shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Its just cutting our nose off to spite our face though. The drop to Eccles or Allen is huge. And his team mates have had a month to let him know how they feel. Surely they’d prefer the three points?
I'd be OK with that just don't think he should be able to start immediately after letting his teammates down in a not insignificant way
Its just cutting our nose off to spite our face though. The drop to Eccles or Allen is huge. And his team mates have had a month to let him know how they feel. Surely they’d prefer the three points?
Robins has lost the plot. We need to get rid of him
The Cardiff commentators speculated that him having to play it made the player active in that phase.
We've surely got to rotate the squad though.I'll be disgusted if Hamer strolls back into the side, your place should be earned, not gifted.
On the decision to substitute Callum Doyle...
“It’s difficult for anyone to come off, let alone in the first half and I honestly thought he was carrying something.
“He’s a young lad learning and if you’re not at the races, and he wasn’t, he was off it a little, it’s not a criticism.
Five games and only two goals conceded. You should not get relegated on that form if it continues. Robins was forced into what was obvious to all that today notwithstanding the best back three is Doyle - MacFadz-Panzo.
Big leaks of goals have ceased once Hyam went - (dons tin hat)
He was in an offside position at that point but commited no offence. He only becomes active when playing the ball which came off Fadz - it should have stood.
Yeah, that's not how the offside rule works though.
That can be his only interpretation but he clearly means to play it imo.
Palmer was excellent again.Palmer's aggression was brilliant. We've needed that.
Rightly so.I think he will start Hamer against them
Yeah, they're wrong. His mere presence isn't enough, he has to actually challenge for it or make some other action which disrupts Fadz's ability to play it. He didn't, Fadz misjudged it.
Brave but correct call by the lino imo.
As above I can only think Madley thinks Fadz hasn't touched it or that it has just inadvertently deflected off him rather than him deliberately playing it.
I don't think anyone has suggested we wouldn't be in the shit if we sold Gyokeres
LolPlay Hamer and he'll get sent off, don't play him and it looks impotent. If only we had a dynamic central midfielder who wasn't the easiest to wind up in the division
Hamer walks back into the team. Hes one the best midfielders of his type in the division. Well done eccles today. Now take take step back to bench.I think we are violently agreeing. Especially on the back of a win today. We do need to be able to rotate but shouldn't be an instant kick out to put Hamer back in.
Hamer walks back into the team. Hes one the best midfielders of his type in the division. Well done eccles today. Now take take step back to bench.
He didn't deliberately play the ball.
The only place he’s been walking recently is off the pitch head in hands
So you think Josh Eccles has taken his place? Lmfao.The only place he’s been walking recently is off the pitch head in hands
I don’t know the ins and outs of the law these days, but I can’t see how it’s a separate phase of play TBH. He was offside when the ball came in. But I’m old school and can accept this may not be the current rule.
Hamer walks back into the team. Hes one the best midfielders of his type in the division. Well done eccles today. Now take take step back to bench.
That's the debate.
You said he didn't mean to play it backwards but as mentioned that's not important. Neither is whether he makes proper contact, miscontrols it or whatever he simply has to make a deliberate play for the ball & there's plenty of examples of similar goals that have stood.
It's a very bold decision from Madley, I'm not sure what he thinks Fadz is doing if not trying to play the ball? It's gone in our favour today but I'd be very disappointed if the shoe was on the other foot & Robins agrees:
"We had a bit of luck with the goal that was disallowed. We got away with that."
That's the debate.
You said he didn't mean to play it backwards but as mentioned that's not important. Neither is whether he makes proper contact, miscontrols it or whatever he simply has to make a deliberate play for the ball & there's plenty of examples of similar goals that have stood.
It's a very bold decision from Madley, I'm not sure what he thinks Fadz is doing if not trying to play the ball? It's gone in our favour today but I'd be very disappointed if the shoe was on the other foot & Robins agrees:
"We had a bit of luck with the goal that was disallowed. We got away with that."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?