|
Post by Titan Uranus on Sept 1, 2015 12:53:38 GMT
A heartening read Chief. Stuck in Norfolk struggling for internet all weekend so this is the first in depth review I've seen. Still not sold on 4.1.4.1 myself and i thought the team selection was odd - easy with hindsight but I honestly wouldn't have selected the two that saw red in the first place. Agree. Gobsmacked that Charlie was picked instead of Ireland and not sure what Affy brings to the party yet (other than a little streak of petulance)
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Sept 1, 2015 12:55:00 GMT
I didn't see the 90 minutes Rob, I always think though it's a bit odd that you never ask posters who agree with you whether they watched the whole match. If they're a Stoke fan Geoff, then they usually have. How on earth can you talk about how Oliver refereed the game when you haven't seen it? If you've only seen the highlights you have no sense for how he refereed the match as a whole have you? It's a sad by-product of the internet. People see fit to comment about books they've never read, films they've never seen. Sal usually puts "only if you were there please" on the MOTM thread. Now we see why...
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Sept 1, 2015 12:58:47 GMT
Come off it Rob and stick to the subject, the BBC show highlights and Sky extended ones. Did Oliver referee this game badly, was he playing to the bigger audience, did he favour West Brom, does he dislike Stoke, was he deliberately ignoring fouls by a West Brom player, is he to young to referee at this level, does he favour the biggest clubs and so on. If Oliver is guilty of even some of these claims then produce the evidence, or is it the case that because you say it I have to accept it must be true. Personally I'll give Rob's opinion some credibility - as he was actually there. You don't have to accept anything, but why are you trying to debunk something you know fuck all about ?
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 1, 2015 13:03:00 GMT
I take it striper that you never post any views on games unless you were actually there live, is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Sept 1, 2015 13:10:44 GMT
Many thanks for a great essay, with which I totally concur. I know there was not a lot of "product" during the first 30 mins, but it showed a huge amount of promise for the future.
There were 2 positives from the day IMO. Firstly it was a great bonding session for our player, "backs to the wall", 9 versus 11, the victims of "persecution", etc. which will help them gel as a team. Secondly the day marks the end of a chapter in my life as a Stokie by the behaviour of TP. I applauded his return and will always be grateful for what he has done for me as a Stokie. But my respect for him has significantly diminished and he will certainly not have any future reverential support from me. I guess he couldn't care less; he came to do a job and successfully expedited it (like Villa last season). That said, I now see him in the light most other club fans did, when he was Stoke's manager. Definitely a 3rd tier player and 2nd tier manager. There are some people, no matter how successful they are, never quite attain that level of respect their ability and achievements should warrant because of their nature as a person. (Don Revie comes to mind.) I suspect the "distance" between him and the club/Coates family will now grow.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Sept 1, 2015 13:11:30 GMT
I take it striper that you never post any views on games unless you were actually there live, is that correct? Nobody says anything about there live Geoff. You have to have seen it in some form though yeah, be it live or on a screen. As for 'sticking to the subject, you have no idea what the subject is. I've suggested Oliver wasn't fair in how he refereed the game and cited examples where there was one rule for us and one for them. You might well not agree but if you haven't seen it either way you've no right to an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2015 13:14:39 GMT
Oliver has reffed Liverpool three times since he awarded the penalty against Shawcross for holding in the box.
Not once has he penalised the one man who is worse than Ryan...Skirtl.
He's one player who definitely does it every week!
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Sept 1, 2015 13:24:04 GMT
Well let's look at a few things that often come up on this board Rob. Officials favour the bigger club, well we were the bigger club. Officials favour the home team, well we were the home team. Officials are anti Tony Pulis and his tactics, well he managed the opposition. Shirt pulling is a real nightmare for officials and in most incidents both players have probably got hold of each others shirts. In reality Rob it's the gamesmanship of players that create the problem and all the officials can do is to try and make the right call in a split second. There's also the problem of opposition managers waving imaginary cards at the slightest challenge.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Sept 1, 2015 13:23:56 GMT
I really WANT to believe that referees go out and do their best......that they are impartial and simply make decisions as they see them. I honestly believe that's true in the main but they get it horribly wrong at times and it's hard to believe they don't get influenced by the top clubs on occasions.
That said, it's also pretty difficult to argue against the red cards if we are simply applying the letter of the law. True there was little common sense exercised by the officials, but even less by the two idiots that got sent off. Obviously, they got it wrong in not treating both players the same in the first incident but surely no-one is trying to argue that was because of some kind of bias towards WBA?
The referee actually gave more than twice as many free kicks to Stoke than he did for WBrom but there were some very strange decisions. I think it was a very poor performance from the officials but they were not to blame for Stoke ending up with 9 men.
Prior to the sendings off I think we played some good stuff and looked really bright but we created next to nothing in terms of goal threat and I think we'd had ONE shot at goal. Much of that, I think, relates to new players finding their feet and developing understandings with team mates and there was much to be encouraged about.
However, I think we may well regret not bringing in a commanding CH if Ryan is out for as long as we fear.
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Sept 1, 2015 13:27:49 GMT
Come off it Rob and stick to the subject, the BBC show highlights and Sky extended ones. Did Oliver referee this game badly, was he playing to the bigger audience, did he favour West Brom, does he dislike Stoke, was he deliberately ignoring fouls by a West Brom player, is he to young to referee at this level, does he favour the biggest clubs and so on. If Oliver is guilty of even some of these claims then produce the evidence, or is it the case that because you say it I have to accept it must be true. He ignored the flying tackle on Adam.
|
|
|
Post by fentoninbloom on Sept 1, 2015 13:30:08 GMT
I didn't see the 90 minutes Rob, I always think though it's a bit odd that you never ask posters who agree with you whether they watched the whole match. You're a good wind-up, fella. On that we can all agree!
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Sept 1, 2015 13:30:37 GMT
I take it striper that you never post any views on games unless you were actually there live, is that correct? For games I don't attend I confine my observations to individual incidents shown on TV. For clarity that's observations Geoff, ie: where I have observed something. I cannot see why anyone would do otherwise - unless they were either attention seeking, a wind up merchant, or trying to peddle an agenda.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Sept 1, 2015 13:32:58 GMT
I take it striper that you never post any views on games unless you were actually there live, is that correct? I don't think it helps the messageboard when people get abusive but I always make an exception in your case Geoff. You're not even a Stoke fan, you don't go to games and yet you're always on here shooting your stupid fucking mouth off. Why don't you just fuck off and spout off somewhere else about something you know something about and to people who give a shit what you think?
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Sept 1, 2015 13:35:46 GMT
I really WANT to believe that referees go out and do their best......that they are impartial and simply make decisions as they see them. I honestly believe that's true in the main but they get it horribly wrong at times and it's hard to believe they don't get influenced by the top clubs on occasions. That said, it's also pretty difficult to argue against the red cards if we are simply applying the letter of the law. True there was little common sense exercised by the officials, but even less by the two idiots that got sent off. Obviously, they got it wrong in not treating both players the same in the first incident but surely no-one is trying to argue that was because of some kind of bias towards WBA? The referee actually gave more than twice as many free kicks to Stoke than he did for WBrom but there were some very strange decisions. I think it was a very poor performance from the officials but they were not to blame for Stoke ending up with 9 men. Prior to the sendings off I think we played some good stuff and looked really bright but we created next to nothing in terms of goal threat and I think we'd had ONE shot at goal. Much of that, I think, relates to new players finding their feet and developing understandings with team mates and there was much to be encouraged about. However, I think we may well regret not bringing in a commanding CH if Ryan is out for as long as we fear. Shaqiri shot just wide, Adam shot just over, Myhill saved from Diouf, Diouf had a good chance just after the first red.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Sept 1, 2015 13:38:31 GMT
I really WANT to believe that referees go out and do their best......that they are impartial and simply make decisions as they see them. I honestly believe that's true in the main but they get it horribly wrong at times and it's hard to believe they don't get influenced by the top clubs on occasions. That said, it's also pretty difficult to argue against the red cards if we are simply applying the letter of the law. True there was little common sense exercised by the officials, but even less by the two idiots that got sent off. Obviously, they got it wrong in not treating both players the same in the first incident but surely no-one is trying to argue that was because of some kind of bias towards WBA? The referee actually gave more than twice as many free kicks to Stoke than he did for WBrom but there were some very strange decisions. I think it was a very poor performance from the officials but they were not to blame for Stoke ending up with 9 men. Prior to the sendings off I think we played some good stuff and looked really bright but we created next to nothing in terms of goal threat and I think we'd had ONE shot at goal. Much of that, I think, relates to new players finding their feet and developing understandings with team mates and there was much to be encouraged about. However, I think we may well regret not bringing in a commanding CH if Ryan is out for as long as we fear. Shaqiri shot just wide, Adam shot just over, Myhill saved from Diouf, Diouf had a good chance just after the first red. Yeh....I should have said what I meant (shots on target). Shaqiri's effort was a 'nothing' attempt and Charlie's was a hit and hope from way out with no other options open to him. Neither got me anywhere near out of my seat.
|
|
|
Post by themistocles on Sept 1, 2015 13:42:33 GMT
Why hasn't haugaud been loaned out yet ? he's taking up a squad place ?
Better yet , why did we sign him AND Given, having 3 keepers over 21 in a squad of 25 is ridiculous
Edit wrong thread
|
|
|
Post by fentoninbloom on Sept 1, 2015 13:43:39 GMT
I take it striper that you never post any views on games unless you were actually there live, is that correct? I don't think it helps the messageboard when people get abusive but I always make an exception in your case Geoff. You're not even a Stoke fan, you don't go to games and yet you're always on here shooting your stupid fucking mouth off. Why don't you just fuck off and spout off somewhere else about something you know something about and to people who give a shit what you think? He's a wind-up mate. If you want to make him fuck off, don't say as much
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Sept 1, 2015 13:54:10 GMT
Shaqiri shot just wide, Adam shot just over, Myhill saved from Diouf, Diouf had a good chance just after the first red. Yeh....I should have said what I meant (shots on target). Shaqiri's effort was a 'nothing' attempt and Charlie's was a hit and hope from way out with no other options open to him. Neither got me anywhere near out of my seat. Shaqiri's attempt had the keeper beaten and was only just wide. Does that really count for less than a daisy cutter farted towards the keeper at 2mph he can bend down and pick up?
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Sept 1, 2015 13:59:00 GMT
I don't think it helps the messageboard when people get abusive but I always make an exception in your case Geoff. You're not even a Stoke fan, you don't go to games and yet you're always on here shooting your stupid fucking mouth off. Why don't you just fuck off and spout off somewhere else about something you know something about and to people who give a shit what you think? He's a wind-up mate. If you want to make him fuck off, don't say as much I understand that which is why I don't normally respond. But everybody has their occasional cracking point and mine came when he started getting all sanctimonious just then. I wish the admin would just ban him and have done. for everybody's sake, including his.
|
|
|
Post by meltonjohn on Sept 1, 2015 14:01:49 GMT
Very good analysis again, especially of Michael Oliver, the little boy lost in a man's game. I'm still incredibly irritated by Affelay, since without his stupidity I could see no other result than a pretty straightforward win. I suspect Charlie Adam's similar stupidity was borne out of frustration at Affelay's red, as well. I have only one point of contention - I thought Shaqiri looked intelligent against Spurs and without being too flashy, showed little touches of brilliance that promised more. However, on Saturday nothing really came off for him. He ran into a lot of blind alleys, took on too many men and couldn't really put his stamp on the game (unlike Charlie Adam...sorry). He looked like he was running in treacle, too. I think he may need more match practice and proper fitness work, as he looked a touch off the pace and I believe he hasn't had much of a pre season at Inter. I would direct my praise more to the phenomenally hard working Diouf, the tireless van Ginkel, the ever reliable Whelan and even the had a horror show at centre back but transformed such that his best attributes kept us on the front foot when Arnie came on Cameron. Shaqiri didn't play against Spurs, serving suspension.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2015 14:03:42 GMT
I think you see the first 30 mins more positively than it really was. We did some nice pass and move but I only remember one shot on target in that time. It was hardly threatening stuff. To say we would have won easily if we kept 11 men on the pitch is stretching it a bit far in my book. and in that time the only save either keeper had to make of note was by Butland. Is it a case of all style and no substance ? Only in the last 30 minutes at Spurs and maybe the first 20 at Norwich have we shown the substance to go with the style this season....so far
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Sept 1, 2015 14:06:10 GMT
Yeh....I should have said what I meant (shots on target). Shaqiri's effort was a 'nothing' attempt and Charlie's was a hit and hope from way out with no other options open to him. Neither got me anywhere near out of my seat. Shaqiri's attempt had the keeper beaten and was only just wide. Does that really count for less than a daisy cutter farted towards the keeper at 2mph he can bend down and pick up? Your definition of "only just wide" is clearly slightly different to mine. In terms of solid goal potential, rob, we created very little. I'm not having a go at them for that because I think we played some good stuff and there was plenty to have us believing we've got a good team. Just being honest about what I saw.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 1, 2015 14:08:41 GMT
I've already said Rob's report was really good but in my view he went over the top with his remarks on Oliver. The officials face four issues that weren't present in the game some years ago:
The amended offside rule. Diving Feigning injury Shirt pulling/grappling.
On top of this they have huge scrutiny by the media, indeed MOTD gives significant coverage to refereeing decisions. When I watch a game I like to see as little as possible of the ref, all players staying on the pitch and the game allowed to flow.
Football players and coaches have worked on new methods to con the officials, some of which I have listed above, this has made the officials jobs more difficult and resulted in some unfair criticism as in the case in Rob's report.
Just in response to greyman, I'm on a couple of financial and political message boards which are far more abusive/controversial than the Oatcake, the key though in any debate is that different views are accepted and tolerated, it would be pretty boring if we all agreed on the same things.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2015 14:11:18 GMT
I've already said Rob's report was really good but in my view he went over the top with his remarks on Oliver. The officials face four issues that weren't present in the game some years ago: The amended offside rule. Diving Feigning injury Shirt pulling/grappling. On top of this they have huge scrutiny by the media, indeed MOTD gives significant coverage to refereeing decisions. When I watch a game I like to see as little as possible of the ref, all players staying on the pitch and the game allowed to flow. Football players and coaches have worked on new methods to con the officials, some of which I have listed above, this has made the officials jobs more difficult and resulted in some unfair criticism as in the case in Rob's report. Just in response to greyman, I'm on a couple of financial and political message boards which are far more abusive/controversial than the Oatcake, the key though t any debate is that different views are accepted and tolerated, it would be pretty boring if we all agreed on the same things. But how can you have a credible view of something you've only seen brief highlights of on tv ?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 1, 2015 14:13:44 GMT
A heartening read Chief. Stuck in Norfolk struggling for internet all weekend so this is the first in depth review I've seen. Still not sold on 4.1.4.1 myself and i thought the team selection was odd - easy with hindsight but I honestly wouldn't have selected the two that saw red in the first place. Agree. Gobsmacked that Charlie was picked instead of Ireland and not sure what Affy brings to the party yet (other than a little streak of petulance) Adam was playing very well up to his dickheadery and is a must if we carry on with 4-1-4-1 at home.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Sept 1, 2015 14:14:53 GMT
What's your view on the West Brom manager leaping around like a hyena encouraging officials to send opposing players off Geoff?
A bit shit really isn't it?
PS: Next time you speak to him, tell him to wind his neck in.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 1, 2015 14:19:40 GMT
Don't like to see anyone doing that Dave, although keep in mind I only got a T.V. view of that.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 1, 2015 14:20:18 GMT
Agree. Gobsmacked that Charlie was picked instead of Ireland and not sure what Affy brings to the party yet (other than a little streak of petulance) Adam was playing very well up to his dickheadery and is a must if we carry on with 4-1-4-1 at home. I think when Hughes switched to 4-1-4-1 last season, it was precisely because he realised this was the best formation to get the maximum out of Adam. Unfortunately for Charles, you've got to think that by the time he's free to play again, Bojan could easily be fit and we'll be back to 4-2-3-1.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 1, 2015 14:23:44 GMT
Adam was playing very well up to his dickheadery and is a must if we carry on with 4-1-4-1 at home. I think when Hughes switched to 4-1-4-1 last season, it was precisely because he realised this was the best formation to get the maximum out of Adam. Unfortunately for Charles, you've got to think that by the time he's free to play again, Bojan could easily be fit and we'll be back to 4-2-3-1. Possibly Paul. I think we could see different systems for different games it certainly looked good for 20 minutes on Saturday. I think we can all agree that the last thing we need is to throw Michu in there to complicate things further though.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Sept 1, 2015 15:02:54 GMT
Very good analysis again, especially of Michael Oliver, the little boy lost in a man's game. I'm still incredibly irritated by Affelay, since without his stupidity I could see no other result than a pretty straightforward win. I suspect Charlie Adam's similar stupidity was borne out of frustration at Affelay's red, as well. I have only one point of contention - I thought Shaqiri looked intelligent against Spurs and without being too flashy, showed little touches of brilliance that promised more. However, on Saturday nothing really came off for him. He ran into a lot of blind alleys, took on too many men and couldn't really put his stamp on the game (unlike Charlie Adam...sorry). He looked like he was running in treacle, too. I think he may need more match practice and proper fitness work, as he looked a touch off the pace and I believe he hasn't had much of a pre season at Inter. I would direct my praise more to the phenomenally hard working Diouf, the tireless van Ginkel, the ever reliable Whelan and even the had a horror show at centre back but transformed such that his best attributes kept us on the front foot when Arnie came on Cameron. Shaqiri didn't play against Spurs, serving suspension. Sorry, that was a brain lapse - I meant Norwich.
|
|