I really don't care what anyone says, Clattenburg is a damn good referee. If you disagree you are wrong. End of story.
Match Day Thread Stoke City v SAINTS - 18/4/15, 15:00
- Thread starter SouthamptonFCroatia
- Start date
I didn't say he was crap, I was very disappointed in his unwillingness to deal with Stokes dirty tactics and fell for some awful diving especially Adams "Tombstone" in the second half was laughable.
Booking 4-0 against us didn't reflect what was going on
Poor old Pelle most be black and blue
Booking 4-0 against us didn't reflect what was going on
Poor old Pelle most be black and blue
That post is just laughably ridiculous. No one else is allowed an opinion on referees other than you Tom apparently.
Stoke played a physical game, but they weren't that thuggish.
We did not dominate that game by any stretch. Stoke's goals were both somewhat lucky, but OTOH Crouch missed a sitter, and N'Zonzi missed another great chance.
Clattenburg had a decent game. It has to be said that as far as knowing the rules, positioning himself, making good judgments, etc. he is by far the best official in Premier League, and quite possibly the best in the world. Unfortunately, his attitude and demeanor towards players and behavior off the pitch is completely unprofessional. But it was not a problem in this game.
We just didn't play that well and we didn't deserve to win. No excuses. Just have to regroup and play better next week.
We did not dominate that game by any stretch. Stoke's goals were both somewhat lucky, but OTOH Crouch missed a sitter, and N'Zonzi missed another great chance.
Clattenburg had a decent game. It has to be said that as far as knowing the rules, positioning himself, making good judgments, etc. he is by far the best official in Premier League, and quite possibly the best in the world. Unfortunately, his attitude and demeanor towards players and behavior off the pitch is completely unprofessional. But it was not a problem in this game.
We just didn't play that well and we didn't deserve to win. No excuses. Just have to regroup and play better next week.
I think Forster would have saved the first goal because he's taller. Not sure if he would have done so because of better skills.
The mistake was in assuming the ball was going way over, when it doesn't cost you anything to act like it might not. If Davis had done that, he would have caught the ball. And I suppose fundamentally, it's the right play to never take a ball for granted. But it is a bit of a headtrip, because every single person on the pitch thought it was going way over. Not sure that Forster wouldn't have avoided the same mistake, especially since I've seen him make that exact mistake at least once.
Once Davis didn't react right away, it was just bad luck. He actually had the goal covered-- that ball could not have gone in. It took a perfect wind/mishit for that ball not to go over for a goal kick, or l fall lower into Davis hands, but to exactly barely go over Davis's reach and hit the crossbar, and from there carom perfectly to Stoke.
Second goal, Davis did seem slow to react. He may have been screened, but still it's one where a better GK might have had it. At the same time though, it wasn't struck that well, and if it had been Adams would have buried it so that it was unstoppable. It wasn't an easy save. I think Forster is a very good GK who might very well have risen to the challenge but to me the blame for that lies with the defense.
The mistake was in assuming the ball was going way over, when it doesn't cost you anything to act like it might not. If Davis had done that, he would have caught the ball. And I suppose fundamentally, it's the right play to never take a ball for granted. But it is a bit of a headtrip, because every single person on the pitch thought it was going way over. Not sure that Forster wouldn't have avoided the same mistake, especially since I've seen him make that exact mistake at least once.
Once Davis didn't react right away, it was just bad luck. He actually had the goal covered-- that ball could not have gone in. It took a perfect wind/mishit for that ball not to go over for a goal kick, or l fall lower into Davis hands, but to exactly barely go over Davis's reach and hit the crossbar, and from there carom perfectly to Stoke.
Second goal, Davis did seem slow to react. He may have been screened, but still it's one where a better GK might have had it. At the same time though, it wasn't struck that well, and if it had been Adams would have buried it so that it was unstoppable. It wasn't an easy save. I think Forster is a very good GK who might very well have risen to the challenge but to me the blame for that lies with the defense.
That is a good summary. How I feel about Kelvin is kind of like how I feel about Ed Milliband. It's not his fault he's not very good. So it's not fair to sit here and call him ****, because of that and because he's obviously a really top bloke.
Really the criticism should go to those who decided to go to this season with one viable goalkeeper (particularly when we actually have two), although you could make a sensible argument that as goalkeeper injuries rarely happen and the right young player wasn't available last year, it was a risk worth taking.
As it is, Forster's injury will probably mean we finish 7th instead of 6th this season. (and have a crap run in, but we're all used to that). But if it happened in January, it could have been a different story.
This would be the same Davis that helped us win 2 previous games? I said then that we shouldn't discuss whether Forster would have saved the goals that Davis let's in. We will never know....think of the points he has got us in the last few games instead.
People need someone to blame. the referee, dirty Stoke or our keeper... To be honest unfortunately you sometimes don't get anything from games you really should, like against Aston Villa and you just have to accept it and move on. We played better against Stoke than Hull but there we go.
Just because he saved helped us in the last few games, doesn't mean we can't wish for better when he lets a goal in or makes a mistake. I never ever get that reasoning. It's like me having really poor sales at work for a month, then saying to my boss but last months sales were great and expecting him to agree and not be worried. It just doesn't work that way.
I was just questioning if Forster would have saved them, there is no harm in that.
Humans like comparing things, FLT likes comparing Kylie's ass to others and Tom loves comparing Clattenburg to other refs.
Just bescause I feel he could have done better doesn't mean I think he is ****. A few people on here seem to have their players(refs in Tom's case) that no one can criticise when they do poorly (even tho a hell of a lot seem ok with slating Pelle every game). Aslong as it isn't ripping the player apart I see no harm in it.
Last edited:
That was against Hull tho, which was a different game. I rightly praised him that game.
The reason why we lost wasn't just down to Davis, I never said that. The team as a whole is on a dip of form.
Kelvin didn't have one of his better games, that is all. Nothing else in it than that, and we move on. Unfortunately, as is always the case, if keepers make mistakes or aren't on their game, then it usually leads to a goal.
Doesn't matter, but it puts things in perspective I guess. We should accept that keepers like players will have good and bad games. Don't get too carried away when they have a tremendous match, but don't lambaste them when they make mistakes - only doing their best.
I'll quote this one too as well then Beefy. I thought you were being lighthearted, and you are right: we all have opinions, and have the right to criticise, and to praise.
I don't think anyone has gone overboard at all on here about yesterday to be honest. We all would admit that Kelvin didn't have a great game, but we start a fresh with him next week vs Spurs.