sabret00the
Established Member
Let's not go into offside counts, everyone knows that sometimes it's just luck and talking about making space to receive a ball, at the hight of van Persie's scoring game for us, he want constantly request the ball in the tightest nook and crannies and seldom receive it. not because he couldn't work with the ball in such a small space but because his team mates didn't/couldn't understand it. of course, when you have a world superstar like henry, how to play for him is just one of those things you know, well if you watch football. so while you talk about objectivity, where is yours? your whole post is based less on football and more on catering towards henry in a team build around henry. my original argument still stands that there will never be more dangerous at arsenal while henry's here. not because he's the most dangerous, but because of his status. because as we can see right now, passing him the ball at the moment is a ludicrous idea as a fall back plan given his vein of form. i dunno how you were taught to play team games but i was taught to take in all the factors and form is a fact of danger and form is one thing henry doesn't have at the moment.Mbaki Mutahaba said:sabret00the,
When you are a star player you will get balls sometimes even when you are in a bad position.But thats why you are the star player. It happens with Ronaldinho, the jordans of basket, the Owens of football. And it happens for a simple reason. They are the best equiped to deliver in tight situations. The same goes to Henry. Henry consistently creates chances for himself/others..even while playing upfront alone. You think Ade/Rvp can do better.you must be smoking. Those people put together still don't have a football brain of Henry. How many offsides did Ade get when he came in? How often does RvP manage to separate himself from his marker and create that two inch space to receive the ball?
i've been very objective in my arguments thank you very much. i'd in fact argue that while i've done that, too many have come wading in this thread talking about bias instead of dealing with the points raised. who's the question of objectivity over now?