My Response to David

This is one of the reasons I did not comment in the post down below. My response is so big and time consuming that it's literally over the allowable amout of characters (4,096) to fit into the comment section. So, I am writing it as a post.

Here we go,

First of all, don't ever call me a retard, asshole, idiot or any other negative term in regards to twisting your words as if you have never done the same. You clearly do it here where you believe I said it was Tindle's strategy to let Pruitt take as many shots as he wants. That it was his strategy to let Pruitt take triple the shots and camp inside the 18. I never once said that. Similar to how you say that I hate homosexuals (just using as an example, not to get off topic). Please find where I use the word hate. You clearly have kept that one running for sometime now but back to the topic at hand.

Tindle's strategy (pay attention) was to play a more defensive game and be less on the attacking side or less aggressive. The numbers are clearly in Pruitt's favor in terms of shots. There is no arguing that. The thing is, we don't have anything to compare this to. If Tindle played this match differently, say more aggressive, who's to say that Pruitt wouldn't have had 15-20 shots and scored 3-4 goals instead of just the 1. I've seen Pruitt numerous times hit that many shots. Again, he is quite possibly the best in the league. This approach led to only 4 shots for Tindle. Who's to say that if Tindle was more aggressive, he wouldn't have had 7-10 shots. We don't know but surely you can see my point.

The fact is, as many shots as Pruitt had, they weren't going in the net, for whatever reason. Anyone can argue all they want about Lloris making saves, Pruitt should aim, or it was bullshit. Whatever the reason is that they weren't going in, it had zero to do with Tindle playing cock (as you say he did). And because Pruitt wasn't scoring more goals, why change? Why should Tindle do anything different if only one goal is scored? Whether it's luck, skill, destiny, fate, or anything else you can think of, why act differently? As far as Tindle saw it (and I'm speaking for him in which correct me if I'm wrong Adam) things were working out just fine. He was tied, he had the lead, so don't change a thing. Stay the course. Hey, Lloris is on fire today, fortune smiles upon him and he should continue to play with the same strategy he intended to play with.

Now, if Pruitt scored another goal, I can assure you that Adam would have switched it up, but the simple fact is that Pruitt didn't score more than one goal. I will firmly agree with the idea that according to the shot total, you would think that Pruitt would have won the game. Doesn't mean he is entitled to it. Did I not say that Liverpool in real life has played games where they take 20+ shots with double digit on target and still draw or lose to a team that took around 10? You played baseball David, among other sports I'm sure. Does the team with the most hits and fewest errors "always" win? Looking at those two numbers you would think that they sure as hell should have but definitely doesn't mean that 10/10 or even 9/10 times that they do.

Let's talk possession. Since when is 53-47 dominating? That's more than a stretch. It's outrageous. How about 52-48 or 54-46? Dominance is clearly not the right choice of words. 60-40 is more like it. You realize that in a 90 minute match, 53% possession is 47.7 minutes and 47% is 42.3 minutes? Dominating? Absurd in my opinion. But back to Tindle's strategy of playing defensively. Generally when you clear the ball, you turn it over to the other teams defense and Pruitt is great at controlling the ball. I didn't watch the match but I personally see this (in my mind) happening in their match. Anyways, the debate is pointless on possession because it is an insane remark to say that 53-47 is deserved of the term dominating.

I just looked back at your comment on saying that you, David, can see conceding possession. Ok. I hope we're off of that. Allowing someone to camp in the box for the entire game? Look David, I'm going to take your words serious and literally. Pruitt sure did have 10 shots inside the box but to say he was there the entire game and use the word camp is, well, it's one mans opinion on the usage of those words and their accuracy. We aren't going to argue the usage of the word camp but Tindle did control the ball for 47% of the game and did take 4 shots on the opposite side of the pitch so surely Pruitt couldn't be there the entire game.

To wrap up, I was getting picky in the end there but I want to reiterate a point I made. Pruitt's shots is the only argument for why he should have won. Possession is clearly a non topic. So, looking at a boxscore without a scoreline, if I was asked who won, I'd say Pruitt. Duh. I'm not stupid. I can tell which numbers are greater and come to a conclusion. The thing is, would I be shocked to hear that the team with lesser numbers won? Not in the slightest bit. I wouldn't bet $10 (and I'm an avid gambler) on picking the winner based on those numbers. It's sports! Anything can happen.

It just chaps my ass (wax man) to see people constantly time after time point fingers and blame the winner for their failures and losses. To never ever accept any responsibility. That a grown man can't say,

"Eh, dammit. I lost. I had my opportunities and couldn't capitalize and I lost. I know I played a better game but it just didn't work out in my favor and I came up short. The penalty got me and I let that mishap get away for another goal."

Nah, just excuses