wr8_utd
Ripped :'(
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2008
- Messages
- 39,123
Best player in the league when it comes to taking on a fullback and getting past him.
Did well today although that awful decision to chip the keeper will cloud some opinions. But still far far off his best form. Not taking as much responsibility as he was at the start of last season.
awful? That was absolute pure magic.
awful? That was absolute pure magic.
I think he is talking about the before that. He was trying to replicate the goals he scored in his first pre-season tour with us. Chipping the keeper from a difficult angle.
Watched the game live... Nani had only like three piss poor passes where he could have done better...
If Welbeck headed that sitter in... Nani wouldn't have had so much stick.
In the second half? Wasn't that Hernandez?
I thought Hernandez was looking for a lofted pass which gone badly, rather than shoot like Nani.
Ok missed it then, which other incident in the game did Nani go for goal when he could have played someone else in on goal instead?
For me I think that when other players show their class and perform well, he try's to compete by doing silly things. Yet last season bar Rooney he was the main man and he enjoyed being that person, but so far this season he seems to be competing by attempting ridiculous things and it is almost a step backwards for Nani
There were numerous instances when he had the ball on the edge of the box and, rather than give it, he retained possession in an attempt to beat his man and go for goal.
Anyone else see what Lance is talking about? Watched the match twice now and can't think of any, let alone numerous situations yesterday.
Try looking in the match ratings thread. You will note "selfish" and "frustrating" mentioned on more than one occasion.
I suggest you watch it again.
It hasn't clouded mine. Unfortunately, short of coming around to your house, putting the match on, and pin pointing the moments that I am talking about, there's not a whole lot more I can do.
Well you are adamant that there were numerous times he went for goal instead of doing something else - surely you can point them out if nothing else.
If you think I am going to watch the match again with a notebook and pen, jotting down the precise minute of each incident....let me compliment you on your sense of humour.
Usually when someone claims a player took numerous selfish options, that person can at least describe more than 1 situation - which you obviously can't do and stands to reason you are full of it.
Me, and the rest of the people who called him selfish, greedy, and frustrating.
It's not my fault if you can't see what others can.
Precisely what I am talking about. I got the distinct impression he had nothing on his mind other than scoring, when he was near the box. Which is why he was trying to beat his man, rather than get it in the box early, or play it simple. If you are intent on crossing in the first place, why the need to beat the defender?I don't think there were numerous times he selfishly went for goal. There were, however, numerous times he spurned an early pass and slowed things down by trying to beat his man before putting the ball into the box (and in some occasions the defender won the ball off him and made it look even worse).
In saying that, I think it should be noted that a couple of times he did that there was no-one really in a good position, so by slowing things down he gave our other attackers more time to get into the box. Putting the early ball in isn't always the right option.
You are the only one who claimed he went for goal multiple times yesterday when he had a better option available. Sorry for calling you out on it and now you can't back your claims other than to say well other people said he was frustrating - yeah that's such proof that he did what you claim
Well, if there's nobody in position to be on the end of the cross, wasting time to give the other attackers a chance to get into the box is fair enough. I know that happened at least twice against Arsenal. I distinctly remember because both times I started to get pissed off at Nani for being so 'selfish' only to look up and realise that there was no real hope for anybody to win the early cross. Both times there was one attacker coming in on the other side of the box, but he was up against about five Arsenal players. So Nani had the choice of putting in that early cross with very little chance of success, slow play down and give other attackers time to get in there (but possibly lose it as he did a couple of times), or play the ball back to somebody else.If you are intent on crossing in the first place, why the need to beat the defender?
Well, if there's nobody in position to be on the end of the cross, wasting time to give the other attackers a chance to get into the box is fair enough. I know that happened at least twice against Arsenal. I distinctly remember because both times I started to get pissed off at Nani for being so 'selfish' only to look up and realise that there was no real hope for anybody to win the early cross. Both times there was one attacker coming in on the other side of the box, but he was up against about five Arsenal players. So Nani had the choice of putting in that early cross with very little chance of success, slow play down and give other attackers time to get in there (but possibly lose it as he did a couple of times), or play the ball back to somebody else.
There were definitely times he should have put in the early ball. But I don't think it happened as often as a lot of people think.
I have already told you, dummy, I am not prepared to watch the match again and make a note of each incident, just because some tool on a messageboard is disputing what I said.
Since me criticising Nani seems to offend you so deeply, I must make a note to do it more often in future.
lmao - you that daft that you can't remember one day back that you need to watch the match again to back up your claim. Obviously you can, which is why you've come out well I am not going back to watch the match again because you know your claim was full of shit.