BigJim
-
Posts
580 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Downloads
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Articles
Media Demo
Store
Events
Everything posted by BigJim
-
I had very high hopes for Zaniolo at first, don't feel so confident about him now. But I thought Rogers looked far more the part today. Obviously has a lot to learn but I somehow get the feeling he will adapt very quickly and be a big player for us.
-
A nice comfortable win against a very poor side. Points to savour were the masterly passing from Luiz coupled with great running from Watkins and a bit of Bailey magic. Plus great finishes from Tielemans and Moreno. Aside from that though, I'd say we were mostly a bit predictable and untidy going forward, as we have been quite a lot recently. Still plenty of work to do to reach a consistent level of fluency. Good to see Tim get a good runout, and a few minutes for the new lad, I expect Emery to play him quite regularly for the rest of the season.
-
Absolutely this. Chelsea's passing was far crisper. Some of our passing is so slow that the receiver is under severe pressure by the time the ball reaches him. Then add the often poor first touch by same receiver and we've lost the ball very cheaply.
-
Fair enough. Your post led me to think that the rule said that any attempt to foul could be penalised. It was my interpretation of your interpretation which sent me down the rabbit-hole. I'm sure we can all agree that Ramsey's challenge was not reckless or dangerous, so contact was necessary for the decision.
-
I just saw that the second paragraph is not part of law 12, but rather your interpretation. I should have noticed that in the first place. What the law actually says is: <quote>Direct free kick A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force: .... trips or attempts to trip If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick. </quote>
-
Thanks for that. So intent is everything: if two opposing players are going hell for leather side by side in pursuit of the ball and the attacker trips over the defender's foot, no penalty. If the defender tries but fails to make contact, penalty.
- 300 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- burnley
- premier league
- (and 3 more)
-
That's interesting, I didn't know that law.... The wording confuses me though. Does attempting foul play mean intending to foul the opponent? If not, I'd be grateful if someone could give me an example of how you unintentionally attempt foul play without actually making contact. If so, no penalty should be given where there is no intent, because amount of contact and "whether he could have stayed on his feet" cannot apply in one case and not the other. Anyway I think Duran dived, but the ref was very close and must have thought otherwise, so I guess it's a fair call.
-
I only meant it a little bit ref, honest.
-
Certainly no-one who has watched the last 3 games.
-
Great pass to Ollie for the first but he should have walked for deliberate handball on the edge of our box. Seems he always manages to do something very risky, luckily he has got away with it so far.
-
Only positive for me was that Unai finally gave him a few minutes and he didn't do too badly. Probably not enough to expect another run out any time soon though.
- 461 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- man utd
- premier league
- (and 3 more)
-
I counted once second half, when he gave it straight back to the opposition under minimal pressure
-
On around 64 mins the Mexican commentator on Paramount said "I don't want this game to end!" It was wonderful to be able to watch on TV but how I envy those of you that were there, and did you ever play your part! Non-Stop Noise!
- 581 replies
-
- 8
-
-
- man city
- premier league
- (and 3 more)
-
Yeah I think Luiz could have done better there, but neither of them looked likely to stop the threat.
-
This is a real worry. He will be off if we don't improve smartish.
- 209 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- bournemoth
- premier league
- (and 3 more)
-
I agree it's not always easy, and technology and views from multiple angles seem to have made it harder. But that's how I remember the law from way back. If intent wasn't clear and obvious (haha) it wasn't given.
-
Intent ought to be the sole criterion. Isn't that how it used to be? Quite simple really. The position of the arms is already included in that, i.e. if you extend your arms intentionally to give you a better chance of blocking the ball, then it's a penalty. I don't think that anything else - proximity, or the speed of the ball, or the fact that it hit another part of the body first - should affect that. If you have moved your arms in a deliberate attempt to improve your chances of blocking the ball, you deserve to be penalised. If the ball strikes you in any other circumstances, no penalty. The difficulty is in the determination of the intent. But I can't see that the other stuff they have tried to add to the law makes it any easier to apply, on the contrary.
-
When they're not doing exactly that already, they're certainly hoping for contact of that sort.
-
I was critical of Pau in his early appearances but his contribution is obviously improving with each match and he's getting more confident as a consequence. His performance in individual battles remains a worry though. Looking at our two centre backs on Sunday, I would wish for a little more aggressiveness from one and a little less from the other.
-
Agreed, he was up against some very tough opponents. Even still, he brilliantly laid on two gilt-edged chances, for Matty in the first half and Ollie in the second.
-
Absolutely this. Even once or twice in the first half we won the ball back high up the pitch and totally wasted it.
-
Fond memories of the first game back in the PL and SJM opening the scoring.... but then the feeling of inevitability when we went on to lose. Whoever concedes the least goals is the way I look at it this time. If we get an even rub of the green and a fair set of officials we can do it. I wish I could be more confident of the latter.
-
I don't feel quite as confident. Even Fulham very nearly got through several times.
-
Happy birthday and welcome to the Villa Talk Septuagenarians!
-
I have to agree with this. Mings looks faster, stronger, more aggressive, better in the air, though Torres is a clear winner with the ball at his feet. He's getting a quite extraordinary amount of praise on here for his performance against Brighton. I don't think he deserves it quite yet, though I certainly hope he will turn out to be an elite performer for us. I just watched the game again to study a couple of things, because our general performance seemed a bit different from usual in terms of playing out from the back. I counted how many times we did that v Brighton and I found that when he had the ball, Emi went long about twice as often as playing it out short (I counted 19 times out of 29). I think this was a big factor in our success and for sure Brighton weren't expecting it. This meant Torres saw less of the ball than usual. By my calculation he had about a 77% success rate with his passing, though nearly all his passes were short and backwards or square. He did attempt a few adventurous passes but mostly didn't find his man with them. He had three or four forward surges but didn't really have much success with the ball at the end of them. He made one or two blocks and tackles. I don't remember him heading the ball once. I think Konsa had a far busier time as most of Brighton's threatening approaches came on his side. In sum, not the majestic performance some are making out, but he certainly looked a bit better than he has in other games, and I'm confident he will carry on improving.
