Liverpool to City

?

Raheem Sterling

?

I would do free kicks inside the box for most penalties tbh. In a low-point-scoring sport where an entire tournament can be swung off one dubious handball, or one dubious foul where there was no actual danger on the goal, it just happened to happen inside a white line… penalties are so OP.

And I disagree with others that the original intentions of the game are sacred and should never be changed. The original game was written by hungover factory workers kicking pig skins at each other. Excuse them if they didn’t envisage Kane/Salah/Bruno/etc etc etc spending thousands of hours on the training field perfecting penalty techniques with the modern balls that we have today.

“Sit deep with 25% possession and Dier at CB” is potentially the one theory in human history with the most data disproving it

I would honestly be even less interested than Sancho if I was his age with those wages. Can’t blame him

Wasn’t he an out-of-contract championship player at the time too?

Change “any part of you is offside, you’re offside” to “any part of you is onside, you’re onside”. Benefit of the doubt was always supposed to favour the attacker, to increase the entertainment of the game. Idk how strikers are supposed to have been completely re-trained with how to time their runs in the toenail offside era.

Obviously, actual goal hanging to get unfair advantages, and useless strikers e.g. Richarlison who stand 5 yards beyond the last defender for no reason should still be punished, but toenail offsides represent no unfair advantage imo.