Jump to content

El Convento

Members
  • Content Count

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Maybe, but in anti-bullying week we could bear in mind that anonymous on-line trolling is just abuse, but from your boss it's bullying.
  2. Did Todd mention Stuart Webber's effort at the end of last season?
  3. At the time, I was surprised when Webber and then Farke threw Cantwell under the bus. I thought they were being silly and unprofessional. But 2) makes me wonder if Cantwell isn't actually his own worst enemy...
  4. Good diversionary work by Webber and Farke though: the relegation-day pitch-sitting hissy-fit derailed that interview away from Webber's own poor recruitment efforts that season, and the recent frenzy of tool-downing fantasies on here has overshadowed any discussion of Farke's own performance and future, which I think most managers would be suffering in these circumstances.
  5. Well the Cantwell Buendia furore has certainly distracted from any discussion of Farke's own poor performance of late...
  6. I should probably start by saying that I'm also grateful to have a coach of DF's calibre - it cannot be easy to attract someone like him to a club with a negative transfer budget. On the other hand, I don't think he's infallible, and I'm hoping he will address some of his shortcomings asap - chief among which is that he thinks he IS infallible: this is borne out by his rigid adherence to certain tactics, substitution policies etc. despite their proving continually unsuccessful - lack of a plan B isn't necessarily a lack of imagination; in his case it looks like an inflexibility born out of arrogance. His lengthy rant post-match yesterday about his perception of a player's commitment in training being the only requirement for a place in the team is another example of the same failing. It is incumbent on the manager of a club with limited resources and a shallow squad to get the best out of the players he has, but frankly I'm not sure his attitude and man-management skills are up to it. OK, we were unlucky with the ref yesterday (most fouls? two penalties not given?) but I don't think we were set up well to score goals. Farke doesn't seem to understand how crucial creativity in midfield will be to scoring enough goals to finish above mid table in this league. No matter what you think of his justification for leaving out both Cantwell and Buendia, waiting until 70' to bring on his only remining creative option, Vrancic, whilst we pummelled away without much penetration was disappointing.
  7. I really hope so, but I'd guess not. Since needlessly alienating incumbent playing staff probably isn't part of the Sporting Director's remit, I'd taken SW's recent hissy-fit as a sign that one of them, at least, is off. And at the present moment, I'd imagine that Todd might be more in demand. As I say, though, I'd love him to be here next season.
  8. I'm sure all NCFC fans are desperately hoping that Webber can improve, and do his job next season as well as Cantwell did this. We are dependent on it. I get that Webber must be embarrassed, but he does himself no credit with this brand of 'holding his hands up'. I imagine the remark was off-the-cuff spite rather than tactical (why?) - which is in itself rather disappointing, given Webber's supposed people skills.
  9. I don't think the Haller 'challenge' that you recall ever took place. It doesn't seem to feature in the extended highlights...
  10. This is clearly correct: the technology is being used as if it had a degree of precision which exceeded its fundamental resolution which, in any form of measurement, is a schoolboy error. Leaving aside the matter of aperture time, the frame rate of the EPL VAR technology (according to the Premier League's own website) is 50 frames/s, so the time resolution is 0.02s. This means that the first frame which shows the ball having left the passer's foot could be 0.02s after it actually left it (or more, in practice). The fly-in sprint speed of a male athlete is generally considered to be in the 8-12m/s range, so let's say 10m/s, so the same frame could show the striker in a position corresponding to 0.02s after the ball was kicked (assuming the cameras are precisely synchronised compared to the frame rate). So * The maximum error between the striker's 'actual' position and that shown in the frame could therefore be 10m/s x 0.02s, or 20cm. * An out-rushing defender could, of course, be shown 20cm too far away from goal. * The all-important postures of the players (e.g. arm position) could have changed hugely during the error period. *The human identification of the 'nearest' frame is also subject to error. * It isn't possible accurately to assess player positions vs parallel lines without individual 'in-line' cameras. I could go on. All of which makes the infinitessimal study of the VAR's carefully tweaked lines (which are treated as gospel) somewhat ridiculous. Btw, in perusing the Premier League's website to check the VAR frame rate, I was amused to read all about VAR and how it will be implemented. It contains such nonsensical gems as: "The broadcast cameras operate with 50 frames per second, so the point of contact with the ball is one of those frames inside the 50 per second." In particular, there is much comedy gold to be found in the discussion of 'clear and obvious errors'. But, be all this as it may, Pukki was onside! If only we could get the genie back in the bottle! Whoever would have guessed that VAR would make it EASIER to favour the preferred outcome?
×
×
  • Create New...