Jump to content

Jezzard

Members
  • Content Count

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Not what I wrote. In the first scenario, the keeper making the save increased probability of scoring/ XG from 0.1 to 0.9 without the attacking team doing anything. In the penalty scenario, the XG at the point when a player is fouled is variable and usually much lower than the 0.85 or so XG for the penalty kick - see Lees-Melou v Leicester for example; when he was fouled, the XG was about 0.05. These are are but two examples where XG is biased (sh1t). Another more common one is when a team is in the lead tactically sits back and allows the opponent to have numerous half chances (0.1 XG) which accumulate and may then exceed that of the winning team after 90 minutes. XG can be useful as long as its limitations is acknowledged, but is interpreted by many pundits as forming a justice league, for which it is inadequate.
  2. Expected goals = bulls**t. Smash one into the net from 30 yards: 1 actual goal and 0.1 expected goals; smash one from 35 yards, keeper makes a great save but provides striker with an open goal from 10 yards out who nets: 1 actual goal and 0.8 expected goals….ditto penalties.
  3. Clearly. Unfortunately wasn’t he brought in as a DM and he’s seemingly our most creative player so we’re still a DM short…
  4. How is it we owe Neil Adams a living?
  5. Honestly, how was this not a second yellow card? Already on a yellow for a cynical foul on Aarons, he then blocks a cross deliberately with his hands above his head. The referee had clearly seen this but pretends not to. This was at 0-1 with Norwich on top in the second half. Not that they should need to, but not one of our players questions this to the referee….
  6. The Cantwell offside optically appeared wrong, but unfortunately he was interfering with that phase of play so was correctly applied. If that was allowed then we could also have an attacker standing 50 cm in front of the keeper at every free kick from the edge of the box, not moving and be onside. I think most of us would think that was offside. So when we claim inconsistency a law has to apply to every situation. Regarding the Aubameyang one, an identical example is when a ball is played to the (onside) winger on the flank at the same time as the striker is in an offside position in the box, the winger beats his man, squares it (backwards) to the striker who scores (I should include a diagram..). Do we want that to be offside because in the law it isn’t (different phases)? Probably not. But to backtrack, you could claim that the striker has an advantage as he didn’t have to run as far as a covering defender….similar to your point. This is where the law is inconsistent.
  7. I’d like it to be offside but unfortunately it was given as when Aubameyang was offside in the first phase of play when he was deemed inactive. He wasn’t offside in the second phase ‘pass’ from Pepe as he was behind the ball.
  8. To be fair deliberate/ late fouls can be more dangerous in that often the fouled player cannot see it coming and brace/ relax muscles/ sort his feet out for impact. I don’t think a shirt pull is dangerous for a neck injury but potentially for muscular/ ligament damage.
  9. Unfortunately it could only be given as a yellow but morally a red. Logically any occasion when a player is happier to ‘take a yellow’ should be a red but this would be hard to apply. I’d almost like any deliberate foul to be a red as the player has the choice of not making it; however it would be a minefield to apply. Delighted Harry Wilson got the red v Denmark- he did the an identical deliberate foul in the home match v Cardiff when we were 2-0 up in the last minute. But this had the endangering opponent so was in laws as a red.
  10. On more than one occasion Webber has given this as one reason we can’t afford to spend ‘big’: “People think we get all the premier league money in one go...” Other chief execs have also stated this. In the unlikely event that we accept phased payments and no club from which we would potentially buy does, we could reschedule payments / bridge loans for 6 months until the next tranche of phased guaranteed income comes in. This would cost us a few £100k tops...we are not missing out on big £15m transfers by £100k or so more like several million.
  11. As I said, using phasing of transfer fee payments ( and premier league income) as an excuse for not making big money signings. We could also phase our payments for a big money £15-20m signing - financing is also available for our purchases as well as money received. I fully understand and accept that we won’t be making £20m signings, but not due to phasing of income.
  12. Well obviously, but it’s incorrect and patronising as the club does to use this as the reason why we can’t sign players 60-100% of the sale value. Clearly there are are other reasons why we can’t and don’t sign players at these prices, but it’s dishonest to use phasing of finance as the justification.
  13. Three days before the tournament after the World Cup qualifiers have been played...players must have been in the provisional squad which haven’t been made public. Whole thing a mess and there’s allowances for injury and covid replacements. This tournament won’t be taken seriously and I’ve no interest now we have no (possible) representation.
  14. To be confirmed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Copa_América_squads
  15. Looking forward to the bit when we get told that we don’t receive the full amount in one instalment, although this doesn’t seem to apply to any potential purchases
×
×
  • Create New...