|
|
On August 20 2019 05:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
let rashford take the penalties from now on xD
On second look that's a very solid save. it was very hard and further to the side than I thought. I mean a good penalty is always a goal, but it wasn't a crappy one.
Was perfect saving height tho, if goalie dives that way its almost always gonna be a save even if that had plenty of power. Not terrible like weak down the middle, but still kinda crappy
|
Norway28695 Posts
ya the height was perfect for saving. kinda crappy I agree, but I thought it looked a lot better in the replay than when I first saw it.
|
On August 20 2019 05:36 sneirac wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2019 05:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
let rashford take the penalties from now on xD
On second look that's a very solid save. it was very hard and further to the side than I thought. I mean a good penalty is always a goal, but it wasn't a crappy one. Was perfect saving height tho, if goalie dives that way its almost always gonna be a save even if that had plenty of power. Not terrible like weak down the middle, but still kinda crappy
Yeah the value of hitting it low cant be discounted. Liverpool snuck 2 in even after Kepa guessed right because they were hard and low rather than hard and a good height.
Crappy is a bit harsh. Id say it was a good penalty but "saveable". Sounds counter intuitive but I'm sticking with it.
|
I actually thought Man U would do really well this gaame but I think Wolves has played better. Am I right for thinking that? I'll freely admit that I'm not any means of an expert in football analysis
|
Wolves are just a nightmare to play against, or rather score against. Not like this was a bad showing by United
|
i mean wolves is not a bad team at all, there's a reason they are in europa league
i don't think anyone will go to their stadium and have a field day
|
Their peak level is indeed quite high. If they gain consistency they could even challenge for top 5. They are already a Europa level team.
|
Norway28695 Posts
yea wolves are very solid.
last season vs top 6 teams they got 1 point vs city, 4 vs united, 3 vs tottenham, 4 vs chelsea, 4 vs arsenal, 0 vs liverpool. (that is, 4 wins, 4 draws, 4 losses).
|
So Rashford is 4 for 4 for penalties. Pogba 0 for 4...
|
The discussion here about the VAR is so clear I'm surprised there even is a discussion. There are 2 things necessary in order for the ref to make a correct decision:
1. Good rules. Whether these can be clear, absolute about hand balls etc can be disputed. At the moment they're not, so we'll have to live with partially inconsistent decisions. But that has absolutely nothing to do with with the next point:
2. Good observation. Here is where the VAR comes in. Ref now has more eyes and the ability to rewind if necessary. Pande's picture about absolute certainty might be true, but it doesn't matter at all, since any improvement over previous observation quality already justifies the new VAR system.
|
On August 20 2019 04:07 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2019 23:08 sharkie wrote:On August 18 2019 22:49 Pandemona wrote:
VAR in England has been used a couple of times in which it has caused more debate than it has fixed the decisions. I wouldn't be having this conversation otherwise would i lol. Season is only 2 matchdays old!
But lets see what happens throughout the rest of the season. It's already fixed yesterday's match: the goal was ruled out correctly. That's already 2 correct decisions (the wolves one too) to your 1 bad one (the sterling). And I dont bother to look at the other matches. So even if thats all - thats already 100% more correct decisions than bad ones. And the season is only 2 matchdays old! Wow VAR really is the best VAR mistakes spark debates, VAR corrections dont, if a goal is ruled out correctly no one will ever talk about it. Thats the only reason we talk about VAR. Because people like to whine about stuff. Regard every topic humanity has ever talked about. The naysayers have always been louder than the supporters. We would still be working with stone tools if we hadnt progressed regardless of the negativity I have to say, hes 100% correct Pande. All of your arguments are feel arguments. What he is saying is fact. No system for officiating can be perfect. The purpose of using technology is to try to be as perfect as possible. Even if it is a 5 percent net gain in improved decisions (which its not, its significantly higher) then its worth it. Regarding the debates. Thats natural. When you have all of the additional information that the technology brings, the number of variables that go into a decision keep increasing. And naturally many will not be clear cut, debatable, subjective etc etc. And thats more of a problem with rules and their interpretation than a system that simply provides you more information to make the best decision possible. And even if that is indeed the case and you must make a controversial decision with as much information as possible rather than something based of the naked eye, particularly with the pace the game is played at now? And to repeat what he said. It is indeed true that there is no debate around the clearcut overturns because they are clear cut. If your going to debate the controversial situations you have to acknowledge the wins. What I would add is that if you dont do the above, its quite frankly a dishonest position to criticize the system from.
Bullshit. Watch volleyball.
|
On August 20 2019 04:17 Pandemona wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2019 02:53 sharkie wrote:
Chelsea so far every game have been full throttle right from the start and then getting weaker. Dont blame it on the liverpool game if chelsea have done it in all 3 games. Its Lampard's fault if he forces/lets the team do that Well when we played Yanited and Liverpool it "worked" and we didn't die towards the end of the game. Yanited game we just switched off and went to shit lol, vs Liverpool we took them all the way to 120 minutes looking at times better than them through out the whole 120 minutes. Yesterday is the only game where we looked tired after 45 minutes. Show nested quote +On August 20 2019 04:07 Rebs wrote:On August 18 2019 23:08 sharkie wrote:On August 18 2019 22:49 Pandemona wrote:
VAR in England has been used a couple of times in which it has caused more debate than it has fixed the decisions. I wouldn't be having this conversation otherwise would i lol. Season is only 2 matchdays old!
But lets see what happens throughout the rest of the season. It's already fixed yesterday's match: the goal was ruled out correctly. That's already 2 correct decisions (the wolves one too) to your 1 bad one (the sterling). And I dont bother to look at the other matches. So even if thats all - thats already 100% more correct decisions than bad ones. And the season is only 2 matchdays old! Wow VAR really is the best VAR mistakes spark debates, VAR corrections dont, if a goal is ruled out correctly no one will ever talk about it. Thats the only reason we talk about VAR. Because people like to whine about stuff. Regard every topic humanity has ever talked about. The naysayers have always been louder than the supporters. We would still be working with stone tools if we hadnt progressed regardless of the negativity I have to say, hes 100% correct Pande. All of your arguments are feel arguments. What he is saying is fact. No system for officiating can be perfect. The purpose of using technology is to try to be as perfect as possible. Even if it is a 5 percent net gain in improved decisions (which its not, its significantly higher) then its worth it. Regarding the debates. Thats natural. When you have all of the additional information that the technology brings, the number of variables that go into a decision keep increasing. And naturally many will not be clear cut, debatable, subjective etc etc. And thats more of a problem with rules and their interpretation than a system that simply provides you more information to make the best decision possible. And even if that is indeed the case and you must make a controversial decision with as much information as possible rather than something based of the naked eye, particularly with the pace the game is played at now? And to repeat what he said. It is indeed true that there is no debate around the clearcut overturns because they are clear cut. If your going to debate the controversial situations you have to acknowledge the wins. What I would add is that if you dont do the above, its quite frankly a dishonest position to criticize the system from. I thought i was saying exactly what you just wrote....minus that it isn't a good thing to have even more grey areas than we had before because VAR ref A gives said handball and VAR ref b does not. Or the worse kinds where VAR "doesn't have the angle" to make a decision thus it stays with the on field decision. Offsides there was a post on reddit showing an image that depending on where the referee determines the ball being played denotes the offside line. ![[image loading]](https://i.redd.it/ol649tnsl7h31.jpg)
That picture was already debunked. It says cameras used by VAR run at 50 frames but that is false. It runs at 50 frames in the TV display, but in the real VAR studio it runs at higher frame rate.
|
On August 20 2019 11:00 whistleboss wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2019 04:07 Rebs wrote:On August 18 2019 23:08 sharkie wrote:On August 18 2019 22:49 Pandemona wrote:
VAR in England has been used a couple of times in which it has caused more debate than it has fixed the decisions. I wouldn't be having this conversation otherwise would i lol. Season is only 2 matchdays old!
But lets see what happens throughout the rest of the season. It's already fixed yesterday's match: the goal was ruled out correctly. That's already 2 correct decisions (the wolves one too) to your 1 bad one (the sterling). And I dont bother to look at the other matches. So even if thats all - thats already 100% more correct decisions than bad ones. And the season is only 2 matchdays old! Wow VAR really is the best VAR mistakes spark debates, VAR corrections dont, if a goal is ruled out correctly no one will ever talk about it. Thats the only reason we talk about VAR. Because people like to whine about stuff. Regard every topic humanity has ever talked about. The naysayers have always been louder than the supporters. We would still be working with stone tools if we hadnt progressed regardless of the negativity I have to say, hes 100% correct Pande. All of your arguments are feel arguments. What he is saying is fact. No system for officiating can be perfect. The purpose of using technology is to try to be as perfect as possible. Even if it is a 5 percent net gain in improved decisions (which its not, its significantly higher) then its worth it. Regarding the debates. Thats natural. When you have all of the additional information that the technology brings, the number of variables that go into a decision keep increasing. And naturally many will not be clear cut, debatable, subjective etc etc. And thats more of a problem with rules and their interpretation than a system that simply provides you more information to make the best decision possible. And even if that is indeed the case and you must make a controversial decision with as much information as possible rather than something based of the naked eye, particularly with the pace the game is played at now? And to repeat what he said. It is indeed true that there is no debate around the clearcut overturns because they are clear cut. If your going to debate the controversial situations you have to acknowledge the wins. What I would add is that if you dont do the above, its quite frankly a dishonest position to criticize the system from. Bullshit. Watch volleyball.
Not very useful when discussing the current ruleset of football: it might be possible to create a 100% unambiguous set of rules for football, but the current rules don't do that. I personally don't believe it's even possible for football, and moreover, it is questionable whether that is desirable and "in the spirit of the game".
So the best we can do is simply increase the observational capacity of the referee. He can still judge the plays, and he will no doubt interpret moves and rules differently from how the fanbase of one, the other, or both, the teams would want. But at least we have modern tools to help with things happening at too high a speed to judge accurately, or out of the field of vision of an official.
|
So Messi, Suarez and Dembelé injured. And Coutinho loaned to Bayern (And Alcacer sold to Dortmund). Good planning again. Maybe we could buy Boateng.
|
Can't really plan for so many injuries. Messi, Suarez, Dembélé and Griezmann + canteranos is more than enough, imo. Whoever you'd sign would just be sitting on the bench most of the time and would leave after a year (your Alcacer example).
|
On August 20 2019 18:32 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2019 11:00 whistleboss wrote:On August 20 2019 04:07 Rebs wrote:On August 18 2019 23:08 sharkie wrote:On August 18 2019 22:49 Pandemona wrote:
VAR in England has been used a couple of times in which it has caused more debate than it has fixed the decisions. I wouldn't be having this conversation otherwise would i lol. Season is only 2 matchdays old!
But lets see what happens throughout the rest of the season. It's already fixed yesterday's match: the goal was ruled out correctly. That's already 2 correct decisions (the wolves one too) to your 1 bad one (the sterling). And I dont bother to look at the other matches. So even if thats all - thats already 100% more correct decisions than bad ones. And the season is only 2 matchdays old! Wow VAR really is the best VAR mistakes spark debates, VAR corrections dont, if a goal is ruled out correctly no one will ever talk about it. Thats the only reason we talk about VAR. Because people like to whine about stuff. Regard every topic humanity has ever talked about. The naysayers have always been louder than the supporters. We would still be working with stone tools if we hadnt progressed regardless of the negativity I have to say, hes 100% correct Pande. All of your arguments are feel arguments. What he is saying is fact. No system for officiating can be perfect. The purpose of using technology is to try to be as perfect as possible. Even if it is a 5 percent net gain in improved decisions (which its not, its significantly higher) then its worth it. Regarding the debates. Thats natural. When you have all of the additional information that the technology brings, the number of variables that go into a decision keep increasing. And naturally many will not be clear cut, debatable, subjective etc etc. And thats more of a problem with rules and their interpretation than a system that simply provides you more information to make the best decision possible. And even if that is indeed the case and you must make a controversial decision with as much information as possible rather than something based of the naked eye, particularly with the pace the game is played at now? And to repeat what he said. It is indeed true that there is no debate around the clearcut overturns because they are clear cut. If your going to debate the controversial situations you have to acknowledge the wins. What I would add is that if you dont do the above, its quite frankly a dishonest position to criticize the system from. Bullshit. Watch volleyball. Not very useful when discussing the current ruleset of football: it might be possible to create a 100% unambiguous set of rules for football, but the current rules don't do that. I personally don't believe it's even possible for football, and moreover, it is questionable whether that is desirable and "in the spirit of the game". So the best we can do is simply increase the observational capacity of the referee. He can still judge the plays, and he will no doubt interpret moves and rules differently from how the fanbase of one, the other, or both, the teams would want. But at least we have modern tools to help with things happening at too high a speed to judge accurately, or out of the field of vision of an official.
I am surprised he didnt also say Tennis, it was rather obvious that the context was technology as pertains to football. Granted it would have been just as absurd an argument. Not worth anyones time, but power to you I guess 
On August 20 2019 20:34 WillyWanker wrote:
Can't really plan for so many injuries. Messi, Suarez, Dembélé and Griezmann + canteranos is more than enough, imo. Whoever you'd sign would just be sitting on the bench most of the time and would leave after a year (your Alcacer example).
Yeah for all the room for criticism thats there. This probably isnt a fair one to blame the planning on.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On August 20 2019 05:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
yea wolves are very solid.
last season vs top 6 teams they got 1 point vs city, 4 vs united, 3 vs tottenham, 4 vs chelsea, 4 vs arsenal, 0 vs liverpool. (that is, 4 wins, 4 draws, 4 losses).
But then there record vs the bottom 6 is awful xD they are as Sneirac so well put last season "the Robin Hood of the premier league".
I worry for them due to not having a big squad to cope with Thursday > Sunday footy, just look at Burnley they were bottom of the league (ish) at Christmas due to their hectic start and squad not able to cope with the injuries they sustained.
|
|
|
so this whole VAR thing, is it too hard to use 2 cameras, one for the ball and one for the player? it would run kinda like the sprints in the olympics where the cameras run along the sideline. so u wouldnt have excuses like angles/timing etc
|
Bullshit. Everybody saw messi punching a player's head, with VAR available, and they chose to ignore and he even got to kick a free-kick 4 yards in front. Just like he and Jesus got away with everything they said in copa.
Rules to blame? Bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
