Jump to content
IGNORED

Well done Callum


The Nest Egg

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

A strong challenge?  You mean recklessly / cowardly leading with an elbow.  That’s not a strong challenge.  That’s a “bottler’s” challenge.  If he was “brave” (heart and commitment) he’d have been prepared to get injured to defend it fairly.  I think he could’ve avoided making the challenge by showing intelligence and awareness of the situation.  Instead he exposed his lack of bravery.

Its unfortunate, it’s split-second stuff.  I certainly don’t blame him though for costing us points, like some are.  There are several things to pick up on as to why the ball came to be in that position, but this thread is about him / the penalty / his challenge.

The reason I’m going on about this is because it’s one of many times I’ve seen him display these traits.  He’s not prepared to put his body on the line.

He has other skills that may compensate for that overall.  You seem to take any criticism of something Callum does as a criticism of you, because of your view of him as player.

I’m cool that you rate him....you see things in him that I don’t.  That’s fine.  Today he displayed some of those things you like about him....which encouraged me too (maybe Holden will make him - fantastic if he does).  But he also showed in that instance one of his weaknesses too.

On reflection I’m probably being a tad harsh in what I’ve written above in terms of it being a “bottler’s challenge”....but it wasn’t brave either! ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

On reflection I’m probably being a tad harsh in what I’ve written above in terms of it being a “bottler’s challenge”....but it wasn’t brave either! ?

It was a bottlers challenge. He wanted to look like he was challenging but was scared to. However it’s done now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He dont score , seldom assists and not good in defensive. Wrote last season it was a big ? that he was playing instead of Eliasson. Yesterday he had fresh legs and in a way I can understand DH to bring in on. He semester to be a Nice guy, he was on Robins TV once. In my opinion he should not be even on the bench.  As a Cityfan I really want him doing good when he plays but that happens seldom. The pen yesterday shows that he dont know how to act in our own box, the situation was not a clear chance for Barnsley. Think it would take a while before he plays again. We have Brunt, Dasilva, Nagy, Walsh and Williams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Newquay-Red said:

As I’ve said previously; I’m delighted with how we are doing. One highlight is seeing new players like Bakinson come through and excel, and how we are using these players instead of odd loan signings. It is a sign of how far we have come and I doubt today’s result will have any significant impact in the grand scheme of things.

However for me COD has has numerous chances, has not developed and now it seems that we aren’t overpaying him too, so nobody wants to take him.

I always want any negative opinion I hold about this club or any of its players to be proven as false and moronic but O’Dowda as far as I’m concerned is a negative opinion of mine that he unfortunately proven to be correct.

I think my point is that had he not given away the last second penalty, I assume you wouldn’t have started this thread about what is the point of COD. 

But him making a very costly mistake is a different conversation from his overall use to City as a player. 

And given where we are, and given how wrongheaded a lot of fans are being made to look currently in light of some pre-season doom and gloom and name calling on here (‘are the Lansdowns like the Glazers’ thread being the pinnacle)... given all that, I think it’s best we all start with a blank slate, Including COD. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

ODowda is probably the only one who could score that goal at Norwich last year, and that's what I mean. He runs at players, takes them on and regularly beats them. I think he would have been a major part of the team if he hadn't got injured just as he looked good. After that he didn't hit the same levels, Johnson chopping and changing was never going to help, but he does bring a more disciplined defensive side. I get that people don't rate him for some things I said above, but in a side playing with better movement, more confidence and more structure I think he could shine. The way he skipped passed tackles today shows his worth against tiring defenders

Unfortunately, he does not normally do what you say. Confronted by opponents, he is much more likely to stop, turn 180 degrees and head back toward his own goal.

Anyway, as I wasn't at the match, but listening on RB, Gary Owers said that he thought it was a penalty. He is always forthright with his comments so I take his opinion.

Having just seen the video earlier in this thread, I consider that he led with his elbow which collided with opponents head. Dangerous play? Could have been a red card?

And where it occurred on the edge of the penalty area, if he'd not challenged, would it have created a clear goal scoring opportunity? Doubtful.

Callum has plenty of football skills but lacks what is needed to become a very good team player. The top two inches! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Prinny said:

Well if you ignore the Zak Vyner marking and the Max O'Leary dying starfish for the first goal yeah...

I don't like O'Dowda that much, he was doing ok, one good run, and an absolute moronic challenge which has ended up really hurting someone. Horrifically ill timed, and dangerous to the point where the stretcher comes out.

but it's DEFINITELY not single handed.

That was never a pen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

Unfortunately, he does not normally do what you say. Confronted by opponents, he is much more likely to stop, turn 180 degrees and head back toward his own goal.

Anyway, as I wasn't at the match, but listening on RB, Gary Owers said that he thought it was a penalty. He is always forthright with his comments so I take his opinion.

Having just seen the video earlier in this thread, I consider that he led with his elbow which collided with opponents head. Dangerous play? Could have been a red card?

And where it occurred on the edge of the penalty area, if he'd not challenged, would it have created a clear goal scoring opportunity? Doubtful.

Callum has plenty of football skills but lacks what is needed to become a very good team player. The top two inches! 

First thought was foul, so hard to argue but annoying.
What he does next, and who is fit will have a massive impact on whether he has a future here. 

As for turn 180, that's a trade that all do to some extent, even Eliasson . @Davefevs made a good point about the challenge, he's not being brave and not trying to win the ball. He goes into wanting to protect himself. Even if he doesn't make the challenge and just makes himself 'big' he could block the ball. You could say it's a forwards challenge to some extent.
I thought he would have been sold in the recent cull, but I'm not sure there was interest seeing as he's not played much. I thought the things he can do would be perfect in yesterdays situation, and to that point they had been. It's harsh blaming him for the dropped points alone yesterday. Now if the discussion was do I think he has a long term career here, or do I think he'll be a major part in this season then that's a different thing, I doubt it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Davefevs said:

A strong challenge?  You mean recklessly / cowardly leading with an elbow.  That’s not a strong challenge.  That’s a “bottler’s” challenge.  If he was “brave” (heart and commitment) he’d have been prepared to get injured to defend it fairly.  I think he could’ve avoided making the challenge by showing intelligence and awareness of the situation.  Instead he exposed his lack of bravery.

Its unfortunate, it’s split-second stuff.  I certainly don’t blame him though for costing us points, like some are.  There are several things to pick up on as to why the ball came to be in that position, but this thread is about him / the penalty / his challenge.

The reason I’m going on about this is because it’s one of many times I’ve seen him display these traits.  He’s not prepared to put his body on the line.

He has other skills that may compensate for that overall.  You seem to take any criticism of something Callum does as a criticism of you, because of your view of him as player.

I’m cool that you rate him....you see things in him that I don’t.  That’s fine.  Today he displayed some of those things you like about him....which encouraged me too (maybe Holden will make him - fantastic if he does).  But he also showed in that instance one of his weaknesses too.

Agree Dave. Maybe not 'bottlers' but rash, unnecessary, thoughtless, dangerous. 

I always remember listening to Louis Carey talking about Sean O'Driscoll who, whatever people thought of him as a manager, players like Louis rated hugely as a coach. 

He talked about how one of the many ways in which SOD got them thinking differently was about whether you always need to make aerial challenges, especially when they are 40/60 or worse against you. He encouraged them not to be averse to stepping back, not from a lack of commitment (even if that's how the crowd would view it) but because usually the opposition player would do nothing constructive as a result. Obviously it's a judgement call, a right time and a wrong time, but it's about thinking and making the right call as a player, not just flying in. I used to watch after I heard that, and it was amazing how often the ball would come straight back to us.

Yesterday was a case in point; there was no need to make the challenge in the first place, never mind that recklessly. 

And, for me, 100% a penalty. Frustrating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Davefevs said:

A strong challenge?  You mean recklessly / cowardly leading with an elbow.  That’s not a strong challenge.  That’s a “bottler’s” challenge.  If he was “brave” (heart and commitment) he’d have been prepared to get injured to defend it fairly.  I think he could’ve avoided making the challenge by showing intelligence and awareness of the situation.  Instead he exposed his lack of bravery.

Its unfortunate, it’s split-second stuff.  I certainly don’t blame him though for costing us points, like some are.  There are several things to pick up on as to why the ball came to be in that position, but this thread is about him / the penalty / his challenge.

The reason I’m going on about this is because it’s one of many times I’ve seen him display these traits.  He’s not prepared to put his body on the line.

He has other skills that may compensate for that overall.  You seem to take any criticism of something Callum does as a criticism of you, because of your view of him as player.

I’m cool that you rate him....you see things in him that I don’t.  That’s fine.  Today he displayed some of those things you like about him....which encouraged me too (maybe Holden will make him - fantastic if he does).  But he also showed in that instance one of his weaknesses too.

I remember a similiar stupid foul against Villa at home a few seasons ago (drew 1-1 i think). Gave away a free kick needlessly that Bjarnason scored from.

COD has always struck me as a bit if a liability in defensive situations. Gets turned easily, and is often out of position. 

Heh ho, we go again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not O’Dowda’s biggest fan, but my opinion is that he’s never been a brave footballer. By that I mean he’s not up for a 50/50 challenge generally he’ll turn and jump away from the ball as the opponent comes through expecting a clash of legs. Those are in situations where he won’t have much time to make a decision.

This is a slightly different circumstance but if the above has been identified by the coaching staff and he’s been told to improve that side of his game then outcomes like this are an understandable if frustrating consequence.
 

Ultimatelt, He appears to have no natural ability at judging when to challenge for a 50/50 as he is used to not getting involved. He can certainly improve this but it’s going to be a while l, if he can bring himself to risk getting hurt to win the ball... albeit this time he was the one who caused the injury to his opponent.
 

An aside of this, I was always taught that ducking out of a challenge was far more likely to get you hurt than if you commit to it. This might have just been ancient coaches encouraging mild violence between their pre-adolescent charges though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very blatantly a foul. I don't think it is the worst challenge in the world, and it is unfortunate the guy got hurt, but - when you watch it back - it seems pretty clear to me he was not tight enough to challenge to the guy, realised too late he wasn't in a position to challenge effectively, piled into it anyway and caught him well after the ball had left. It was utterly reckless. I don't think he even had a 30/70 chance of getting the ball and it would have been better to hold off, accept the mistake and hope someone cleared. I don't think it is by any means the worst thing anyone has done in the heat of the moment of a football match but it was absolutely definitely a foul. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

First thought was foul, so hard to argue but annoying.
What he does next, and who is fit will have a massive impact on whether he has a future here. 

As for turn 180, that's a trade that all do to some extent, even Eliasson . @Davefevs made a good point about the challenge, he's not being brave and not trying to win the ball. He goes into wanting to protect himself. Even if he doesn't make the challenge and just makes himself 'big' he could block the ball. You could say it's a forwards challenge to some extent.
I thought he would have been sold in the recent cull, but I'm not sure there was interest seeing as he's not played much. I thought the things he can do would be perfect in yesterdays situation, and to that point they had been. It's harsh blaming him for the dropped points alone yesterday. Now if the discussion was do I think he has a long term career here, or do I think he'll be a major part in this season then that's a different thing, I doubt it. 

Agree.  I don’t blame him at all.  His just made a poor judgement to go for the ball, and then executed it badly.

1 hour ago, italian dave said:

Agree Dave. Maybe not 'bottlers' but rash, unnecessary, thoughtless, dangerous. 

I always remember listening to Louis Carey talking about Sean O'Driscoll who, whatever people thought of him as a manager, players like Louis rated hugely as a coach. 

He talked about how one of the many ways in which SOD got them thinking differently was about whether you always need to make aerial challenges, especially when they are 40/60 or worse against you. He encouraged them not to be averse to stepping back, not from a lack of commitment (even if that's how the crowd would view it) but because usually the opposition player would do nothing constructive as a result. Obviously it's a judgement call, a right time and a wrong time, but it's about thinking and making the right call as a player, not just flying in. I used to watch after I heard that, and it was amazing how often the ball would come straight back to us.

Yesterday was a case in point; there was no need to make the challenge in the first place, never mind that recklessly. 

And, for me, 100% a penalty. Frustrating. 

Exactly my point.  Sollbauer’s header was never going towards goal.  O’Dowda would’ve been better letting him win it and try to cover where the ball lands.

Having decided to go for the ball had he gone in with his head, it would’ve been a sickening clash of heads (eek!), but I suspect the ref would’ve seen it as a fair (fairer?) challenge and he might’ve actually made contact with the ball.  Less chance if a penalty being given.

@JonDolmanwe have two players in our squad who don’t tackle properly, and dangle their legs....Pato and COD.  Pato got injured late last season (might’ve been final game) for dangling a leg in a challenge.  He didn’t want to do a proper block challenge for fear of getting hurt.  Ultimately he did though.  
 

Generally Callum does ok in the air, he’s tall, decent spring.  Pato yesterday blocked a shot, I was quite shocked ?.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

It is one of those that if the opposing player doesnt fall over then it would look fine. I think it was about as much as a pen as other things that are not given as pens, like all the physical contact we see in the penalty area. There should technically be a lot more penalties than there, absolutely loads of them. How many times do we see a player challenge a player who has just shot and goes into player. Happens all the time and is never a pen. Or a nudge to put the player off, or holding etc.

The Barnsley player seems to me to very slightly pull out when he sees O'Dowda coming at him so quickly. I think that's what caused him to get so badly hurt.

As for his positioning, I think he had another player on the outside. Rowe was marking no one in the middle. Would have been better if Rowe had shifted across and then O'Dowda would have been marking the player on the outside.

He was marking 2 players and was kind of trying to be in a position to deal with both, which means he couldn't be close enough to whichever one it went to. If he'd marked either one then the other is completely free.

Jeeez Jon.  Sollbauer won the header on the stretch...how do you “slightly pull out” on the stretch.  He got badly hurt because he was committed and prepared to get hurt, and on watching again this morning he’s made initial contact with Callum’s arm / elbow and then Callum’s shoulder.

Absolutely there are many other factors in what led to the situation, which is why I don’t lay blame at Callum’s feet (or his elbow / shoulder) for us conceding a late penalty...shit happens.  I would only blame a player if they did something stupid like punch a player, or try a dragback on their 6 yard line ?

But your continued defence of his challenge is the equivalent of him going on an army march and walking out of step, but you’d argue he’s the only one in step and everyone else is out of step.  ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having took time away from the game yesterday to reflect as was really annoyed at the time, it was a bad decision from Callum to go flying in like he did, just naive. He needs to really snap that out of his game, it's been 4 years now. I am not however blaming him for the 2 points dropped entirely. The defending for the first goal from Vyner was terrible and first half generally was terrible. 

Barnsley can be a hard team to play against, we never seem to get the 3 points done at Oakwell. 

Move onto Tuesday, get a win against Boro and 4 points from the 2 games is a positive return. Still a great start to the season

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see the game live and I've only seen the Sky goals clips.

But, for me, it was a type of challenge O'Dowda didn't really need to make. It was clumsy, he led with his forearm, jumped into the Barnsley player, and it was a foul challenge that looked to be in the box - 100% penalty imo.

I can understand him going for it in the heat of the game and last minute etc, but it was always a risky challenge that a defender may have handled better.

Disappointing not to get all 3 points but a point away is always welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

 

If he'd been stronger then I doubt Barnsley players even appeal for a pen and the game is over and 3 points. But it would have been the exact same challenge.

No pen for me. If we give pens for this then I expect many more pens. It was given on how the player fell flat on his back.

Laughable Jon....especially the no pen bit.  I could at least accept you saying “it might’ve been out of the box”, he’s wiped out Sollbauer after he’s win the header.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bcfc01 said:

I didn't see the game live and I've only seen the Sky goals clips.

But, for me, it was a type of challenge O'Dowda didn't really need to make. It was clumsy, he led with his forearm, jumped into the Barnsley player, and it was a foul challenge that looked to be in the box - 100% penalty imo.

I can understand him going for it in the heat of the game and last minute etc, but it was always a risky challenge that a defender may have handled better.

Disappointing not to get all 3 points but a point away is always welcome.

He's got form though in this respect - Fulham away last season we're defending a 2-1 lead very late on, their bloke running with ball and he's there just damn clumsy challenge- ref didn't see that one! 7mins 20 seconds

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JonDolman said:

Its not a non contact sport. 

If the player had landed on his feet then Barnsley players wouldn't even have appealed for it.

I know it is, I have the bumps, bruises, and knackered knees to prove it - that’s not a valid reason.

Hes clattered him.  He’s gone in recklessly, led with his elbow.  If this, if that....Look at the reality of what actually happened.

I’ve seen red cards given for this type of challenge when a player goes in leading with their elbow.

Your blind defence of this challenge / foul is mystifying.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JonDolman said:

Not blind defence when I would say no pen whoever does that. City player or no City player.

He had his arm outstretched like any player would and then drops it and ends up looking like his arm is in line with the players chest, so that has no relevance to me. Not an elbow to the face or anything.

If that is a pen then I expect many more pens when players bodies go into others in the box.

I feel the key point that you are overlooking here - which is why I do think it had to be a penalty - is O'Dowda arrives and clatters into the player well after the ball has gone. For that reason, it cannot be a fair challenge because - by the time he makes contact with the player - there is no longer a ball to challenge for. Giving penalties for late challenges doesn't set any kind of new precedent. It is what has always happened. And O'Dowda was very late. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, italian dave said:

Agree Dave. Maybe not 'bottlers' but rash, unnecessary, thoughtless, dangerous. 

I always remember listening to Louis Carey talking about Sean O'Driscoll who, whatever people thought of him as a manager, players like Louis rated hugely as a coach. 

He talked about how one of the many ways in which SOD got them thinking differently was about whether you always need to make aerial challenges, especially when they are 40/60 or worse against you. He encouraged them not to be averse to stepping back, not from a lack of commitment (even if that's how the crowd would view it) but because usually the opposition player would do nothing constructive as a result. Obviously it's a judgement call, a right time and a wrong time, but it's about thinking and making the right call as a player, not just flying in. I used to watch after I heard that, and it was amazing how often the ball would come straight back to us.

Yesterday was a case in point; there was no need to make the challenge in the first place, never mind that recklessly. 

And, for me, 100% a penalty. Frustrating. 

That's what I thought straight after the challenge. The guy isn't going to score a heard from 18 yards out, the best he could have done was loop the header back towards goal, and our 3 centre backs had headed almost everything away all game. If it was a last ditch challenge to try and block a header from 3 yards out, you'd think fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

Not blind defence when I would say no pen whoever does that. City player or no City player.

He had his arm outstretched like any player would and then drops it and ends up looking like his arm is in line with the players chest, so that has no relevance to me. Not an elbow to the face or anything.

If that is a pen then I expect many more pens when players bodies go into others in the box.

Wow....so what part of Callum’s body caused the sickening blow?  Callum’s breath?

AA7090AA-C474-4928-BFA5-D0CC413F439B.jpeg.15c359b0a2a84b481e15cddbbcfdfe44.jpeg

no, it was his arm/elbow and then his shoulder.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

Try watching the video Dave. O'Dowda's shoulder going into players shoulder is the heavy impact.

Rubbish...Callum’s shoulder catches Sollbauer under the chin.

Funny how shoulder v shoulder with such force leads to one player pole-axed and the other not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JonDolman said:

Because Callum was stronger. Like I said, if the other player didn't know Callum was there then that makes all the difference as he isn't ready for contact. Bit like how a boxer not seeing a punch usually does the most damage.

If the player was ready for O'Dowda challenging then he might well have landed on his feet and avoided injury, which would never have then been given a pen.

So the exact same challenge would not be a pen if the player lands on his feet. I think most would agree with that. And that's why I don't think it is a pen as I think its all to do with how the player lands, which is irrelevant.

Genuinely would not see it as a pen if it happened to any player for any team. You think its a bad challenge, fair enough ?

The exact same challenge would still be a pen if the player arrives as late as O'Dowda did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...