- Nov 15, 2010
- 1,378
- 1,894
Controversial, perhaps but I've never agreed with it. I hope we don't come second rather than first because of it, in spite of having a more attacking record.
Lol, I do take your point but lets have some fun here. Does it really and truly promote attacking football?Straws, clutching, at.
Oh my days, I blame it on that afternoon back in September last year. Think it was a Wednesday.
Weatherman had said it was going to be sunny...it rained. If we don't win the league...this has to be the reason.
I can't for one moment fathom what other reasonable explanation there could be.
Lol, I do take your point but lets have some fun here. Does it really and truly promote attacking football?
Lol, I do take your point but lets have some fun here. Does it really and truly promote attacking football?
Yeah blud innitControversial, perhaps but I've never agreed with it. I hope we don't come second rather than first because of it, in spite of having a more attacking record.
I've always wondered what it would be like if nil nil draws got you fuck all points.
Why not four points then? I think there should be incentives for teams to keep on attacking once they get in front. 3 points for a win makes teams shut the game up when they get in front because they stand to lose 2 points if they concede an equaliser rather than one. That's what Chelsea do.
How about 3 points for a win if it's Spurs, but only 2 points for anyone else?
Better?