Soccer Tuesday: Your Running Commentary

DavidMoyesManchesterUnited1-Liverpool2013 (Getty)

By DAN KARELL

The UEFA Champions League group stage returns in all it’s glory on what promises to be a busy and exciting Tuesday.

David Moyes makes his Champions League debut for Manchester United when they host Bayer Leverkusen, while Wayne Rooney looks finally content with staying at the club, after scoring a great free kick last Saturday. Bayern Munich begin their title defense hosting CSKA Moscow, Real Madrid travel to Galatasaray, and Sacha Kljestan and Anderlecht visit Benfica.

Also in action on Tuesday afternoon, 18 English league Championship clubs are in action, including Nottingham Forest vs. Middlesbrough, Burnley vs. Birmingham City, and Bolton vs. Derby County.

In the evening, CONCACAF Champions League returns to action with Sporting Kansas City hosting Real Esteli, the Montreal Impact traveling to the San Jose Earthquakes, and Club America in Mexico hosting Sporting San Miguelito. Sporting KC can secure a place in the knockout round with a victory on Tuesday evening.

If you will be watching today’s action, please feel free to share your thoughts, opinions and some play-by-play in the comments section below.

Enjoy the action (Today’s TV schedule is after the jump):

2:45pm – Manchester United vs. Bayer Leverkusen – Fox Sports 1

2:45pm – Bayern Munich vs. CSKA Moscow – Fox Sports Net/MSG Plus

2:45pm – Viktoria Plzen vs. Manchester City – Fox Soccer Plus

2:45pm – Galatasaray vs. Real Madrid – Fox Deportes

2:45pm – Real Sociedad vs. Shakhtar Donetsk – Fox Soccer 2Go

2:45pm – Benfica vs. Anderlecht – Fox Soccer 2Go

2:45pm – FC Copenhagen vs. Juventus – Fox Soccer 2Go

2:45pm – Olympiakos vs. PSG – Fox Soccer 2Go

8pm – Sporting Kansas City vs. Real Esteli – Fox Soccer Plus/Univision Deportes

10pm – San Jose Earthquakes vs. Montreal Impact – Fox Sports 2

10pm – Club America vs. Sporting San Miguelito – FoxSoccer2Go

10pm – Puebla vs. Monterrey – Univision Deportes

This entry was posted in CONCACAF Champions League, European Soccer, Featured, UEFA Champions League, Your Running Commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

87 Responses to Soccer Tuesday: Your Running Commentary

  1. Nate Dollars says:

    kljestan and lichaj starting

    • Drewbles says:

      So is Tim Ream, as a defensive midfielder. Desperate times over there in Bolton.

      • Tony in Quakeland says:

        Um, have you read the reviews of Ream’s starts as DM? Man of the Match one game, consideration for it the next.

        • Drewbles says:

          No, why would I waste my time doing that? Just a quick look through and I can only find one time he played defensive mid and that was when Bolton lost to QPR and he got subbed off in the 71st minute, which doesn’t usually happen to the MotM. Bolton have 2 points from 6 matches, not sure anyone on their team is deserving of any plaudits to be honest.

          • Tony in Quakeland says:

            Yeah, why let knowledge interfere with your insults. Here’s one link: link to lionofviennasuite.com

            • Drewbles says:

              Get real, and SB Nation site is your reasoning? Gee, I’m sure there’s no bias there. When I went to a few Bolton boards they were of the opinion that he did ok but Bolton would have been better off without him.

              Here you go: link to wanderersways.com

          • Tony in Quakeland says:

            MotheM consideration here for another match: link to lionofviennasuite.com

          • bryan says:

            why would you look up facts to ensure what you are saying is actually true? idk, why would anyone do that…?

            • Tony in Quakeland says:

              +1

            • Meh says:

              While it’s true that Drewbles might want to do a little more homework, MOTM is not a “fact”. It is an opinion, or a collection of them.

              • bryan says:

                well, the conversation is about MOTM performances by Tim Ream. as in, was he rated the MOTM in those performances?

                so yes, it is fact when you quote sources naming him MOTM. that is what the conversation was about.

                no one is having a conversation about the validity of MOTM honors passed out by various people. this is a conversation about Ream getting MOTM reviews for those performances. something the OP dismissed, yet admitted to not looking into…

                the point is, Rim has received MOTM awards/consideration more than once. factually, that is correct as we can see by clicking on the links.

              • Drewbles says:

                Yes, Ream has received awards from his family and Red Bulls supporters who waste their time voting in SB Nation polls. Hats off to the lad.

              • Meh says:

                What you’re saying is “It’s a fact that it’s somebody’s opinion”… weak standard.

              • bryan says:

                Drew – well, now you are making assumptions to justify your position…which makes nothing you say more valid than what you are saying is not valid.

                point is, SB Nation gave him MOTM honors. something you said no one gave him ever.

                i’m with you that Ream just isn’t all that good, but there are better ways to argue that.

              • bryan says:

                Meh – that’s exactly what i’m saying because that’s exactly what OP rejected.

                you guys act like i’m backing up Ream and taking these MOTM reviews as proof Ream is ready. i’m not and he isn’t.

                i just don’t like reading, “No, why would I waste my time doing that?” when arguing that Ream never received MOTM honors…which he did. irrelevant to who gave the honor.

              • Drewbles says:

                See, now you’re saying SB Nation gave him MotM, which is false. Some unknown contingent of people voted in an online poll.

              • bryan says:

                Drewbles – correct, and it was published to the website as Ream getting MOTM. you rejected Ream received MOTM honors…from anyone. Tony simply pointed out that was not 100% true.

              • Drewbles says:

                Again, I never said nobody anywhere gave him MotM. I don’t know where you’re getting that.

              • bryan says:

                Drew – i broke it down for you below.

                again, i agree with you Ream is not in the conversation. i only commented because i thought the exchange between you and Tony was interesting. it’s turned into a beast now.

              • Drewbles says:

                I know right? All from the fact that you don’t know how to process what you read and then feel the need to rant on your incorrectly formed opinion.

              • bryan says:

                Drew – way to not disprove anything i just said.

                also, what did i not process? i just explained to you how it was very clear you were rejecting the idea Ream received MOTM honors. i was just simply pointing out that Tony is right, Ream did, in fact, receive MOTM honors.

                and there you go again about opinion. this isn’t about opinion.

              • Drewbles says:

                You’re still trying to say that I’m having an argument about MotM, which has never been what this was about. You really are bad at this.

              • bryan says:

                Drew – i’m bad at this? lol good one guy. way to once again ignore the argument and point by point explanation i provided below.

                you continue to ignore the breakdown of why this IS about you and the rejection of Ream being MOTM, based on the words you wrote. at this point, you are just gonna get personal i guess, maybe from your own frustration of not wording your true meaning appropriately. but, once again, here is what you said:

                You: “Desperate times over there in Bolton.”

                Tony: “Um, have you read the reviews of Ream’s starts as DM? Man of the Match one game, consideration for it the next.”

                You: “No, why would I waste my time doing that? Just a quick look through and I can only find one time he played defensive mid and that was when Bolton lost to QPR and he got subbed off in the 71st minute, which doesn’t usually happen to the MotM.”

                if you can’t understand how that reads as you rejecting Tony’s claim that Ream did receive MOTM honors, there is no helping you.

                did Ream deserve it? debatable. is that poll valid? extremely debatable. but did Ream get MOTM for that QPR game you implied he didn’t? yes. was that the only point Tony was making? yes.

              • Drewbles says:

                First off, you were the one to start on the personal attacks Mr. Reading Comprehension. Secondly, I’m done arguing with you when you can’t even understand what the argument is. The argument isn’t about MotM and whether he actually was one, and you can’t seem to get that.

              • bryan says:

                Drew – that’s because you weren’t comprehending it correctly!

                DUDE, yes, the conversation between you and Tony was 100% about if Ream was MOTM! and that’s what i replied to.

                i’m done with the conversation because you can’t just admit that. i quoted you for F’s sake.

              • bryan says:

                keep telling yourself it wasn’t a conversation about MOTM:

                “Man of the Match one game, consideration for it the next.”

                “which doesn’t usually happen to the MotM”

                “MotheM consideration here for another match:”

                Meh, who was backing up your other argument (that SB Nation MOTM means nothing), realized it was about MOTM.

                Tony’s original rejection of your comment was based on MOTM honors.

                not once did i say that was your ONLY point, but i was only responding to that one point regarding MOTM that you and Tony started discussing.

                anyway, we can bow out of this debate now.

              • Drewbles says:

                Again, Tony was trying to say that because Tim Ream won a poll for MotM on SB Nation, that it was conclusive evidence that he is a good defensive midfielder, which it is not when considered by anyone with common sense. You continue to not know what you’re talking about. You’ve already proven you don’t know what you’re talking about by trying to refute a claim that I never even made.

              • bryan says:

                Drew – i know what Tony was saying. that was not unclear at any point. i was not responding to the idea that SB Nation’s MOTM rating was evidence Ream is good. but you rejected the idea he got MOTM honors in any game and that was not true. and you said, “No, why would I waste my time doing that?” when asked if you had searched to make sure of that.

                i agree with the rest of your argument, and your main argument, that one MOTM poll is not evidence that Ream is ready for the USMNT.

              • Drewbles says:

                “but you rejected the idea he got MOTM honors in any game”

                I did? Please enlighten me where I ever said anything like this?

              • bryan says:

                Drew – wow. this is the kind of thing that makes me think you are tro11ing. i’ve quoted exactly where i got that from 4 different times now. choose to acknowledge it or don’t. i’m done. good talk, it is what it is. we’ll chalk it up to miscommunication.

                “Man of the Match one game, consideration for it the next.”

                “No, why would I waste my time doing that? Just a quick look through and I can only find one time he played defensive mid and that was when Bolton lost to QPR and he got subbed off in the 71st minute, which doesn’t usually happen to the MotM

                this reads that you don’t think someone, based on the stats you looked up against QPR, could receive MOTM honors. Tony then provided you a link showing that, in that game, he got MOTM honors and was in consideration for another game. is SB Nation credible? i didn’t comment on that part of the conversation.

              • Drewbles says:

                That was my opinion on the one game I could find where Ream played in the midfield. How you extrapolate that out to me saying Tim Ream never won MotM in any match ever is beyond my understanding. It makes me think you might be foreign or a 10 year old.

              • bryan says:

                Drew – aw, that’s cute. i’m a 10 year old or foreigner now.

                you said in that QPR game, based on what you saw in stats, he wouldn’t have won MOTM honors from anyone (quote below). but he did. which is what Tony linked to and you rejected. you also rejected the idea that one poll for MOTM makes Ream awesome…that I agree with.

                there is nothing more or less than that though. in that QPR game you said he wouldn’t have received MOTM honors, based on the stats you looked up, when he actually did.

                from a lame poll? absolutely.

                and if you thought i was saying you were claiming Ream has never won MOTM honors, ever, then i apologize because that was not my intention. i’m talking strictly about the games Tony mentioned. i just re-read my comments and i made it very clear during this whole back and forth that i was referring to the Tony conversation. given that conversation was strictly about the QPR game and one other game, i thought it was obvious the conversation was staying within those boundaries and not expanding to Ream’s entire career…

              • Drewbles says:

                So when you say “but you rejected the idea he got MOTM honors in any game”
                you actually mean you’re talking “strictly about the QPR game and one other game”

                Yeah, I bet a lot of people that read stuff you write have reading comprehension problems.

              • Drewbles says:

                Posted this earlier but it’s still awaiting moderation for some reason:

                First off, you started with the name calling saying I was a troll, so don’t dish out what you can’t take back. Second, I didn’t say he couldn’t possibly have won MotM, I said that it was unlikely he was actually the MotM, because common sense tells you that most managers don’t take off their best player in a close game.

                Like I said before, you really are bad at this.

              • Drewbles says:

                Posted this earlier but it’s still awaiting moderation because of the t word:

                First off, you started with the name calling saying I was a tro11, so don’t dish out what you can’t take back. Second, I didn’t say he couldn’t possibly have won MotM, I said that it was unlikely he was actually the MotM, because common sense tells you that most managers don’t take off their best player in a close game.

                Like I said before, you really are bad at this.

              • bryan says:

                Drew – way to cherry pick the ONLY time when i did leave it open ended to any game. but i do apologize for that confusion. either way, way to ignore literally every other sentence that makes it clear i’m referring to the QPR game that you and Tony were discussing. also, that’s not an example of reading comprehension failure, and even if it was, out of all of these comments, you picked the only one i mistakenly said “any”. further, the lack of comprehension had to do with you not understanding i was not arguing that one poll means Ream deserves to be MOTM in every poll. that is what you weren’t comprehending. you kept arguing with me about the validity of SB Nation, which had nothing to do with what i said, at any point.

                Also, i didn’t call you any names until “tro11″, which was the last thing i wrote, not the first. so that didn’t start any name calling like you claim. after i told you you did not comprehend my point about not caring about the validity of SB Nation, you said i “wasn’t good at this.” which is pretty lame honestly. then you said i was either a foreigner or a 10 year old, to which i responded you are being a tr011. and then you responded again that i’m not good at this. not once taking the time to disprove anything.

                so you can say i’m really bad at this, but in the end, nothing i said was bad or wrong. i told you i thought it was silly for you to say you aren’t going to read up on Ream supposedly having good performances as identified by Tony. then you responded to Tony saying you found your own stats and that based on those stats, you doubt Ream would be MOTM worthy. Tony said, well, according to that SB Nation poll, he was. disproving your original claim that in the QPR game, Ream did not do enough to get MOTM.

                from there it turned into a conversation about me having to explain i don’t think the SB Nation poll is an example of Ream being ready for the national team, something you would agree with.

                i also spent way too much time explaining the validity of the poll is irrelevant to the post i responded to. this is the point of the conversation that i said you weren’t comprehending because you repeatedly stated the SB Nation poll is a biased poll and likely filled out by his family. probably all true, but irrelevant to the conversation regarding what Tony originally stated and you rejected. but since you kept bringing it up, i had to assume you weren’t comprehending the point that it was irrelevant.

                then we went on a little side bar about, “You’re still trying to say that I’m having an argument about MotM, which has never been what this was about.” clearly that statement is BS because that’s exactly where the conversation started with Tony and you responded to him saying the stats you saw did not make you think he received MOTM honors in that game. it was also the ONLY point i even commented on.

              • Drewbles says:

                So now you have trouble with time as well, because you childishly accused me of tro11ing (@7:21) before I called you a 10 year old (@7:28). I also only said you were bad at this after you attacked my reading comprehension, again you start with the personal attacks and then cry when they come back at you.

                Secondly, it’s not about whether he was called MotM, it’s whether being named MotM by a random poll on an American site means that he is not a bad player. I responded to his MotM “evidence” by stating that usually the MotM is not subbed off in the 71st minute of a close match, which makes me question how well he was actually doing, thus, I’m still of the opinion that he is not good. I still haven’t seen any contradiction of this nor any credible site stating that Ream played well above average in the match.

                Clearly you have lost the plot.

              • bryan says:

                “So now you have trouble with time as well, because you childishly accused me of tro11ing (@7:21) before I called you a 10 year old (@7:28).”

                bro, i literally just laid out the exact same time frame!!!! you didn’t even type anything different regarding the “events” of this debate!

                like i said, i questioned your reading comprehension (that’s not calling you a name…), to which you told me “i was bad at this”. to which i said you must be tr011ing (didn’t call you a tr011), to which you called me a foreigner/10 year old, to which i did not reply, to which you again told me “you are bad at this.” my text is in bold:

                “please up your reading comprehension.” – September 17, 2013 at 5:30 PM

                “You really are bad at this.” – September 17, 2013 at 6:00 PM

                “the kind of thing that makes me think you are tro11ing.” – September 17, 2013 at 7:21 PM

                ” It makes me think you might be foreign or a 10 year old.” – September 17, 2013 at 7:28 PM

                “Like I said before, you really are bad at this.” – September 17, 2013 at 8:05 PM

                i attacked your reading comprehension because you kept talking about the validity of the SB Nation poll. a point that i was not arguing against nor even talking about to begin with. Tony, yes, used it to make his other point, which was Ream is playing well enough for the USMNT. which i disagree with. i was simply talking about someone giving Ream MOTM honors against QPR, the thing you rejected as impossible based on your research and lack of reading.

                then, you have the audacity to say i “cry when they come back at you.” what the heck are you even talking about? what crying happened here? who is “they”? i didn’t even really address your name-calling other than calling it cute or lame. not once did i get offended by it and say how dare you! not even close…you just made that up too.

                And your last sentence sums up everything I said about your reading comprehension regarding OUR conversation.

                the ONLY thing i rejected from your was that Ream did not receive any MOTM honors from the QPR game. i rejected that your research, which showed him coming out in the 71st, was definitive proof that he didn’t have a MOTM performance according to someone. Tony provided a link to someone rating his performance MOTM worthy.

                then, you decide i’m trying to back up Tony in that Ream is good enough for the USMNT simply because SB Nation said he was good in two games. i REJECTED that and AGREED with you. yet you kept, and CONTINUE, to try to say otherwise and are still bringing it up.

                “it’s whether being named MotM by a random poll on an American site means that he is not a bad player.”

                correct, that was one of many points and i’d like you to show me where i challenge that. but you seem to think that was the ONLY point being made.

                ” I responded to his MotM ‘evidence’ by stating that usually the MotM is not subbed off in the 71st minute of a close match, which makes me question how well he was actually doing”

                correct, that was your challenge. you said that you were doubtful he received MOTM honors in that game based on what you saw in stats, despite saying you refused to double check. Tony provided you a link to SB Nation showing that someone did give him MOTM honors. THIS is the only point i commented on and the point I agreed with Tony on and disagreed with you on. even if you don’t agree with SB Nation, it IS proof that someone disagreed with you and said it was MOTM worthy despite coming off in the 71st.

                “thus, I’m still of the opinion that he is not good”

                me too, and i agreed with that statement during this whole thing.

                “I still haven’t seen any contradiction of this nor any credible site stating that Ream played well above average in the match.”

                that’s because I wasn’t contradicting that!!!!! nor was anyone trying to argue that multiple places gave him MOTM!!!! how are you not getting that!?! you have to understand this is why i think you aren’t comprehending my point.

                so once again, my ONLY point is that you were WRONG to say you weren’t going to read the reviews of Ream’s play simply because you “took a quick look.” Despite the fact that Tony gave you a link to a source giving Ream MOTM honors. here is what was said:

                You – “Desperate times over there in Bolton.”

                Tony – “Um, have you read the reviews of Ream’s starts as DM”

                You – “No, why would I waste my time doing that?”

                SB Nation wasn’t even mentioned at that point and you were already saying you weren’t going to at least fact check your opinion.

                not arguing that Tony’s link means Ream is awesome and deserved MOTM honors. as i’ve repeated, i’m in agreement with you that the SB Nation poll really doesn’t mean anything in the grand scheme. But the fact remains, you were wrong when you said, based on the stats you got, and the lack of reading you admitted to doing, Ream did not have a MOTM-worry performance. as Tony showed, there was at least one.

              • Drewbles says:

                tl:dr

              • bryan says:

                well there’s a surprise…

              • Drewbles says:

                I’m sure you probably tried valiantly to finally make a point that makes sense, but I’m not going to sift through the rest of your post to find it.

              • bryan says:

                Drew – hey man, continue to deflect and not respond with any kind of substance. it’s fine. you haven’t proven any points yet that i disagreed with.

                you basically just said what you said to Tony. that you aren’t going to read things. no point in continuing then.

                “No, why would I waste my time doing that?”

              • Drewbles says:

                Most of this time you’ve been trying to put words in my mouth, trying to argue against statements I never even made.

                Fact is, I don’t have to follow Tim Ream to know that he is not a great player. His physical limitations will always exist and he’s not about to gain the passing of Pirlo to make up for it. He’s not even highly rated in defense, which is a primary concern being a defender/ defensive midfielder.Somebody linking to an American site with a poll naming him MotM is frankly worthless as any kind of evidence that he has improved. I never said that poll didn’t exist. I never said Ream couldn’t have a great game and actually be deserving of MotM. I did say that from the 1 game I looked at he subbed off, which is not indicative of a MotM performance. I did say that the SB Nation site which hosted the poll is basically meaningless.

                Which of these points do you not understand?

                tl:dr – I said Ream is no good, Tony said nuh uh look at this SB Nation site, I laughed at that having any relation to Ream being good.

              • bryan says:

                Drew – wow. i literally just told you i understand all those points. this is exactly what i mean. you keep saying i’m not getting your points, but i’ve made it clear i understand everything you just said. i didn’t put words in your mouth. let alone multiple statements. once again, you have gone off about why you think Tim Ream isn’t good and why that one poll means nothing in the grand scheme of things. I told you I agree. I also told you none of those things were what I even commented on. just now, however, you just said:

                “I never said Ream couldn’t have a great game and actually be deserving of MotM. I did say that from the 1 game I looked at he subbed off, which is not indicative of a MotM performance.”

                and this is exactly the topic i’ve been trying to discuss, despite you claiming it was never a part of the conversation…even though that is what started the conversation.

                i was just wondering why, before any mention of SB Nation, your response to Tony’s question, which asked if you had at least read Ream’s reviews at DM, was a flat, “No, why would I waste my time doing that?”

                now, i understand that you already had your opinion on the subject. that opinion, i agree with. but as we all know, sometimes, as fans, it’s always good to read other takes on a subject. that statement said you hadn’t done that. so to me, it immediately discredit whatever you said or were going to say on that subject. that was why i made the first comment i made.

                and i know i prompted the whole thing with my response to Meh. you had to respond, i get that.

                but from there, i got a full Drew assessment of Ream. and i generally agree with it. but i was just making a comment that it’s ridiculous to say something like you did. especially when i then read Tony’s response that the same game you were referring to, Ream got a MOTM rating somewhere. It was just a sarcastic comment about looking up reviews when discussing Ream reviews. i wasn’t saying i disagreed that Ream is not that good.

              • bryan says:

                like I’ve repeated I don’t even know how many times now, I am referring to your comment BEFORE any mention of the SB Nation article.

                we’re done here.

              • Drewbles says:

                So you wasted all this time writing these long posts because of your issue with that? You need a hobby.

            • Drewbles says:

              I don’t need to waste my time reading a bunch of crap I don’t care about to know that a player struggling to get minutes on a team at the bottom of the Championship is not very good.

              • bryan says:

                that’s an absolutely ridiculous statement. why? because the conversation YOU brought up is based on looking up information to back it up! so yes, if you claim something, you absolutely are responsible for reading to make sure what you are saying is…in fact…correct.

                no one is denying Ream is having trouble getting minutes. all Tony was saying was that your statement was wrong. Ream has received multiple MOTM reviews for his time, albeit limited, at CDM. that’s all. nothing more, nothing less. he even gave you links to show that your blanket statement was wrong.

                the conversation was not which sources gave MOTM reviews who you consider valid; or if they should even be considered valid at all. it was a statement that there have been multiple sources who disagree with you and gave him MOTM reviews.

              • Drewbles says:

                Did you even look at this “evidence”? It’s not experts or even fans saying this about him, it’s an online poll on an American website. Maybe you should put some thought in before writing a novel.

              • bryan says:

                Drewbles – please up your reading comprehension. i’ve said over and over and over it does not matter what you think the validity of the source is. the point is, Tony was right. there are sources who rated Ream MOTM. you rejected that ANYONE gave him MOTM honors. which was wrong. and then you said you aren’t going to bother to check.

                so again, i don’t care about SB Nation validity or if his family was the only one who voted. either way,it’s a published report with Ream getting MOTM honors…something you said never happened.

                i was more of less just being “matter of fact” as a joke, but now this has turned into a whole thing. and now we’re discussing the validity of SB Nation…which is irrelevant to the original point made.

              • Drewbles says:

                Where did I say nobody gave him MotM? Maybe you should read more closely because now you’re imagining things I’ve never written.

              • bryan says:

                Drew – those words exactly?no, you didn’t. but tell me your aren’t implying that in this conversation:

                You: “Desperate times over there in Bolton.”

                Tony: “Um, have you read the reviews of Ream’s starts as DM? Man of the Match one game, consideration for it the next.”

                You: “No, why would I waste my time doing that? Just a quick look through and I can only find one time he played defensive mid and that was when Bolton lost to QPR and he got subbed off in the 71st minute, which doesn’t usually happen to the MotM.”

                to me, that reads pretty clear that you are rejecting the idea Ream could received MOTM honors. your evidence? you did a quick search and he only play CDM once and he was subbed off…something that does not happen to MOTM players.

                not only were you wrong about him only playing that position once, but he did get MOTM honors in the QPR game you used as an example of him not getting MOTM in…

                so Tony called you out on it.

              • Drewbles says:

                Wow, for a guy who harps on reading comprehension, yours could clearly use some work. I said Tim Ream is not good, Tony points to an SB Nation article where people voted for Ream as MotM as evidence that Ream is good, I reply with barely controlled skepticism at his source based on what I know of Ream’s situation at Bolton. Nowhere did I say or imply what you are stating I did.

                Again, reading comprehension, work on it.

              • Drewbles says:

                As for the second occurrence of him playing midfield, I looked at ESPN’s gamecast and they showed him as starting in the back 4, so that’s not because I didn’t look, it’s because apparently ESPN was wrong in this case.

              • bryan says:

                Drew – fair enough on that point. ESPN is terrible about lineups and names. it’s insane.

          • Tony in Quakeland says:

            And one of a number of general comments: “Tim Ream has continued playing well and improving, and I’m looking forward to where he’ll be as a player at the end of the season. ”

            link to lionofviennasuite.com

            “He again put in an assured performance, helping Bolton dominate possession without actually creating anything. He also helped shield the defence and made a number of important tackles and clearances.”

            link to lionofviennasuite.com

          • Tony in Quakeland says:

            Today’s game: “Beautiful footwork by Tim Ream (who I literally can’t stop praising) and Chris Eagles finds the spot for a 2-2 finish.”

            link to lionofviennasuite.com

  2. SoundersOff says:

    Wow how is that possibly allowed?!?!?!

    God*mn referees and Manchester United. Freaking ridiculous.

    Evra is 4 yards offside, and kicking the goalkeeper as the shot comes in. I mean honestly what the h#ll is that?!

  3. Rory says:

    Copenhagen up a goal on Juventus early… could be a stunner brewing

  4. Mike E. says:

    Um, are you kidding me?

    Is this nonsense fixed? Valencia was in the net, probably 4 or 5 yards offside kicking the goalkeeper and stopping him from moving as Rooney shot.

    I mean honestly that is so far beyond excusable it has to be crooked.

  5. SubwayJared says:

    Really, guys?

    I’d probably just walk off the pitch if I was Bayer Leverkeusen. The end line official is standing there watching Valencia prevent the keeper from moving–standing in the goal with him–yards upon yards offside.

    Nobody is that incompetent. That was crooked in the traditional sense.

    • FRANK FROM SANTIAGO says:

      Fixed chamions league? hhmmm….makes you wonder, when theirs been so much of that going on in recent years. Would suck if so, though.

      • SubwayJared says:

        I mean I can’t believe the referee standing a few yards away could stare right at that and think it was allowable. It was that egregious.

  6. SubwayJared says:

    In case anyone isn’t watching… this is what happened.

    link to twitter.com

    Valencia is practically bear hugging the keeper and the goal was allowed.

    • bryan says:

      that’s absolutely ridiculous. the ref is standing right there looking straight at a clear offside player. that’s insanely inept referring.

    • Increase says:

      Lordy i missed the first 15 minutes…. I can’t believe that happened…

      I know a lot of English guys I work with you more or less say you have to try to get the ball but really… clearly he is involved in the play. How can the keep not be distracted by someone standing less than a foot from him.

    • Drewbles says:

      Well, Rooney tried to make up for the bad call by missing an open net and his teammate standing in front of that open net.

      Still, the ineffectiveness of the goal-side officials, who seem to miss way more calls than they make, seems to have not helped the game at all. I think the game is headed towards replay, because I don’t think the quality of refereeing is going to get much better than it is. The hard truth is that there is a very limited pool of referees that can handle the pace and pressure of the top leagues, and the abuse they get both on and off the pitch makes it unlikely to become any more popular a career than it is now. In addition to that, every mistake you make in a split-second decision will be over-analyzed and viewed in slow motion from 10 different camera angles. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the job.

      I’d also like to see the clock taken out of the hands of the referee and be handled by an official time-keeper and displayed for all to see. No reason with today’s technology to not know how much actual time is left to play.

      • Increase says:

        Rooney’s selfishness was amazzzing. And I do agree with you, without technology or a complete reorganization the on field structure of refs, this is as good as it gets.

  7. bryan says:

    poor Casillas. finally gets his start, gets injured and subbed out within 15 minutes.

  8. EvertonBrian says:

    Kei Kamara with a goal in his first start for Middlesborough.

    Just saw the ManU goal… Speechless.

  9. RK says:

    That lazy bum Bale didn’t even start today?

  10. SubwayJared says:

    Bayer Leverkeusen score with one of the most stunning curling goals you’ll ever see. That had to have taken a deflection… I mean that doesn’t appear to follow the laws of physics.

    • Kodi says:

      De Gea didn’t even move. I think the commentators said there was a slight deflection but I missed it on the replay.

  11. Kodi says:

    Man RvP is good.

  12. SilverRey says:

    How did Sacha do?

  13. bryan says:

    CR is so good.

  14. Lu says:

    Cristiano Ronaldo

  15. Drewbles says:

    Lichaj in with an assist on Forest’s second goal. Odds of an October call-up have increased to 0.005% according to Klinsmann.

  16. Fredo says:

    Get another KC.

  17. Chupacabra says:

    I can’t decide whether the Real Esteli players deserve an Emmy for best drama or best comedy for their injury act.