It’s a great article TBF
Except Aurier didn't do anything wrong. Never a FK. And certainly not Højbjerg! He was run over by whoever it was! It should have been Højbjerg who got the FK, not the other way around! Two horrible referee decisions.It’s a great article TBF
Their not debating whether they are free kicks, just how we manage and deal with themExcept Aurier didn't do anything wrong. Never a FK. And certainly not Højbjerg! He was run over by whoever it was! It should have been Højbjerg who got the FK, not the other way around! Two horrible referee decisions.
That said, we're awful at defending set pieces. THAT'S the issue, not the fk's themselves.
Their not debating whether they are free kicks, just how we manage and deal with them
I fully agree their not free kicks at all (I’m Daniel T in the comments on the article)
Actually, yes he would. But I don't know if that makes any difference from a goalkeeping standpoint.Sourness made a point of thinking Hugo should have saved it, and went on with explaining how Hugo was doing it wrong... "He should have used his other arm. He would reach higher with the other arm."
What a fudging muppet.
View attachment 9692
So he'd reach higher using the arm that is below his body? What a macaron.
Their winning free kicks and its a genuine means of attack against what is now a side that deals with open play attacks really really wellWe need to look at ourselves for defending them but I dont think refs even realise their judgement is fundamentally flawed in the scenarios that see these free kicks being awarded.
They draw no distinction between getting tight to your man and limiting the space they have AND the entirely different scenarios of getting way too tight, partially bundling into the back of them and or attempting to play the ball and kicking their legs in the process.
A player going down in the second scenario is a clear foul but increasingly scenario one plays out (with the defender conscious of not wanting to invoke scenario two) and the attacker just lobs themselves on the floor. The refs then give the foul regardless - why do they do this, its not hard to spot. The defender should actually be awarded a free kick and the attacker booked for diving.
Its all very well people like danny murphy calling it as it is but are they telling the refs this? As I said I suspect the refs havent got the first idea that this is going on and that really baffles no end.
Can I email that dermot gallagher guy? Amazing it takes a member of the general public to bring the fudging obvious to their attention.
They were two different games, though. Saudi Sportswashing Machine we were piling on the pressure and missing chance after chance. We just couldn't finish that day.The lesson from this and the Saudi Sportswashing Machine game is that we need to kill off games when we are top. I am hoping that this result has done us a favour and will make us more ruthless
#metooFFFFFFFOR FUUUUUCKKKKS SAAAAAKE.
yeh, still annoyed.
I just want Thursday to come around now so I can forget about this brick-show, dumpster fire.
If memory serves, we have only let in one goal in the league from ‘open play’. The rest have been pens, set pieces or the second phase of a set piece. Not good.
And given how refs giving cheap fouls oppo teams Will flip and flop to get free kicks as the game winds down.
I wonder if we haven’t seen it yet as we still have a relatively new team in essenceThe benefit of hindsight yesterday is wonderful but that is a game that we still win 999 times out of 1,000.
The only real issues I have are us visibly dropping our intensity as though the game was over and our lack of the dark arts and time wasting after West Ham had got it back to 3-1 late on. We were certainly not intelligent cnuts in those last 10 minutes, just stupid ones.
I see Aurier and the centre halves getting the blame in some quarters but I don't think they really did anything wrong (bar some dodgy passes from Sanchez). Sanchez's own goal came from some terrible defensive work from a combination of Regulion and Moura, with Moura probably being more at fault, the player should never be able to get in behind that easily when we are defending deep, that is the whole point of defending deep to not let the opposition in behind. The ball that was then put across goal was going to an unmarked West Ham player so probably would've been a goal anyway, Sanchez did the right thing in trying to head that one off for a corner. The free kick that Aurier conceded shouldn't have been given, he didn't really do anything wrong there, just a weak ref seeing a player go over and guessing. Even then we dealt with the ball in OK and also got to the second ball. I'd have liked Winks to have just hoofed it with his first touch there as that would've been game over but it's a split second decision that he has to make and I guess he felt he could come away with the ball. That is where we need to have a bit more savvy really, it's all well and good wanting to retain possession at most points during the game but when there is under a minute to go it isn't worth the risk. Rose did the same thing with us two nil up away to Arsenal on the stroke of half time last season, when hoofing it away would've seen us go in 2-0 up.
For the first goal Sissoko was certainly at fault, both conceding a completely needless free kick when our players are all in a perfect position and then not jumping for the header. I think it is a fine line between being passive and challenging too much, but at 3-0 up we can afford to not get tight and try to ensure that West Ham have to create something properly instead of giving them the opportunity to get their big men in the box. I do think that we are quite weak generally with our defensive headers and I wonder whether we might be better off going zonal with our four best players in this respect instead of ending up with Sissoko, who isn't good in the air, marking one of their biggest threats?
With hindsight the right subs to make at 3-0 were perhaps Davies and Doherty for Son and Bergwijn. Push Regulion and Aurier to right and left wing and instruct that they always have to help the player behind them, but I think Mourinho felt the game was won and was just protecting a few tired legs as opposed to doing anything clever because West Ham were threatening and being realistic West Ham were not actually threatening at that stage of the game. The other thing to have done perhaps was drop Kane deeper into Ndombele's position and to have put Vinicius on up top, partly to also make us stronger defending set plays. However all of those suggestions are with hindsight to try to think of ways to stop three goals very easily stoppable goals, when one could also argue that despite West Ham pushing up high they were not creating anything to worry us.
It does seem to me though that we lack a dominant arial presence in our penalty area at the moment, this gives teams a good chance against us in games in which they can be second best.... We have lost 5 points now to Everton, Saudi Sportswashing Machine and West Ham because you can throw a ball into the centre of our penalty area and have a decent chance of an unopposed header. Perhaps Rodon is a player that can help us fix that, but I worry that is a lot of expectation to put on a player who has only played at Championship level so far.
Still, I saw a lot of good things in that game and feel we're close to doing very well. Some of our attacking combinations at the moment are fantastic, we just still need to get more savvy with our game management, I am actually surprised that Mourinho hasn't sorted this already as it was the first thing I expected he would improve.
The benefit of hindsight yesterday is wonderful but that is a game that we still win 999 times out of 1,000.
The only real issues I have are us visibly dropping our intensity as though the game was over and our lack of the dark arts and time wasting after West Ham had got it back to 3-1 late on. We were certainly not intelligent cnuts in those last 10 minutes, just stupid ones.
I see Aurier and the centre halves getting the blame in some quarters but I don't think they really did anything wrong (bar some dodgy passes from Sanchez). Sanchez's own goal came from some terrible defensive work from a combination of Regulion and Moura, with Moura probably being more at fault, the player should never be able to get in behind that easily when we are defending deep, that is the whole point of defending deep to not let the opposition in behind. The ball that was then put across goal was going to an unmarked West Ham player so probably would've been a goal anyway, Sanchez did the right thing in trying to head that one off for a corner. The free kick that Aurier conceded shouldn't have been given, he didn't really do anything wrong there, just a weak ref seeing a player go over and guessing. Even then we dealt with the ball in OK and also got to the second ball. I'd have liked Winks to have just hoofed it with his first touch there as that would've been game over but it's a split second decision that he has to make and I guess he felt he could come away with the ball. That is where we need to have a bit more savvy really, it's all well and good wanting to retain possession at most points during the game but when there is under a minute to go it isn't worth the risk. Rose did the same thing with us two nil up away to Arsenal on the stroke of half time last season, when hoofing it away would've seen us go in 2-0 up.
For the first goal Sissoko was certainly at fault, both conceding a completely needless free kick when our players are all in a perfect position and then not jumping for the header. I think it is a fine line between being passive and challenging too much, but at 3-0 up we can afford to not get tight and try to ensure that West Ham have to create something properly instead of giving them the opportunity to get their big men in the box. I do think that we are quite weak generally with our defensive headers and I wonder whether we might be better off going zonal with our four best players in this respect instead of ending up with Sissoko, who isn't good in the air, marking one of their biggest threats?
With hindsight the right subs to make at 3-0 were perhaps Davies and Doherty for Son and Bergwijn. Push Regulion and Aurier to right and left wing and instruct that they always have to help the player behind them, but I think Mourinho felt the game was won and was just protecting a few tired legs as opposed to doing anything clever because West Ham were threatening and being realistic West Ham were not actually threatening at that stage of the game. The other thing to have done perhaps was drop Kane deeper into Ndombele's position and to have put Vinicius on up top, partly to also make us stronger defending set plays. However all of those suggestions are with hindsight to try to think of ways to stop three goals very easily stoppable goals, when one could also argue that despite West Ham pushing up high they were not creating anything to worry us.
It does seem to me though that we lack a dominant arial presence in our penalty area at the moment, this gives teams a good chance against us in games in which they can be second best.... We have lost 5 points now to Everton, Saudi Sportswashing Machine and West Ham because you can throw a ball into the centre of our penalty area and have a decent chance of an unopposed header. Perhaps Rodon is a player that can help us fix that, but I worry that is a lot of expectation to put on a player who has only played at Championship level so far.
Still, I saw a lot of good things in that game and feel we're close to doing very well. Some of our attacking combinations at the moment are fantastic, we just still need to get more savvy with our game management, I am actually surprised that Mourinho hasn't sorted this already as it was the first thing I expected he would improve.