Ignoring the ref...

[BRISTOL86]

2 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

I disagree that they "deserve a point".

I expect such teams to "park the bus" - no problem there.

What I don't expect is players to throw themselves to the ground, writhing, every time we get into a dangerous position. 

That isn't a tactic. It's cheating pure and simple. 

You can't take the ref out of the equation.  Had he not been happy to collude with this, we'd have actually seen a game of football and - given our dominance - the ball would almost certainly have been in the net more than once.

It might not take a genius to realise that when a Burton's player goes down "fouled" for about the 30th time, that there is a lot of simulation involved. A simple yellow would gave stopped this and allowed the 18,000 of us to watch a football match instead of a bad am dram production.

Instead the farce was green-lighted by Linnington.  You can tell he knew these "injuries" weren't serious. Their physio wasn't waved on and even the guy clutching his head wasn't required  to go off to get treatment.  No City players were booked for these alleged persistent  "fouls".

He didn't even add the time wasted by these tactics on.  What a farce having 5 minutes of extra time in the first but only playing about two of it, as the clock was allowed to run on during Korey's injury and substitution. 

This may all sound like sour grapes, but it isn't.  I abhorr cheating. We rely on referees to stop matches degenerating into farces like last night. 

If football is "played" like it was then all the time, I'd never bother to watch it.

No wonder only 78 Burton's fans turned up.

Did you see their 23 Buxton (captain?) laughing to the south stand as his team mate feigned head injury? Disgusting. 

[Red-Robbo]

2 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Did you see their 23 Buxton (captain?) laughing to the south stand as his team mate feigned head injury? Disgusting. 

They high-fived the cheating**** when he miraculously sprang to life after wasting four minutes. Says it all.....

[Son of Fred]

51 minutes ago, glos old boy said:

Could we not, let them have the ball and give them more space (after all we have a good defence don't we) then have them, while they are more spread out and not so condensed. Piling the pressure on does not always work, hit them in short sharp shocks; ala police smashing a door in.  

Unlike the Police hopefully we can smash the right door in......

[Always Believesham]

Burton are getting a lot of credit for ‘defending well’ and being ‘organised’ - I don’t think much of what they did last night was by design at all. There were hacked clearances to no mans land, a limited number of tackles which took the ball off us and a few clearing headers which went more sideways than out of their box.

We weren’t up to standard creatively last night and the only way to get round teams that break up the game like that is to be more efficient with the possession we had. Too wasteful in possession, too risky with ‘flicks and trick’ and no where near enough shooting. Crosses were poor and often delayed too long, unfortunately it was an off colour city showing.

A disappointing result but not losing and not conceding is a bit of a relief - hopefully there’ll be lessons learned in time for a couple of high profile games coming up

[stephenkibby.]

12 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

Have I ever said that?

Probably not.  Was aimed more at those that were writing him off after a handful of games last season.

 

[Ian M]

But we DID break Burton down.

We shouldn't have to break down a referee as well, they should be here as a facilitator not as an opponent.

If the legitimate goal had been allowed to stand we may well have gone on to win by a couple, as we did against Bolton, due to them finally attempting to score a goal themselves.

[1960maaan]

3 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

What I don't expect is players to throw themselves to the ground, writhing, every time we get into a dangerous position. 

That isn't a tactic. It's cheating pure and simple. 

You can't take the ref out of the equation.  Had he not been happy to collude with this, we'd have actually seen a game of football and - given our dominance - the ball would almost certainly have been in the net more than once.

It might not take a genius to realise that when a Burton's player goes down "fouled" for about the 30th time, that there is a lot of simulation involved. A simple yellow would gave stopped this and allowed the 18,000 of us to watch a football match instead of a bad am dram production.

In the first 20/25 minutes , I can't remember them doing that. We were on top and they were being dragged around but I don't remember them falling over too often. Then the Ref started giving then really soft free kicks and they seemed to play on it and milked it for all it was worth. That the Ref then didn't realise and continued doing it is another mark against him in my book, along with some rough treatment they got away with. There was only one bad foul that I recall , but if you are consistent then they should have been pulled up a lot more.

They played us , the game and the Ref well. We weren't clever enough to get round them and the Ref was just inept.

[Red-Robbo]

8 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

In the first 20/25 minutes , I can't remember them doing that. We were on top and they were being dragged around but I don't remember them falling over too often. Then the Ref started giving then really soft free kicks and they seemed to play on it and milked it for all it was worth. That the Ref then didn't realise and continued doing it is another mark against him in my book, along with some rough treatment they got away with. There was only one bad foul that I recall , but if you are consistent then they should have been pulled up a lot more.

They played us , the game and the Ref well. We weren't clever enough to get round them and the Ref was just inept.

I think "they played us" is a very forgiving way of saying "they cheated - effictively", but yes, as the game progressed and it became clear Linnington would blow for a foul every time they fell over and stop play as soon as he saw a yellow shirt hit the grass, they did become more outrageous. 

I think even old Colin W&nker would have been embarrassed by some of that dramatics. 

Can anyone make a good anagram of Nigel Clough?

[downendcity]

4 hours ago, glos old boy said:

Could we not, let them have the ball and give them more space (after all we have a good defence don't we) then have them, while they are more spread out and not so condensed. Piling the pressure on does not always work, hit them in short sharp shocks; ala police smashing a door in.  

Heard Glenn Hoddle on Talksport earlier in the week, discussing England's problems in breakdown down teams that come to Wembley to shut up shop, despite having overwhelming possession.

One comment he made was that in Spain Real M and Barca have similar problems, but that they have players capable of going past defenders to deal with the problem. Perhaps we should have used O'dowdy and Leko last night, as both seem to have this ability.

The other suggestion Hoddle made was yours. He suggested that England concede possession, let the opposition have the ball and then hit them on the break. 

Its been noticeable of late that at all levels there are many teams doing well but having far less possession than the opposition and that counter attacking seems to be a very effective way of playing.

 

[downendcity]

9 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

I think "they played us" is a very forgiving way of saying "they cheated - effictively", but yes, as the game progressed and it became clear Linnington would blow for a foul every time they fell over and stop play as soon as he saw a yellow shirt hit the grass, they did become more outrageous. 

I think even old Colin W&nker would have been embarrassed by some of that dramatics. 

Can anyone make a good anagram of Nigel Clough?

I think the anagram of Nigel is "not in his father's league". 

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

4 hours ago, glos old boy said:

Could we not, let them have the ball and give them more space (after all we have a good defence don't we) then have them, while they are more spread out and not so condensed. Piling the pressure on does not always work, hit them in short sharp shocks; ala police smashing a door in.  

I think that’s a very good point and I thought the same last night.  We needed to let them have the ball and invite them to come at us, but by holding on to the ball all the time we allowed the to pack the defence.  

[Fiale]

When teams get 11 men behind the ball and they show no real threat surely you need to mix things up. Could we not have gone to a back three. A just pounded them with crosses and balls into the box until something smashed, bounces or deflected into the net.

 

Continually trying to play narrow against a wall of players just seems futile. We really need to work on our plan But as it will probably happen a lot more.

[DaveInSA]

4 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

I disagree that they "deserve a point".

I expect such teams to "park the bus" - no problem there.

What I don't expect is players to throw themselves to the ground, writhing, every time we get into a dangerous position. 

That isn't a tactic. It's cheating pure and simple. 

You can't take the ref out of the equation.  Had he not been happy to collude with this, we'd have actually seen a game of football and - given our dominance - the ball would almost certainly have been in the net more than once.

It might not take a genius to realise that when a Burton's player goes down "fouled" for about the 30th time, that there is a lot of simulation involved. A simple yellow would gave stopped this and allowed the 18,000 of us to watch a football match instead of a bad am dram production.

Instead the farce was green-lighted by Linnington.  You can tell he knew these "injuries" weren't serious. Their physio wasn't waved on and even the guy clutching his head wasn't required  to go off to get treatment.  No City players were booked for these alleged persistent  "fouls".

He didn't even add the time wasted by these tactics on.  What a farce having 5 minutes of extra time in the first but only playing about two of it, as the clock was allowed to run on during Korey's injury and substitution. 

This may all sound like sour grapes, but it isn't.  I abhorr cheating. We rely on referees to stop matches degenerating into farces like last night. 

If football is "played" like it was then all the time, I'd never bother to watch it.

No wonder only 78 Burton's fans turned up.

This is exactly the review that my brother gave me...

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

Can anyone make a good anagram of Nigel Clough?

Actually, I'll answer my own question:

Colin Huge Log seems quite apt....

[Bianconeri]

7 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

Actually, I'll answer my own question:

Colin Huge Log seems quite apt....

Not enough O’s mate. You need fork handles

[AppyDAZE]

9 hours ago, Ian M said:

But we DID break Burton down.

We shouldn't have to break down a referee as well, they should be here as a facilitator not as an opponent.

If the legitimate goal had been allowed to stand we may well have gone on to win by a couple, as we did against Bolton, due to them finally attempting to score a goal themselves.

I said it last night and i'll say it again. He was their best player. Defended them right til the final whistle (and the bloke could hardly wait to blow it btw)

[Major Isewater]

19 hours ago, downendcity said:

I think the anagram of Nigel is "not in his father's league". 

To be fair as the great Brian Clough once said ;

" I would n't say I'm the best manager in the league but I would say I'm in the top one " 

[downendcity]

Just now, Major Isewater said:

To be fair as the great Brian Clough once said ;

" I would n't say I'm the best manager in the league but I would say I'm in the top one " 

...ah, but he did say that before he knew that his son would go on to be become a manager as well!