srsmithusa

I was wondering what he would think, and thought he would agree that a slight nudge on the ball does not negate taking a man down on the follow through.

The only thing the ref didn't get right was controlling the gang complaining by BC at every call. From the first foul where 4 surrounded him, to the PK where their reaction was outrageous, to after the match where he let each one come and have a bitch.

Yeah, I voted for Brad MOTM (and rightly so, most of us think). But I kinda feel bad for Gabby and Milner. They were both outstanding IMO and really do deserve to be honorable mention at least. Less than 10% each (at this moment) doesn't reflect that they were questionably good. It's just that Big Brad had a blinder.

THIS THIS THIS.... Everyone can see this apart from one stubborn git... Make that two stubborn gits.... I just don't agree that tiredness is the issue. Sorry to spoil your illusion that it's obvious to all.

I think we'll win by 2. I think our players are more likely pissed than shattered. Pissed at referees. Pissed at controlling the match but not scoring. Pissed at themselves for losing concentration and their marks when Dunn went up to head clear. Pissed at themselves for losing faith after Webb denied the PK and an unmarked Drogba touched in Terry's terrible mis-hit.

I don't agree that Petrov tires. I do agree that the referee was fine except for the PK. Malouda holding Gabby. Terry for a horror tackle. It's probably just coincidence that they all went in Chelsea favor. I thought Milner throwing the ball into Alex's back to allow himself the second touch was hilarious. I don't agree that we created no chances. Milner missed by less than a foot. Carew's flick missed by very little. Cech was frantic in his effort to push out a cross from Ashley. I do agree we should have created more chances. I thought Chelsea first goal was a really poor headed clearance from Dunne. And that most of our team relaxed cause Dunne was heading clear as always. We were flat footed and drifted off our marks of Terry who wanked it, and Drogba who didn't. I thought the sheer luck of that goal off a bad clearance be a man that doesn't make bad clearances added on top of the lack of the PK call crushed our spirit (we're doomed - we never catch a break). I did not think it made us too tired to play. I would have liked to see Delph on for Petrov (for speed and quickness, not for tiredness, which I agree with others is a myth) and Delf on with Cuellar making room (just for attacking intention when behind). But it would not have helped. It would have looked good to the cynics. MON doesn't make decisions to shut up the critics. I probably would. I don't manage a football club.

That's a bit harsh srsmithUSA, I had Gabby down as man of the match, I thought he provided a threat, held the ball up very well and passed it really well. We saw it differently. For me, 5 is what a PL player should do. He did it. He had some good moments, but he also muffed a 1 on 1, and seemed invisible for long stretches. I could see someone rating him higher than 5, but I have a hard time seeing him as MOTM. Competent, yes; MOTM, don't see it. Sorry, we'll just hold different opinions.

Felt comfortable throughout. Not a blazing performance, but a good, strong, composed performance. Friedel - 6 Cuellar - 6 Collins - 6 Dunne - 7 Downing -7 Delph - 7 Petrov - 8 Young - 8 MOTM Carew - 6 Agbonlahor - 5 Heskey - 7 Sidwell - 6

Our MOTM was clearly either A Young or Carew (based on my thoughts as well as your votes. There can be no doubt that the man of the match for them was Gordon. Do the math on that alone. A draw was an unfortunate result for us. (Unfortunate as opposed to "everyone east of the Danube is shite.") Oh, and I didn't think the Fonz showed me much. More motion than Heskey, agreed, but headless chicken. Heskey caused sunderland defense more consternation in 10 minutes than did the fonz in the other 80. On what could have been his break it was clear that he would rather give the ball away than put it on his left foot, and note, this is key.... The Sunderland defenders KNEW IT. Watch the tape if you don't believe me. They gave him the whole left side of the goal, he wouldn't even think of it. On the basis of today, I gotta back MON that the fonz doesn't get a lot of time... yet.

Wow ! sometimes I really wonder what some of you are looking at. Several have said we sat back after we scored...(and then asserted that it had to be MON's fault). Was Petrov "sitting back" when he committed a rash foul from behind that led to the goal? If he was sitting back, how did he end up chasing it from behind? When our defense over-ran the drop of the ball on the free kick, how was that sitting back? On their second goal, they got in behind Cuellar (how did they do that if we were dropping back?) and the cross was put in by a mid-fielder (Milner) tracking back frantically (where he would have already been if we had been dropped back). Another example. Several have ranted that MON is idiotic for bringing on Albrighton at right back. Once again, what are you looking at? When Dunne went off hurt, Albrighton came on, but we went to 3 in the back. Albrighton played a right wing role. (not especially well mind you.) And just because I can't resist, this three in the back and 5 in the midfield formation came from the manager that is "too stubborn to ever try anything new." I'm going to stop reading this for a while. The over the top ranting without some foothold on reality is more maddening than our inability to break down a packed and resolute defense.

Disagree with nearly every moan on here. We started with reckless aggression on the attack. Looked like world beaters at first. The problem was that our defenders played with the same reckless aggression and over-ran things. On the first goal, Petrov was overly aggressive for a needless tackle from behind to give the kick, then our defensive line attacked about 2 yards in front of where the ball actually came down. More calm patience in defense and this would have been 3+ to 0 to us as Wolves would not have been able to park the bus. Albrighton showed me what I have suspected. The constant calls to play more of the fringe players are misguided. MON knows they're just not ready yet. He's not being stubborn when he doesn't play them, he's being right. Albrighton, Fonz, Delph, have great potential for the future. But not yet. I'm not all rosy and positive, just think that most of the moans on here are way off the mark. I have two. The back line, and Petrov, played with too much frantic aggression. CALM DOWN and play safely. We need a new way to break down a defense that packs it in. Disappointed with only one point, it's not the end of everything good. We've still got a decent shout of Europe next year.

Just Curious. Several have said you expect us to change things up. Why? I understand the logic of those that think MON doesn't change the line-up enough. (Although I'm not convinced they are right, I can concede that their logic makes some sense. I just think there is some logical sense in a consistent line-up, too.) I can understand agreeing or disagreeing with the managers preference for a consistent line-up. Those who "expect" to see changes puzzle me. I don't know what would cause you to expect MON to change his obvious preference for a stable line-up. Why do you expect that to change now? I'm not asking if he's right to be consistent or not. That's been argued into the ground here repeatedly. I'm asking why you expect him to change it up at this point in time.

Horrid, worse, embarrassing, welcome relief (HT), brilliant, shaky, solid. That was my original opinion of the match in 15 minute segments. But I was so puzzled by it that I watched the entire match again. I think three things hurt us badly. 1. we took them too lightly, I think we felt like the best team in the world (likely) barely beat us with a referee's help, we could stroll through this championship side. Somebody forgot to tell Reading they weren't supposed to play with ferocity, strength, and passion. 2. the pitch had spots that were wet and very slow. Reading knew those spots and moved quickly to the ball in those areas rather than waiting for the ball to roll through. They intercepted a number of passes just by charging the ball from behind the intended recipient. 3. too many passes were just kicked into likely areas rather than played incisively to a teammate. (This was a big part of the change for the first 15 in the second half... we passed and crossed to somebody.) Finally, if I may, Cuellar's distribution was so bad, there has to be some reason we don't know, outside the locker room, to keep playing him there. BTW, Shane Long in the summer anyone?

Why is it time to stop talking about this? I'm enjoying this discussion. If you are not, then I suggest that it's time for you to stop reading. I am generally pretty generous to giving referee's the benefit of the doubt. If he had shown a yellow I would have been disappointed, but not shocked or angry. I have to say that the one call was bad, but a nicely done video mix of what was cautioned when a Villa Player did it and what was not cautioned when a Man U player did it would be even more clear that Mr. Dowd was less than impartial. I still give referee's leeway. I really don't think he was deliberately or intentionally partial. I don't think he was a "12th man." I don't know why he behaved so partially. I think he lacked the courage to give the misconduct on the PK (being so early and all) and then when he got all the complaints from Villa, he was afraid to give anything to Villa for fear of appearing to bow to that pressure. If he had booked any of the Man U fouls (that deserved booking) for the rest of the half, Man U players, bench and fans would have turned on him saying that he was cowering to Villa's complaints. I obviously can't read minds and don't know if I'm right, but it's what i suspect.

I expect a positive reaction Me too

I don't think Phil Dowd cost us the match, but Oh My, he had to be wearing red boxers. It's the only explanation for at least 6 cautions ManUre did not receive. (starting with Vidic on the tactical pull down in the penalty area... arguably ejection, minimally caution) We played really well at times, not so well at others. Overall, we were very competitive against one of the best teams money can buy, even if they can't make all their payments. Disappointed with the outcome. Proud of the team UTV

Watched a live stream at my desk so I had to take care of business several times during the match. I'm afraid it confirmed my fear about us. We struggle against teams that try to beat us up physically. Thankfully they were stupid enough to be obviously physical at key moments against Carew. There are several ways to deal with a team that hacks and bullies, but I'd like to see us adopt a better approach. Foul count was 12 -5 according to OS.

I would like to see this: Friedel Young Cuellar Dunne Warnock A.Young Milner Petrov Delph Downing Gabby However, I wouldn't play it as a 4-5-1. Ash, Milner, Delph, Downing would rotate up and play off of Gabby. It would basically be a 4-4-2 but the second forward rotating up from midfield. If for some reason it doesn't work and we need more attack, pull off whichever mid-fielder isn't having a good day and put the Fonz up top. I didn't say it would be good or would work... I just said I would like to see it.

Heskey up front didn't work, but I think people who say he was upfront alone didn't watch the match. Downing, Ash, and less often Milner took turns rotating as the other striker. The Assistant referees made three of the most diabolically bad offside decisions I've ever seen: One against Delph, one against Heskey who was clearly not involving himeslf, one against Fonz. I am confident that both would have failed the match in the US (every pro match is assessed). The center would have failed solely for giving Lee a caution when a send-off was absolutely mandatory. I am concerned because if I was an opposing manager, my tactic against Villa would be to batter us physically. We seem to be unable to counter that effectively.

Mrs. Walton, is that you? The only big decision your son got right all night was the red card. Missed a must caution take down of Gabby by Wes Brown. Missed a mandatory caution (possibly send-off) of Rooney on Gabby. (He was not even possibly attempting to play the ball). Missed a stone cold certain penalty when Evans pulled down Carew by the arm. But he was an equal opportunity blind man. Cuellars tackle on (I think it was) Raphael, would have made a highlight reel in american football. Absolutely required a caution. And A Young's tackle, also on Raphael was worse. After he gave the red card, he apparently decided not to call anything else.

Not sure that it was 'boneheaded' or just common sense. Sure it was accidental, but it was potentially giving us the best advantage of the game. The ref had to pull it back and was right to do so. Whether the handling was giving us a chance at the break, or stopping a chance at the break, we apparently see differently. But more to the point, the laws don't say, handling depends on the advantage potentially gained. It says handling depends on the intent (being deliberate). If it depended on advantage only, then Dawson's contact on the ground, should have been a PK (which it should not - because it was not deliberate either.) "Sure it was accidental" actually means you agree it wasn't deliberate, which, on point of law, is not handling. Sorry to bore everyone with this tangent, It's just been a pet peeve of mine for quite some time. IMO, it just seems foolish and reflexive to think a player would heel a ball up into his hand in order to knock it behind him, in order to squander what could have been "the best advantage of the game" (or any other advantage for that matter).

I think it's nearly unanimous that the point is good but our play was blaringly short of standard. On a completely unrelated note. Boneheaded referee call of the night was Milner's hand ball. The key in the law is that it be deliberate. If it was deliberate, he contrived to have the ball run into his plant foot and bounce up and behind giving him the opportunity to swing his arm around behind himself and strike the ball further off the course of what looked to be a good counter attack developing. How many hours do you think he practiced that move, so he could handle the ball deliberately and stop what might have been one of the few moments we were really dangerous. ludicrous.... stupid decision by the ref. Obvious lack of intent.

I just polished up my crystal ball. Gabby with a header in the first half. Downing with a strike that's deflected in traffic in the second half. Bunker down and give up a late goal to Defoe who's first to pounce on a follow up shot. 2-1 to villa and everybody except glastonspur rejoices.

Dunne. (without implying that Laursen was anything short of brilliant) Laursen wins it in the air, Dunne edges it with the ball on the ground, Dunne also edges it with throwing his body recklessly into blocks, Dunne is noticeably better at distributing the ball (although Collins long distributions are amazing) In the attack both are good, Laursen again more deadly in the air, but Dunne makes wonderful attacking runs at times other than set pieces.

My rationale my be crazy. but I give MOTM to Gabby. Dunne was a notch above his brilliant. Just as important, maybe more so, to the win... but Gabby was 6 notches above where he's been recently. So, I'll give him the nod. Downing was much better today. Ashley really does seem to be doing well. I even thought Heskey did well in the very unusual role he has been given. He's sort of striker, sort of link-up man, sort of defensive mid-fielder. Strange role in a team line-up but I actually think he's doing it pretty brilliantly. He has to decide when to sacrifice one role to focus on others... requires a lot of intelligent reading of the match.