[FT] Aberdeen 2 - 1 Rangers (Halliday 79 pen)

[pete 2,499]

If you want to say 'dominated' as some sort of shorthand for 'had more possession', 'had more shots' or 'spent the match in the opponent's half' then fine.

 

I don't know why you don't just say what you really mean.

 

Why should I fill an A4 when 1 word does.

[ranger_syntax 4,322]

Why should I fill an A4 when 1 word does.

 

I think it leads to confusion. Particularly since you dominate a match by scoring more goals than your opponent.

[JFK-1 1,693]

I think it leads to confusion. Particularly since you dominate a match by scoring more goals than your opponent.

 

It didn't confuse me. You don't dominate a match scoring more goals you win a match scoring more goals. You can dominate and not win.

[pete 2,499]

I think it leads to confusion. Particularly since you dominate a match by scoring more goals than your opponent.

 

So a team that is 89 minutes in the attack, Hits the bar 10 times, has the ball kicked off the line 10 times, saw the other team reduced to 9 men and also missed 3 penalties. Then they lose a breakaway goal in the last minute to the only attack from their opponents in the whole game. Surely that team has dominated the game but lost.

[JFK-1 1,693]

A classic recent example of it.

 

JURGEN Klopp admitted he was baffled by Liverpool’s surprise defeat at Burnley in which they enjoyed over 80 percent of possession, but still lost 2-0 to the newly-promoted club.

 

 

The heat map representing touches for Burnley (l) and Liverpool ® helps to illustrate the Reds' dominance. - they played 852 passes to Burnley's 207 - but they could not turn that into goals

 

That's the media description of it regarding the 'dominance' not mine.

[der Berliner 3,744]

I've highlighted some sort of hilarious attempt at trolling.

 

I'm ignoring the majority of this meandering nonsense.

 

Matches are dominated by goals.

 

Slanderous and condescending ... wonder why a mod actually bothered answering.

Edited September 27, 2016 by der Berliner

[JFK-1 1,693]

[video=youtube;V2f-MZ2HRHQ]

[boabie 230]

I'm told there were debates on tv before the match questioning why Rangers and Aberdeen hate each other.

I don't know about you guys but I don't "hate" Aberdeen. I've no time for them and would rather see them lose a game but that's mainly down to the sad and pathetic way their fans, ex players and officials seem to hate Rangers.

I'd rather treat them as inconsequential. A team who had a short run of success away back in the 80's.

[JFK-1 1,693]

I'm told there were debates on tv before the match questioning why Rangers and Aberdeen hate each other.

I don't know about you guys but I don't "hate" Aberdeen. I've no time for them and would rather see them lose a game but that's mainly down to the sad and pathetic way their fans, ex players and officials seem to hate Rangers.

I'd rather treat them as inconsequential. A team who had a short run of success away back in the 80's.

 

I think i'm more scornful of them than anything else and aside from a brief spell under Alex Ferguson they have never been a major force in Scottish football and still aren't. All this talk about 'challenging' for the title is vacuous babble. Finishing 15 points off the top last year and 17 the previous year isn't challenging. It's being distant runners up in a poor league.

 

And hating us because one of their players almost ended the career of Durrant putting him out of the game for 3 years and still managed to reduce his powers significantly permanently? Bizarre.

[RANGERRAB 3,670]

Hating Rangers in Scottish football is all about wee guys & nobodies trying to feel important.