- Jul 17, 2008
- 5,476
- 22,202
Think he was talking about Vicario'sJonathan Pearce said he thought van de Ven’s challenge in the second half should have been a penalty.
Plonker.
He also said vicario was to blame for the second goal as the ball went under him.Jonathan Pearce said he thought van de Ven’s challenge in the second half should have been a penalty.
Plonker.
one game and the 'pundits' on MOTD are already going through Richarlisons chances and insisting Kane would have scored them all.
Nope.Think he was talking about Vicario's
To be fair Kane probably would’ve but aside to Lewandoski, prime Ronaldo, Messi, Mbappe, Benzema or Haaland there aren’t many other strikers in world football the last 5-10 years who would’ve scored those chances as consistently as Kane did he has been and still is an absolutely world class striker and finisher.one game and the 'pundits' on MOTD are already going through Richarlisons chances and insisting Kane would have scored them all.
Like most ex Liverpool pundits.who on earth thought Danny Murphy would be a good pundit. he has absolutely nothing useful to say except how amazing Liverpool are.
Like most ex Liverpool pundits.
I agree, Jonathan Pearce would have seen it back and seen VDV got the ball first, so he was basically making it up as he went along, useless commentating, talking absolute horseshit about that being a debatable penalty there should have been no debate about it it wasn't a penalty, simple , and he was also wrong about the 2nd, no way was Vicario at fault, it took an unlucky deflection it's highly unlikely any other keeper would have saved that in those circumstances either. Again trying to wrongly criticise for criticisms sake when the criticism on that particular issue was completely unwarranted.....Nope.
“If this is seen by VAR as being a potential penalty, I think the referee will be called to a screen and will give it.”
Nope.
“If this is seen by VAR as being a potential penalty, I think the referee will be called to a screen and will give it.”
Everyone rubbing it in after trying to sell him for us for a decade. They can fuck off.Are they taking the piss with the entire outro dedicated to Harry Kane? Might get over the guy leaving if you twunts stop showing him.
Pearce is a shambles of a man, the scruffy little womble.I agree, Jonathan Pearce would have seen it back and seen VDV got the ball first, so he was basically making it up as he went along, useless commentating, talking absolute horseshit about that being a debatable penalty there should have been no debate about it it wasn't a penalty, simple , and he was also wrong about the 2nd, no way was Vicario at fault, it took an unlucky deflection it's highly unlikely any other keeper would have saved that in those circumstances either. Again trying to wrongly criticise for criticisms sake when the criticism on that particular issue was completely unwarranted.....
It was so so soft, but Son did get him on the ankle and got none of the ball. You can see why the ref missed it in real time. Hard to blame him for that really. The penalty was a product of re-refeering via VAR, as we sometimes seeTony Harrington was the VAR robot ref, he gave the decision to call the ref to the VAR screen for the ‘penalty’ in the Southampton 3-3 game last season.
The ref yesterday (Jones) was forced into overturning his original decision by that wanker.
He does quite a bit of the commentating for women's football and a piece of me dies every time I realise it's him. Needs to retire.Pearce is a shambles of a man, the scruffy little womble.