Burnley away
- Thread starter Bob the slob
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
http://www.caughtoffside.com/2015/0...-but-did-bafetimbi-gomis-get-the-final-touch/
You need a stronger prescription for your glasses
'getting' ... I did say 'getting'.
I'm really no fan of Taylor but is not as bad as he was at the beginning of the season. As you say he still has those traits but I think Cork and Ki around him have helped. Also, I think he's on instructions to come inside and leave the wide open spaces ... wide open. Maybe Monk thinks we can defend crosses better than players running directly at the defence!
I think he'll give away penalty before he stops man handling players - just hope refs and Spurs haven't noticed and play it tomorrow night.
Didn't watch Arsenal ... I'm only interested in the Swans.
The Burnley goal was an own goal. The ball was travelling away from goal until Trippier kneed it goal-wards and therefore the laws of physics applied. I actually think it should have been credited to Heaton as he saved the deflection then seemed to throw the ball over himself and the line. Either way, it has nothing to do with Shelvey and bears no comparison with the Gomis goal.
As for you rant about 100% certainty - what is certain is it hit Gomis and it went in. What is highly likely (i.e. obeying the laws of physics) is the direction of the initial shot would have taken the ball wide of the post and also the goal keeper had his right hand third of the goal covered. Whatever you think might have happened, didn't, because Gomis deflected the ball away from the goal line / goal keeper and into the net.
Using your argument players could be claiming goals simply from hitting the ball towards the opposition goal.
What i have said about Shelvey I stand by and if you look back through post on here and elsewhere a lot of people agree - you don't fine that's your opinion, but please don't invent blessings on the player.
He has, more often than not, taken a decent corner and provided a valuable but not outstanding 2 goals to accompany 4 assists in 21 games.
Gylfi 6 goals & 8 assists
Ki 5 goals & 1 assist
Dyer 5 & 3
Routledge 4 & 1
Gomis 5 & 1
The difference for me is the five players I mentioned contribute well throughout almost every game they play.
In fairness even Shelvey has stated that it probably wouldnt have gone in had it not hit Gomis which is the eason he credited the goal to him too
I agree that 4 contribute and one does defensively. Please don't try and make Gomis out to be a good striker, he is the worst in the PL and around like a headless chicken, his work done in the opposition box is next to zero. 2 league goals in the number of games he has played is poor for the wages he is getting. Very clever to add the 3 goals scored against very poor opposition in his tally to make him look better. His league record is appalling and shows no signs of improving.
I really hope he is on his toes come the summer and we sign a striker who actually looks like he may score a few goals, rather than chasing shadows outside the box.
Where I do agree with you it was Gomis goal against Man Utd, but I cant give him any credit for it hitting him on the ear when his back was turned.
Lol that reply, right, can't say I was expecting that, would expect that from Dai, but not you. Oh I aint interested in any other teams goals lol. Cute reply.
Also your physics must be pretty funky, because from the replays I have seen it seems to be going on target. Have you any other angle that shows its going off target? Be interesting to see that.
Here is the view from behind the goal, at the point it hits Gomis's head.
You must log in or register to see images
Now unless De Gea is a really **** goalkeeper, its pretty safe to say he is somewhere near the middle of the goal, pushing towards the left hand post after-all that is where Shelvey is shooting from so covering his near post more than his right hand side post, would you agree?
Well just in-case you don't
You must log in or register to see images
So looking at both images, and how far the ball had travelled between Jonjo hitting it, and it hitting Gomis's head, and compare it to how far the ball has moved in the first photo, how can that possibly be deemed off target?
So please, if you have another replay that shows otherwise, be my guest.
I do however agree that the keeper should have been credited with the own goal. My point was that you cannot foresee anything that will happen, like you saying it would have definately have been saved, as in theory so was the shot against Burnley, it was saved, but a freak mistake resulted in a goal being given. So there is no direct comparison, but mainly used to prove a point that your physics argument and gut feeling was very flawed.
If deGea was moving to his left he why would he have been left wrong footed and leaning to his right.
Match day replays (not stills) show the trajectory of the ball is taking it outside of the post to the goalkeeper's right.
But if you want it to be Shelvey's goal when it was credited to Gomis, Shelvey agreed it probably wouldn't have gone in without the deflection and the analysis post game show it wouldn't have gone in with out a deflection ... go for it.
Match day replays (not stills) show the trajectory of the ball is taking it outside of the post to the goalkeeper's right.
But if you want it to be Shelvey's goal when it was credited to Gomis, Shelvey agreed it probably wouldn't have gone in without the deflection and the analysis post game show it wouldn't have gone in with out a deflection ... go for it.
The only reason it wouldn't have gone in without the deflection from Gomis, was that DeGea had it covered and would have in all probability saved it, but no way was Shelvey's shot going wide, it was well on target, and you need a trip to specsavers if you think otherwise..........
I agree it probably wouldn't have gone in, but there is a difference in saying it 'probably' wouldn't go in, to what your saying, in which you are 100% sure it would have never gone in. That is claiming it as fact. Which you cannot be certain.
The reason they do not give defenders an own goal when the ball is on target is that there is a probability that the shooter would have scored it. Even with the keeper behind the shot such as with Rosicky's goal vs Everton, Howard would have probably saved it. Only when the ball is off target is the defender deemed to have scored the own goal, as there is no chance of the shooter actually scoring the goal.
The stills above are from a video replay, I took stills to point out the exact points to show the ball is heading on target. You have failed to point to anything that says or shows it was going off target. Your only point is that Shelvey admitted it probably wouldn't have gone in, but that doesn't say it was going off target like you seem to think.
The analysis post game, does that claim it was going off target? If so a link would be handy. Heck tell me who it was that analysed it and I will find a link myself.
The reason they do not give defenders an own goal when the ball is on target is that there is a probability that the shooter would have scored it. Even with the keeper behind the shot such as with Rosicky's goal vs Everton, Howard would have probably saved it. Only when the ball is off target is the defender deemed to have scored the own goal, as there is no chance of the shooter actually scoring the goal.
The stills above are from a video replay, I took stills to point out the exact points to show the ball is heading on target. You have failed to point to anything that says or shows it was going off target. Your only point is that Shelvey admitted it probably wouldn't have gone in, but that doesn't say it was going off target like you seem to think.
The analysis post game, does that claim it was going off target? If so a link would be handy. Heck tell me who it was that analysed it and I will find a link myself.
The only reason it wouldn't have gone in without the deflection from Gomis, was that DeGea had it covered and would have in all probability saved it, but no way was Shelvey's shot going wide, it was well on target, and you need a trip to specsavers if you think otherwise..........
I'll book a visit for the pundits and commentators from Viasat as well.
I never repeat never avoid anything boy. I know to much but i dont respond to kids like you...understand
I never repeat never avoid anything boy. I know to much but i dont respond to kids like you...understand
So your avoiding responding to kids liek me, yet you never avoid anything, interesting
Fact of the matter is, you were proved wrong and you hadn't the bottle to own up to it
I never repeat never avoid anything boy. I know to much but i dont respond to kids like you...understand
But in posting that message aren't you technically responding to 'the kid' Dai
But in posting that message aren't you technically responding to 'the kid' Dai
He just posted this on the Cardiff board (concerning Dave Whelan handing over the reigns at Wigan to his Grandson)...
Good morning, Vetch!
That's my phrase (sarcastic), there was no intended suggestion that you ever said it.
I wasn't aware that I make things up. And everyone bends the facts on here to suit their cause - even you.
If you're trying to lure me over to the dark side, it won't work
Here's how I see it, maybe rightly or wrongly, you can tell us. You APPEAR to take some satisfaction in our gradual slide down the table and the perception of myself and others on this forum is that it's connected with the tediously ongoing Laudrup/Monk debate. My post was prompted by the fact that we moved back UP the table despite your doom-laden predictions and the fact that 9 people bothered to 'like' it suggests that I'm not alone on this subject. Now, 'likes' are normally gained depending on which side of the divide you sit on and they are of no consequence, but in this case they seem to come from a broad spectrum of the community.
It was inevitable that Swansea would move down the table from 2nd place after 3 games and I'm sure no sane person would have thought otherwise. Predicting that in a rational way is one thing, but my perception of your posts is that you wouldn't be overly upset if the team keep sliding down the table to demonstrate that Monk shouldn't be manager and Laudrup should still be with us. Please put me right if this is not the case.
At this moment in time, I would say the likelihood is that we will get to 50 points this season. Position-wise we are most likely to finish between 8th and 11th since a 10-point gap has opened up between ourselves and 12th place. And yes, Laudrup is still the only manager in Swansea's history to have won a major cup competition.
That is all
"You APPEAR to take some satisfaction in our gradual slide down the table"
Now,an intelligent person would wait until I actually SAY/STATE that.
Since you have been unable to restrain yourself from stating something that is quite erroneous,you do more than "appear" to have been mistaken.
"MY PERCEPTION OF YOUR POSTS"
Your "perception" is just that - YOUR PERCEPTION - and as stated above,has no foundation of reality.
It would seem that the 8th position you so gloated about is now under some considerable pressure.
"Fools rush in...".
That is all.
I was getting worried you hadn't responded Lib. Was just about to suggest we send out a search party, but you seem to be alive and kicking. 