And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28812
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.
It's possible there's a deflection masked by the camera angle. ie it flicks directly away from or indeed towards the camera.
Nobody's emerging doused in glory.
Nobody's emerging doused in glory.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36384
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.
Yeah its possible. But it looked like initially it wrong footed Gilks - to which you can't blame him. But it actually went in between his left hand and the near post - not ideal! I don't think as you say its good for anyone that goal - defence, midfield, keeper all shocking.Dave Sutton's barnet wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:39 pmIt's possible there's a deflection masked by the camera angle. ie it flicks directly away from or indeed towards the camera.
Nobody's emerging doused in glory.
Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.
I've watched that first one about ten times and can't work out what happened
No way having the blame on the second on Rico (unless he f*cked up the line to let them in)! Proper "defending with hindsight" that! He's 1v1 alone in 1/3 of a pitch, that's damage limitation, show them down the line narrow the angle and make them rush it, he did all that. He's hit it well but Gilks should be stopping it. No idea what people want Rico to do, gamble? Go get tight and try to make a tackle? Win the ball and it's great, don't and you give a pen away or get chopped inside and it's a tap in. Defending there is about maximising your chances and I think he did the right thing.
No way having the blame on the second on Rico (unless he f*cked up the line to let them in)! Proper "defending with hindsight" that! He's 1v1 alone in 1/3 of a pitch, that's damage limitation, show them down the line narrow the angle and make them rush it, he did all that. He's hit it well but Gilks should be stopping it. No idea what people want Rico to do, gamble? Go get tight and try to make a tackle? Win the ball and it's great, don't and you give a pen away or get chopped inside and it's a tap in. Defending there is about maximising your chances and I think he did the right thing.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36384
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.
I'd put most blame on Gilks but Rico for me was a bit sluggish there and I feel he could have got a bit closer. Depends how you look at it. If the lad was good enough to drag it back and put him on his arse then fair play? I get your point about showing him outside but I think he's too slow at the start so the PV lad has a reasonable angle still and not much pressure on the shot. Never should go in like. That's the main issue. Don't let the shot in and nobody discusses owt else.Prufrock wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:07 pmI've watched that first one about ten times and can't work out what happened
No way having the blame on the second on Rico (unless he f*cked up the line to let them in)! Proper "defending with hindsight" that! He's 1v1 alone in 1/3 of a pitch, that's damage limitation, show them down the line narrow the angle and make them rush it, he did all that. He's hit it well but Gilks should be stopping it. No idea what people want Rico to do, gamble? Go get tight and try to make a tackle? Win the ball and it's great, don't and you give a pen away or get chopped inside and it's a tap in. Defending there is about maximising your chances and I think he did the right thing.
- truewhite15
- Passionate
- Posts: 2769
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:25 pm
Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.
The first one was definitely deflected. I was in the North Stand sitting right behind it. Shoddy and chaotic defending gave him that opportunity, but when the ball was hit it was going to Gilks's left. It takes a deflection off a white shirt trying desperately to block it and flies in past Gilks's right. Unfortunate but self-inflicted
Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.
I get the logic but I don't think it's fair. If he had been quick enough to get there and put the guy under pressure before he had it properly under control then fair enough (doesn't look like it to me but tough to tell from the video). Once he has it under control it's very tough with no help (no other defender is in the picture). Attackers have the advantage, they know what they are going to do, all you can do as a defender is minimise the risk and make it as hard as you can. If he drops back further he gives the guy the option to chop back in or go outside. 1v1 defending in space is very hard! I imagine the thought process was "he's slightly wide, I'm quick, if I eliminate the chance of him coming inside I've got a good chance of blocking the shot and even if not from there at that angle with time to set the keeper should save". Sometimes defenders stand too far off but I'm not sure that's fair there, he has a look at a nibble a bit earlier, he's not yards away. The guy does well to get a good shot off, but Gilks should save it.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:18 pmI'd put most blame on Gilks but Rico for me was a bit sluggish there and I feel he could have got a bit closer. Depends how you look at it. If the lad was good enough to drag it back and put him on his arse then fair play? I get your point about showing him outside but I think he's too slow at the start so the PV lad has a reasonable angle still and not much pressure on the shot. Never should go in like. That's the main issue. Don't let the shot in and nobody discusses owt else.Prufrock wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:07 pmI've watched that first one about ten times and can't work out what happened
No way having the blame on the second on Rico (unless he f*cked up the line to let them in)! Proper "defending with hindsight" that! He's 1v1 alone in 1/3 of a pitch, that's damage limitation, show them down the line narrow the angle and make them rush it, he did all that. He's hit it well but Gilks should be stopping it. No idea what people want Rico to do, gamble? Go get tight and try to make a tackle? Win the ball and it's great, don't and you give a pen away or get chopped inside and it's a tap in. Defending there is about maximising your chances and I think he did the right thing.
It's what I mean about defending with hindsight. A few years ago on MOTD Shearer did analysis on two headers from crosses Newcastle conceded, the first was over the defenders head at the far post. He reckons he was too narrow, should have been further back. The second, the defender had done exactly that, but the strike nipped in front and suddenly there's too big a gap between the centre backs. It's easier to defend once you know what's happened! I'm hindsight Rico should have gone hard to tackle him because he was going to score anyway
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.
Kachunga was slow on the track back when the initial ball is played through which ironically allows a deflection to the chap who scored. Belting pass by Port Vale though.
Still chuckling at Brockbanks reaction to the 2nd.
Still chuckling at Brockbanks reaction to the 2nd.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36384
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.
It went in at Gilks near post. Slow the replay down. Beats him at his near post. It might be deflected but I’m unconvinced. It looked at first glance like he was wrong footed by a deflection but I don’t think that’s what happened.truewhite15 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:11 pmThe first one was definitely deflected. I was in the North Stand sitting right behind it. Shoddy and chaotic defending gave him that opportunity, but when the ball was hit it was going to Gilks's left. It takes a deflection off a white shirt trying desperately to block it and flies in past Gilks's right. Unfortunate but self-inflicted
- truewhite15
- Passionate
- Posts: 2769
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:25 pm
Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.
BWFC-I - I was there. Sitting right behind it. It was deflected. Gilks hops to his left to track the initial flight path, and then it's deflected in to his right.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:01 pmIt went in at Gilks near post. Slow the replay down. Beats him at his near post. It might be deflected but I’m unconvinced. It looked at first glance like he was wrong footed by a deflection but I don’t think that’s what happened.truewhite15 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:11 pmThe first one was definitely deflected. I was in the North Stand sitting right behind it. Shoddy and chaotic defending gave him that opportunity, but when the ball was hit it was going to Gilks's left. It takes a deflection off a white shirt trying desperately to block it and flies in past Gilks's right. Unfortunate but self-inflicted
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36384
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.
Added attachment as ball goes past Gilks. Goes in at his near post past his left hand. It literally goes in at the near post. That’s just a fact. It looks like it goes to his right as it hits the post and flies to other side of the goal. But it beats him at his near post. As the image clearly shows.truewhite15 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:27 pmBWFC-I - I was there. Sitting right behind it. It was deflected. Gilks hops to his left to track the initial flight path, and then it's deflected in to his right.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:01 pmIt went in at Gilks near post. Slow the replay down. Beats him at his near post. It might be deflected but I’m unconvinced. It looked at first glance like he was wrong footed by a deflection but I don’t think that’s what happened.truewhite15 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:11 pmThe first one was definitely deflected. I was in the North Stand sitting right behind it. Shoddy and chaotic defending gave him that opportunity, but when the ball was hit it was going to Gilks's left. It takes a deflection off a white shirt trying desperately to block it and flies in past Gilks's right. Unfortunate but self-inflicted
- Attachments
-
- 27B9AE05-5420-48BE-AC12-E79D9B9A822D.png (6.38 MiB) Viewed 1387 times
- truewhite15
- Passionate
- Posts: 2769
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:25 pm
Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.
I. WAS. THERE. Sitting right behind it. You've seen a replay online.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:36 pmAdded attachment as ball goes past Gilks. Goes in at his near post past his left hand. It literally goes in at the near post. That’s just a fact. It looks like it goes to his right as it hits the post and flies to other side of the goal. But it beats him at his near post. As the image clearly shows.truewhite15 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:27 pmBWFC-I - I was there. Sitting right behind it. It was deflected. Gilks hops to his left to track the initial flight path, and then it's deflected in to his right.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:01 pmIt went in at Gilks near post. Slow the replay down. Beats him at his near post. It might be deflected but I’m unconvinced. It looked at first glance like he was wrong footed by a deflection but I don’t think that’s what happened.truewhite15 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:11 pmThe first one was definitely deflected. I was in the North Stand sitting right behind it. Shoddy and chaotic defending gave him that opportunity, but when the ball was hit it was going to Gilks's left. It takes a deflection off a white shirt trying desperately to block it and flies in past Gilks's right. Unfortunate but self-inflicted
You're wrong.
Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.
Sheehan played half an hour and got booked in a 0-0 friendly draw.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36384
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.
I’ve shown you a literal freeze frame of the ball as it passes Gilks. You being there is irrelevant. The ball passes his left hand. The picture shows it clearly. It doesn’t deflect it hits the inside of the post.truewhite15 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 7:59 pmI. WAS. THERE. Sitting right behind it. You've seen a replay online.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:36 pmAdded attachment as ball goes past Gilks. Goes in at his near post past his left hand. It literally goes in at the near post. That’s just a fact. It looks like it goes to his right as it hits the post and flies to other side of the goal. But it beats him at his near post. As the image clearly shows.truewhite15 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:27 pmBWFC-I - I was there. Sitting right behind it. It was deflected. Gilks hops to his left to track the initial flight path, and then it's deflected in to his right.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:01 pmIt went in at Gilks near post. Slow the replay down. Beats him at his near post. It might be deflected but I’m unconvinced. It looked at first glance like he was wrong footed by a deflection but I don’t think that’s what happened.truewhite15 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:11 pmThe first one was definitely deflected. I was in the North Stand sitting right behind it. Shoddy and chaotic defending gave him that opportunity, but when the ball was hit it was going to Gilks's left. It takes a deflection off a white shirt trying desperately to block it and flies in past Gilks's right. Unfortunate but self-inflicted
You're wrong.
Are you honestly telling me that the image I’ve posted is anything other than irrefutable?
- truewhite15
- Passionate
- Posts: 2769
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:25 pm
Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.
Yes, because I was literally there, right behind it! It took a deflection and went past his RIGHT hand. You have taken a screenshot of a moving image, on which it's difficult to track the ball from the camera angle, and are using it as definitive proof to try and deny my FIRST HAND view of the goal from maybe twenty yards behind the goal in question.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:43 pmI’ve shown you a literal freeze frame of the ball as it passes Gilks. You being there is irrelevant. The ball passes his left hand. The picture shows it clearly. It doesn’t deflect it hits the inside of the post.truewhite15 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 7:59 pmI. WAS. THERE. Sitting right behind it. You've seen a replay online.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:36 pmAdded attachment as ball goes past Gilks. Goes in at his near post past his left hand. It literally goes in at the near post. That’s just a fact. It looks like it goes to his right as it hits the post and flies to other side of the goal. But it beats him at his near post. As the image clearly shows.truewhite15 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:27 pmBWFC-I - I was there. Sitting right behind it. It was deflected. Gilks hops to his left to track the initial flight path, and then it's deflected in to his right.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:01 pmIt went in at Gilks near post. Slow the replay down. Beats him at his near post. It might be deflected but I’m unconvinced. It looked at first glance like he was wrong footed by a deflection but I don’t think that’s what happened.truewhite15 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:11 pmThe first one was definitely deflected. I was in the North Stand sitting right behind it. Shoddy and chaotic defending gave him that opportunity, but when the ball was hit it was going to Gilks's left. It takes a deflection off a white shirt trying desperately to block it and flies in past Gilks's right. Unfortunate but self-inflicted
You're wrong.
Are you honestly telling me that the image I’ve posted is anything other than irrefutable?
It DIDN'T hit the post, it hit the back of Liam Gordom. And if you watch your precious replay, it should be reasonably obvious from the eyelines of the players, as well as the velocity of the ball, that THAT is your irrefutable fact. It deflects off Gordon, then goes between Gilks and Baptiste into the net.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36384
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.
In which case I apologise to you and Gilks.truewhite15 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:20 pmYes, because I was literally there, right behind it! It took a deflection and went past his RIGHT hand. You have taken a screenshot of a moving image, on which it's difficult to track the ball from the camera angle, and are using it as definitive proof to try and deny my FIRST HAND view of the goal from maybe twenty yards behind the goal in question.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:43 pmI’ve shown you a literal freeze frame of the ball as it passes Gilks. You being there is irrelevant. The ball passes his left hand. The picture shows it clearly. It doesn’t deflect it hits the inside of the post.truewhite15 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 7:59 pmI. WAS. THERE. Sitting right behind it. You've seen a replay online.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:36 pmAdded attachment as ball goes past Gilks. Goes in at his near post past his left hand. It literally goes in at the near post. That’s just a fact. It looks like it goes to his right as it hits the post and flies to other side of the goal. But it beats him at his near post. As the image clearly shows.truewhite15 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:27 pmBWFC-I - I was there. Sitting right behind it. It was deflected. Gilks hops to his left to track the initial flight path, and then it's deflected in to his right.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:01 pmIt went in at Gilks near post. Slow the replay down. Beats him at his near post. It might be deflected but I’m unconvinced. It looked at first glance like he was wrong footed by a deflection but I don’t think that’s what happened.truewhite15 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:11 pmThe first one was definitely deflected. I was in the North Stand sitting right behind it. Shoddy and chaotic defending gave him that opportunity, but when the ball was hit it was going to Gilks's left. It takes a deflection off a white shirt trying desperately to block it and flies in past Gilks's right. Unfortunate but self-inflicted
You're wrong.
Are you honestly telling me that the image I’ve posted is anything other than irrefutable?
It DIDN'T hit the post, it hit the back of Liam Gordom. And if you watch your precious replay, it should be reasonably obvious from the eyelines of the players, as well as the velocity of the ball, that THAT is your irrefutable fact. It deflects off Gordon, then goes between Gilks and Baptiste into the net.
It really does look like it slips by his left hand. He even moves it that way. But clearly as you say it’s a trick of the camera angle.
Apologies.
- truewhite15
- Passionate
- Posts: 2769
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:25 pm
Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.
Accepted. Sorry to become so brusque, but it's difficult to be told something is one way when you know for a fact that it's another!BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:38 pmIn which case I apologise to you and Gilks.truewhite15 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:20 pmYes, because I was literally there, right behind it! It took a deflection and went past his RIGHT hand. You have taken a screenshot of a moving image, on which it's difficult to track the ball from the camera angle, and are using it as definitive proof to try and deny my FIRST HAND view of the goal from maybe twenty yards behind the goal in question.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:43 pmI’ve shown you a literal freeze frame of the ball as it passes Gilks. You being there is irrelevant. The ball passes his left hand. The picture shows it clearly. It doesn’t deflect it hits the inside of the post.truewhite15 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 7:59 pmI. WAS. THERE. Sitting right behind it. You've seen a replay online.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:36 pmAdded attachment as ball goes past Gilks. Goes in at his near post past his left hand. It literally goes in at the near post. That’s just a fact. It looks like it goes to his right as it hits the post and flies to other side of the goal. But it beats him at his near post. As the image clearly shows.truewhite15 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:27 pmBWFC-I - I was there. Sitting right behind it. It was deflected. Gilks hops to his left to track the initial flight path, and then it's deflected in to his right.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:01 pmIt went in at Gilks near post. Slow the replay down. Beats him at his near post. It might be deflected but I’m unconvinced. It looked at first glance like he was wrong footed by a deflection but I don’t think that’s what happened.truewhite15 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:11 pmThe first one was definitely deflected. I was in the North Stand sitting right behind it. Shoddy and chaotic defending gave him that opportunity, but when the ball was hit it was going to Gilks's left. It takes a deflection off a white shirt trying desperately to block it and flies in past Gilks's right. Unfortunate but self-inflicted
You're wrong.
Are you honestly telling me that the image I’ve posted is anything other than irrefutable?
It DIDN'T hit the post, it hit the back of Liam Gordom. And if you watch your precious replay, it should be reasonably obvious from the eyelines of the players, as well as the velocity of the ball, that THAT is your irrefutable fact. It deflects off Gordon, then goes between Gilks and Baptiste into the net.
It really does look like it slips by his left hand. He even moves it that way. But clearly as you say it’s a trick of the camera angle.
Apologies.
- Harry Genshaw
- Legend
- Posts: 9130
- Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:47 pm
- Location: Half dead in Panama
Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.
That was my view of it too from the East Lower. How come you were in the North stand? You're not a steward or ball person are you?!!
"Get your feet off the furniture you Oxbridge tw*t. You're not on a feckin punt now you know"
Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.
Quote from Evatt on Tutte and a midfield without Williams pretty much confirms what's been said on here.
“Tonight we slightly changed it. Normally we’ll go with one pivot and two eights, but today we went with a double pivot and a 10. We’ve got that fluidity and option to be able to so that."
He can't be directly replaced so tactical tweaks are required. Good to see that flexible thinking. Many managers are criticised for not showing it.
“Tonight we slightly changed it. Normally we’ll go with one pivot and two eights, but today we went with a double pivot and a 10. We’ve got that fluidity and option to be able to so that."
He can't be directly replaced so tactical tweaks are required. Good to see that flexible thinking. Many managers are criticised for not showing it.
...
Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.
With Sheehan definitely not playing on Monday and Lee's fitness uncertain, do you think there's a chance we see Tutte start alongside MJ?LeverEnd wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:06 amQuote from Evatt on Tutte and a midfield without Williams pretty much confirms what's been said on here.
“Tonight we slightly changed it. Normally we’ll go with one pivot and two eights, but today we went with a double pivot and a 10. We’ve got that fluidity and option to be able to so that."
He can't be directly replaced so tactical tweaks are required. Good to see that flexible thinking. Many managers are criticised for not showing it.
Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.
I think Lee will be back from what's been said but if not I expect Tutte to be above Thomasson in the pecking order.
...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 114 guests