tflags wrote:Everything I wrote proves Madrid went into the game with an attacking mindset.
Nnnno, everything you wrote, and this is in the correct order: Madrid was in good form and confident (first time Madrid has not been is the last few months!), switching Di Maria's flank was for more reasons than him tracking Dani Alves (which is ****ing obvious jesus christ otherwise he would've simply put an extra defender on in that left winger slot a la Bertrand, still can't understand why you spent so much time on that), Mourinho changes his tactics in the following games (again, a completely moot point when we're discussing a conscious attempt to outpossess the opposing team). Points that are irrelevant yet technically correct, so I can't disagree with them but they still take up space and make the post look like you're informed and thorough. Of course after that you ramble
ad hominem, which I don't probably need to explain how it is irrelevant to whether or not Real tried to outpossess Barcelona.
tflags wrote:So let me get this straight? Your article which mainly discusses a flip of wingers because one is better at defending than the other is conclusive that they rather keep low possession rate with less pressing on the ball. LOL.
tflags wrote:But you rather say this is mildly relevant while I'd say it is completely relevant. You see, While I spend a lot of time in Di Maria, is not because I want to go off topic, but because he is basically the most important point in the article you quoted. So I had to show you a different point of view.
No, that would be "the concession of an early goal was a disaster for Mourinho’s gameplan, which involved Real’s defensive line sitting relatively deep on the edge of the penalty box.", but of course, we've already established we read articles differently. Considering you also said "I mean, nowhere I the article you posted did it say Madrid planned to park the bus." (again, if you don't like the term "park the bus", I can just use "keep a solid defense and build from there"), I think you got completely sidetracked by the first post-intro paragraph and just went with it. Because it's like you didn't read the rest of the article at all.
tflags wrote:And I do think some of your replies and challenges are full of crap, the thing is I just chose to reply to the ones I know I'll have time to follow up on. I hope you don't mind.

Oh no, not at all. You already showed you simply ignore anything that isn't convenient for you. So you're left with "hey there are things you said wrong but I'm not going to tell you which because I don't have the time for that even though I am constantly spending that very time here over a lot more minute details". With a dash of "I have things to do but you don't so if I jump out right now it will make you look like a lifeless nerd and me like a badass playboy who simply can't be arsed to deal with the plebs because of the finer things in life" undertone. Or, the two summed up, "being a douche".
Also, and this is not to belittle the meat of your argument or divert from it at all, but your sentence syntax is a lot worse than usual and I can't understand half the things you're saying. Wherever you are vacationing, I don't think it's healthy for you.