Player ratings - West Ham vs Arsenal

[jaguars4ever]

@Rain Dance: Defending is a cruel business. A striker is regarded as being great if he puts away 1 out of 2 chances. Whereas a defender who concedes 1 out 2 is regarded as abysmal. The ability to make a split second decision likke that is the difference between a poor DM and a great one.

@DJ Markstar: He probably learned it from God. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv8brpKO1i0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv8brpKO1i0</a>"

 

[dave_rwr]

Ramsey: 6 - Decent going forward, but terrible defensively. Should have made a challenge instead of being burned for the goal.

Surely trying to make the challenge is what he did wrong, should have just stood off and contained Diame. Jenkinson was about to come and help him as well.

That would have worked to. The choice was actually two-fold: 1) Successfully make the challenge; or 2) successfully hold up Diame. Either would have prevented the goal, and would have acceptable. Instead he elected to pull off his Denilson impression, allowing the attacker to breeze past him.

Surely this is a Captain Obvious kind of statement... Of course that's what he should have done. The hard part about defending is that doing those things isn't always as easy as it is to say that you want to do them.

 

[jaguars4ever]

Surely this is a Captain Obvious kind of statement...

A "Captain Obvious statement" arises upon utterance of an undisputed fact, or uncontroverted viewpoint.

I asserted that the cause-in-fact of Ramsey's defensive error was his inability to complete the tackle. However, Qs asserted that the actual cause of Ramsey's defensive error was his failure to stand off. Thus, there was divergence in viewpoint.

Regardless of the substantive accuracy of each viewpoint, the fact that they are at variance with one another shows the existence of a genuine issue of fact.

Therefore, there was no "Captain Obvious statement".