*ORMT* SPURS v WBA

[Rock Strongo]

I think what changed from 1st to 2nd half was us not playing ball at the back when under pressure. In the 1st half we played ourselves into dangerous positions a few times, when maybe we should have cleared the ball.
In the 2nd half we started clearing everything (Hugo especially) and this to me looked like manifested itself all over the pitch.
No confidence in our passing encouraged WBA to put players forward and gave them reason to run.

I think we tried to be cautious, Like Leicester how they clear everything, but that's not our style.

my mobile phone is to blme four evey spellnn oh fudge it

 

[thfcsteff]

So NOT on target then.

And my post was after it went 1-1 and we needed push for a good with time running out not at 1-0 when we could work a 2nd

having only recently become aware of the ludicrous definition which decrees that the woodwork is NOT part of the target, yes, not on target. I have to say I think the definition is absurd. But there we go eh...:-(

 

[Dr Rosenrosen]

having only recently become aware of the ludicrous definition which decrees that the woodwork is NOT part of the target, yes, not on target. I have to say I think the definition is absurd. But there we go eh...:-(

If the woodwork was the target, we would've won 3-nil.

 

[Bullet]

having only recently become aware of the ludicrous definition which decrees that the woodwork is NOT part of the target, yes, not on target. I have to say I think the definition is absurd. But there we go eh...:-(

Huh? The woodwork is not a goal. How the hell could the woodwork be the target?!
Siggy hit the woodwork twice per game with that same 23 yard curler... none of them went in. Not the target. Was sold.

 

[thfcsteff]

Thank you so much, everyone, for your kind and thoughtful appraisals. First off, if we consider the woodwork the same as the keeper, then it would be a 'save'. Secondly, yes indeed, the woodwork is not 'a goal'...neither is a save by the keeper when the ball is kicked 'on-target'. Just because a shot is 'on-target' that does not mean it is a goal. Yup, I know I know, Captain Obvious, but explain to me how the post or bar keeping a goal-bound shot out is any different from a keeper?
Do you count the crust of a pie as part of a pie?
I think it's a reasonable argument personally...I remain defiant (surprise! ) in my assertion that hitting the post and the bar is not considered an 'on-target' shot.

 

[Jordinho]

Thank you so much, everyone, for your kind and thoughtful appraisals. First off, if we consider the woodwork the same as the keeper, then it would be a 'save'. Secondly, yes indeed, the woodwork is not 'a goal'...neither is a save by the keeper when the ball is kicked 'on-target'. Just because a shot is 'on-target' that does not mean it is a goal. Yup, I know I know, Captain Obvious, but explain to me how the post or bar keeping a goal-bound shot out is any different from a keeper?
Do you count the crust of a pie as part of a pie?
I think it's a reasonable argument personally...I remain defiant (surprise! ) in my assertion that hitting the post and the bar is not considered an 'on-target' shot.

Hitting the post is not a save, you've missed the target. The woodwork is the baking dish you make the pie in.

 

[thfcsteff]

Hitting the post is not a save, you've missed the target. The woodwork is the baking dish you make the pie in.

I disagree. Missing the target is not touching any part of it. The woodwork of a pie is the pie-crust. The dish? Nah. The dish for a pie would be the net, because if I 'go through the middle on target' I will be through the pie and hit dish. I suppose this is all a matter of perspectives...

 

[thfcsteff]

Huh? The woodwork is not a goal. How the hell could the woodwork be the target?!
Siggy hit the woodwork twice per game with that same 23 yard curler... none of them went in. Not the target. Was sold.

But when Siggy saw shots saved by the goalkeeper, or hit the keeper, that 'on target-effort' wasn't a goal either. I agree. He was sold. Nice man. Too nice for us.

 

[Jordinho]

I disagree. Missing the target is not touching any part of it. The woodwork of a pie is the pie-crust. The dish? Nah. The dish for a pie would be the net, because if I 'go through the middle on target' I will be through the pie and hit dish. I suppose this is all a matter of perspectives...

The goal is defined as what is between the posts. Hit the post and you haven't touched the target.

 

[thfcsteff]

The goal is defined as what is between the posts. Hit the post and you haven't touched the target.

But without the posts holding the net up and framing the goal, you have no target, thus it is absolutely part of the target. Is the wood across which a canvas stretched part of the painting? I'd say yes.

 

[thfcsteff]

...are we turning a Pulis-ball thread into a philosophical discussion?

 

[Lemonade Money]

What if a shot goes in off the woodwork - was it on target?

 

[Daisuk]

What if a shot goes in off the woodwork - was it on target?

It wasn't until it went over the line (or should the keeper save it).

 

[Bullet]

What if a shot goes in off the woodwork - was it on target?

If it hits the post and goes in, it was on target.
If it hits the post and bounces out, of course it wasn't on target.

 

[Whiffler]

Many shots are off target, but bend placed on the ball brings it back to the target. At some point is it both on and off target because we can't see it from the appropriate angle?

I have my thinking cap on to solve this, although I call it Schrödinger's Hat.

 

[Lemonade Money]

If it hits the post and goes in, it was on target.
If it hits the post and bounces out, of course it wasn't on target.

Yes but:
If it hits the goalie and goes in, it was on target.
If it hits the goalie and bounces out, it was on target.

 

[a spur from swansea]

Looking back at both games WBA played over the week,against us and the goons....you know what i will say it, because i'm livid how one side can play so differently in two games in a short space of time.I won't say something fishy was up but apart from the crappy performance,the third gear performance and intensity they put in, some of the goals leaves me saying 'mmmm that's strange that is'....the first goal...foster positioning against sanchez goal,how as a pro goalie he gave so much space to one side of his goal from a shot that was only 15 yards away...the second,the free kick, jacob giving a very cheap free kick away just outside the box... then foster again with his positioning and so called effort in saving the kick,making it easy for sanchez to score.....strange again. Pullis team selection for the goons game,playing quite a few reserves, giving a very laid back pre- match interview plus his view that he wants leicester to win the league,what a co-incidence in their performance. Won't say they threw the game but the goals they conceded were so easily given away you just wonder sometimes.

Against us all the regulars back in,a higher intensity performance,chasing everything that moved,winding Alli up at every moment.....don't mind that but strange how two games in five days,one they couldn't give a feck and another where they busted a gut and tried to kick us all over the place.

Just had to say it,its crap i know,no sense in it really but does my head in how sides decide when they want to play or not to play in certain games. They are home to west ham Saturday,.....3-0 to the hammers then.

 

[glorygloryeze]

WBA vs Arsenal in May 2012.....i'll leave it there....

 

[Pandy]

"ORMT" ffs. Please someone make some decent OOMTs for the rest of the season.

 

[glasgowspur]

Looking back at both games WBA played over the week,against us and the goons....you know what i will say it, because i'm livid how one side can play so differently in two games in a short space of time.I won't say something fishy was up but apart from the crappy performance,the third gear performance and intensity they put in, some of the goals leaves me saying 'mmmm that's strange that is'....the first goal...foster positioning against sanchez goal,how as a pro goalie he gave so much space to one side of his goal from a shot that was only 15 yards away...the second,the free kick, jacob giving a very cheap free kick away just outside the box... then foster again with his positioning and so called effort in saving the kick,making it easy for sanchez to score.....strange again. Pullis team selection for the goons game,playing quite a few reserves, giving a very laid back pre- match interview plus his view that he wants leicester to win the league,what a co-incidence in their performance. Won't say they threw the game but the goals they conceded were so easily given away you just wonder sometimes.

Against us all the regulars back in,a higher intensity performance,chasing everything that moved,winding Alli up at every moment.....don't mind that but strange how two games in five days,one they couldn't give a feck and another where they busted a gut and tried to kick us all over the place.

Just had to say it,its crap i know,no sense in it really but does my head in how sides decide when they want to play or not to play in certain games. They are home to west ham Saturday,.....3-0 to the hammers then.

I know what you are saying but look at the difference in our performance over the two previous games in comparison to Monday night. Should Man U and Stoke have a case to say that we only turn up against teams further north than brum?
Players aren't machines and peaks and troughs are going to happen.