BFTG United (A)

[Snowflake Royal]

So Bod then.

Don't think Gomes likes the idea of a tall striker

Well I’d play Meite and Bod up front, tell them to smash up the defenders, really get fcuking stuck in and bust some heads, bang crosses in. Cause mayhem.

Why not? All this clever, clever pissing about with the ball is getting us nowhere fast. And we need results.

I’m with you bro. We have to start scoring goals. Play two upfront please. Personally I would go with Bodvarsson and Loader.

Loader's not looked much like scoring to me.

I don't think there's much chance of us playing two up, but Bod and Meite could do some damage.

[Millsy]

Finally, corners, can someone please tell me the point of short corners. I know our team isn't blessed with height but short corners always result in the opposition getting the ball off us

Completely agree, especially today.

If you're defending a lead, then perhaps yeah. Or against inferior teams who you think you might be able to outdo with clever passing and running.

None of the above has applied to Reading this season and certainly not in today's match against world class players so I was a bit confused. I'd have thought the best chance we had was to just chuck it into the mixer and hope. As far as I'm concerned unless you are playing a team of midgets against a team of giants corners are the great leveller as anything can happen.

[Snowflake Royal]

Well I’d play Meite and Bod up front, tell them to smash up the defenders, really get fcuking stuck in and bust some heads, bang crosses in. Cause mayhem.

Why not? All this clever, clever pissing about with the ball is getting us nowhere fast. And we need results.

How can you right off a new style after just 3 league games?

This is the most attractive and attacking football we’ve played for at least 6 years and Jose’s made that change almost instantaneously.

It’s very impressive and needs to be stuck with to allow the training ground work to come off in the final third.

There's nothing new about this style. Just the latest iteration of the same crap the previous coaches have been trying. Maybe Jose will be the man to succeed where other failed......

But until I see decent shots on goal and not being powderpuff at the back I'll remain sceptical.

Personally I was more entertained by the football we played under Clement where we scored goals. But we'll see how Gomes goes, he's doing roughly the same thing as Stam so far, but less badly and with higher tempo and greater purpose.

[Lower West]

Finally, corners, can someone please tell me the point of short corners. I know our team isn't blessed with height but short corners always result in the opposition getting the ball off us

We've lacked a good corner taker for a while. Need someone who can whip the ball in with pace right into the 6 yard box. Make it harder for defenders to clear the ball.

[Zip]

A few extra points :

I've seen a lot of posts crying out for a striker. But is that the main priority? In the 4-2-3-1 formation we play, look at the 3 behind the striker. These players include Aluko, Barrow, Swift, McCleary, Sims and maybe a couple of others
In the whole of 2018 (league goals)
Aluko - 1 goal
Swift - 0 goals ( ones against Brentford awarded to Bod)
Barrow - 4 goals
Clement - 0 goals
Sims - 0 goals
McCleary - 0 goals

That's 5 goals from our "attacking midfield three" in the whole of 2018. Now you can obviously count Meite for example, because he has played out on the wing for us this season, but he has predominantly been used as a striker. Now look at Bod's record, Meite's, even Baldock has chipped in with a few. Are the strikers really the problem?

Add to that it's not like they're that creative anyway, how many clear cut chances have we had since Boro at home? For all our endeavour today and against QPR, did we ever really threaten the goalie in either game. How many times today did Gmac or Swift or whoever mess up the final pass

On the subject of strikers, Loader isn't ready. He has potential but he really needs a league 1/2 move. The U23's is a completely different ballgame to the senior squad and I don't think he realises the difference yet, the time on the ball is severely reduced

This style is so similar yet so far away from Stam's. Stam's football was passing without a purpose, ultimately just "keeping the ball" at whatever cost. This seems to be a lot more progressive style, actually playing with a purpose, I'm generally impressed so far, apart from the "final third"

I think we're missing Blackett, him and Moore could forge a really strong partnership, rumours are that Ilori wants to leave anyway. I don't think Ilori is a particularly bad "footballer", he's just not a very good "championship footballer" and I always thought he'd suit the foreign leagues like Portugal or the Dutch league a lot better

Finally, corners, can someone please tell me the point of short corners. I know our team isn't blessed with height but short corners always result in the opposition getting the ball off us

I hate the short corners, Half the time we don’t even end up getting the ball into the box.

[Snowflake Royal]

Cheers SCIAG. But now I think it should not have been given. Bear with me please....

I haven't rewatched it since your reply but I guess for me the confusion is whether or not Fred is fouling by being in an offside position and clearly looking to accept the ball (which he then did), and so clearly interfering in play. As you know, offside is given even before, or even without recipients touching the ball, which is why this is so confusing and interesting. So the *moment* Mata touches the ball that whole snapshot of a situation i.e. Mata has touched the ball with the intention for it to get to Fred, who is clearly interfering in play just by being where he is, in the offside triangle, and clearly with the intention of touching the ball, so that snapshot of a situation is a foul whether or not Fred touches the ball... in that moment a foul has occurred. It is THEN that Richards floors Mata.

So really, it should not have been given, arguably.

And this makes more sense because one could argue that RIchards, in that split second of a stressful scenario saw that Fred was in a dangerous position, saw that Mata was just about to pass to him, and - credit to the lad who after Swansea I argued shouldn't wear a Reading shirt again! - therefore having the presence of mind and foresight to see what was going on had little option but to risk a foul by doing everything he could to prevent that. Good man! Actually in my mind a brilliant move and I forgive the young lad for his Swansea lapses. So yeah Fred was clearly interfering in play by causing this confusion in the receiving position he was in. To put it more simply... I'm not sure subconsciously Richards would have gone in if Fred wasn't where he was. His offside foul positioning clearly interfered in play and lead to the foul tackle.

Interesting....

Why are you saying being offside is a foul ? That’s just nonsense !
Most of the rest of your analysis is just crazy.
The officialsgot it right and trying to rewrite the offside law whilst seemingly under the influence of mind altering substances isn’tgoing to change that.

Calm down dude.

If you can't handle the idea of discussion on a discussion forum then perhaps the internet ain't for you.

I repeat that overall they deserved a goal there, and the win.

Being offside is not a foul. Offside and fouls are different offences.

[Zip]

Well I’d play Meite and Bod up front, tell them to smash up the defenders, really get fcuking stuck in and bust some heads, bang crosses in. Cause mayhem.

Why not? All this clever, clever pissing about with the ball is getting us nowhere fast. And we need results.

I’m with you bro. We have to start scoring goals. Play two upfront please. Personally I would go with Bodvarsson and Loader.

Loader's not looked much like scoring to me.

I don't think there's much chance of us playing two up, but Bod and Meite could do some damage.

I would have agreed about trying Meite and Bod upfront a few weeks ago but Meite is playing like a drain at the moment. Clement had a lot of faith in him and I think Meite may have been affected by his sacking.

[Snowflake Royal]

Finally, corners, can someone please tell me the point of short corners. I know our team isn't blessed with height but short corners always result in the opposition getting the ball off us

We've lacked a good corner taker for a while. Need someone who can whip the ball in with pace right into the 6 yard box. Make it harder for defenders to clear the ball.

The theory goes thus.

Scoring from a corner is very rare. Therefore taking a corner short and going back into open play means you're more likely to create a goalscoring opportunity.

It's not right, because the same factors that apply to a normal corner and make scoring unlikely apply to a short one. The opposition is back in numbers, set and organised and the space is compressed tight.

There's also an argument that you're vulnerable to being hit on the break from a cleared normal corner (Anyone remember this being frequent under Stam? It felt like it). That's a little less likely with a short one, but not a lot.

As with all things it's about being set up properly, being organised and catching the opposition out with smart decisions at the right time so that whether you go short or long the ball is a good delivery to a clear purpose.

[Snowflake Royal]

I’m with you bro. We have to start scoring goals. Play two upfront please. Personally I would go with Bodvarsson and Loader.

Loader's not looked much like scoring to me.

I don't think there's much chance of us playing two up, but Bod and Meite could do some damage.

I would have agreed about trying Meite and Bod upfront a few weeks ago but Meite is playing like a drain at the moment. Clement had a lot of faith in him and I think Meite may have been affected by his sacking.

He just takes a run of games and some service to get up to speed. And not to be expected to score 6 in 6 regularly.

[windermereROYAL]

Gabby Logan.
Straight forward win for united. hmmm

[Kitsondinho]

Gabby Logan.
Straight forward win for united. hmmm

BBC have been running with that line across their website, 5 Live and MOTD. So very different to BT’s view of the match, as well as most other media outlets.

[Millsy]

Why are you saying being offside is a foul ? That’s just nonsense !
Most of the rest of your analysis is just crazy.
The officialsgot it right and trying to rewrite the offside law whilst seemingly under the influence of mind altering substances isn’tgoing to change that.

Calm down dude.

If you can't handle the idea of discussion on a discussion forum then perhaps the internet ain't for you.

I repeat that overall they deserved a goal there, and the win.

Being offside is not a foul. Offside and fouls are different offences.

Thanks Ian. Agreed, there is a difference, but it is still an offence of some sort, whatever we call it I suppose.

So why is it that BT Sport were trying to figure out if Lukaku's offside position was offside? Clearly that would have been a material consideration in whether or not RIchards' foul could warrant a penalty.

Likewise, quoting SCIAG:

"1) Ball comes into Mata. Lukaku is in an offside position, but isn't interfering with play or an opponent so hasn't committed an offence."

The implication being that had he been interfering with play it would have been an offence and it may then change the order of events and whether or not the foul was relevant?

As one of the forum's brighter chaps on HNA, with an eye for discussion, I trust you will at least understand what I'm trying to say even if you disagree (without overloading your brain capacity and hurling insults, like some who shall remain Nameless).

To help me understand this by exaggerating the issue... I wonder.. imagine there is a player blatantly goalhanging standing right in front of the keeper and obviously 20 yards offside and one of his team mates passes the ball to him from the half way line. Now imagine that before the ball gets to that player, one of the defenders sees the offside flag and catches the ball mid flight, what would happen? Would he be done for committing a hand ball? Ok so now... let's say he catches the ball whilst the flag was on its way up but hadn't gone above the linesman's shoulder yet and before the ref sees it. What then?

See what I'm trying to say?

VAR introduces football to its very own version of Wheeler's delayed choice double slit experiment....

[Old Man Andrews]

Gabby Logan.
Straight forward win for united. hmmm

Not what she said though was it.

[Nameless]

So why is it that BT Sport were trying to figure out if Lukaku's offside position was offside? Clearly that would have been a material consideration in whether or not RIchards' foul could warrant a penalty.

:

2 possibilities

1. Like many pundits they don’t understand the offside law

2. If Lukaku had been on an offside position and interfering with play/ an opponent then that would mean an offence was committed before the foul on Mata and we would have had a free kick.

But Lukaku wasn’t interfering with play or an opponent, he was just in an offside position. Therefore no offence was committed at that point and we move to the next relevant event, which was the foul on Mata.

[elrey]

There are a few similarities between the start of McDermott’s first stint and Gomes’ handful of games.

Spirited performances in the league with exception of one stinker (Plymouth for BMcD and Swansea for JG), and then a very promising performance against one of the best teams in the country.

Let’s hope Gomes can share similar successes.

Swansea did beat Villa 3-0 yesterday...

[Sutekh]

So why is it that BT Sport were trying to figure out if Lukaku's offside position was offside? Clearly that would have been a material consideration in whether or not RIchards' foul could warrant a penalty.

:

2 possibilities

1. Like many pundits they don’t understand the offside law

2. If Lukaku had been on an offside position and interfering with play/ an opponent then that would mean an offence was committed before the foul on Mata and we would have had a free kick.

But Lukaku wasn’t interfering with play or an opponent, he was just in an offside position. Therefore no offence was committed at that point and we move to the next relevant event, which was the foul on Mata.

As Brian Clough would have said “if he isn’t interfering with play then what the hell is he doing in the pitch”.

[Nameless]

]

As Brian Clough would have said “if he isn’t interfering with play then what the hell is he doing in the pitch”.

It’s a nice quote but imagine the chaos if it wS used as the basis of applying the offside rule !

[Pepe the Horseman]

Richards has to go around Lukaku to get to Mata. Surely that means he's interfering. Not that it matters now anyway!

[paddy20]

Finally, corners, can someone please tell me the point of short corners. I know our team isn't blessed with height but short corners always result in the opposition getting the ball off us

We've lacked a good corner taker for a while. Need someone who can whip the ball in with pace right into the 6 yard box. Make it harder for defenders to clear the ball.

The theory goes thus.

Scoring from a corner is very rare. Therefore taking a corner short and going back into open play means you're more likely to create a goalscoring opportunity.

It's not right, because the same factors that apply to a normal corner and make scoring unlikely apply to a short one. The opposition is back in numbers, set and organised and the space is compressed tight.



There's also an argument that you're vulnerable to being hit on the break from a cleared normal corner (Anyone remember this being frequent under Stam? It felt like it). That's a little less likely with a short one, but not a lot.

As with all things it's about being set up properly, being organised and catching the opposition out with smart decisions at the right time so that whether you go short or long the ball is a good delivery to a clear purpose.

Soccernomics says also that you are far more likely to score from an in swinger than an out swinger

[Snowflake Royal]

Calm down dude.

If you can't handle the idea of discussion on a discussion forum then perhaps the internet ain't for you.

I repeat that overall they deserved a goal there, and the win.

Being offside is not a foul. Offside and fouls are different offences.

Thanks Ian. Agreed, there is a difference, but it is still an offence of some sort, whatever we call it I suppose.

So why is it that BT Sport were trying to figure out if Lukaku's offside position was offside? Clearly that would have been a material consideration in whether or not RIchards' foul could warrant a penalty.

Likewise, quoting SCIAG:

"1) Ball comes into Mata. Lukaku is in an offside position, but isn't interfering with play or an opponent so hasn't committed an offence."

The implication being that had he been interfering with play it would have been an offence and it may then change the order of events and whether or not the foul was relevant?

As one of the forum's brighter chaps on HNA, with an eye for discussion, I trust you will at least understand what I'm trying to say even if you disagree (without overloading your brain capacity and hurling insults, like some who shall remain Nameless).

To help me understand this by exaggerating the issue... I wonder.. imagine there is a player blatantly goalhanging standing right in front of the keeper and obviously 20 yards offside and one of his team mates passes the ball to him from the half way line. Now imagine that before the ball gets to that player, one of the defenders sees the offside flag and catches the ball mid flight, what would happen? Would he be done for committing a hand ball? Ok so now... let's say he catches the ball whilst the flag was on its way up but hadn't gone above the linesman's shoulder yet and before the ref sees it. What then?

See what I'm trying to say?

VAR introduces football to its very own version of Wheeler's delayed choice double slit experiment....

The key is the difference between being in an offside position and commiting an offside offence. It is not an offence to be in an offside position in general, so a call needs to be made as to whether an offence has been made (by interfering in play in some way).

For VAR to overturn a ref's decision it has to be a clear and obvious error.

VAR spotted the foul by Richards, which is a clear and definite foul. It occurred before the ball got to Fred so whilst he is in an offside position he has not yet commuted an offside offence so the Richards foul comes first. In addition, without the foul Mata may have continued with the ball and Fred never touched it.

Moving on to Lukaku. He is also in an offside position. But unlike Fred he has not been given as commuiting an offside offence, so there must be a clear and obvious error by the officials in VAR overturning that and an offside offence from him coming before Richards foul and meaning we get a free kick not a Utd a penalty.

Lukaku is present, but not really active. He doesn't really hamper Richards significantly, he doesn't play the ball. Therefore there is no clear and obvious error to overturn. It's a case of could sometimes maybe have been given but wasn't.

If VAR was looking at it from what is their decision with no regard for the ref the result may have been different, same as if a different ref looked at it it may have been different in these sort of niche highly subjective calls. But it's not. VAR is for correcting clear and obvious errors. Worked fine IMO.