Nibor

1 minute ago, Stortz said:

I agree with your general point but it's a bit unfair to call the guy a bum imo. He looked terrified for the first couple of rounds but has gutted it out to stay in the fight.

You have to have a certain level of respect for anybody who gets into the ring but Zerafa isn't going to trouble anybody on the world stage IMO.  Brook is so sloppy and stationary he's pretty much letting Zerafa hit him at will and he's still winning almost every round.

5 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

How reliable are eye sockets,I know I broke the bones in my hand years ago boxing and was told they would be just as strong after and they were tbf,eye sockets I would of thought would be different but im not a surgeon and Im sure it will play on brooks mind 

He's fighting a bum and he's looking average. It's not the eye socket that's the problem, he's just a boxer whose level is outside the top 10.

1 hour ago, wayne allisons tongues said:

I think trouble with scoring in boxing is you never see cards or rarely do with 10 10 rounds on them.

They always add up to 228 or 226 last night with knockdowns.

The most Fury could of got was 116 for down twice so only takes judges to have to decide in a tight round it goes other way and you’ve lost 2 or 3 rounds.

The most Wilder could have got for losing nine rounds was 111.

Honestly there weren't any close rounds aside from 2, even in the knockdown rounds (and yes they have to be 10-8 Wilder) Fury outlanded him.

116 or 115 Fury and 112 or 113 Wilder would have been right.  Anything else (including the English judge's draw) is ******* bollocks. 

These judges should be investigated by forensic accountants.

Thoroughly corrupt. Fury by at least 3. Punches actually have to land to count.  Fair play to the ref.

What a start!  Come on you reds!!!

6 minutes ago, Robbored said:

What on earth do you expect? This is a new squad and we all know that when several new signings arrive it can take several games for the real style of play to develop.

We are just four games in and it’s way too early to be making assessments until we are at least 10 - 12 games in.

 To me it’s a case so far so good.

Like I said, I expect the selections to be sensible and I expect us to have a style of play and a game plan.  Over the course of the season I expect us to improve a bit on the last one results wise.

We keep hearing about how scientific our recruitment is and how we're selecting players from databases to fit the style we already want to play so no, I don't think it's ok for us to not be recognisable from last time and it is concerning that the style doesn't look like arriving of it's own accord after some magical mythical gelling time.  

I'm not jumping to any conclusions yet but anybody happy with the season so far isn't paying proper attention.

2 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Played 4 drawn 2 won 1 and lost 1

The loss came against Boro who’ll be serious promotion candidates this season. 

Not a bad start all things considered.

It's not the results that bother me, it's too early for that.  It's the lack of a real style or game plan when compared to last season and the odd selections.  When you look at the performances they've been pretty weak and two of the four teams we've played have been abysmal.  Let's see how it goes but for me the gleam we had in the first half of the season last time round is well and truly worn off and LJ has a lot to do to get back into credit.

1 minute ago, Whale Eye Beef Hooked said:

Ummmm not so much of a stupid selection. As I said he picked the best he had  so why would I acknowledge that he is getting it wrong

o and a clean sheet.  Not a bad shout playing Pisano and Kelly where he did 

#sorryforthesmugness

Imagine how well we could have done if he had picked a decent side.

Fair play we got a result but it's still a concerning start to the season.

1 minute ago, Whale Eye Beef Hooked said:

To be fair. Pisano is doing ok and Kelly gives us more going forward and looked slightly out of his depth on Saturday at CH so imo he has got it right or shall I say I can’t see many other options at the back 

Da Silva the loanee is a left back.  

Mind you that Taylor is alright... 

2 minutes ago, Whale Eye Beef Hooked said:

You were at Failand yesterday then were you to see who trained well   Also if everyone was available to LJ then it’s possible there would be 6 or 7 changes to this line up   He hasn’t got a lot of choice at the mo 

Pisano must have looked like Maldini and Taylor imitated Ronaldo up at Failand for them to get picked after their last few performances. 

At some point you have to stop making excuses for continual, obvious mistakes and acknowledge he's getting it wrong. 

This is a stupid selection and the performance is proving it, there were better choices and they were very clear.  

2 minutes ago, old_eastender said:

Kelly LCB, Dasilva LB, Pisano RB, Hunt benched, Eisa up front instead of Taylor.

It's not particularly hard is it?

Just now, Robbored said:

You’re another criticising LJs team selection. I’ll you the same question - who would you have picked? 

I might've tried picking a left footed left back at left back instead of Pisano and leaving Matty Taylor out in favour of an actual footballer capable of controlling a ball.

I can't imagine what LJ's been smoking with that lineup but it must have been grown under some intense UV lights.

Hasn't he learned anything from the previous games?

And who's the luddite running the twitter feed who can't figure out how to use an iphone without sticking random characters in and getting hashtags wrong and has no idea how to give us team news with players in a sensible order?

Honestly this season is pissing me off already.

That back four is unbalanced and odd.  We should be picking players in positions consistently and letting them form a unit.  Also don't get Paterson over Eliasson. 

Random thoughts:

Reasonable first game.  Nothing to write home about, nothing to worry about either.

Probably watching two teams who will trouble neither end of the table.

Eliasson has come on a bit - fantastic crossing, needs to work on winning throws/corners and getting stuck in.

Bryan looked below his usual standards at left back - should be playing left midfield if we're going 4 at the back.

We missed Diedhiou or some muscle up front.

Smith has to start.  He's the leader.

None of the signings looked out of place, maybe we had a summer where we didn't drop a bollock.

Webster looked a ball player, Weimann worked hard as expected but shouldn't play up top on his own and Mäenpää looked fine.

Hunt was a bit nervy and needs to settle a bit.

Baker had a poor game and the back four overall need time to become a unit.

Not sure why Taylor came on ahead of Eisa.

Unless Watkins is it we still need a real playmaker in midfield as a matter of priority.

It was hot.

Decent performance up until the subs, where we simply lacked a cutting edge because we rarely had enough players in the box. 

The pressing game is great but when teams set up for an away smash'n'grab we might have to ease off it and let them come forward, as it was they defended deep and we didn't have the craft to get behind them or the presence to get on the end of anything.  

We could have tried two up front earlier but I had the feeling without five across midfield we would have found it a lot harder to maintain as much ball.

Norwich weren't bad.  Not really good value for a win but nor were we.

Nothing to worry about but we could do with moving on Taylor and bringing in someone who can lead the line with Reid unless Diedhiou is going to return at full throttle.

1 minute ago, Cider_boy said:

No, but the rules you quoted say the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement. If a defender stands with his hands above his head before a cross is hit, that can still mean it is an infringement. The suggestion is that in this case this is effectively what he did, he expected a cross, so had his arm above his head ready to block it.

Why do you think the "position" consideration is phrased in the opposite way to the others?  Basically a player can put his hands wherever he likes, it's not a deliberate handball unless he moves them towards the ball after it is struck, or he has long enough to expect the ball to strike them and doesn't move them.  It's an awful rule because it asks the referee to guess someone's intent, which is impossible.  

I'd much prefer they got rid of the word deliberate and gave the handball every time it strikes anyone except the keeper below the shoulder.

1 minute ago, LondonBristolian said:

If it was clear cut then people would not be arguing about it. I respect your view a d you make good arguments but application of any rules will always be subjective. Some refs would have given a penalty for that. Today’s Ref didn’t. I probably phrased it badly saying he “got it wrong” as it comes down to interpretation but it certainly is not clear cut...

I suggest if you were to review that with ten referees, ten would say he got it right.  They might not all come to the same conclusion in the split second you have to make it, but in hindsight I am sure they would.  It pretty much mirrors some of the video training I've seen.

1 minute ago, Cider_boy said:

He knew he was going to cross it from where he was, it wasn't unexpected, so he put his arm up ready to block it, the rules suggest it is a penalty!

Nope.  You have to have your hands somewhere, you're not required to put them behind your back.  There's no predicting where the ball is going.  It's only an offence if he moves his hands onto the ball after it's hit and he clearly didn't have time to.

Just now, LondonBristolian said:

I can see that argument and am a bit in two minds but I would still say his hand was not in a natural position. Can see why the Ref didn’t give it but think it should have been a pen...

The rules would disagree.

Quote

The referee must take the following into consideration:

• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement

 

He didn't move his hand towards the ball and the ball was unexpected.  It's clear cut.

1 minute ago, LondonBristolian said:

To be fair to the Ref, I think the handball in the penalty area straight after the goal is the only decision he has got wrong all night.

Frustrating but we need to learn from this and we need to beat Villa.

There's no way you can give a deliberate handball from that distance at that pace.  It's impossible.

Shot ourselves in the foot massively, there we had a chance of 3 points against a team built with about five times our budget and we made bad decisions at crucial points.

Didn't expect to get much from it, time to show some resilience again - I've no doubt we will.

The ref is worth a mention - had lots to do and got it all right really.  Well done to him.

Onwards and upwards.

****'s sake Grobelaar.

1 minute ago, Super said:

He has.

I'd agree.  Any of those three or four decisions were easy to get wrong, and he did very well to get them right.  Won't stop Wolves fans feeling aggrieved he didn't let one slip.

Studs up, off the ground, connected with the ankle.  Serious foul play, always a red.

Whether he gets the ball isn't relevant.