clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
We’re not there yet !In summary, yes, Liverpool have become the new Man Utd
We have another three managers to go.
Swango1980
Well-known member
Just like it did for Darwin Nunez?
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
We’re not there yet !
We have another three managers to go.
And the rest
Been 7 managers since 2013
Last edited:
Tashyboy
Please don’t ask to see my tatts 👍
My bad. It should have been £1.50.Rotherham Utd usually put all the match worn poppy shirts up for auction on the website - not seen anything for this year though. Some players shirts go for much more than others
PS - Think you are very optimistic wanting £150 for an Owls top - could probably buy the club for that at the moment
Pin-seeker
Well-known member
Why wasn’t Isak brought on yesterday?
Aztecs27
Money List Winner
Good weekend of football.
Pleased that the Dyche-ball experiment is going well thus far. And seems that all the outsiders who were crying at Forest getting rid of Big Ange so quickly seem to have been proven wrong..the stats speak for themselves;
Ange Postecoglou at Forest:
Games: 8
Won: 0
Drawn: 2
Lost: 6
Goals: 7
Conceded: 18
Clean sheets: 0
Sean Dyche at Forest:
Games: 5
Won: 2
Drawn: 2
Lost: 1
Goals: 7
Conceded: 5
Clean sheets: 2
Goals scored matched in 3 less games with Dyche's "terrorist-ball" and 13 less conceded, with two clean sheets to boot.
Thank god Marinakis isn't afraid to be trigger happy when he needs to be!
Pleased that the Dyche-ball experiment is going well thus far. And seems that all the outsiders who were crying at Forest getting rid of Big Ange so quickly seem to have been proven wrong..the stats speak for themselves;
Ange Postecoglou at Forest:
Games: 8
Won: 0
Drawn: 2
Lost: 6
Goals: 7
Conceded: 18
Clean sheets: 0
Sean Dyche at Forest:
Games: 5
Won: 2
Drawn: 2
Lost: 1
Goals: 7
Conceded: 5
Clean sheets: 2
Goals scored matched in 3 less games with Dyche's "terrorist-ball" and 13 less conceded, with two clean sheets to boot.
Thank god Marinakis isn't afraid to be trigger happy when he needs to be!
Swango1980
Well-known member
Well, you've already been there (was it 4 managers between 2010-2015?)We’re not there yet !
We have another three managers to go.
Liverpool took that to a new level when they had 2 managers at the same time (Evans and Houllier). Pure comedy
They can’t , let’s hope it doesn’t take over a decade
It took 30 years last time.
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
It did indeed, guess it shows that it’s not easy
Clubs go through long periods of not winning major trophy’s
Orikoru
Tour Winner
I've just watched it now, the ball is going straight towards Robertson and he ducks to allow it over his head and in. Feels harsh if you're a Liverpool fan, but I think disallowing is the right call, with the rules being as they are. As you say, it's consistent with other ones that have been disallowed. If he's stood on the other side of the goal from where it goes in, then it's a goal, in my opinion.If they disallowed the Everton goal against Spurs, that has to be disallowed as well
Swango1980
Well-known member
It is all about interpreation. Man City's goalkeeper saw the shot come in as soon as VVD connected, he reacted and dived for the ball immediately. I can't see any chance whatsoever that Robertson's actions impacted the goalkeepers intention to try and save the ball. There was a great camera angle from almost behind the keeper, that showed that he had full sight of the ball, and Robertson was well out of the way. I've no doubt that other officials would have allowed the goal, and they would be able to interpret the rules, as written, to justify that decision (on MOTD I think they highlighted that the same ref had a similar incident occur a while back, and came up with the complete opposite conclusion).
Not that I ever want Liverpool to score a goal of course, so I was pleased it was disallowed
. Man City were a million miles better than Liverpool, so even if the goal had been allowed, I've no doubt Man City would have still ended up easy winners. Man City probably played in neutral in the second half, but if they needed to, I reckon they could have gone up 5 gears and killed them off with ease.
Orikoru
Tour Winner
You can't guess what's going through players' heads. The keeper's starting position might even have been 6 inches further left if Robertson isn't there, we can't know. To paraphrase the old Cloughy quote, why is he on the pitch (or in this case, inside the 6-yard box) if he's not interfering with play? I think rather than trying to second guess what's going through every player's mind and how they react to someone being in an offside position, it's safer to be consistent and rule it out. Robertson should have stepped up when the defenders stepped up off the posts, he's been caught out and it's cost his team.It is all about interpreation. Man City's goalkeeper saw the shot come in as soon as VVD connected, he reacted and dived for the ball immediately. I can't see any chance whatsoever that Robertson's actions impacted the goalkeepers intention to try and save the ball. There was a great camera angle from almost behind the keeper, that showed that he had full sight of the ball, and Robertson was well out of the way. I've no doubt that other officials would have allowed the goal, and they would be able to interpret the rules, as written, to justify that decision (on MOTD I think they highlighted that the same ref had a similar incident occur a while back, and came up with the complete opposite conclusion).
Not that I ever want Liverpool to score a goal of course, so I was pleased it was disallowed
Swango1980
Well-known member
That is exactly what you have to do when making many different decisions. Which is another reason why many decisions will always be subjective.
There is no point in quoting Cloughy, when we know that is quote is not applicable to the rules today. If we were all to take Cloughy's quote literally, then even if Robertson was not there the goal would still have to be ruled out for offside, because Salah (who took the corner) was in an offside position
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
The issue is it’s not consistent with other incidents that have occured - already seen two other very similar goals that have been allowed where it’s gone over the head of someone stood offside
The gk saw the ball the whole way
RichA
Well-known member
But the keeper wasn't likely to be positioning himself to cover any further involvement from Salah.
He absolutely would have been aware of Robertson and consciously or subconsciously ruling out any attempt by Robertson to play the ball goalwards before fully committing himself to the dive to his left. A top class goalkeeper can cover 0.4 meters in a tenth of a second. That might have been enough to make a save.
Orikoru
Tour Winner
Agreed, yes. That's effectively what I was saying - the goalkeeper is making countless micro-decisions with his positioning, assessing who is around him. It's not just about whether he sees the effort and dives, he has already positioned himself in a way that he can react to any potential touch by Robertson.
I don't know which ones you mean so I can't really comment on that. If they were identical to this one then they should also have been disallowed, and if they weren't, then the mistake was in those games and not in this one.
Aztecs27
Money List Winner
Yet Matz Sels was being completely impeded when Bournemouth scored from a corner 2 weeks ago. Surely the rules should be the same?
Don't get me wrong, we deserved to lose to Bournemouth (and even if we didn't deserve to, it's football law that we do
) and I don't feel sorry for Liverpool in the slightest, but referee inconsistency is still being talked about week in and week out.
Orikoru
Tour Winner
No idea mate, I haven't seen it.Yet Matz Sels was being completely impeded when Bournemouth scored from a corner 2 weeks ago. Surely the rules should be the same?
Don't get me wrong, we deserved to lose to Bournemouth (and even if we didn't deserve to, it's football law that we do
All I will say is, if they got that one wrong that doesn't mean they need to get this one wrong as well just for the sake of consistency. It's always a weird argument that. What's done is done.
If it was the same referee, the same VAR official, the exact same situation each time, you would have a point. However, each official will see things slightly differently, each example has slight differences. There are bound to be inconsistencies because they are open to interpretation.Yet Matz Sels was being completely impeded when Bournemouth scored from a corner 2 weeks ago. Surely the rules should be the same?
Don't get me wrong, we deserved to lose to Bournemouth (and even if we didn't deserve to, it's football law that we do
This is being talked about because we have endless sports news shows to fill and it also distracts from a woeful performance from one of the teams involved. It wasn't us guv, it was the ref.
One thing, I bet Robertson doesn't stand there again for a corner. That's within his control, and knows the consequence. He's there to mess with the eyeline of the keeper, what else is his purpose in that position?
