Jump to content

Man City 0-0 Saints - Match Thread


Pilchards
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, stevy777_x said:

I ll say it again. He doesn’t have the height or strength to make it in this league.

Neither did Michael Owen but didn't stop him winning the balon d or. He's not a target man so why is that important. He would have scored if walker didn't take him out for a pen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, LuckyNumber7 said:

Keith Hackett - VAR was wrong and should have been a penalty

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/19591346.keith-hackett-says-var-completely-wrong-amid-walker-red-card/

Just shows it's all about a subjective opinion, there's no 100% right or wrong.

Sadly Keith Hackett wasn’t in charge of the game. We like to think that the most important thing is the fair and correct decision. But football isn’t like that. It’s only entertainment, for a start. Even controversial decisions are entertaining, especially if your team does well out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LuckyNumber7 said:

Keith Hackett - VAR was wrong and should have been a penalty

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/19591346.keith-hackett-says-var-completely-wrong-amid-walker-red-card/

Just shows it's all about a subjective opinion, there's no 100% right or wrong.

And Dermot Gallagher says it was the correct decision

Ref Watch: Dermot Gallagher on Kyle Walker, Cristiano Ronaldo and Brighton vs Leicester incidents | Football News | Sky Sports

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

These idiot referee analysts just back up whatever decision the ref has made. Peter Walton is a joke, i've never heard him say the ref got it wrong. 

I remember when KWP got sent off vs Palace last season - it was on BT so they got Walton on, saying "I can see why the ref's given that, correct decision" as Moss waddled over to the monitor, then when it got overturned he's saying "correct decision to overturn, excellent refereeing and use of VAR".

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Greenridge said:

I don't get his reasoning here. He's saying Walker got in front of Armstrong but didn't play the ball.

So how is that not a foul then?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I don't get his reasoning here. He's saying Walker got in front of Armstrong but didn't play the ball.

So how is that not a foul then?

Obstruction is not a foul in football - your’e allowed to shield the ball and not play it.

Happens all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Trader said:

Obstruction is not a foul in football - your’e allowed to shield the ball and not play it.

Happens all the time.

When does "obstruction" become a 'body check' as it used to be called, which was a foul ?

Shielding the ball is permitted, but that probably changes where there is contact.

Edited by Badger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stevy777_x said:

I ll say it again. He doesn’t have the height or strength to make it in this league.

I'm normally with you on this, and am not a fan of having just shortarse strikers. But I do think AA has something about him and will turn out a useful purchase. 

As someone else has said though he's not a target man and shouldn't be judged against say Pelle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Moss defence seems to be that if a defender trips a forward, the forward is to blame as he has shinned the defender's foot...or in this case, Armstrong hipped Walker's thigh while obstructing the city defender from getting anywhere near the ball, a ball he was attempting to shield from behind Armstrong.....

So Moss is no clown, he's just introduced the concept of distanced-shielding when not in possession, and he's reinventing the concept of foul play.

The guy is a trailblazer, one of the great thinkers of the modern game. 

Definitely not a clown.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

And I don't see why he should be allowed to stay on the pitch and enter into a debate with the referee. In that situation, he should be made to leave the field and only then return if and when the original decision is overturned.

Theres no doubt that his remonstrating with Moss influenced him to change his mind. He then went to try and psych out JWP while Moss was checking the monitor. 

He shouldn't be allowed to do either of those things in that scenario.

That might be your opinion but it's not the rules, the players must stay on the field until the review is complete. They are not naughty boys but sportsmen.

Players try to influence refs all.the time, Moss shouldn't be influenced. If he stepped over the line with JWP, then our players should have stepped up to tell him to do one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Badger said:

When does "obstruction" become a 'body check' as it used to be called, which was a foul ?

Shielding the ball is permitted, but that probably changes where there is contact.

 

3 hours ago, Trader said:

Obstruction is not a foul in football - your’e allowed to shield the ball and not play it.

Happens all the time.

You can shield the ball provided it is within playing distance but in this case Armstrong sticks his leg across to protect the ball and Walker then tries to hook his leg around to win it. I don’t think Walker ever touched the ball which was under Armstrong’s control so in my view it was a foul and therefore a penalty. Not a red card though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Greenridge said:

I think that is utter bollocks. Completely ignores the initial push on Armstrong which knocked him over and was the only reason Walker got in front of him. Just one angle made it look doubtful. All the others showed how clear cut it was. Why did they only choose to show that view over and over? Obvious. They were looking for a predetermined outcome.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Streaky said:

He would have scored if walker didn't take him out for a pen.

 

16 hours ago, skintsaint said:

and likely against Newcastle...again taken down.

Based on what? He missed two absolute sitters against Man Utd so I don't know where that confidence is coming from.

It's too early to judge him but all he has shown so far is that he is good at pressing. Hopefully over the next few weeks in slightly easier looking games he shows us he has a lot more than that to offer.

On the game overall, I thought tactically we were excellent and defensively we were really strong. It's unfortunate that our attacking play is poor as otherwise we would have won I think. The number of times we got Redmond, Elyounoussi, Armstrong and Adams into great positions and failed to do anything with it was infuriating. 

Can't fault the effort of the players or Ralph's tactical set up, we just have very poor attacking players (specifically redmond, djenepo and elyounoussi) and no longer have Ings to bail us out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Verbal Kint said:

Based on what? He missed two absolute sitters against Man Utd so I don't know where that confidence is coming from.

I said likely and going on his finish a few games back. Hard to tell if he keeps getting chugged down when through on goal.

Edited by skintsaint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Verbal Kint said:

 

Based on what? He missed two absolute sitters against Man Utd so I don't know where that confidence is coming from.

It's too early to judge him but all he has shown so far is that he is good at pressing. Hopefully over the next few weeks in slightly easier looking games he shows us he has a lot more than that to offer.

On the game overall, I thought tactically we were excellent and defensively we were really strong. It's unfortunate that our attacking play is poor as otherwise we would have won I think. The number of times we got Redmond, Elyounoussi, Armstrong and Adams into great positions and failed to do anything with it was infuriating. 

Can't fault the effort of the players or Ralph's tactical set up, we just have very poor attacking players (specifically redmond, djenepo and elyounoussi) and no longer have Ings to bail us out

Whether or not you think that he is likely to score is irrelevant. He is entitled to have the opportunity without being taken out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reverse angle  shows Walker pushing his arm into Armstrongs back - even before he put his leg over 

and - was he nowhere near the ball in the entire scenario.

Just another example of a referee who thinks he has a right to help determine who will become 

League champions and giving the doubt to the home side. 

i.e. ....Saints don't need the point(s) as much as City who are more likely to win the title again.

and the 6 minutes of added time was extended to  8  ...... before he blew the final whistle, but

fortunately it didn't make the difference. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, cloggy saint said:

To me it just looked as if Walker and JWP were having a chat, nothing to suggest he was trying to psych him out.

it was hardly " a chat" ...as Prowsey was  "politely " ignoring him the whole time.

Walker is a past master of  this type of situation and his record of red cards shows this was not an isolated incident 

but part of his manner.   He knew JWP would take an eventual penalty and was doing his best to unsettle him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, david in sweden said:

The reverse angle  shows Walker pushing his arm into Armstrongs back - even before he put his leg over 

and - was he nowhere near the ball in the entire scenario.

Just another example of a referee who thinks he has a right to help determine who will become 

League champions and giving the doubt to the home side. 

i.e. ....Saints don't need the point(s) as much as City who are more likely to win the title again.

and the 6 minutes of added time was extended to  8  ...... before he blew the final whistle, but

fortunately it didn't make the difference. 

Not sure about the time added on to be honest. I thought the pen debacle used up a couple of mins, therefore was added on top of the indicated injury time. I could be wrong, but was what i thought at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Billy the Kidd said:

Not sure about the time added on to be honest. I thought the pen debacle used up a couple of mins, therefore was added on top of the indicated injury time. I could be wrong, but was what i thought at the time.

The offside review by VAR took over 2 mins so I’m guessing this is why 5 became 8. Made for nervous viewing!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, david in sweden said:

The reverse angle  shows Walker pushing his arm into Armstrongs back - even before he put his leg over 

 

"leg over" in the penalty area - definitely a red card, in fact indecent assault like that in a public place used to carry a custodial sentence.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Saint Troy said:

surely that wouldve been within the added time?! They surely dont hold the board up for added time (excluding VAR discussions)?!

 

Offside VAR review was after the 90th minute I think so excluded from the initial 5 mins on the board. It would have been horrendous if they had robbed the win in the dying moments. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, goodymatt said:

Offside VAR review was after the 90th minute I think so excluded from the initial 5 mins on the board. It would have been horrendous if they had robbed the win in the dying moments. 

of course! was thinking about the penalty not their offside! cheers  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, david in sweden said:

it was hardly " a chat" ...as Prowsey was  "politely " ignoring him the whole time.

Walker is a past master of  this type of situation and his record of red cards shows this was not an isolated incident 

but part of his manner.   He knew JWP would take an eventual penalty and was doing his best to unsettle him.

Strange, in the clip I saw they were definitely talking.

His record of red cards? He's only ever received 1 in the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Fan The Flames said:

That might be your opinion but it's not the rules, the players must stay on the field until the review is complete. They are not naughty boys but sportsmen.

Players try to influence refs all.the time, Moss shouldn't be influenced. If he stepped over the line with JWP, then our players should have stepped up to tell him to do one.

Well then the rules need changing. Morally, there is no argument to be made in favour of allowing a player who has already been shown a red card to stay on the pitch to debate the referee and 'chat' with the player waiting to take the penalty while the review is underway. There's no other professional sport in the world that would allow that.

Edited by Sheaf Saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Well then the rules need changing. Morally, there is no argument to be made in favour of allowing a player who has already been shown a red card to stay on the pitch to debate the referee and 'chat' with the player waiting to take the penalty while the review is underway. There's no other professional sport in the world that would allow that.

Indeed. At the very least he should have been told to go and stand on the touch line.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Well then the rules need changing. Morally, there is no argument to be made in favour of allowing a player who has already been shown a red card to stay on the pitch to debate the referee and 'chat' with the player waiting to take the penalty while the review is underway. There's no other professional sport in the world that would allow that.

FFS, does it really matter. You sound like a right nod. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})

{{comment