You obviously (I assume intentionally) misinterpreted my preceding post. If a player is heavily marked then that makes space for others - usually including some for the man with the ball. Despite Chadli's great escape, passing to him (and specifically inaccurately) was the worst option. Actually that's not true - Ade's usual spazzing it at the corner flag was a worse option.
Wasn't intentional, your post stated 'doesn't that mean that we must have had at least 3 unmarked, outfield players?' To me, that suggested that you thought that Adebayor must have had 3 unmarked players to pass to. I looked at the goal to be sure I was correct and then pointed out that he didn't and in fact he only really had two options.
Myself and Finney have both offered up rational for our opinions and given fairly detailed reasoning behind them. So far you haven't offered any reasoning for yours. All you've done is make daft comments like the one above.
Quite simple really, you place and weigh your pass so that the ball and the player's foot arrive in the same place at the same time. Preferably without the player having to slow down, stretch, turn, etc.
So, like I said, you think he wanted the ball played in front of him. Look at the below clip, had the ball been played in front of him (putting aside the fact that it would have been a much more difficult pass to make due to the positioning of the Southampton defenders) he would have been running at an angle away from goal to the by-line. So, please do offer up some kind of sensible rational as to why you think that was the better option? If Chadli wants the ball in front of him, why does he hold his run, turn his body towards Ade and motion for him to pass it to his feet?
How does it stack up against the suggestion that only people who've played a lot of football (without any knowledge whatsoever about how much football others have played) can understand it properly?
Hense the reason why I pre-fixed my sentence with 'Not to say that you absolutely have to have played football to be knowledgeable about it'. Your explaination of your undestanding of the situation that led up to the goal suggests to me that you haven't played much football. If you had, you'd understand why Chadli held his run, why Eriksen made the run off Chadli's movement and that the ball Ade played was a decent ball. Still doesn't mean you know nothing about football (believe it or not I actually agree with you on a handful of things).
I've had a lot of people perform a lot of jobs for me in my career, some of them for large chunks of their working lives. Not one of them yet has had an understanding of their role in the way I do, despite me never having held any of those positions.
Your understanding of their role is based on the fact they are performing jobs for you, so you have experience and understanding of what you want them to do. Similar to how someone who has played football to a decent level has a better understanding of what Ade, Chadli and Eiksen were trying to do than someone who has not
I don't think my opinion is at all snobbish. Elitist? Probably. Not snobbish though.
Anyway, that all gone waaay past the limit of my (admittedly small) attention span. So let's just settle on the fact that even if we're really generous and count all the goals scored despite of Ade, his contribution is still falling a very, very long way short of what someone on his wages should be providing.
Yep, I'm bored too. I agree his contribution is falling short mainly because he hasn't scored enough goals and I think Harry Kane probably deserves some kind of chance. His contribution to this goal however, was perfectly acceptable, but you'll never see that so it's a waste of time trying to have a decent discussion with you.
