|
Post by chiefdelilah on Sept 1, 2015 7:23:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by alster on Sept 1, 2015 7:43:20 GMT
Good read rob, agree with your conclusion. We've shown enough to have confidence that we'll be fine in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Sept 1, 2015 7:50:20 GMT
Mostly excellent stuff, as always, although I have to say that *I* was bored to tears in the opening 30 minutes - tip tap nonsense in the extreme, was how I saw it ... opinions eh!! ???
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 1, 2015 7:59:03 GMT
It's a really good report Rob but I think you have it wrong about the officials. In my view the officials start every game with the intention of getting all their decisions right, the idea that they go into a game thinking about their careers, or which clubs are involved or past incidents is highly unlikely to be true.
The officials have seconds to make a decision, the modern day rules are complicated and very often subjective and the cameras are able to pick out every mistake either live or recorded.
Some people call for common sense from the ref, others want consistency but in reality they are just human and prone to errors of judgement, unlike the rest of us they can't watch the incidents twenty times from all different angles.
|
|
|
Post by cousindupree on Sept 1, 2015 8:11:16 GMT
Great read Rob. Its a great exposure of the flaws in the FA's poster boy referee Master Oliver. If there is actually still any evidence required to expose referees penchant for treating 'big teams' and big games' differently to rank and file matches you have summed it up perfectly.Sadly the likes of Stoke will have to always move aside while the likes of Oliver elbow their way into taking centre stage. Finally no praise is good enough for whelan's performance on saturday a midfield/captains tour de force of a performance. Lets hope he stays injury free.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Sept 1, 2015 8:13:36 GMT
It's a really good report Rob but I think you have it wrong about the officials. In my view the officials start every game with the intention of getting all their decisions right, the idea that they go into a game thinking about their careers, or which clubs are involved or past incidents is highly unlikely to be true. The officials have seconds to make a decision, the modern day rules are complicated and very often subjective and the cameras are able to pick out every mistake either live or recorded. Some people call for common sense from the ref, others want consistency but in reality they are just human and prone to errors of judgement, unlike the rest of us they can't watch the incidents twenty times from all different angles. I didn't think he got the major incidents wrong Geoff. But it's naive to think those sort of considerations don't come into play. Why was Lescott allowed to have hold of Diouf's shirt every time there was an aerial duel? Either the ref is allowing it to happen or he's missing it every time. That's incompetence.
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Sept 1, 2015 8:19:33 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.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 1, 2015 8:27:27 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.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 1, 2015 8:33:20 GMT
It's a really good report Rob but I think you have it wrong about the officials. In my view the officials start every game with the intention of getting all their decisions right, the idea that they go into a game thinking about their careers, or which clubs are involved or past incidents is highly unlikely to be true. The officials have seconds to make a decision, the modern day rules are complicated and very often subjective and the cameras are able to pick out every mistake either live or recorded. Some people call for common sense from the ref, others want consistency but in reality they are just human and prone to errors of judgement, unlike the rest of us they can't watch the incidents twenty times from all different angles. Totally wrong as far as I'm concerned. Are you telling me, as a human being, that everything you do is free of bias? What you do at work? How well you do it etc? It's no different to the spanner in Burger King who wipes his arse on the burger bun because he knows that the person buying it bullied him at school. Michael Oliver is your modern day celebrity referee. He loves being the centre of attention and once again, coming out of this game, it was him being talked about, rather than the game itself. I remember years ago, David Elleray was quite a big name referee and I always felt he had a similar desperation to be noticed. He used to love running around, shouting at players, giving dubious decisions, dishing yellow and red cards for fun. He was certainly not well liked among, well, anyone really. Michael Oliver is the same. He's a bit of a bertie big bollocks, until he comes up against a team like Man Utd, where he bottles every decision. Take the Smalling handball. Even Graham Poll, who is a serial anti-Stoke writer said he couldn't believe how bad a decision that was and that was despite Oliver being about 10 feet away. I remember last season, just a week or two after the Shawcross-Swansea incident, Man Utd played Chelsea and the grappling in the box there was unbelievable. There was one incident where Chris Smalling, plus another Man Utd player, wrestled one Chelsea player to the ground (John Terry, I think). Similar incidents were happening in both boxes. No penalties at all. Consistency is all most people ask for. Then a few weeks later, The Sentinel highlighted some really grappling in the box in another game, with the sarcastic phrase "if only the referee was Michael Oliver". The referee? You know it, it was Michael Oliver. Do I think referees start the game with the intention to screw Stoke? No, but when you see a performance as poor as Michael Oliver's (not including the two contentious red card decisions), it's easy to see that he was giving West Brom everything.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 1, 2015 8:42:14 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. Officials favour the bigger club? No. Officials favour the biggest clubs, there's a difference. The biggest clubs, aka, your Man Utd's, Chelsea's, Arsenal's, Citeh's are very much the forefront of the global brand that is the Premiership. Therefore, when Mourinho says jump, someone usually jumps. If Mourinho comes out and tears a new arsehole out the ref, you can be sure he knows about it, and you can be sure every decision he makes will be magnified beyond rational belief over the next 2 to 3 games. It was Alex Ferguson, who really was an absolute master, at influencing referee's before a game. He'd give his press conference and say a few, how shall we say, cheeky remarks about the referee and you knew for a fact that ref was walking into the game with those comments in the back of his mind. If the manager of Stoke says it, nobody gives a shit. I agree that officials do tend to favour the home team, but Oliver is the anti-norm isn't he? He likes to be the big man, giving the big decisions to the away team, so he looks big and bold. He gave that ridiculous penalty to Swansea last season, right in front of the Boothen. You wouldn't be surprised if he and his buddies were having a laugh about that in the pub a week later. Officials were anti-Tony Pulis when he was in charge of Stoke. In fact, every media outlet in the bloody country was anti-Pulis. Having moved onto pastures new, won Manager of the Year (rightly so) and become a bit of an icon for battling against the odds, he's now considered pragmatic, and a tactical genius. It's amazing how a small turn in the media, can change the entire populations opinion. Pulis is now seen as the perennial warrior. The man who never gives up. I mean for fucks sake, look at the way the media have fawned over his decision to bring Rickie Lambert on, like it was some kind of genius move. "The quick reaction of Pulis to bring on Rickie Lambert, immediately after the second red was akin to his tactical nous", or some shit I read the other day. Hold on a second, the only reason he brought Lambert on was because his original formation couldn't have been any more defensive. No comment on the fact Stoke were still taking the game to West Brom with 9 men. Shirt pulling is a nightmare, but when Oliver gave that penalty against Shawcross, he proved what an inconsistent moron he was.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 1, 2015 8:47:32 GMT
You won't get consistency mh because a lot of decisions in football are a matter of opinion. Regarding Oliver and Old Trafford, it's possible he bottled decisions but what does he gain from doing that other than looking inept.
I don't believe officials are biased and if we don't believe in their integrity then the game is in big trouble.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Sept 1, 2015 8:55:28 GMT
You won't get consistency mh because a lot of decisions in football are a matter of opinion. Regarding Oliver and Old Trafford, it's possible he bottled decisions but what does he gain from doing that other than looking inept. I don't believe officials are biased and if we don't believe in their integrity then the game is in big trouble. They need to make us believe in their integrity Geoff. Respect is earned, not taken for granted.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Sept 1, 2015 8:56:39 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. I think the red cards have clouded over how well we were playing up to that point.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Sept 1, 2015 8:58:22 GMT
Did you see the game Geoff?
|
|
|
Post by clarkeda on Sept 1, 2015 9:02:42 GMT
Good write up again, I do however take issue with The arnie free kick, if the wall jumps, that's nestling nicely into the bottom corner and he's a hero, unfortunately they didn't and people are slating him for it.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 1, 2015 9:06:14 GMT
Did you see the game Geoff? Not live he didn't
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 1, 2015 9:07:45 GMT
Not live Rob, but unlike the ref I've been able to look at the incidents a number of times. I've always said that we should attempt to keep all players on the pitch and possibly deal with red card offences in a different way.
The game has a real problem because so much is now at stake, largely because of money, and players can get sent off for relatively minor offences. There are far to many dismissals and in the majority of cases those dismissals decide the result of the game.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 1, 2015 9:12:02 GMT
Good write up again, I do however take issue with The arnie free kick, if the wall jumps, that's nestling nicely into the bottom corner and he's a hero, unfortunately they didn't and people are slating him for it. To be fair, thought exactly the same thing mate. He's gone for the tricky option and normally when the wall jumps, that goes underneath and the keeper wouldn't have saved it. Could have gone for the over the top, but it was not to be.
|
|
|
Post by hereford on Sept 1, 2015 9:18:04 GMT
Surely none of us go to a game expecting anything other than 11 against 11 and i am never happy when anyone is sent off whether from Stoke or the opposition. We can all hide behind "well he applied the laws of the game" but its more impressive to have run the game using common sense and had Mr Oliver done that i could have more respect for him. He chose the former and will no doubt receive the plaudits of the FA for his actions. In doing that i expect him to continue to apply those laws consistently in future games no matter who is playing. Unfortunately i very much doubt that will happen.
As for the linesman was he on drugs? His reaction to the Adam situation was so over the top it was almost funny. No player had reacted so why did he feel the need to run on the pitch waving his flag like world war three was about to break out.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Sept 1, 2015 9:30:08 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.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 1, 2015 9:34:52 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 was definitely unfit, but I thought he did very well all things considered. Yes, ran into a few blind alleys, but he's still adjusting. Give him three games and he could be an exceptional buy.
|
|
|
Post by blackpoolred on Sept 1, 2015 9:50:15 GMT
The officials were right to send the 2 Stoke players off within the current naff laws of the game. Adam was a first class prick to do what he did when we were already down to 10 men. Oilofulay got axed from behind and then bitch slapped in the face, and then followed a nancy boy slapfest in which both players should have gone within the rules of the game, rules that need changing for things like that - players get heated and punch-ups happen, they dont result in sendings off in rugby and ice hockey, but then they are mens games and football is now played by nancies
It's not the 1st time Adam has stamped on a player and is the ultimate act of cowardice which could finish a players career, he needs taking to 1 side by hughes and telling if he does it again he gone f^ck off - he is a liability at times
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Sept 1, 2015 9:54:23 GMT
Not live Rob, but unlike the ref I've been able to look at the incidents a number of times. I've always said that we should attempt to keep all players on the pitch and possibly deal with red card offences in a different way. The game has a real problem because so much is now at stake, largely because of money, and players can get sent off for relatively minor offences. There are far to many dismissals and in the majority of cases those dismissals decide the result of the game. But the incidents aren't what I have a problem with Geoff. It was the officiating overall on the day. Did you watch the whole 90 minutes, even on telly?
|
|
|
Post by potterblade on Sept 1, 2015 12:23:59 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.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 1, 2015 12:34:00 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.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Sept 1, 2015 12:37:40 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?
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Sept 1, 2015 12:38:18 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. It will be interesting to see how much either features when the suspensions are served, certainly.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2015 12:46:05 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. Priceless, you come on here and trot out the usual cliches about referees yet you didn't even witness his overall performance.
|
|
|
Post by potterblade on Sept 1, 2015 12:46:54 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. It will be interesting to see how much either features when the suspensions are served, certainly. Yes the suspensions could actually serve us well if it helps focus the first XI and the systems we play. How long this transiton takes will define the whole season.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 1, 2015 12:47:38 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.
|
|