• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Champions League 2017/18

Coutinho would have given them options. While selling him has surprisingly had little effect, this is because the plan A has been so effective. But without Coutinho there was no plan B. It was strange that they bought Keita with a deferral and let Coutinho go in January.

Their two midfield signings could give them some better options next season, but the test will be if the front three can repeat this season.
 
SpurMeUp said:
.
You was gobsmacked!

Bold bit makes no sense to me either. Madrid were lucky to score 2 of their goals you say, but pool were not unlucky?

The winning goal was the definition of a 'worldy' goal. Are you sure pool were not a little unlucky?
.
Click to expand...

No they were not unlucky, there was nothing unlucky about their keeper making the two mistakes. Unlucky is when a goal is scored offside but allowed, a lucky/unlucky bounce etc, etc.
 
parklane1 said:
No they were not unlucky, there was nothing unlucky about their keeper making the two mistakes. Unlucky is when a goal is scored offside but allowed, a lucky/unlucky bounce etc, etc.
Click to expand...

Madrid were lucky to score those goals - your assertion. Ergo the goals were fortunate. And unfortunate for pool. Hardly a frequent thing a keeper bowling out a ball for it to be tapped in. Or the winning goal being one of the most outrageous, unique goals ever scored. As you'd say...all about opinions...in my opinion (and yours it seems) Madrid had some good fortune.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Madrid were lucky to score those goals - your assertion. Ergo the goals were fortunate. And unfortunate for pool. Hardly a frequent thing a keeper bowling out a ball for it to be tapped in. Or the winning goal being one of the most outrageous, unique goals ever scored. As you'd say...all about opinions...in my opinion (and yours it seems) Madrid had some good fortune.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point, being unfortunate is not the same as being unlucky which is what you say Liverpool were. Madrid were the better team without a doubt ( imo) so that neither makes Liverpool unlucky or Madrid lucky which was your point( unless you have now changed for lucky/unlucky to unfortunate/ fortunate) which it seems you are now trying to do.
 
parklane1 said:
I think you are missing the point, being unfortunate is not the same as being unlucky which is what you say Liverpool were. Madrid were the better team without a doubt ( imo) so that neither makes Liverpool unlucky or Madrid lucky which was your point( unless you have now changed for lucky/unlucky to unfortunate/ fortunate) which it seems you are now trying to do.
Click to expand...

You could have had a highly successful career in law :D Lawyers love semantics. What is the difference between fortune and luck?
 
SpurMeUp said:
Madrid were lucky to score those goals - your assertion. Ergo the goals were fortunate. And unfortunate for pool. Hardly a frequent thing a keeper bowling out a ball for it to be tapped in. Or the winning goal being one of the most outrageous, unique goals ever scored. As you'd say...all about opinions...in my opinion (and yours it seems) Madrid had some good fortune.
Click to expand...

No but goals from mistakes by keepers are very common. If you have a brick keeper, they are even more common. Liverpool don't have a brick keeper through bad luck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back