Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by feltmonkey

  1. We've been the better team, but I think we need to make changes. There's not much point trying to play with two injured players up front. I can see why Martial was picked half-fit, as his job was to release Rashford. However if Rashford can't run either, there's no point having either of them on.
  2. I think he decided to go himself too late. As he received the ball he was thinking about passing it, but the passing opportunity never appeared. We've got to take one of these chances though. Oh fuck Rashford down.
  3. Martial looks like a guy playing with an injury. He's reluctant to do any unnecessary running, and I don't think he's capable of running at a full sprint.
  4. Ooooh unlucky Bruno!
  5. I'm surprised Antony isn't playing. I thought his defensive ability would be deployed to stop Cancelo.
  6. Why is Luke Shaw at centre back again?
  7. It could have been worse. I think we all expected his season to be over when we saw the incident, but Ten Hag seemed to be saying in his statement that the surgery went well, that the long-term damage isn't too bad, and that Van De Beek is expected to make a full recovery.
  8. Oddly enough, I was just browsing the Everything Airbrush website before reading this and saw this deal, which I would jump on if I was getting into airbrush right now. https://www.everythingairbrush.com/product/ab-as-186-airbrushing-kit-with-ultra-airbrush/ That's a basic good-quality compressor and the Harder & Steenbeck Ultra airbrush that @Nicky mentioned. There are a few good kits in the H&S Value kits section on there. You want a compressor with a tank, so avoid that one kit on there without a tank, but all the others are good. Two other nice ones - https://www.everythingairbrush.com/product/ab-as-186-airbrushing-kit-with-ultra-x-airbrush/ https://www.everythingairbrush.com/product/ab-as-186-airbrushing-kit-with-ultra-2-in-1-airbrush/ In the spirit of full disclosure, the reason that website is my go-to is that I get a tiny discount because they have a Siege Studios set on there. No, sorry, I can't pass this discount on. I don't get kickbacks or anything though.
  9. This is interesting. Famously, he ended up taking all the corners and free-kicks during the 2016 Euros because according to Roy Hodgson he was the best striker of a dead ball in the squad. If you look at that squad, it does lack a dead-ball specialist, but the likes of Rooney, Barkley, and Lallana were in there, so he must have some ability to do it, at least in training. Some players are just more able to do it in training - Fred is apparently an excellent free-kick taker in training, but he hasn't ever shown this in a match until earlier this week when he hit the post with a beautiful effort. Watching the video, Kane's problem is entirely his technique when striking the ball. He hits too straight through the back of it. His foot moves across to his left in the follow-through, but the swing itself is very straight. He hits through the ball with some side whip, but doesn't do the thing the best free-kick takers do of hitting sort of upwards through the bottom half of the ball to apply topspin and create dip. There are different techniques when hitting a free-kick, of course. Rashford doesn't do this either - he always tries to hit knuckleballs. Kane doesn't seem to be using any particular technique, he's just hitting the ball towards the goal, the same as he does in open play. That's why they go into the wall more often than not, quite often at around waist-height.
  10. Tifo IRL's videos are always good, but this is an excellent one about exactly what it is Casemiro brings to the team. "Title push" is a bit of a stretch though. I think we'd all be absolutely delighted with any kind of cup.
  11. We're the only team in the league that still has the possibility of a quadruple, but you won't hear the mainstream media talking about it.
  12. Man City are out of the Carabao Cup. We've got Forest in the semi-final, and the other two teams left in the competition are Newcastle and Southampton. We have to consider this a good chance to win some silverware.
  13. 3-0, dead easy. No problems at all. Completely straightforward.
  14. How would it work with the fact that they already own PSG though? Spurs and PSG could both be in the Champions League. Isn't that against the rules?
  15. They want half any transfer fee? Amazing. They have a point that they have a loan contract in place for Weghorst and it's not unreasonable to expect that to be honoured, but it's just a loan deal. It doesn't give them any form of ownership of the player. Players get recalled from loan all the time. I guess there wasn't a recall clause in this case. Is there an obligation to buy or an option to buy in the loan deal between Burnley and Besiktas? I wonder what the legal status of a clause like that would be if the player no longer wants the move - they can presumably just reject the move at the point when the loanee club tries to trigger the full transfer. As you point out, the fact that they wanted to negotiate the price down shows their attitude to deals and contracts.
  16. What did they say?
  17. Definitely, and I think on the pitch his personality might be an advantage. He's arrogant and abrasive, which are often quite good things to have in a player. He's a shithouse, basically. We saw a bit of this in the World Cup game against Argentina when he wound up the entire Argentina team and bench. I just don't think I personally would get on with him at all! I do hope he's vaccinated now though, because with our fixture list, the last thing we need is a covid outbreak. Although news seems to have slowed, and it might not happen anyway. The sticking point seems to be whether Besiktas are willing to release him from his loan deal to them, and quite frankly why would they?
  18. Yeah, it's beyond me too. 😁 That looks great!
  19. I know, I'm not blaming the referees, I'm saying the law itself is clumsy. The fact that it has been clumsy for a decade doesn't change this. The main effect VAR is having is showing up how poorly-worded, ill-defined, and just plain silly a lot of the laws are.
  20. Actually, and it pains me to say this, I think that proves that he was offside. It's the first header that's important, isn't it? When the ball is flicked out to him by the second header, he's in an onside position, but you can see that from the original footage. The first header seems to be won by the Wolves player who runs from the penalty spot but the ball travels back the way it came and is then flicked by the second Wolves player towards Nunes. This is the point when the first header was won - He looks offside. When does he become active though? The law doesn't really specify what a phase of play is. If you're offside and then a couple of passes are played before the ball comes to you, are you offside? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. What about an instance like this where the ball is pinballing about, and it's an attempted header that comes off a players back then a semi-deflection before the ball comes to the player who was offside from the first touch? I don't think ANYONE really understands this at the moment, including the officials. Phases of play and active or non-active status are both poorly defined in the laws of the game. Edit - Sorry, the original version of this post had that image in it four times, in various different sizes. I struggle with the attachment thing on rllmuk, even though it really couldn't be much simpler.
  21. Does anyone else find this Weghorst transfer a bit depressing? He's an anti-vaxxer and a complete dickhead. It reminds me of the Arnautovic thing. He never even really apologised for spreading anti-vax misinformation - he said something along the lines of, "I'm sorry if anyone was offended, but everyone should do their own research." There's also a concrete risk to bringing someone unvaccinated into the squad.
  22. Players these days wear those weird sports bras with GPS trackers in don't they? I wonder if those could be utilised in these situations. Or just have a single very high definition very high framerate camera above the pitch that has the whole pitch in shot, in order to stop this happening again. I would hope that there was some communication between the VAR and the linesman in this incident, to check whether he raised his flag because he thought Nunes was offside rather than one of the two other moments that I mentioned. If there was communication, he was flagging Nunes, and he was convinced, then I guess you have to take his decision as final. If they didn't communicate and just went, "well he might have meant this guy out of shot was offside" and not overturned it because they didn't have enough evidence. Unfortunately, I suspect it might well have been the latter, because I'm not sure how a linesman on the far side could have been certain who headed the corner back out wide.
  23. Yeah, the whole "deflection or deliberate attempt to play the ball" part of the offside law is clumsy as fuck. There was one last season or the season before when Man City played Aston Villa where the ball was played in the air towards Rodri who was at least six yards offside. Mings intercepted it but as it was a high ball he wasn't able to get the ball completely under control (from memory it hadn't even hit the ground) before Rodri got to him and was able to challenge him and win the ball off him, leading to a goal that ultimately won the match. If a player is in an offside position when the ball is played, and plays a part in the subsequent "phase of play" (a nebulous and meaningless phrase anyway - football is a free-flowing sport and not played in phases) they should be offside. There are lots of instances when a defender can deliberately play the ball, but can't really control it because they're stretching or having to react faster than is possible, often in part because of an attacker in an offside position is affecting their positioning. The real scandal for me though is the disallowed Wolves winner. There's no way that's offside at any point. Why are they claiming that there's no angle that VAR can use to decide that it's not offside when I've just watched one on the ITV YouTube channel? The guy who scored is behind the ball when it's crossed the first time, you can tell by the mowed lines on the pitch, and nowhere near offside when the second shot comes in that he backheels into the net. Are they saying that the offside came when the ball was headed back to the player who took the corner? Wasn't it headed by a defender and then deflected off a Wolves head, by which time the player was onside anyway? ITV's picture quality isn't the best.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.