Jump to content

dsr-burnley

Members
  • Content Count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That's a common misconception about rugby, but it is only part of the truth. In rugby league, at least, the play continues only as long as it is very unlikely the ball will come their way. as soon as that changes, which basically means when possession changes over, play stops. In football, the ball moves in much more random directions so there is hardly ever a time when you can say the ball won't come that way.
  2. The problem with that attitude is that it doesn't aim for equality at all. What it aims for is more money for women. I've never heard the women complaining that they want equality with the blind England team, or the over-40's team, or the mentally handicapped team. If they want sponsorship from the big companies on the same terms as the men, then perhaps they should refuse sponsorship that doesn't qualify. That'd show them!
  3. To be fair, the reasons schools where they play cricket produce more cricketers than schools where they don't play cricket, might not be entirely because of the payment of fees. Obviously the clubs produce cricketers as well (Jimmy Anderson, for example) but playing at school has a big part to play, and few state schools play it nowadays.
  4. Perhaps, if she thought her presence would be a security risk, she thought that telling people in advance what she was going to do might not be the best way to keep it safe? From the news I have seen reported, she asked someone in her department if they could make these arrangements and she was told no. It seems no more immoral than if she asked someone to make a dentist's appointment. There's no suggestion that she put pressure on them, only that she asked the question.
  5. Mr. Yorke makes great emphasis of the fact that she was prepared to take a speed awareness course rather than 3 points. Is that such an evil thing, worthy of ministerial censure? I have to confess, I have done the same thing myself. Or does Mr. Yorke stress that point because he is trying to give the impression of serious criminal activity by the Home Secretary even though he knows it to be untrue? No reason why he shouldn't, of course. He's a journalist, and there is no code to suggest that journalists ought to tell the truth.
  6. I suspect it's 20k for each club, 7k for other fans including clubs, locals, etc., and 25k for corporate boxes, official sponsors, and of course UEFA officials.
  7. If it helps, in 10 seasons at Burnley he was booked 52 times and sent off twice (both for second bookings). So referees, at least, don't think him a thug. He does let defenders know they're in a game!
  8. His goals per game in the PL is as good as Pukki's goals per game in the PL. I doubt he will score as many as Pukki in the Championship, mind. He scored 7 in 21 starts last season. Half his appearances were as sub. He played the "false 9" role with a lot of coming back to midfield to help set up attacking play for any of the three wingers, all of whom got double figures of goals. He can do that. One point of interest - he scored 51 goals for Burnley, mostly in the PL, and never scored a goal that involved more than 2 touches. It was either first time-bang, or one touch-bang. Get it to him in the box whenever possible.
  9. Quite the opposite. Burnley have made such large profits over the past few years that the owners have taken out £150m in two years of ownership. This year's signings were funded out of the sale of the best of the PL players. The embargo is because the accounts were (still are) late, after a change of auditor in November.
  10. Of course he's a cheat - to normal people. Unfortunately the powers that be (including referees) like the idea of giving free kicks and penalties, and so they have determined that if player A runs up to player B, touches him, and throws himself to the ground, then player B has committed an offence and deserves to be punished. Until the powers that be agree that being within touching difference of Grealish is not in itself an offence, he will keep doing it.
  11. We normally play a lot better than that. We were missing our most creative centre half (Harwood-Bellis), our midfield engine room (Cork), our regular centre forward (Rodriguez), and our best winger (Benson). Plus Peacock-Farrell in goal has nothing like the ball playing skills of Muric. Fortunately we didn't need to be as good as you would have liked us to be. Of course you're being disrespectful (as well as inaccurate) calling us thugs. It's fatuous and pointless to pretend you're not being insulting when you clearly are. By all means be insulting if that's what you want to say, but no need to pretend you aren't being. How many bookings for Norwich? 😉
  12. Yes, I would. Burnley aren't yet at the stage where we complain about the manner of a comfortable 3-0 win away to a play-off team that is in prime form and scoring loads of goals with a new manager. Nor would you be. If you went to Middlesbrough, for example, and dominated possession, restricted them to just one chance, and won the game 3-0, would you come away thinking "I wouldn't watch this every week"? Hardly.
  13. Maybe it's from a different source, but infogol shows 69% chance for the third goal (the tap-in after the corner) and 7% for the other two goals. But if that means that the Krul mistake had only a 1 in 14 chance of leading to a goal, it's no wonder there are big questions raised about xG. https://www.infogol.net/en/matches/result/english-football-league-championship/norwich-vs-burnley-2023-02-04/956206 For that matter, 1 in 14 chance for the pretty simple header for the second goal (the first corner) seems light as well.
  14. Impossible, I'm afraid. the time taken for the ball to move about 5 feet from Barnes' foot (where it was deflected from) would be 0.05 seconds at 60 mph (average speed of a kicked football) and no human can react that fast. World record reaction times are in the region of 0.1 seconds, average more like 0.2. Whatever else the "handball" may have been, it certainly wasn't a deliberate movement.
  15. I think that one was because your man was fouled by still went through with his late challenge on Barnes. Norwich free kick because that foul happened first, but the late tackle still gets a yellow card even though the ball is technically dead. As for the corner they missed after Norwich's shot on target, that was really weird in that Pukki was either off the pitch so the ball was out of play, or he was on the pitch so he was offside. Play had to stop wither way. The ref was rubbish, no doubt. Far too many "he has fallen over and I think he might have been touched" free kicks.
×
×
  • Create New...