|
Post by baldy on Oct 27, 2014 8:02:37 GMT
I'd agree that a lot of the so called stand out players didn't pitch up. Di Maria was poor as was Fabregas and I didn't really think RVP had a great game either. Hazard is the one that prompts and probes and makes it happen around the edge of the box. I'd have had Fletcher in to do a man marking job on him. Problem with Fellaini is that, I assume, he has this remit to get himself in and around the penalty area to get on the end of crosses but in trying to do so he loses his man elsewhere and Chelsea exploited the space well for twenty five minutes in the second half.
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Oct 27, 2014 8:10:24 GMT
That supposed fouling at a corner does my head in. You show me any clip you like from that match when it was a Man U corner and I will show you a Chelsea defender grabbing, pushing, pulling a red shirt. It happens at every corner. 50/50. Man up and get on with it, it's well recognised within the game that penalties just are not given for these sort of penalty area incidents. Like I say, someone put up a dead ball clip in the area at a Man U set piece and I will show you every single time a Man U penalty. So hauling a player to the floor isn't a foul? It's because the refs don't give penalties for what are clear fouls that it has become such a problem. It's a strange argument to allow it to continue because "you'd get loads of penalties if you start giving them". There are lots of offsides every game, should they stop giving them? And I love the fact that Baldy is saying that hauling a player down shouldn't be a penalty, yet the slightest touch of a Man Utd player - "look he brushed against his big toe" - is a clear penalty. Apply to the laws of the game, and, as Baldy says "man up" and get on with it. If you are hauling people to the floor, it's should be a penalty, don't moan if it's given.
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Oct 27, 2014 8:35:12 GMT
"its well recognised that penalties are just not given for these sort of penalty area incidents" Tell that to Shawcross,who conceded a penalty for just that sort of "incident"last week. And he seems to be the only who's been unfortunate enough to be penalised. As for your Man City example at West Ham. They did deserve to win. West Ham were just more clinical. I think Saddletramp is pointing out that quoting stats as proof of something is flawed. There's much more to football than who had the ball most.
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Oct 27, 2014 8:42:29 GMT
And he seems to be the only who's been unfortunate enough to be penalised. As for your Man City example at West Ham. They did deserve to win. West Ham were just more clinical. I think Saddletramp is pointing out that quoting stats as proof of something is flawed. There's much more to football than who had the ball most. Yeah like attempts on goal and shots on target which, lets face it, is what you are striving to achieve from the minute an attack starts.
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Oct 27, 2014 8:46:43 GMT
That supposed fouling at a corner does my head in. You show me any clip you like from that match when it was a Man U corner and I will show you a Chelsea defender grabbing, pushing, pulling a red shirt. It happens at every corner. 50/50. Man up and get on with it, it's well recognised within the game that penalties just are not given for these sort of penalty area incidents. Like I say, someone put up a dead ball clip in the area at a Man U set piece and I will show you every single time a Man U penalty. So hauling a player to the floor isn't a foul? It's because the refs don't give penalties for what are clear fouls that it has become such a problem. It's a strange argument to allow it to continue because "you'd get loads of penalties if you start giving them". There are lots of offsides every game, should they stop giving them? And I love the fact that Baldy is saying that hauling a player down shouldn't be a penalty, yet the slightest touch of a Man Utd player - "look he brushed against his big toe" - is a clear penalty. Apply to the laws of the game, and, as Baldy says "man up" and get on with it. If you are hauling people to the floor, it's should be a penalty, don't moan if it's given. Where is the cut off point though. Just because a Chelsea players may have been tugged and then fell over it's a penalty ? What about the player that is tugged at a dead ball but stays on his feet ? In your opinion should that be a penalty or are you saying it's only a penalty if a player decides to hit the deck ? Surely a tug, pull or push is a penalty whether the player stays upright or goes down. He is still restricting the movement of the player so a penalty. How many do you think we'd get a game ? Joking aside my guess is somewhere around 25 penalties per match.
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Oct 27, 2014 8:46:58 GMT
I think Saddletramp is pointing out that quoting stats as proof of something is flawed. There's much more to football than who had the ball most. Yeah like attempts on goal and shots on target which, lets face it, is what you are striving to achieve from the minute an attack starts. But a feeble shot from 25 yards that the keeper could throw his hat on counts as a shot on target. A move that cuts the opponents defence to shreds which ends with a last ditch interception doesn't count as anything. As I said, it doesn't tell the whole story.
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Oct 27, 2014 8:57:40 GMT
Yeah like attempts on goal and shots on target which, lets face it, is what you are striving to achieve from the minute an attack starts. But a feeble shot from 25 yards that the keeper could throw his hat on counts as a shot on target. A move that cuts the opponents defence to shreds which ends with a last ditch interception doesn't count as anything. As I said, it doesn't tell the whole story. You're right it doesn't tell the whole story but bar a twenty five minute period just after the break where Hazard started to weave his magic at what other point were Chelsea dominant ? They had a fair bit of the ball across their defence and playing it around between themselves in unthreatening areas but surely that's as lame as these feeble shots you're on about ? Cutting edge is what defines the better teams and bar the save from Hazard - it ultimately led to the goal - and the one from Drogba give me another example of any save of note that De Gea made. I don't think he made another one. Courtois, on the other hand, made three excellent stops from RVP alone. De Gea had a quiet day and Chelsea rarely, if ever, got in behind Man U whereas Shaw in the first half was attacking at will down their right.
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Oct 27, 2014 9:12:05 GMT
But a feeble shot from 25 yards that the keeper could throw his hat on counts as a shot on target. A move that cuts the opponents defence to shreds which ends with a last ditch interception doesn't count as anything. As I said, it doesn't tell the whole story. You're right it doesn't tell the whole story but bar a twenty five minute period just after the break where Hazard started to weave his magic at what other point were Chelsea dominant ? They had a fair bit of the ball across their defence and playing it around between themselves in unthreatening areas but surely that's as lame as these feeble shots you're on about ? Cutting edge is what defines the better teams and bar the save from Hazard - it ultimately led to the goal - and the one from Drogba give me another example of any save of note that De Gea made. I don't think he made another one. Courtois, on the other hand, made three excellent stops from RVP alone. De Gea had a quiet day and Chelsea rarely, if ever, got in behind Man U whereas Shaw in the first half was attacking at will down their right. I can't find the goalkeepers save stats for yesterdays' game.
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Oct 27, 2014 9:30:15 GMT
You're right it doesn't tell the whole story but bar a twenty five minute period just after the break where Hazard started to weave his magic at what other point were Chelsea dominant ? They had a fair bit of the ball across their defence and playing it around between themselves in unthreatening areas but surely that's as lame as these feeble shots you're on about ? Cutting edge is what defines the better teams and bar the save from Hazard - it ultimately led to the goal - and the one from Drogba give me another example of any save of note that De Gea made. I don't think he made another one. Courtois, on the other hand, made three excellent stops from RVP alone. De Gea had a quiet day and Chelsea rarely, if ever, got in behind Man U whereas Shaw in the first half was attacking at will down their right. I can't find the goalkeepers save stats for yesterdays' game. What about my earlier post about tugging, pulling, pushing at dead ball. Your view ?
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Oct 27, 2014 9:31:39 GMT
I can't find the goalkeepers save stats for yesterdays' game. What about my earlier post about tugging, pulling, pushing at dead ball. Your view ? I've already answered it.
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Oct 27, 2014 12:21:10 GMT
What about my earlier post about tugging, pulling, pushing at dead ball. Your view ? I've already answered it. So what are your views on my reply?
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Oct 27, 2014 12:37:50 GMT
I've already answered it. So what are your views on my reply? I asked you if it should be a penalty if there is tugging, pulling or pushing at a dead ball if the 'fouled' player remains on his feet ? In my opinion that is clearly still restricting his movement. What do you think ? Is it the falling over bit that makes you think it has to be a penalty ? I can't see where you have answered that but I'm happy to be proved wrong.
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Oct 27, 2014 12:47:46 GMT
So what are your views on my reply? I asked you if it should be a penalty if there is tugging, pulling or pushing at a dead ball if the 'fouled' player remains on his feet ? In my opinion that is clearly still restricting his movement. What do you think ? Is it the falling over bit that makes you think it has to be a penalty ? I can't see where you have answered that but I'm happy to be proved wrong. Here's my reply: So hauling a player to the floor isn't a foul?
It's because the refs don't give penalties for what are clear fouls that it has become such a problem.
It's a strange argument to allow it to continue because "you'd get loads of penalties if you start giving them". There are lots of offsides every game, should they stop giving them?
And I love the fact that Baldy is saying that hauling a player down shouldn't be a penalty, yet the slightest touch of a Man Utd player - "look he brushed against his big toe" - is a clear penalty.
Apply to the laws of the game, and, as Baldy says "man up" and get on with it. If you are hauling people to the floor, it's should be a penalty, don't moan if it's given.
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Oct 27, 2014 13:00:30 GMT
I asked you if it should be a penalty if there is tugging, pulling or pushing at a dead ball if the 'fouled' player remains on his feet ? In my opinion that is clearly still restricting his movement. What do you think ? Is it the falling over bit that makes you think it has to be a penalty ? I can't see where you have answered that but I'm happy to be proved wrong. Here's my reply: So hauling a player to the floor isn't a foul?
It's because the refs don't give penalties for what are clear fouls that it has become such a problem.
It's a strange argument to allow it to continue because "you'd get loads of penalties if you start giving them". There are lots of offsides every game, should they stop giving them?
And I love the fact that Baldy is saying that hauling a player down shouldn't be a penalty, yet the slightest touch of a Man Utd player - "look he brushed against his big toe" - is a clear penalty.
Apply to the laws of the game, and, as Baldy says "man up" and get on with it. If you are hauling people to the floor, it's should be a penalty, don't moan if it's given.
So if the attacker decides to go down, penalty ? I think it was Ivanesivic yesterday, surely he could have stayed on his feet ? There was no more grappling there than there is at any other penalty area dead ball confrontation. I noticed an incident on RVP where he was clearly being man handled by Terry but he stayed upright. Perhaps he should have fallen over.
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Oct 27, 2014 13:07:48 GMT
Here's my reply: So hauling a player to the floor isn't a foul?
It's because the refs don't give penalties for what are clear fouls that it has become such a problem.
It's a strange argument to allow it to continue because "you'd get loads of penalties if you start giving them". There are lots of offsides every game, should they stop giving them?
And I love the fact that Baldy is saying that hauling a player down shouldn't be a penalty, yet the slightest touch of a Man Utd player - "look he brushed against his big toe" - is a clear penalty.
Apply to the laws of the game, and, as Baldy says "man up" and get on with it. If you are hauling people to the floor, it's should be a penalty, don't moan if it's given.
So if the attacker decides to go down, penalty ? I think it was Ivanesivic yesterday, surely he could have stayed on his feet ? There was no more grappling there than there is at any other penalty area dead ball confrontation. I noticed an incident on RVP where he was clearly being man handled by Terry but he stayed upright. Perhaps he should have fallen over. Again, just apply the laws of the game. You seem obsessed with some players going to ground and some staying on their feet as if there's something in the laws of the game about it. If it's a foul in the box give the penalty, if it's not a foul then play on. A player staying on his feet can be penalty or no penalty, same as a player going to ground can be a penalty or no penalty. You can keep saying, "but what about this" or "What about that". Apply the laws of the game. It's not that difficult is it?
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Oct 27, 2014 13:23:39 GMT
So if the attacker decides to go down, penalty ? I think it was Ivanesivic yesterday, surely he could have stayed on his feet ? There was no more grappling there than there is at any other penalty area dead ball confrontation. I noticed an incident on RVP where he was clearly being man handled by Terry but he stayed upright. Perhaps he should have fallen over. Again, just apply the laws of the game. You seem obsessed with some players going to ground and some staying on their feet as if there's something in the laws of the game about it. If it's a foul in the box give the penalty, if it's not a foul then play on. A player staying on his feet can be penalty or no penalty, same as a player going to ground can be a penalty or no penalty. You can keep saying, "but what about this" or "What about that". Apply the laws of the game. It's not that difficult is it? Fair enough then. The game will go silly on this basis - penalty kick after penalty kick. Every dead ball into the box - maybe even every cross - will be a penalty. You are saying 'apply the law' but that's not always easy. If every one applied the law in this country and adhered to speed limits on motorways etc then the entire country would come to a standstill.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Oct 27, 2014 13:28:27 GMT
Again, just apply the laws of the game. You seem obsessed with some players going to ground and some staying on their feet as if there's something in the laws of the game about it. If it's a foul in the box give the penalty, if it's not a foul then play on. A player staying on his feet can be penalty or no penalty, same as a player going to ground can be a penalty or no penalty. You can keep saying, "but what about this" or "What about that". Apply the laws of the game. It's not that difficult is it? Fair enough then. The game will go silly on this basis - penalty kick after penalty kick. Every dead ball into the box - maybe even every cross - will be a penalty. You are saying 'apply the law' but that's not always easy. If every one applied the law in this country and adhered to speed limits on motorways etc then the entire country would come to a standstill. Or it might stop them doing it altogether !!
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Oct 27, 2014 13:40:00 GMT
Again, just apply the laws of the game. You seem obsessed with some players going to ground and some staying on their feet as if there's something in the laws of the game about it. If it's a foul in the box give the penalty, if it's not a foul then play on. A player staying on his feet can be penalty or no penalty, same as a player going to ground can be a penalty or no penalty. You can keep saying, "but what about this" or "What about that". Apply the laws of the game. It's not that difficult is it? Fair enough then. The game will go silly on this basis - penalty kick after penalty kick. Every dead ball into the box - maybe even every cross - will be a penalty. You are saying 'apply the law' but that's not always easy. If every one applied the law in this country and adhered to speed limits on motorways etc then the entire country would come to a standstill. Why will the game "go silly" They do it because they get away with it. I rarely see an outfield player catch the ball. Why is that? Because they wouldn't get away with it. How many offsides are there each game? Should they get rid of that law? Why would the country come to a standstill if people stuck to the speed limit? What a very strange thing to say. And I've been done for speeding. Should I have whinged and moaned that I've seen other people driving over the speed limit? No I accepted I'd broken the law and "got on with it". You're starting to sound like one of those "It's not my fault I'm fat - the government should pay for me to go to the gym" people the newspapers feature, who sit on their arse all day and eat chips.
|
|
|
Post by scotchegg on Oct 27, 2014 15:48:36 GMT
Just a few questions for Baldy!
Is a point at home good enough for a team with title winning aspirations?
Is a 10 point game too big even at this early stage of the season?
If Man Utd achieved 4th on the last day of the season, would that still be a successful season?
If they don't make the top 4 should LvG go?
Would a point away to Man City and Arsenal be a good result?
|
|
|
Post by bicesteryellow on Oct 27, 2014 15:51:29 GMT
Just a few questions for Baldy! Is a point at home good enough for a team with title winning aspirations? Yeah, King Louis has masterminded a superb draw against England's 2nd best teamIs a 10 point game too big even at this early stage of the season? No, LVG will easily bring it back and the title homeIf Man Utd achieved 4th on the last day of the season, would that still be a successful season? Man U will win the leagueIf they don't make the top 4 should LvG go? Man U will win the leagueWould a point away to Man City and Arsenal be a good result? Man U are best
|
|
|
Post by scotchegg on Oct 27, 2014 16:08:18 GMT
Just a few questions for Baldy! Is a point at home good enough for a team with title winning aspirations? Yeah, King Louis has masterminded a superb draw against England's 2nd best teamIs a 10 point game too big even at this early stage of the season? No, LVG will easily bring it back and the title homeIf Man Utd achieved 4th on the last day of the season, would that still be a successful season? Man U will win the leagueIf they don't make the top 4 should LvG go? Man U will win the leagueWould a point away to Man City and Arsenal be a good result? Man U are bestThanks for your balanced response! I suspect his answers will not be too dissimilar!!
|
|
|
Post by bicesteryellow on Oct 27, 2014 16:13:21 GMT
Thanks for your balanced response! I suspect his answers will not be too dissimilar!! You're very welcome. He's so predictable I thought I'd just answer for him, in a similar way to what Junior does.
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Oct 27, 2014 16:54:08 GMT
Just a few questions for Baldy! Is a point at home good enough for a team with title winning aspirations? No but Man U have often dropped points against their nearest rivals. Titles are won by beating the lesser teams. There are more of those and it's not rocket science to see that they are the games you have to win. I've always said it.Is a 10 point game too big even at this early stage of the season? No of course it isn't. 90 odd points to play for. It's a stupid question. Do the maths.If Man Utd achieved 4th on the last day of the season, would that still be a successful season? No, definitely not successful. Success is NOT coming 4th in a competition ! It would go down as passable given that it's an improvement on the previous season and the first season to bed in under a new manager and amid new players and a big exodus.If they don't make the top 4 should LvG go? No. He's got to have a free hit just as Mourinho did last season. It wont reflect too well on him but his CV does suggest he gets it right, very right, beyond his first season. Would a point away to Man City and Arsenal be a good result? A point at City, the champions, has to be seen as a decent point in anyone's book. Arsenal ? A point couldn't be seen as disastrous but they'd be looking to win that I'm sure. Man U have dropped some unexpected points so they perhaps do need to reclaim some at places where, in normal circumstances, a point would be deemed OK. They're capable though.[/b]
|
|
|
Post by stevegilbert on Oct 27, 2014 17:35:25 GMT
Just a few questions for Baldy! Is a point at home good enough for a team with title winning aspirations? No but Man U have often dropped points against their nearest rivals. Titles are won by beating the lesser teams. There are more of those and it's not rocket science to see that they are the games you have to win. I've always said it.Is a 10 point game too big even at this early stage of the season? No of course it isn't. 90 odd points to play for. It's a stupid question. Do the maths.If Man Utd achieved 4th on the last day of the season, would that still be a successful season? No, definitely not successful. Success is NOT coming 4th in a competition ! It would go down as passable given that it's an improvement on the previous season and the first season to bed in under a new manager and amid new players and a big exodus.If they don't make the top 4 should LvG go? No. He's got to have a free hit just as Mourinho did last season. It wont reflect too well on him but his CV does suggest he gets it right, very right, beyond his first season. Would a point away to Man City and Arsenal be a good result? A point at City, the champions, has to be seen as a decent point in anyone's book. Arsenal ? A point couldn't be seen as disastrous but they'd be looking to win that I'm sure. Man U have dropped some unexpected points so they perhaps do need to reclaim some at places where, in normal circumstances, a point would be deemed OK. They're capable though.[/b]
They have lost or drawn to lesser teams already though this season. 90 points to play for but you have to hope Chelsea drop at least 10 points and Man U don't lose a game. Can't see it myself but then you do have a very special vision!
|
|
|
Post by scotchegg on Oct 27, 2014 17:51:20 GMT
If Man Utd match Chelsea point tally between now and the end of the season then I think they'd have done very well. Can only see the gap growing unless Chelsea win it so early that they start playing their kids in the spring.
I know it's early but I think only Man City have a chance of catching Chelsea, and that looks less likely with every dropped point.
So I can only see Man Utd possibly playing for 3rd or 4th (with Arsenal slight favourites for 3rd at the moment). Best part of £200m spent for 4th would be disastrous for most teams, but I guess it would buy LvG another year.
At least it'll put an end to the digs about Arsenal celebrating 4th, and it being all about winning or bust when it comes to the PL.
As for the next few weeks, I would like to bet that Man Utd will be well beaten by City and will be lucky to get a point against Arsenal. Is that enough? You do the maths!!
|
|
|
Post by bicesteryellow on Oct 27, 2014 17:58:18 GMT
I think Manchester United will have 70 points at the end of the season. I think Chelsea will have 98
|
|
|
Post by scotchegg on Oct 27, 2014 18:04:54 GMT
I think Manchester United will have 70 points at the end of the season. I think Chelsea will have 98 28 points sounds about right. What position would that put Man Utd in? I think there'll be a massive gap between the top 2 and anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by bicesteryellow on Oct 27, 2014 18:12:25 GMT
I think Manchester United will have 70 points at the end of the season. I think Chelsea will have 98 28 points sounds about right. What position would that put Man Utd in? I think there'll be a massive gap between the top 2 and anyone else. Last year 70 points would have got 6th. Spurs got 69 points last season, and Everton got 72.
|
|
|
Post by saddletramp on Oct 27, 2014 19:02:58 GMT
Just a few questions for Baldy! Is a point at home good enough for a team with title winning aspirations? No but Man U have often dropped points against their nearest rivals. Titles are won by beating the lesser teams. There are more of those and it's not rocket science to see that they are the games you have to win. I've always said it.Is a 10 point game too big even at this early stage of the season? No of course it isn't. 90 odd points to play for. It's a stupid question. Do the maths.If Man Utd achieved 4th on the last day of the season, would that still be a successful season? No, definitely not successful. Success is NOT coming 4th in a competition ! It would go down as passable given that it's an improvement on the previous season and the first season to bed in under a new manager and amid new players and a big exodus.If they don't make the top 4 should LvG go? No. He's got to have a free hit just as Mourinho did last season. It wont reflect too well on him but his CV does suggest he gets it right, very right, beyond his first season. Would a point away to Man City and Arsenal be a good result? A point at City, the champions, has to be seen as a decent point in anyone's book. Arsenal ? A point couldn't be seen as disastrous but they'd be looking to win that I'm sure. Man U have dropped some unexpected points so they perhaps do need to reclaim some at places where, in normal circumstances, a point would be deemed OK. They're capable though.[/b]
You keep going on about "having a free hit like Mourinho did last season" The question was "If they don't make the top 4 should LVG go ? You reply with the above comment,strange because the last time I looked Chelsea finished 3rd last season.
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Oct 27, 2014 19:53:39 GMT
I don't know why people bang on about 4th. 4th is a crap season for any big team. I'll be gutted if Man U only finish 4th. Think about it, 4th ? How the f*ck can anybody be content with 4th if you consider yourselves a big team. 4th is nothing.
It's better than 5th but it's still four places away from where any big team should be or want to be.
|
|