A concession

[Danny]

Porto eliminated Man United thanks to referee mistakes - of course Mourinho never brought it up. Inter Milan defeated Barcelona thanks to their admirable determination, but not without enormous amount of luck (volcano, fatigue, arrogance, referee mistakes). Of course Mourinho only talks about Busquets' faking injury. Inter Milan defeated Bayern Munich. They were the better team in that match, but Bayern should have got two penalties.

Football is full of unpredictability; while unpredictability alone may not suffice taking one team to the very end, any team would certainly benefit greatly through easy or lucky draw. Was Real Madrid a strong team in UCL 2011-12? Of course, they beat CSKA at round of 16 (1-1, 4-1), then APOEL at QF (3-0, 5-2). Would Real Madrid still have reached SF without such lucky draw? Probably yes. Was AC Milan a strong team in UCL 2011-12? Not so much. Would Milan reach SF if they were scheduled to play CSKA at round of 16 and APOEL at QF? Probably yes; perhaps not winning at as comfortable margins as RM would, but it would be very likely that we would be in SF. To claim that there has never been a team reaching SF via easy/lucky draw is wrong; to claim that there will never be a team reaching SF via easy/lucky draw is wrong.

You've basically just undermined every football match in history. Bringing in constant 'if and but' variables which bring into question every decision which has ever been made and who it benefitted and who it didn't. I can't be bothered with that kind of thinking, sorry.

The cream rises to the top, not because of extraneous variables, but because it's good enough.

So, I must agree to disagree with you very, very strongly here, shake your hand and move on.

Your thinking invalidates this upcoming CL because any single decision (or variable you can come up with) you disagree with basically undermines whatever the result will be.

Or are you going to tell me England deserved to beat Argentina because Maradona cheated for the goal?

That's the implication here.

And I don't like it.

[ZvonimirBoban]

yeah. in fact, easy draw is easy because your team is strong.

[ACM2023]

Porto eliminated Man United thanks to referee mistakes - of course Mourinho never brought it up. Inter Milan defeated Barcelona thanks to their admirable determination, but not without enormous amount of luck (volcano, fatigue, arrogance, referee mistakes). Of course Mourinho only talks about Busquets' faking injury. Inter Milan defeated Bayern Munich. They were the better team in that match, but Bayern should have got two penalties.

Football is full of unpredictability; while unpredictability alone may not suffice taking one team to the very end, any team would certainly benefit greatly through easy or lucky draw. Was Real Madrid a strong team in UCL 2011-12? Of course, they beat CSKA at round of 16 (1-1, 4-1), then APOEL at QF (3-0, 5-2). Would Real Madrid still have reached SF without such lucky draw? Probably yes. Was AC Milan a strong team in UCL 2011-12? Not so much. Would Milan reach SF if they were scheduled to play CSKA at round of 16 and APOEL at QF? Probably yes; perhaps not winning at as comfortable margins as RM would, but it would be very likely that we would be in SF. To claim that there has never been a team reaching SF via easy/lucky draw is wrong; to claim that there will never be a team reaching SF via easy/lucky draw is wrong.

You've basically just undermined every football match in history. Bringing in constant 'if and but' variables which bring into question every decision which has ever been made and who it benefitted and who it didn't. I can't be bothered with that kind of thinking, sorry.

The cream rises to the top, not because of extraneous variables, but because it's good enough.

So, I must agree to disagree with you very, very strongly here, shake your hand and move on.

Your thinking invalidates this upcoming CL because any single decision (or variable you can come up with) you disagree with basically undermines whatever the result will be.

Or are you going to tell me England deserved to beat Argentina because Maradona cheated for the goal?

That's the implication here.

And I don't like it.

You can't expect to throw out a strongly one-sided argument and expect everyone to praise you on both content and presentation, do you?

I would be very, very happy to do that (i.e. moving on).

And I like it.

[Danny]

You can't expect to throw out a strongly one-sided argument and expect everyone to praise you on both content and presentation, do you?

I haven't made a strongly one-sided argument, I objected to yours old friend, which basically undermines every match that ever took place based on the concept of variable and chance. I also haven't the faintest idea what you mean by desiring praise for 'content and presentation' - that's genuinely one of the strangest comments anyone's made to me.

I would be very, very happy to do that (i.e. moving on).

Ok, fair enough.

And I like it.

I do hope you like the concept of moving on as opposed to the notion England deserved to beat Argentina?