing about football"?

I never asked for an explanation I know what you are saying but completely disagree and for exactly the same reasons that other posters have posted above.

You say you would be critical of any other player so if i go into a Hazard topic will i find a post of you moaning about hazard??

 

You're going to some length to have a pop at Torres. Fair enough if u wanna say his first touch was poor or his runs weren't good you know the 'usual' but what you're saying is desperate.

 

You can only disagree with whether it was a bad shot or not. The point about luck that I've been making the whole time is indisputable. I put blame where it's due, and Torres is to blame for missing that shot. 

 

If Hazard constantly played as sh*t as Torres I'd be in there criticising. But as he's had as many bad games as Torres has had good games I think I'll let him off when he makes a mistake. A bad game for Hazard is still usually better than a good game for Torres. 

With only half a goal to aim at, anything hitting the inside of the post is unlucky not to deflect over the line, playing up front i know how bloody hard it was to score, so hitting a post, you knew you did everything right and the post by fractions stops a goal, dissecting everything he does right or wrong is now actually quite amusing, and my first port of call on here!! 

With only half a goal to aim at, anything hitting the inside of the post is unlucky not to deflect over the line, playing up front i know how bloody hard it was to score, so hitting a post, you knew you did everything right and the post by fractions stops a goal, dissecting everything he does right or wrong is now actually quite amusing, and my first port of call on here!!

No you're wrong it's bad shooting!

Haha ! Bad shooting!

Cunningstunt are you from the UK?

I ask genuinely in case some of the use of language is confusing?

Just in case you didn't know Chelsea just won 2-0 and are 3 points clear of Spurs, but if getting at each others throats is more important right now then fair enough.

Have the last few pages of this thread all been about one f**king shot? Jesus, you'd think it was the defining shot of the century.

A large majority of his goals come against sh*t opposition, like lweor division clubs in the early rounds of cups, or CL group stage.

How many times has he scored an important goal for us in a big game? The equaliser against Barcelona... that's about it. He scored against Arsenal earlier in the season so you could include that, but I'm really struggling to think of any others.

Well that goal against Barca whilst sweet wasn't really needed cause we were through anyway. But yeah I'd just say the Arsenal game

It was needed, especially at Barca away.

It was needed, especially at Barca away.

 

No it wasn't, we were already going through, that just cemented it.

Yes we were going through, but the chances of Barcelona popping up with a goal out of nowhere is pretty high, just have to look at 2009 to remember.

Well, it did certainly settle our nerves but it was nowhere near as big as Ramires' first goal, for instance.

Edited April 28, 201313 yr by Teritus

Imagine if he had rounded Valdes then blasted it high over the bar into the Barcelona night sky, his miss would have the same importance i guess, and we would be on page 400 of this thread... ;-)

Imagine if he had rounded Valdes then blasted it high over the bar into the Barcelona night sky, his miss would have the same importance i guess, and we would be on page 400 of this thread... ;-)

 

And then if Barca scored in their next possession and went on to go through. Oh dear...

Edited April 28, 201313 yr by Teritus

No you're wrong it's bad shooting!

how can people not grasp such a simple concept?

Enlighten us!

you kick a ball, it goes somewhere

luck has nothing to do with it

So if it hits someone on the arse and goes in the goal, thats not lucky?