Just to add. I thought we missed Wood today. Dervite was no where near as good & this meant that Morrison was also poorer than of late.
I thought we'd lose as soon as I saw we had 2 wingers starting. We have rarely ever won with 2 wingers & never will. Too lightweight.
This.
To those wondering why we normally start with Pritch on the right and only play one winger ... You have your answer.
Also did anybody notice those backwards sort of in step flicks that Stephens was doing? He must have done about 4 or more, they looked great and their defence didn't know what was going on with them a couple of times.
I've just watched the match highlights on Player and, from what they showed, and me playing it back a few times, I think the ref got it right with the Church non penalty. I also think he got it right with Harriott's. Also, what on earth was Hamar doing with the 3rd goal! Totally routed to his line. I also think he should have done better with their first goal.
I've put it down to one of those games that we just weren't meant to win. Basically, McCormack didn't put a foot wrong and everything he tried paid off.
I agree that we are missing Wood. He, to me, is far more consistently solid than Dervite.
Finally, I couldn't understand bringing Yann on when he did. I thought at that point we were still playing well and could have won the game. Yann coming on changed the dynamics of the play and I don't think it worked this time.
I am absolutely amazed by the above statement of StigThundercock. There are no "rules" in football, but there are 17 "laws". This basic error erodes any sense (if indeed there is any!) that he is trying to make.
Furthermore, if a forward player "goes down" in the area and a penalty is not awarded, it doesn't follow that the player should be booked for simulation. Football is a contact sport and players can lose their footing, without a foul occurring.
Laws, Rules; who cares? The FA may choose to puff-up the jargon to give referees, and themselves, a greater sense of importance but it's all the same really. Either something is within the code of the game or it isn't. Referring to "the rules" isn't an error, it's just a different choice of words. If there is one person reading this thread who doesn't know exactly what #StigThundercock meant when he referred to the rules, I would be absolutely jiggered. Perhaps we would all do well to start referring to 'the rules'. Apart from the fact that it seems a more accurate reflection of their status (I'll believe they are laws when I start seeing red card incidents on the sessions list at Horseferry Road), it might prick the pomposity of the FA, their on-field officials and all their playground apologists that go around saying, "ner nicky ner ner, they aren't rules, they're laws".
Back to the match - We clearly have settled into a defensive away style that looks to be able to bring us dividends, but the challenge is converting it to work at the Valley without basically, playing two completely different formations at home or away. Powell’s answer on Saturday was to have 2 wide men whose job it was to be direct and beat people – which he achieved by dropping Pritchard and bringing in Harriot. To a certain extent it showed signs it could work, but I thought that whilst Harriot was very involved early doors and Stewart scored a cracking goal, that they needed to a) go past a few more and b) show a bit more composure and quality and c) be a bit more flexible positionally. We did have a lot more possession, but the final third quality was below what was required.
Personally, I wouldn’t drop Pritchard, although Powell may have noted his performances have dipped a bit – although he has still provided his trademark prodigious work rate, but passing has been slacker than usual of late.
We have been searching for that Valley winning formula for well over a season and whilst there have been a few false dawns, we don’t seem to have cracked it yet. We do best when we play a top team who force us to approach the game with more caution and leave themselves open to counters, but we fall down when a team says to us 'break us down!. Maybe this requires a bit more perseverance with saturday's set up, but maybe we have to admit that what is missing is a Ross McCormack type, who if he was playing in red on Saturday, would probably have meant a 4-0 home win. It is frustrating because I think we are one half decent striker away from being extremely competitive, but with finances the way they are, that striker seems a long, long way away.
Well said Stig. The laws are right up there with the Arsenal.
Laws/rules whatever, there is enough debate on here from home fans to conclude the ref cannot be blamed for this defeat.
I don't really see why there has to be 'blame' at all.
It was a freak game that we would have otherwise won if Ross McCormack didn't have a once in a career like performance and score four goals off of four shots!
Michael Brown smiling as he walked towards the east stand after faking an injury is probably in my top 5 most horrible football moments.
I found Brown walking towards the East stand (right in front of me) and smiling, hilarious. The fact people got so wound up was pathetic, especially in the East Stand, there was spilt camomile tea from thermos flasks everywhere.
Well I hope Powell hasn't just said to the lads don't worry it was a freak game ...if you concede 4 at home there is plenty to be worked on
Not least of which is creating chances and finishing them, or at least hitting the target
We finished two, and Paddy Kenny pulled off one of the best reflex saves I've ever seen at The Valley from Church's volley.
Genuinely think some people are reading into this result too much.
Having already commented three times on this thread (at least twice too often, no doubt), I'm hesitant to post again, but I am prompted to do so by the observation above which I feel provides a valuable perspective on Saturday's disappointment.
We lost, not because we lack a goalscorer or because the referee was biased, but because we conceded four bad goals.
On two occasions we failed to defend simple long balls into our penalty area, both delivered from fairly central positions. Blackstock (I think) did well to flick them on and Ross McCormack did well to finish from in behind our defence, but any side that concedes regularly in this situation is going to get relegated. We usually do much better.
The penalty was, I'm afraid, naive defending by Callum Harriott. I'd give Wiggins the benefit of the doubt and suggest that he was tired and frustrated when he gave away the free kick that led to the fourth goal, but that too was poor defending. He had an outstanding game and no doubt he'd expect to do better in that situation.
Ironic after four consecutive clean sheets, but on sober reflection it was sub par defending that cost us the match. A real shame because we played well and had looked more threatening going forward than at almost anytime so far this season
Michael Brown smiling as he walked towards the east stand after faking an injury is probably in my top 5 most horrible football moments.
I found Brown walking towards the East stand (right in front of me) and smiling, hilarious. The fact people got so wound up was pathetic, especially in the East Stand, there was spilt camomile tea from thermos flasks everywhere.
I find it interesting that at the start of this thread, contributors thought the referee was poor, gave a penalty when he should not have and failed to give one when he should have. As the red mist clears, with the passage of time, it seems that the latter contributors thought, at least, the referee got the two pen shouts correct. They are the key decisions, along with goals, in any game of football. That suggests the ref had a good/reasonable game; and he did rightly caution two Leeds players for time wasting.
the ref had a shocker, got both pen decisions wrong from where I was (or at least they had to either both be given or not given).....booked Kenny for time wasting then should've sent him off for the sarcastic clap but he bottled it
the ref had a shocker, got both pen decisions wrong from where I was (or at least they had to either both be given or not given).....booked Kenny for time wasting then should've sent him off for the sarcastic clap but he bottled it
Some people are apologists for refs - probably because they are or have been refs thereselves. Both descisions were errors. Church was definitely tripped- the reason I don't think the ref gave was that he decided Church had lost control of the ball and was consequently looking for the trip. I think he got that wrong - especially as ball was holding up on the saturated pitch. The second was a case of the Leeds player looking for the leg of Harriot rather than Harriot's leg looking for him. Most refs would not have given it.
I am absolutely amazed by the above statement of StigThundercock. There are no "rules" in football, but there are 17 "laws". This basic error erodes any sense (if indeed there is any!) that he is trying to make.
Furthermore, if a forward player "goes down" in the area and a penalty is not awarded, it doesn't follow that the player should be booked for simulation. Football is a contact sport and players can lose their footing, without a foul occurring.
Laws, Rules; who cares? The FA may choose to puff-up the jargon to give referees, and themselves, a greater sense of importance but it's all the same really. Either something is within the code of the game or it isn't. Referring to "the rules" isn't an error, it's just a different choice of words. If there is one person reading this thread who doesn't know exactly what #StigThundercock meant when he referred to the rules, I would be absolutely jiggered. Perhaps we would all do well to start referring to 'the rules'. Apart from the fact that it seems a more accurate reflection of their status (I'll believe they are laws when I start seeing red card incidents on the sessions list at Horseferry Road), it might prick the pomposity of the FA, their on-field officials and all their playground apologists that go around saying, "ner nicky ner ner, they aren't rules, they're laws".
Michael Brown smiling as he walked towards the east stand after faking an injury is probably in my top 5 most horrible football moments.
I found Brown walking towards the East stand (right in front of me) and smiling, hilarious. The fact people got so wound up was pathetic, especially in the East Stand, there was spilt camomile tea from thermos flasks everywhere.
Michael Brown is one of those players in the Joey Barton mould who is a sneaky dirty little shit who is there to clearly upset the rhythm of the game and nothing else.
When he had it done to him he went down like a big cry baby, that's what irrotated people if he manned up he wouldnt have got the stick he deserved when there was clearly nothing wrong with him. Well done the east stand now up to you in the west to wake up.
Comments
I thought we'd lose as soon as I saw we had 2 wingers starting. We have rarely ever won with 2 wingers & never will. Too lightweight.
To those wondering why we normally start with Pritch on the right and only play one winger ... You have your answer.
Also did anybody notice those backwards sort of in step flicks that Stephens was doing? He must have done about 4 or more, they looked great and their defence didn't know what was going on with them a couple of times.
I've put it down to one of those games that we just weren't meant to win. Basically, McCormack didn't put a foot wrong and everything he tried paid off.
I agree that we are missing Wood. He, to me, is far more consistently solid than Dervite.
Finally, I couldn't understand bringing Yann on when he did. I thought at that point we were still playing well and could have won the game. Yann coming on changed the dynamics of the play and I don't think it worked this time.
Sorry for the rant Peter - pet hate of mine ;-)
Laws/rules whatever, there is enough debate on here from home fans to conclude the ref cannot be blamed for this defeat.
Personally, I wouldn’t drop Pritchard, although Powell may have noted his performances have dipped a bit – although he has still provided his trademark prodigious work rate, but passing has been slacker than usual of late.
We have been searching for that Valley winning formula for well over a season and whilst there have been a few false dawns, we don’t seem to have cracked it yet. We do best when we play a top team who force us to approach the game with more caution and leave themselves open to counters, but we fall down when a team says to us 'break us down!. Maybe this requires a bit more perseverance with saturday's set up, but maybe we have to admit that what is missing is a Ross McCormack type, who if he was playing in red on Saturday, would probably have meant a 4-0 home win. It is frustrating because I think we are one half decent striker away from being extremely competitive, but with finances the way they are, that striker seems a long, long way away.
It was a freak game that we would have otherwise won if Ross McCormack didn't have a once in a career like performance and score four goals off of four shots!
Genuinely think some people are reading into this result too much.
We lost, not because we lack a goalscorer or because the referee was biased, but because we conceded four bad goals.
On two occasions we failed to defend simple long balls into our penalty area, both delivered from fairly central positions. Blackstock (I think) did well to flick them on and Ross McCormack did well to finish from in behind our defence, but any side that concedes regularly in this situation is going to get relegated. We usually do much better.
The penalty was, I'm afraid, naive defending by Callum Harriott. I'd give Wiggins the benefit of the doubt and suggest that he was tired and frustrated when he gave away the free kick that led to the fourth goal, but that too was poor defending. He had an outstanding game and no doubt he'd expect to do better in that situation.
Ironic after four consecutive clean sheets, but on sober reflection it was sub par defending that cost us the match. A real shame because we played well and had looked more threatening going forward than at almost anytime so far this season
Although v Leeds you could argue 17 shots only 4 on target
When he had it done to him he went down like a big cry baby, that's what irrotated people if he manned up he wouldnt have got the stick he deserved when there was clearly nothing wrong with him. Well done the east stand now up to you in the west to wake up.