Sentences with phrase «because good crosses»

his lack of pace costs us some chances because good crosses are useless if he can't beat the defender to the spot and 2.

Not exact matches

@craigaatkinson #TradeElite A5) Belgium is investing heavily in Canada and good for #Quebec because French speakers to cross benefit

I am better person today because I trust in the Living God, or else I should get me a cannon and go after all those white hooded clad clansmen that burned crosses in the field behind our house and set fire on some relatives of mine.

You can overcome evil with good, because the cross overcame all of your evil and now gives you the power to do good.

But the only reason we say good things about the cross today is because God has redeemed the cross.

It is because their clergy really had been given an apparently well - founded hope that they would be able to «cross the Tiber» with their people (possibly under provisions made by Pope John Paul for the reception of whole Anglican parishes in America): and because of the sense of massive betrayal they felt when some of our bishops confronted Cardinal Hume, who had originally been inclined to respond positively, and forced him to back down.

Jesus, who was nailed on the cross after feeding five thousand other people from out of his ass, walking on water, bringing back a boy they KNEW was dead because he was rotting and shouting down every single saduccee and pharisee for praising their white - washed selves and holding salvation from the masses, who never took money for himself, who historically KNOWINGLY gave his life for the rest of humanity,... «did it for the good economic standing?»

Since Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church and placed good men in charge of it, and because it was the Catholic Church which put the Books of the Bible in the Bible and coined the word «Bible», and because the Bible tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth, and because these good men [that you refer to as misguided] are the ones ordained and «sent», [just like Jesus was «sent» by the Father], are at the «helm» of His Church and have the absolute authority to interpret the Bible, I am so inclined to be ever so thankful that Jesus Christ set it all up this way so that the burdens and crosses that I may bear will become as light as the yoke that Jesus Christ promised if we are willing to follow him, and not our will be done but His.

And, of course, you are so utterly clueless that you can't see the difference between asking someone to take off their baseball cap which they're wearing simply because they like wearing a baseball cap... and asking a woman to take off her faith - based scarf or an Amish man to shave his faith - based beard or a Sikh (which is * not * a Muslim faith) to take off his turban or a Catholic priest to take off his cross... well, if you can't figure out the difference yet, there's no hope for you.

Yes, I agree we need to be more mindful of people and their conditions and yes we need more compassion, grace and mercy when we preach the Gospel (because we are told to proclaim the good news) If you are not preaching the Gospel of Repentance, Mercy and Grace through the work of Jesus on the cross, then you (not anybody else) are demonstrating hatred to those you profess to love.

Is it possible and after reading about it i kept on thinking «i will sell to my soul for 20 carats get out shut up i will never ever sell my soul to you oh god please help me and this is continuing for a few days i am afraid that i have sold my sold to the devil have i please help and still i think god's way of allowing others to hate him us much worse even you know and can easily think think about much better punishments like rebirth after being punished for all the sins in life and i am feeling put on the sin of those who committed the unforgiviable sin (the early 0th century priests) imagine them burning in hell fire till now for 2000 years hopelessly screaming to god for help i can't belive the mercy of god are they forgiven even though commiting this sin keans going to hell for entinity thank you and congralutions i think the 7 year tribulation periodvis over in 18th century the great commect shooting and in 19th century the sun became dark for a day and moon was not visible on the earth but now satun has the domination over me those who don't belive in jesus crist i used to belive in him but now after knowing a lot in science it is getting harharder to belive in him even though i know that he exsists and i only belived in him not that he died for me in the cross and also not for eternal life and i still sin as much as i used to before but only a little reduced and i didn't accept satan as my master but what can i do because those who knowingly sin a lot and don't belive in jesus christ has to accept satan as their master because he only teaches us that even though he is evil he gives us complete freedom but thr followers of jesus and god only have freedom because they can sin only with in a limit and no more but recive their reward after their life in heaven but the followers of satun have to go to hell butbi don't want to go to hell and be ruled by the cruel tryant but still why didn't god destroy satun long way before and i think it was also Adam and eve's fault also they could have blamed satan and could have also get their punishment reduced but they didn't and today we are seeing the result

If someone believes that Atlantis is real, who cares, but if they belong to a group that blows up ships crossing the Atlantic because they believe the king of Atlantis wants them to, well then it is our business, right?

I've thougth about this before and the best way I can understand it form having read about it is that on the cross it feels like God has forsaken Jesus and in his humanity that is what he says because of the ovewheming nature of the suffereing.

Maybe the thief of the cross could not be water immersed, well because he was nailed to a cross at the time and God made and exception for him via Mercy.

And because of the revelation of Jesus Christ on the cross, we have become quite good at recognizing this scapegoat mechanism when we read about it in historical documents.

Yes... this is the severist most ignorant form of human brotherhood... but Bill Nye, is taking the first step towards his goal, and the goal of many athiest activist... take the rights away from God believers... because... a hundred reasons... children will be hurt, holds back our country yada yada... be careful who you get suckered in by as you travel these few years we are given on this earth... allow your brother to be your brother... allow him to chose for his life and family... never cross the line of «knowing better.»

The health and wealth Gospel is a travesty of the real Gospel, precisely because it not only denies the value of suffering and the call of Christ to take up one's cross and follow him, it also tries to manipulate God to give us «the desires of our hearts», whether they are good for us or not.

God could had it been both ways is possible for him... created of all livings from chemicals to full creatures... in the book if looked so simple is because God message was to people with less knowldge premitive whether in the east or west... and had to be in simple examples but that might hold big meanings in today's knowldge and facilities... about mankind God created at it's best, but never in the Quran it was stated that men had been given his (God's) looks... God told us that all creatures are nations like us, which means they were created in the same way... although God as well spoke of integration of mankind and well as animals in cross marriages that made variable nations...

God could had creation either ways is possible for him... created of all livings from chemicals to full creatures... in the book if looked so simple is because God message was to people with less knowldge premitive whether in the east or west... and had to be in simple examples but that might hold big meanings in today's knowldge and facilities... about mankind God created at it's best, but never in the Quran it was stated that men had been given his (God's) looks... God told us that all creatures are nations like us, which means they were created in the same way... although God as well spoke of integration of mankind and well as animals in cross marriages that made variable nations...

Bizarre bobcat If it was re written and they were so smart why did they not make the story more believable, God dead on a cross because he tried to represent himself instead of getting a good lawer familiar with criminal cases?

Jesus calls us to take up our cross and follow Him in sacrifice and service, not because this is the most effective and influential way to change the world for the better, but simply because this is the way of the Gospel.

Huge espresso lover and affogato fan (this idea crossed my mind when I was brainstorming, but I'm so glad I didn't do it — because your version is 10,000 x better).

Though sacrilege in some circles, I used a cream cheese icing to make the traditional crosses simply because I think the tartness of the cheese complements the sweetness of the bread better.

I'm trying this right now in my stainless steel Lagostina (however I did oil it while heating it, because everything sticks to stainless)... I'm crossing my fingers and hoping for good results

, well that's true they can contain gluten because of cross contamination, but they are naturally gluten - free, so if you're allergic or intolerant just make sure the package mentions the oats are gluten - free.

Do you know that feeling when you're fixing something and you're crossing your fingers that everything will turn out okay, because you have your doubts that it'll taste good?

They give better crosses than we do, because they know it's a strong point.

Mustafi looked good and commanding and Perez barely got enough service because Ozil was having an off day and our wingers couldn't find him with their crosses.

That's mostly because Eaton isn't Sale, and there was once a sense that a Sale trade was missing a few dotted - i's and crossed - t's, and it's incredibly unfair to both the Nationals and Eaton (who, as it turns out, is really, really, really good).

The guy is not a RWB nor is he a CM.Just by looking at how he plays you can tell he was made to be a winger.A wingback can be viewed as a defensive winger.He does well there because he's able to play like a winger.However, if you ask me he's terrible defensively.But I like the fact that he tracks back when he plays as a winger.At CM, he's able to do very welll because his passing and crossing is excellent.However, over there he's forced to restrict his runs and risk taking a bit because he's playing at the center.As winger he has full freedom to expres himself.Here, he can use his running, crossing, risk taking and dribbling to great effect All he needs is to develop that certain level of cobsistency.He can really come good because he's shown he can.

«He's not only a goalscorer, he's good in assists as well and because he has played on the flanks before, he can give a good cross.

«I always tell my friends — Roland Lamah, (Wayne) Routledge, Jonathan de Guzman — if you have time to put in a cross do it because you know I am good with my head.

If Ramsey is in good form, then he must start, we can replace Rosicky at half time or 50 - 55 mins... I would leave Ozil / Cazorla to Le Prof, though he might choose both, I would start Walcott, because he can make runs in behind defences, just like in the Monaco game, only if he can improve his finishing for that match, Sanchez should carry on the passing game, and as a true winger, should provide crosses to Giroud just like Waloctt, because Giroud has great heading ability...

Actually Chamberlain plays better as a right wingback, because he can beat the opponent with his pace and has good crosses.

Hence you can really blame the strikers of not converting, because the crosses are not good.

At the moment he's not doing the business because every time he gets into the final third he cuts inside instead of driving for the byline and getting in a cross (which he was doing well last season).

fingers crossed welbz comes good because it's euros soon so he has to, with the form all the other English bpl strikers are in he has alot to prove but i believe in him, remember our boy welbz scored his first hatrick for us in his first season giroud only got his first this year after how long being at the club...........

-- Giroud: He is useless without good long crosses from the wings, because his pace, skills and movements are limited as usual.

The lad the ball in his feet is good, can dribble and shoot well but the problem is that he has not the striker moving awareness.He is barely useful in the middle because of that.I am not a coach but I would see him well in the left playing a la Henry.Remember henry use to like to play on the left using his pace to cross or cut in the middle and slice it in the corner, that he could do.

Part of the reason Ox was so brilliant at wing back was because his crosses were really good most of the time.

he has no place in this team again most especially with the way the team is set up now... oxlaide was able to get on with the new role because he is very good with the ball and can made a good passes and crosses... also he has a very good dribbling skills and pace..

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons, most importantly because over the years our once vaunted «beautiful» style of play has become a shadow of it's former self, only to be replaced by a less than stellar «plug and play» mentality where players play out of position and adjustments / substitutions are rarely forthcoming before the 75th minute... if you look at our current players, very few would make sense in the traditional Wengerian system... at present, we don't have the personnel to move the ball quickly from deep - lying position, efficient one touch midfielders that can make the necessary through balls or the disciplined and pacey forwards to stretch defences into wide positions, without the aid of the backs coming up into the final 3rd, so that we can attack the defensive lanes in the same clinical fashion we did years ago... on this current squad, we have only 1 central defender on staf, Mustafi, who seems to have any prowess in the offensive zone or who can even pass two zones through so that we can advance play quickly out of our own end (I have seen some inklings that suggest Holding might have some offensive qualities but too early to tell)... unfortunately Mustafi has a tendency to get himself in trouble when he gets overly aggressive on the ball... from our backs out wide, we've seen pace from the likes of Bellerin and Gibbs and the spirited albeit offensively stunted play of Monreal, but none of these players possess the skill - set required in the offensive zone for the new Wenger scheme which requires deft touches, timely runs to the baseline and consistent crossing, especially when Giroud was playing and his ratio of scored goals per clear chances was relatively low (better last year though)... obviously I like Bellerin's future prospects, as you can't teach pace, but I do worry that he regressed last season, which was obvious to Wenger because there was no way he would have used Ox as the right side wing - back so often knowing that Barcelona could come calling in the off - season, if he thought otherwise... as for our midfielders, not a single one, minus the more confident Xhaka I watched played for the Swiss national team a couple years ago, who truly makes sense under the traditional Wenger model... Ramsey holds onto the ball too long, gives the ball away cheaply far too often and abandons his defensive responsibilities on a regular basis (doesn't score enough recently to justify): that being said, I've always thought he does possess a little something special, unfortunately he thinks so too... Xhaka is a little too slow to ever boss the midfield and he tends to telegraph his one true strength, his long ball play: although I must admit he did get a bit better during some points in the latter part of last season... it always made me wonder why whenever he played with Coq Wenger always seemed to play Francis in a more advanced role on the pitch... as for Coq, he is way too reckless at the wrong times and has exhibited little offensive prowess yet finds himself in and around the box far too often... let's face it Wenger was ready to throw him in the trash heap when injuries forced him to use Francis and then he had the nerve to act like this was all part of a bigger Wenger constructed plan... he like Ramsey, Xhaka and Elneny don't offer the skills necessary to satisfy the quick transitory nature of our old offensive scheme or the stout defensive mindset needed to protect the defensive zone so that our offensive players can remain aggressive in the final third... on the front end, we have Ozil, a player of immense skill but stunted by his physical demeanor that tends to offend, the fact that he's been played out of position far too many times since arriving and that the players in front of him, minus Sanchez, make little to no sense considering what he has to offer (especially Giroud); just think about the quick counter-attack offence in Real or the space and protection he receives in the German National team's midfield, where teams couldn't afford to focus too heavily on one individual... this player was a passing «specialist» long before he arrived in North London, so only an arrogant or ignorant individual would try to reinvent the wheel and / or not surround such a talent with the necessary components... in regards to Ox, Walcott and Welbeck, although they all possess serious talents I see them in large part as headless chickens who are on the injury table too much, lack the necessary first - touch and / or lack the finishing flair to warrant their inclusion in a regular starting eleven; I would say that, of the 3, Ox showed the most upside once we went to a back 3, but even he became a bit too consumed by his pending contract talks before the season ended and that concerned me a bit... if I had to choose one of those 3 players to stay on it would be Ox due to his potential as a plausible alternative to Bellerin in that wing - back position should we continue to use that formation... in Sanchez, we get one of the most committed skill players we've seen on this squad for some years but that could all change soon, if it hasn't already of course... strangely enough, even he doesn't make sense given the constructs of the original Wenger offensive model because he holds onto the ball too long and he will give the ball up a little too often in the offensive zone... a fact that is largely forgotten due to his infectious energy and the fact that the numbers he has achieved seem to justify the means... finally, and in many ways most crucially, Giroud, there is nothing about this team or the offensive system that Wenger has traditionally employed that would even suggest such a player would make sense as a starter... too slow, too inefficient and way too easily dispossessed... once again, I think he has some special skills and, at times, has showed some world - class qualities but he's lack of mobility is an albatross around the necks of our offence... so when you ask who would be our best starting 11, I don't have a clue because of the 5 or 6 players that truly deserve a place in this side, 1 just arrived, 3 aren't under contract beyond 2018 and the other was just sold to Juve... man, this is theraputic because following this team is like an addiction to heroin without the benefits

But three central defenders at the back plus two wingbacks could be good against Atletico, because that type of formation could prevent Atletico's wingers from supplying crosses to Costa / Griezmann

Our wingbacks getting upfield and crossing seemed pointless (crossing actually getting better), high balls up field seemed pointless and sanchez positioning on the counters was also pointless; Sanchez got the benefit of more space because besiktas was pushing forward for an equaliser in the second half, however we will not have the same opportunities n other games, i strongly feel he would have a joy ride on the leftside of our attack, with sanago or a new signing like a welbeck as the focal point.

Giroud suffered because there was no explosive winger provided good crosses for him, like Mbappe and Coman in France national football team.

What he was very poor.Bolasie was using him for some skills i do nt know if i watched him clearly or i was blind but Bolasie had a good game against Monreal and Zaha too even all dangerous crosses were from his side.I do nt know what i watched.He was caught out a lot of times and the player you are talking about is koscielny he was at left back several times defending for him.I do nt know how to convince you because i watched him a lot of time and he was beaten easily against Bolasie.

Jenks can feature against teams that pack the box because his crossing is really really good.

Holding's done well but his recent performances have shown that a youngster is indeed a youngster.Even when he was playing well there were many times where he overdid things.However, I'm saying all these things because the guy is being heavily replied upon and that's putting pressure on him hence the inconsistencies.I'm still sratching my head over the Gabriel sale.I honestly think he's better than Mertesacker, Holding and Chambers for now.The three back suited him perfectly.I agree with you that Ox can't score or defend but he can definitely set up chances with his crossing.In fact I think though he gets many wrong he's actually our best crosser.People should should go and rewatch his crosses and compare it to our other players.

Clearly, you didn't because he made 2/3 good, traditional crosses from the right (the bad one was an indecisive shot / cross), one fantastic crossing freekick, and another good, central cross / lob that Butland had to dive to get out.

It was a cloudy, cold September morning, I recall, not good swimming weather at all, and I was cross with Tony because his stroke was even more dreadful than usual.