Bit of a sensationalist title but some interesting comments from CH: http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/spor...712?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
Quality and guile. So why didn't he sign any. He knew we needed that last year, certainly more than power and pace.
quality and guile. we lacked quality and guile in key areas because players who are capable of good things chose the wrong options or misplaced a cross. we were quite creative throughout the 90 minutes. and didn't he try to buy both toivonen and quagliarella or have i missed something? both would add quality and guile but if you can't get the players you want, don't buy somebody who isn't as good as what we have. overall, sensible comments from hughton. who would you pick carrabuh to take on stoke, in all seriousness? how would you set us up differently?
Very sensible comments. I agree with everything he said and he defends himself and his team well. Only thing that I disagree with is that he should have sat all his players down at the start of the season and said, 'Ricky van Wolfswinkel is taking penalties'. That in itself would have got us one extra point this season. Nonetheless... ... in Hughton I Trust.
@Hucks Although I agree to an extent about the penalty -- Snoddy being left-footed made up Guzan's mind for him, and Snoddy didn't recognise that that is how Guzan would almost certainly read it -- you cannot say that we would have scored had Ricky taken it. Slightly more chance maybe, but that is all. Against Saints at CR nobody expected anyone other than Holty to take the penalty. But it was saved. There is a high chance of scoring from a penalty but it is somewhere in the 70%s I believe.
Excuse me, can you please explain to me exactly how the signings we have made this summer have added "power and pace" but nothing else? Elmander -- experience, good holdup play, good movement; yes, a strong guy who isn't easily shifted off the ball (certainly a plus), pace (?), you must be joking. RvW, Hooper, Redmond (just pace I suppose you are saying?), Fer (yes pace, yes another pretty strong guy, which is needed to do the job there in central midfield recovering the ball, not being too easily dispossessed by the likes of Fellaini, but also excellent passing).
Excellent post robbie. How about the youth team give the senior players tips on penalty taking. If my memory serves me correctly, 4 of the penalties taken in the youth cup semi final were almost unstoppable - good height, good placement and hit with power!!!
I don't think RvW's missed a penalty in a competitive match yet, has he? Also, Holt's penalty last year was at least well hit, if not well placed. Snoddy's yesterday was straight down the middle and tamely hit.
That's not true - Snoddy's penalty was towards the right hand side and about a metre in. The problem was that it was just above knee height, which is the easiest for a keeper stretching there, so if the keeper guesses the right way, he saves it. There are worse penalties around.
snoddy's penalty was well struck but just the right height for the keeper as rob says. it wasn't awful - he hit the target and hit it firmly. the keeper was well off his line when he struck it and it should have been retaken by the letter of the law but knowing our luck with penalties, we'd probably have missed it again!
As I said originally, I think the chances of scoring were reduced the minute Snoddy stepped up to take it. He is known to be left-footed, and Guzan chose that side in consequence. Given that Guzan was going to dive to his left, it required far greater accuracy than Snoddy produced to beat him. If Snoddy had actually blasted it down the middle he would pretty certainly have scored!
I didn't notice this, but apparently Guzan initially moved the other way when the penalty was first struck. If that is the case, and I'll check when I get the chance, then I think that proves that the penalty was tamely struck. To be honest, I can't believe there is so much discussion about this. Of course it was a crap penalty; if it wasn't, it would have gone in.
By your reckoning then a 35 yard screamer destined for the top corner that a goalkeeper tips around the post would be a crap shot then?
If we're going to be brutally honest about it, Ciaran Clark couldn't really get out of the way - the ball flicked a city player en route to it hitting his arm, so on another day it wouldn't have even been awarded. Then would would we be discussing?
how many good penalties are saved? if you strike a penalty right in the corner the keeper rarely saves it. hit it hard, hit it true, hit it right in the corner and you score, 99 times out of 100
he did handle it twice though! i thought it was a stone wall penalty to be honest. he had two chances to move his hand out of the way. it was the only thing ciaran clark did wrong all afternoon - i was very impressed. he's improved greatly since last season (on the evidence of that game).
No. Was Snodgrass' shot destined for the top corner? If a shot is hit pretty much right at the goalkeeper from 12 yards then, to me, it's a crap shot.
I think that's the point though - it wasn't right at the 'keeper. It was very much towards one side - if the 'keeper had dived the other way, it would have looked tidy enough. The problem was, as the 'keeper guessed correctly, it was at a very nice height and distance from him (sometimes a blast slight closer to the 'keeper can be more difficult to save). It was not a good penalty, by definition, but it was not an absolute horror show in that the 'keeper had to make a good save, which he did.
"Of course it was a crap penalty; if it wasn't, it would have gone in". Im being very pedantic, but by definition what you have said is the only good shots are the ones that go in. Had the keeper dived the other way it would more than likely have hit the corner of the net
