I've enjoyed my visits there, but my wife (who is Thai) wouldn't like to live there because it's a big city with lots of traffic jams, she's from the countryside near the Burmese boarder. Saying that the new train system they are building in Bangkok is mightily impressive.
good to know. Ill always be needing to live in the bigger cities as thats where the top tier international schools all are. I'm down to deciding between Busan in south korea and Bangkok for next year, (both would keep my naming tradition alive - Batterseacanary / Bengalurucanary/ ....)
Forest's risk of conceding from a deflected shot through their packed defence must have been far, far smaller than their risk of conceding a non-deflected goal had they not packed their defence. Holty's comment is yet another example of something that sounds "knowledgeable" but is actually rather silly. Of course the fewer defenders you have between the shot taker and the goal, the less likely you are to concede a deflected goal. But you would be utterly stupid to leave your box undefended for fear of that happening!
I don't think it was either sour grapes or delusion. What I'd like to know, though, is why he didn't have Knockaert on from the start. He's an experienced and excellent player, and would have given Sørensen all sorts of problems. Maybe not match fit, or maybe CH being over-cautious again.
You do like to go to extremes Robbie. Nobody would suggest leaving the penalty area empty of defenders - other options include defending further out to prevent long shots like Sørensen's and Buendia's. Instead both players had plenty of space to get their shots on goal virtually unopposed. Worrall had to try to stop Buendia's shot, but a defender further out could have prevented the shot altogether far more effectively. Holty was proven right IMO.
Now who knows more about the task of a striker Grant Holt someone who has scored in every level English domestic League or some bloke on a football forum ?
If you look at Emi's goal again, Rick, you'll see that there was a player "further out" closing him down. There was also a player on the edge of the area, between Worrall and Emi, blocking Worrall's sight of the ball. Worrall's was an instinctive, last moment reaction rather than a case of him "having to try to stop the shot". There was nothing wrong with Forest's defending in this instance; it had reduced us to taking a low probability chance from outside the semi-circle. If you want an example of poor defending, look at Knockaert's goal.
I get your point, the law of averages would suggest that one was bound to go in eventually, but any deflection is a random event (angle of deflection) so there is some element of "luck", for the want of a better word, involved as it could have taken another 30 minutes before the "right" event took place had the game been allowed to go on that long. The number of chances created under those circumstances is likely to increase the chances of it happen, no doubt about that, but it only becomes inevitable (given the game is a defined duration) after it a goal is scored that way I remember during the glory days for Liverpool they would get a fairly high number of penalties, and sometimes own goals, as teams packed out the defence and the "inevitable" foul happened or goal was scored having been deflected. There were other games where it didn't happen though, in similar circumstances.
There isn't any profundity in the observation that the more players there are between the shot taker and the goal, the greater the chance of the ball hitting one of them, and the more shots taken, the greater the chance of it producing a deflected goal. But if the defending team has reduced the attacking team to taking low percentage chances which rely on such a fortunate deflection to score, I'd say they had defended well. When we packed our defence against Man City at home last season, I don't recall any posters going on then about the "inevitability" of a deflected goal!
You profess scientific objectivity Robbie, but your interpretations often turn subjective in an attempt to make a point. There was a player 'trying' to close down Buendia but he failed to do so because he wasn't close enough to begin with. There was no player even close to Sørensen when he scored. The marking failed in both cases. Saying Worrall's header was an 'instinctive reaction' is also unconvincing. It was an attempt to head the ball away from goal which almost succeeded but just didn't get it wide enough so it became a 'deflected goal' rather than an own goal, as the shot was on target. The highlights show at least 4 deflections at the Forest end and there could have been more. As for Knockaert's goal, we failed to close him down sufficiently but you can hardly claim that it was a high percentage 'shot'. His intention was to put the ball on the striker's head, but he missed and the ball eventually went in. McGovern had to cover the right side of the goal against the danger of the striker's intended header and therefore was just not able to reach the ball as it carried through. Had the striker not been there, McGovern could have prevented the 'shot' from going in. Luck played a part here as well.
I can also remember us winning at Anfield when a cross deflected off Lawrenson and went in as an own goal. He was gutted.
Hooton always strikes me as a thoroughly decent guy and a decent servant to our club . (Not sure in today's woke culture I'm allowed to say that anymore) But he is a very negative thinking coach possibly because he was a defender and sets out his teams to defend . We saw it so many times with us that we would play 9 men behind the ball with a lone striker spending most of the game running around with no service. Norwich bossed the possession and spent most of the game passing around looking for space in Forrest's packed congested defence. The first goal went straight through the keeper and looks as if he didn't see it coming because he had 2 defenders blocking his view. Sitting back and inviting us to shoot from distance wasn't very clever because it just turns into pinball and the ball can end up anywhere. They hadn't scored in their previous 6 games and it's not difficult to see why .
That it is, much like any country other than Australia where you get ripped off if you go into the provinces because it is so far from anywhere else!
I have only seen a zombie film about Busan so not sure what it is like. I do like the Thai culture it is different, but their sense of humour is very British in a way, more so than those I have met from Malaysia. The Thai food is also good too! Is this the new King's School you are looking at? Whenever I go I am asked who I support and I say Norwich and they might know about us from our time in the premiership. I have already got one Thai family member a Norwich shirt, a little girl who wears it with pride.
I wasn't having a pop it's natural to want to move to a quieter part of the country where food and accommodation is less expensive and less polluted as well as less Westernised. I have never been to Thailand so can't comment but most big cities get swallowed up by Globalism with McDonald's KFC and 7eleven on every street corner. I'm guessing Bangkok is a bit like that ?
I wasn't thinking you were having a pop, just commenting on the expense of living out of the big cities in Australia Thai spicy KFC... now that is very good!
