Match Day Thread QPR Vs Norwich

[Robbie BB]

The second goal Hanley didn’t allow Frey to get in front of him, that was the marking position with Hanley behind and Gibson in front - that’s correct defending and should be safe. The problem was that Gibson mistimed his block on the cross and it fell into Frey’s feet - with an outstanding swept finish. Pretty difficult to defend. Hanley might have been able to do better but it wasn’t a goal clearly down to his mistake.

Having seen the replays, I agree that "mistake" is not the right word. Frey took Hanley to the cleaners twice in quick succession. On both occasions, Hanley was out-manoevred, out-muscled and out-thought by an opponent who knew exactly what he was doing.
I don't think "mistake" would be accurate in Gibson's case either. He was undone chiefly by the quality of the cross, but also by having been forced wide by the absence of any midfield cover for Giannoulis. Giannoulis and the non-existent midfield cover bear the main responsibility. When Andersen (25) received the ball from the throw-in, nobody in a Norwich shirt was anywhere near him; he was allowed to cross completely unchallenged -- unless McLean's pointing counts as a challenge. (A similar failure to even try to close down the crosser occured minutes earlier on the right, leading to Hayden's header.)

You must log in or register to see images

 

[Robbie BB]

Fine, but that suggests he thinks it wasn’t Hanley’s fault alone… Which it wasn’t.
Whereas you tried to blame him entirely, despite all the stats and other views believing he had a good game…

Maybe you'd like to read my post again. Quote: "Haven't seen any replays yet but, in the event, it doesn't appear that Sørensen was in any way at fault for the equaliser. Finger pointing by the Radio Norfolk commentators was chiefly directed at Hanley for allowing Frey to get ahead of him to the cross." I expressed no opinion at all, having not seen it.

 

[Bure budgie]

It all stemmed from the throw in definitely.
No marking, so a free crossing chance.

Schoolboy errors again

 

[Canary Rob]

Maybe you'd like to read my post again. Quote: "Haven't seen any replays yet but, in the event, it doesn't appear that Sørensen was in any way at fault for the equaliser. Finger pointing by the Radio Norfolk commentators was chiefly directed at Hanley for allowing Frey to get ahead of him to the cross." I expressed no opinion at all, having not seen it.

Ok, I will correct my post to:

“You claimed that multiple commentators chiefly blamed Hanley, but I have seen no evidence of this claim, despite all the stats and other views believing he had a good game… and you then claiming ‘innocently’ not to have a view (despite having originally posted the unsourced comment, repeating the claim, then doubling down on it in an unsubtle attempt to maintain face primarily because you are totally unable to be objective in your assessment of Hanley or ever admit being even slightly wrong).”

Can we agree that’s a reasonable adjustment to my post?

 

[Robbie BB]

Ok, I will correct my post to:
“You claimed that multiple commentators chiefly blamed Hanley, but I have seen no evidence of this claim, despite all the stats and other views believing he had a good game… and you then claiming ‘innocently’ not to have a view (despite having originally posted the unsourced comment, repeating the claim, then doubling down on it in an unsubtle attempt to maintain face primarily because you are totally unable to be objective in your assessment of Hanley or ever admit being even slightly wrong).”
Can we agree that’s a reasonable adjustment to my post?

No, we can't agree, as you well know, for the following reasons:
1. I did not claim that "multiple commentators chiefly blamed Hanley". My original post mentioned only the Radio Norfolk commentary team, i.e. Chris Goreham and Darren Kenton. After you replied saying you'd heard no such criticism of Hanley, I referred you to Southwell's "Verdict" video for a further example.
2. You completely ignore the context of my original post, which was part of an exchange with DH Canary about Sørensen having to fill in for Stacey at RB. I repeated what I'd heard the commentary team say about who was at fault for the QPR equaliser only because they made no mention of Sørensen as in any way responsible. The entire significance of that reference was the absence of Sørensen's name, not the presence of Hanley's.
3. I made no comment at all about Hanley's (or anyone else's) overall performance in the match. When I posted that reply to DH Canary, I had nothing to go on other than the Norfolk Radio commentary. Later, when I did give my opinion on the incident, having watched replays of the goal, my comments were again confined to that particular incident. Nothing I said contradicted the view that, overall, Hanley had a good game.

I've zero interest in continuing this further so I don't propose to respond to further misrepresentations and/or comments directed at me personally. End of.

 

[Canary Rob]

Sure, sure, one rule for everyone else, but it’s Ok for you to misrepresent, be snide, change your tune, move the goalposts etc. And when you are called out, you stretch plausible deniability like a Conservative Party junior minister.

One question though - have you ever admitted being wrong on here? Or even just changing your opinion? If not, does that tell you something?

 

[mike555]

No, we can't agree, as you well know, for the following reasons:
1. I did not claim that "multiple commentators chiefly blamed Hanley". My original post mentioned only the Radio Norfolk commentary team, i.e. Chris Goreham and Darren Kenton. After you replied saying you'd heard no such criticism of Hanley, I referred you to Southwell's "Verdict" video for a further example.
2. You completely ignore the context of my original post, which was part of an exchange with DH Canary about Sørensen having to fill in for Stacey at RB. I repeated what I'd heard the commentary team say about who was at fault for the QPR equaliser only because they made no mention of Sørensen as in any way responsible. The entire significance of that reference was the absence of Sørensen's name, not the presence of Hanley's.
3. I made no comment at all about Hanley's (or anyone else's) overall performance in the match. When I posted that reply to DH Canary, I had nothing to go on other than the Norfolk Radio commentary. Later, when I did give my opinion on the incident, having watched replays of the goal, my comments were again confined to that particular incident. Nothing I said contradicted the view that, overall, Hanley had a good game.

I've zero interest in continuing this further so I don't propose to respond to further misrepresentations and/or comments directed at me personally. End of.

https://www.google.com/search?q=yaw...KEwi4g4uRjamEAxV_UqQEHXRwCu4QrNwCKAB6BQgBEPMC