Tyrone Mings

[birdman]

2 hours ago, fightoffyour said:

There's nothing about "phases of play" in the rules  . It's just like Dermot **** Gallagher using the phrase "taking ownership of the ball". What the **** is that? He even then says Rodri can challenge for the ball, which is explicitly forbidden. The attempted justification of it by misinterpreting the rules is just baffling, but it begs the question: "why are the rules open to interpretation?" There isn't a situation in snooker when the referee can interpret potting a red to be worth 2 points.

Football is becoming like F1 where interpretation of the rules is very much a thing lol

[villalad21]

Mings screwed up that is the end of it. 

I'm so sick and tired of talking about him but it's unavoidable. 

You never see Konsa being in the center of attention or the talking point. Why is that? 

If that was Konsa he'd be dealing with it and we wouldn't even be discussing this. Certainly wouldn't miscontrol the ball being dispossessed. 

The rule is dumb though. Nobody will disagree on that. It needs changing. 

Edited January 21, 2021 by villalad21

[Tommo_b]

I have been thinking about this, if that had happened to England in the World Cup final, I bet none of these pundits and refereeing people would be coming out to defend this shocking decision, none at all. 
 

And no one would be saying it’s a mistake by the player because it wasn’t! 
 

Mings did the right thing you would want your player to do and that’s control the ball, bring it under control and retain possession.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Tommo_b

[fightoffyour]

48 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

Mings screwed up that is the end of it. 

I'm so sick and tired of talking about him but it's unavoidable. 

You never see Konsa being in the center of attention or the talking point. Why is that? 

If that was Konsa he'd be dealing with it and we wouldn't even be discussing this. Certainly wouldn't miscontrol the ball being dispossessed. 

The rule is dumb though. Nobody will disagree on that. It needs changing. 

No he didn’t, that’s the end of it.

Don’t then.

He’s class but that’s nothing to do with Mings.

Could’ve easily happened to Konsa.

The rule is fine as it’s been interpreted consistently for many years until last night (and actually once more a few years ago by the same incompetent referee).

[villalad21]

26 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

No he didn’t, that’s the end of it.

Don’t then.

He’s class but that’s nothing to do with Mings.

Could’ve easily happened to Konsa.

The rule is fine as it’s been interpreted consistently for many years until last night (and actually once more a few years ago by the same incompetent referee).

Disagree 

[fightoffyour]

5 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

Disagree 

That’s reassuring.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

We've all seen enough football to KNOW that isn't how the rule is, or should be, interpreted. Yet in some cases, sadly, it suits an agenda to allow themselves to be fooled into believing otherwise. It's proper The Emperor's New Clothes stuff.

Mings was absolute class last night, his best performance this season. Shame it has been tarnished.

[VillaChris]

He played well but there's always a mistake lurking in him in these type of games.

Not even talking about the "goal" but two minutes before he was incredibly lucky not to score an own goal from slicing an easy cross to deal with.

Konsa certainly became the more composed of the two in last 12 months which is all credit to Ezri.

[Risso]

55 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

We've all seen enough football to KNOW that isn't how the rule is, or should be, interpreted. Yet in some cases, sadly, it suits an agenda to allow themselves to be fooled into believing otherwise. It's proper The Emperor's New Clothes stuff.

Mings was absolute class last night, his best performance this season. Shame it has been tarnished.

That's very often the case with Mings though, in fact, more often than not.  Konsa is every bit as good a player, but doesn't make gaffes game after game.  Shows how quickly we've progressed though, that out of the back four and the keeper, he's now the worst of the 5.

[Zatman]

2 hours ago, villalad21 said:

Mings screwed up that is the end of it. 

I'm so sick and tired of talking about him but it's unavoidable. 

You never see Konsa being in the center of attention or the talking point. Why is that? 

If that was Konsa he'd be dealing with it and we wouldn't even be discussing this. Certainly wouldn't miscontrol the ball being dispossessed. 

The rule is dumb though. Nobody will disagree on that. It needs changing. 

Its quite avoidable to not talk about Mings, dont enter his thread 

[Sulberto21]

2 hours ago, villalad21 said:

Mings screwed up that is the end of it. 

I'm so sick and tired of talking about him but it's unavoidable. 

You never see Konsa being in the center of attention or the talking point. Why is that? 

If that was Konsa he'd be dealing with it and we wouldn't even be discussing this. Certainly wouldn't miscontrol the ball being dispossessed. 

The rule is dumb though. Nobody will disagree on that. It needs changing. 

#A million love songs later
And here I am trying to tell you that I don't care
A million love songs later
And here I am, here I am
A million love songs later
And here I am

I feel for you, babe

I feel for you, baby# 

[mikeyjavfc]

If we had two Konsa's playing for us in defense instead of Konsa and Mings our defending may improve artificially but our all round team play would be worse.

Mings progressive passing and ball carrying are integral to starting our attacking play. Because he has this role it means he may be caught on the ball or misplace a pass more often. Konsa doesn't have this same role, probably because his range of passing and ball carrying ability is more limited, hence Konsa will more often play a short pass or safe clearance. As a result he is rarely exposed but he also does not contribute to our attacking play anywhere near as much as Mings.

I think there is a good balance between Mings and Konsa at the moment and we shouldn't get too hung up when Mings is caught "overplaying". At the end of the day Dean Smith is asking him to play like this (he has said as much) and therefore being caught on the ball is an occupational hazard for Mings. Anyone who has criticized Mings for overplaying should make sure to point the finger at Dean Smith while their at it as it is his tactic.

[sparrow1988]

2 minutes ago, mikeyjavfc said:

If we had two Konsa's playing for us in defense instead of Konsa and Mings our defending may improve artificially but our all round team play would be worse.

Mings progressive passing and ball carrying are integral to starting our attacking play. Because he has this role it means he may be caught on the ball or misplace a pass more often. Konsa doesn't have this same role, probably because his range of passing and ball carrying ability is more limited, hence Konsa will more often play a short pass or safe clearance. As a result he is rarely exposed but he also does not contribute to our attacking play anywhere near as much as Mings.

I think there is a good balance between Mings and Konsa at the moment and we shouldn't get too hung up when Mings is caught "overplaying". At the end of the day Dean Smith is asking him to play like this (he has said as much) and therefore being caught on the ball is an occupational hazard for Mings. Anyone who has criticized Mings for overplaying should make sure to point the finger at Dean Smith while their at it as it is his tactic.

This is a very good post.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

13 hours ago, Risso said:

That's very often the case with Mings though, in fact, more often than not.  Konsa is every bit as good a player, but doesn't make gaffes game after game.  Shows how quickly we've progressed though, that out of the back four and the keeper, he's now the worst of the 5.

Yeah he does make poor decisions from time to time, despite the instructions given, and these will cost us at times. But by the same token I think he is integral to the organisation of our back 5. His teammates trust him, they believe in him as a leader and I think this is undervalued by our supporters as a whole. 

I don't think he is as technically gifted as Konsa, but he makes up for it IMO. We are very lucky to have them at the heart of our defence for many years to come. 

Edited January 22, 2021 by dont_do_it_doug.

[Delphouneso]

Quote

I don't want Tyrone Mings to just head it back to Manchester City because we probably won't see the ball for the next 3 or 4 minutes then. I want him to bring it down on his chest and try to play.

From Deano's presser today.

[tonyh29]

17 hours ago, Risso said:

That's very often the case with Mings though, in fact, more often than not.  Konsa is every bit as good a player, but doesn't make gaffes game after game.  Shows how quickly we've progressed though, that out of the back four and the keeper, he's now the worst of the 5.

OT , but I think Cash is the weak link of our back 5 if i'm honest  , teams seem to be targetting that area as well, so they must also think it ... albeit having Trez or Traore in front of him is probably also a factor in that decision

that's not to say Cash is crap , but he also needs a Targett like improvement to really establish himself at the top level

[villa89]

4 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

OT , but I think Cash is the weak link of our back 5 if i'm honest 

Only because Bertie gives him zero help. Otherwise he's a good defender. 

I can see the argument for wanting Mings to play out from the back but he's way to casual in everything he does. Teams know he's the one that's going to try to play out from the back so they will always try to press him.

Edited January 22, 2021 by villa89

[Indigo]

1 hour ago, Delphouneso said:

From Deano's presser today.

I now somehow care even less than I already did about Rio Ferdinand's thoughts on the matter.

[KentVillan]

I'm still so frustrated with the way the referees have closed ranks on this one.

It's obvious to anyone who plays football that this isn't remotely how the law is meant to be interpreted. It doesn't require a rewritten law, it just requires a sensible interpretation of "received" and "deliberate play".

We all know that:

1. Rodri ran towards the defender AS HIS TEAMMATE PLAYED IT FORWARD
2. He didn't "receive" it from Mings, he challenged Mings in a tackle
3. A chest control of the ball is not a completed "deliberate play" it's part of a single play where the defender is trying to bring the ball under control. Even a player with a world class touch will not be doing that with a single chest of the ball - it's always dropping down to thigh or foot or whatever.

Everybody who's watched and played football all their lives KNOWS this. It's how the game has been refereed for years, and how that rule has always been interpreted.

It's fine for them to make a mistake in-game, and for VAR to make that mistake too, tbh, since they have a narrow window of time to get it right.

HOWEVER, it's completely unacceptable for them to gaslight football fans worldwide with made-up bullshit that covers their own arses, and vindicates people as thick as Robbie Savage and jon_mcfc92 on Twitter, who are now claiming the rule has always worked this way (**** off).

[Keyblade]

3 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

I'm still so frustrated with the way the referees have closed ranks on this one.

It's obvious to anyone who plays football that this isn't remotely how the law is meant to be interpreted. It doesn't require a rewritten law, it just requires a sensible interpretation of "received" and "deliberate play".

We all know that:

1. Rodri ran towards the defender AS HIS TEAMMATE PLAYED IT FORWARD
2. He didn't "receive" it from Mings, he challenged Mings in a tackle
3. A chest control of the ball is not a completed "deliberate play" it's part of a single play where the defender is trying to bring the ball under control. Even a player with a world class touch will not be doing that with a single chest of the ball - it's always dropping down to thigh or foot or whatever.

Everybody who's watched and played football all their lives KNOWS this. It's how the game has been refereed for years, and how that rule has always been interpreted.

It's fine for them to make a mistake in-game, and for VAR to make that mistake too, tbh, since they have a narrow window of time to get it right.

HOWEVER, it's completely unacceptable for them to gaslight football fans worldwide with made-up bullshit that covers their own arses, and vindicates people as thick as Robbie Savage and jon_mcfc92 on Twitter, who are now claiming the rule has always worked this way (**** off).

If the word received was expounded upon to encompass "tackling" you could accept that this is the law and it's been applied properly, as shit as the law may be. As it stands, it's very vague wording that is evidently open to interpretation and extrapolation, and PGMOL can spin it however they want to suit a specific scenario.