From the sounds of Mills' comments, he trying to say that neither should have been given. That's a joke. Shawcross hauled Bony down, it was a penalty every day of the week. And if 6 or 7 should be given every game? Then why aren't they given? Maybe if refs actually started giving 6 or 7 penalties a week, defenders would stop doing it. Moses dived under no pressure and should be disgraced by the media. Just took to Twitter to send him a pretty hostile (but ethically clean) tweet. Fair play to Garry for brandishing the word 'cheat' regarding Moses in his post match interview, it's the truth.
Moses was in the box bearing down on goal- if the ref gives a penalty surely<don't call me Shirley> he should have sent off Angel ? Makes you think that he gave it to placate the home fans.
To be fair, Moses was running sideways to the goal and was going to run into another defender about a second later so it wasn't a clear goal scoring opportunity. When Victor ran into our box, 4 things could have happened: 1. Angel could try a tackle and trip him. 2. He could dive. 3. He could get tackled by another defender. 4. He could take an awkward, speculative shot. When number 1 didn't happen, he chose number 2 as the next best option. A coward and a cheat.
Anyone know if Monk used recorded post to send off his dossier DVD or did he leave admin do that task? No wonder they never received it
Mark Hughes should be ashamed for defending cheating like that....... He couldn't even bring himself to say that you win some you lose some......
[video=youtube;HOAvjazfvVA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOAvjazfvVA[/video] A very clear interview from Rangel. The game plan worked, but we didn't take our chances. They get a penalty that never was and score with their only decent cross into the box. Limited Stoke to very little, mainly just pop shots from range. Hard to accept that Stoke get 3 points for that performance. Stoke players saying that we were "killing them" on the pitch. Got to take your chances. It can't be reiterated enough. Yes, we did well and limited them to very little, but unless you take your chances and put games to bed, you're always susceptible to a bad decision, a moment of brilliance from the opposition, a defensive lapse or a bad stroke of luck. We suffered 2 of the 4.
Big K .... Stoke were "killing" us from minute 30 on ... especially in the second half. Being first to every ball and dominating possession in our half is fairly characterized as "killing" a team. We dominated possession in he first half, but mostly we held possession in our half - big difference. If not working harder than the opposition, being second to almost every ball, losing control of midfield in our own half is a "game plan" .... then we need a new "plan". I'm not a rocket scientist. But it's not rocket science. If what happened in the second half went to "plan" ... we're fooling ourselves that we have a plan.
It was a direct reference to the video. Stoke players on the pitch were saying that we were killing them and that they struggled to get the ball off us. From the horse's mouth, so to speak. I don't think it can be denied that Stoke didn't have many chances inside our box throughout the 90 though? I agree we have to change something. But we limited service to Crouch and limited their chances. If we'd taken our own to go 3-0, it would have been 3 points in the bag. Rangel does defend the strikers in the video, but the reality is that Siggy and Ki cost us the game by missing glaring chances. At 3-0, it would have been a breeze of a game and we wouldn't be talking about this. When we beat West Brom 3-1 a couple of years ago, we scored 3 early goals and then played average for 60 minutes. It didn't matter because we'd scored 3 goals. Nobody talks about those 60 average minutes, they talk about the "great first half". The majority of that game was so ordinary. Lesson? Very few people care as long as you score goals and win. We have to score our chances. Stoke created one decent chance and scored, and it wasn't even as clear as our ones.
You get very little chances on goal in this division,so strikers have to be clinical. We were not at our best,they had one chance and put it away,we had several chances that we didn't score from and lost the match.
All valid points - at 3-0, it would have been a totally different match. But, it wasn't, and good teams deal with adversity like this and we don't seem to do too well with it.
Problem is a lot of strikers instigate contact and do a lot of shirt pulling etc, it's down to the refs to make the right calls and in this situation they simply ignore it. The attitude seems to be both defender and striker are both at it so play on.
I see that the PL Referees are now saying that Monk's DVD and letter have now arrived! Did Riley leave it unopened on his desk?
Never mind Monk! Hartson has stirred a Stoke hornets nest for sure, his 'cheating' comments on MOTD2 has got their chairman ready to sue.................. please log in to view this image
I wouldn't worry about legal action. Anyone looking at the incident can see plainly that Moses did a swallow dive. Fair comment by Monk - the guy cheated, end of story. I can understand managers being punished by the FA for overstepping the mark - accusing refs of bias, that sort of thing. But calling Moses a cheat is perfectly correct so why should there be any punishment? Have we reached the stage now that managers can't give honest (and perfectly accurate) opinions post-match? I agree with you Valley, we need to put those chances away - we're creating them for sure.
