1-0 or 4-3?

[Guest justin_3d]

No. im just simply saying the sun was not mentioned in the ''unreliable sources rule''. so i dont see it bending the rules somewhat

Look at what is says:

such as

It just gives you an example. It does not means that the SUN is out of the woods. Same is for the Daily Mail.

[Henrique 9,133]

The Sun dont need to ask Roman, because everybody knows he loves attacking football, and everybody who loves attacking would prefer a 4-3 win than a 1-0.

And more than that, if two teams have the same points, and the same goal difference the number of goals scored determines who win the Premier League. So yes, winning for 4-3 is better than 1-0.

[eldo 868]

The Sun dont need to ask Roman, because everybody knows he loves attacking football, and everybody who loves attacking would prefer a 4-3 win than a 1-0.

Read what Tomo and others wrote. I wouldn't prefer 4-3.

Even when you play attractive football the match can end 1-0.

[Henrique 9,133]

Read what Tomo and others wrote. I wouldn't prefer 4-3.

Even when you play attractive football the match can end 1-0.

then you are silly, read what i said:

"And more than that, if two teams have the same points, and the same goal difference the number of goals scored determines who win the Premier League. So yes, winning for 4-3 is better than 1-0."

[HRiver 1,512]

How is winning 4-3 better than winning 1-0? The difference would still be one goal.

[eldo 868]

then you are silly, read what i said:

"And more than that, if two teams have the same points, and the same goal difference the number of goals scored determines who win the Premier League. So yes, winning for 4-3 is better than 1-0."

Lmao we aren't talking about titles but about single game. What about scoring goals without conceding them?

3x20=60 <=Bottom of the league defence 4x20=80 <=Top of the league attack. I know what would I choose.

[Henrique 9,133]

Lmao we aren't talking about titles but about single game. What about scoring goals without conceding them?

3x20=60 <=Bottom of the league defence 4x20=80 <=Top of the league attack. I know what would I choose.

Foolish.

[eldo 868]

Foolish.

Would you mind to explain what is foolish?

[Henrique 9,133]

Would you mind to explain what is foolish?

because you cant realize that 4-3 is better than 1-0.

[kwylino 329]

also mind itd be much more tiring for our forwards to grab the extra goals And i mean they cant do it All the time like. And also we play in the PL with teams like man utd City arsenal And co. they can be capable on their best day of scoring more than 2-3. 1-0 seems the best route

result matters.

stupid post is stupid

[Madmax 9,219]

7-0. Every single fucking time.

[zolayes 14,489]

because you cant realize that 4-3 is better than 1-0.

for once you are actually correct ,,,but do you have to be so offensive..Is rudeness a Brazillian national characteristic ...think not as our players

seem fine . Guess it is just your way of trying to be contoversial ..suggestion ,,,visit a charm school

[Henrique 9,133]

for once you are actually correct ,,,but do you have to be so offensive..Is rudeness a Brazillian national characteristic ...think not as our players

seem fine . Guess it is just your way of trying to be contoversial ..suggestion ,,,visit a charm school

suggestion...keep writing

[eldo 868]

because you cant realize that 4-3 is better than 1-0.

So if you take average of 20 games where you would end up with a 4-3, then you will score 80 goals and concede 60.

80 goals is perfect, but 60 goals per season is shameful record. That much goals concede mid- table teams, not champions.

Last season we conceded 32 goals in 38 games, but by your logic we would only need 10-11 games to do that.

Read first point of Tomo's post. Would you like to have a GK who will think before the game, "Ah fuck it I'm gonna concede 3 anyway, why should I bother."

[BlueLion. 21,491]

because you cant realize that 4-3 is better than 1-0.

What's foolish is your disregard for the fact that berating someone isn't going to change their mind.

I prefer to win 1-0 than 4-3.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

that was a horrible game.

Weren't we like 4-0 up when they found 3 goals late on in the 2nd half? We were all shitting ourselves!

[Henrique 9,133]

So if you take average of 20 games where you would end up with a 4-3, then you will score 80 goals and concede 60.

80 goals is perfect, but 60 goals per season is shameful record. That much goals concede mid- table teams, not champions.

Last season we conceded 32 goals in 38 games, but by your logic we would only need 10-11 games to do that.

Read first point of Tomo's post. Would you like to have a GK who will think before the game, "Ah fuck it I'm gonna concede 3 anyway, why should I bother."

If The Sun said Roman prefer a 4-3 win, it means that he want a team that the priority is attacking the opponent. He want a team to score 4 goals, even if it means conceding 3. Sometimes it would be 4-3, but Tomo's post created a situation where every game the team is going to concede 3 goals. A team that have a good attack but a shit defence.

If a team score lots of goals, sometimes they also concede lots goals, but most part of the games an attacking team wont be conceding 3 or 4 goals per match. Just look at Barcelona, they have a good defence, but sometimes the match end 5-2.

Thats why I think this Tomo's post misunderstood the meaning of The Sun's quote. Of course that I dont want my team to concede 3 goals every game, but I rather watch a 4-4 draw against Liverpool in a CL clash than a boring 0-0.

[BlueLion. 21,491]

Of course that I dont want my team to concede 3 goals every game, but I rather watch a 4-4 draw against Liverpool in a CL clash than a boring 0-0.

Oh yes absolutely agreed there. In terms of entertainment, you want to see goals, experience the drama and tension, and witness the highs and the lows. Its just more exciting and makes it a more worthwhile occasion.