Match Day Thread Vs Man City (A)

I think the UEFA and the FA or indeed any domestic body shoudl have the penalty point system for behavior just like a license.

City should get 2 point on their licence for offensive chants there.

Same as say LFC 2 point letting of flares or whatever

If you rack up 12 points over 2 years gates closed for a premier league game.

 

The chavs are in trouble over a chant about Moratta. Anyone any idea what was sung?
@Bodinki can you shine a light on this?

 

Hmmm -

Well the Alfie Mawson incident would have been a red for sure, if he had connected. You can argue that if a challenge doesn't connect with the opponent it is not likely to endanger the safety of an opponent, but that is weak.

Really, for the Richie incident, the referee had to decide whether the tackle might have caused serious injury, and the Mane incident left the referee no decision, because it did cause serious injury.

Now, I think Richie should have got a red card as well. He only missed because Mawson saw him coming and pulled his head back, but the climate at the moment has referees not wanting to give red cards, unless they absolutely have to, which is a climate Neville and the rest have created. Really they are putting entertainment first and player safety second.

In my opinion, the game in England is far too violent with far too much foul play, and lenient refereeing is why the standard of our teams is falling, despite all the money we have, and why our national team is crap. It is also why by the time the season gets going, a lot of the most exciting stars we pay to watch, are not on the pitch, but watching as well.

I agree with your point on the chanting though.

 

I can.

City might be good going forward, but Accrington Stanley could have put 5 or 6 past us, we were that bad at the back. I would have settled for 2 or even 3 nil, wouldn't have liked it, but could have understood it. 5 nil is simply unacceptable even with 10 v 11.

And considering that our best form of defence is attack, what's the good of that if they're not put away? How many did Salah miss?

 

I agree with some of what you've said and some, not. Mane didn't cause 'serious injury' he caused an injury. On player safety, I would like to add that the players have a responsibility to keep themselves safe as well as having an eye to keep others on the pitch safe. I don't agree with some of the pundits that said Ederson was brave, he was reckless and I'd say bears 50% of the blame for his own injury. Challenging an attacker that far outside his area, what was he thinking.

 

Didn't get to watch the game live but just seen the replay of the game.

Our defensive issues stem primarily from Henderson. If you are going to play as the holding midfielder you need to hold your ground and screen the back 4. The number of times he needlessly rushes from his position totally exposes the back 4. It's not his fault as I think he lacks tactical awareness to play that position.

I have been watching him closely and he is sometimes ahead if Wiji and Can and all the opposition have to do is one simple pass . He also needs to cut out the Hollywood balls and just keep it simple.

Put a Kante or Matic in that position and you see a more solid performance in the backline.

 

Oh come on, he headed a ball @ shoulder height. With the two running together and the ball where it was he was brave in the sense that he could have expected a collision of heads maybe, but no way is he responsible for his injury. I'll just re-iterate what I said on here watching the game in real-time before any replays - Mane's foot was high and caught the feller in the face. I'm sure he didn't mean it all, but it is his foot, and his responsibility. Of course he didn't mean to kick him in the face: he obviously thought he could do what Salah did to Bellarin a fortnight ago, but he didn't.

I'll throw Cahill and his tackle in too, the one he did against Burnley. He didn't mean to injure anyone, but I said at the time that happened that it was the definition of a dangerous, uncontrolled tackle. The fact that Richie should have gone (and Stones should have at least got booked) just emphasises again the inconsistencies in this, but things even out for everyone (remember that City had a dreadful decision against Everton) over the seasons, except, of course, for Uniturd. The fact that Richie should have gone does not negate the fact that Mane's red card WAS right.

 

As far as I can tell, the midfield three as as flexible as the forward three. Sometimes one runs up, the others are meant to cover. Problem is that there's no defensive braincells between the three of them.

Regarding the whole red card, dangerous play thing...
What's the deal with overhead kicks which strikers are so lauded for when they go in? Foot is in the air, head height, defenders often running towards the ball in the box to clear the lines putting themselves in harms way...Only difference is that with an overhead kick, the attacking player has zero clue where anyone else is which, I would say, is more dangerous.

This is my big problem with football, the inconsistencies. How can high feet be allowed in some circumstances but not in others? How can Mane get a red but the other fella on Sunday gets a yellow? I would bet quite happily that if two players both challenged the same ball with their feet, neither would be red carded (or even yellow) but the defending player would win a freekick. Again, consistency lacking.

Red cards imo should be for deliberate dangerous play, violence or serious unprofessionalism. Not for accidental errors when there's clearly no malice.

 

Spot on - that was my beef
Didn't even realise ref had fecked up in same game!

 

He's talking about Utd.

 

They rhymed their favourite Spurs related anti semitic racist slur with "Madrid". I'm sure you can work the rest out.

Overhead kicks generally involve the laces of the boot, with a high foot like Mane and Richies it's the studs that go first. Metal studs are a lot more dangerous and likely to cause injury than the leather upper. Also the player swings the foot above their own head and body, so there won't be a defend standing exactly where they are. Like Can's overhead last season - for a defender to get in the way of his boot they'd have been standing on Can's head!

It was maybe a little harsh on Mane, but then again if they let it slide then players will feel they can fly in on keepers feet first in all cases. Then it's only a matter of time before we end up with another Petr Cech situation with someone in a coma with a fractured skill. After all, if one of Mane's studs had connected with the keeper's eye socket or nasal bone that incident could have been a hell of a lot worse.

I think Richie should probably have gone as well, but then refs are always more lenient when there is no actual contact, and Ritchie was closer to the ground than Mane at the point of the challenge.

 

I don't think he was brave or reckless. And as far as the rules are concerned, players do not have a responsibility to keep themselves safe. You have a responsibility to make sure you are not a danger to others. You are never going to get red-carded for running full-tilt into the post, for example, there is no law against it, as unwise as it probably is.

This is the problem with the whole thing really. The rules really are very, very, clear about all this. You are required to be "careful" when playing with respect to your opponent. You have no rights to do anything nor should you fear for yourself going for any ball.

 

There was contact, that's why Mawson spent the rest of the game with a bandage on his left arm, it had a lump the size of an egg on it.

 

Sorry, meant contact with the head. Refs are taught to stop the game immediately if there is a head or neck injury, so they treat anything head related as more serious.

 

Football rules don't say you have to keep yourself safe, but life rules do. Running out at one of, if not the fastest attacking player in the league means you have to be aware that anything could happen - clash of heads at that speed alone could result in serious injury. Add to that he knew he couldn't use his hands to protect himself, so as others have said, he will think again before rushing so far out again.

 

So he had no right to go for a ball that Mane was chasing then?
He may have been up against one of the fastest players in the league but he still got there first.

 

He had the advantage over Mane in that he knew Mane was there. He made a reckless decision imo to go that far out to challenge knowing it would have to be with his head. Did he deserve what he got, no, but he takes half the blame for making a reckless decision and putting himself and Mane at risk.

 

Wow i've heard it all now.

Next time one of your players ducks out of a challenge/header i hope you don't blame him as he's just protecting himself. Likewise if an opposition player comes kung fu kicking towards a liverpool head its your players fault if he gets hurt as he should do the same action or protect himself.

 

or how about at worse he'd expect mane to head it seeing it was head height rather than expecting mane to come kung fu kicking out?

I guess it was xabi alonsos fault for not jumping out the way when he saw lampard flying in. He should have expected it when lampard was careering into him

 

It's just laughable, there's even got one clown going round saying i claimed it was intentional