I was under the impression that Silva changed his mind during half-time. Early in the break Watson was warming up but later on Wague came out instead. The extra centre back not only conceded our control of central midfield but also isolated Gray more with Cleverley dropping back. Neither of the wide attackers were inclined to come inside to support Gray. That formation would have been better with Deeney as lone striker.
Only 8 players in the EPL this season have made more successful tackles than Richarlison , and all of them are defenders.
Marco said in his interview that he altered the system in reaction to Swansea's changes. We won the game so it's neither here nor there, but Swansea really struggled to create clear-cut chances in the second half. Their only two real shots on target were Bony's initial shot leading to the goal and the goal itself, so the change had the desired effect. By the end they had run out of ideas, and we could have scored three (Deeney's shot, Richarlison's goal, Pereyra's penalty claim). I feel like there's almost an expectation that we are going to dominate away games from start to finish a la Bournemouth against similar teams. Unfortunately, for the most part, this will not be the case. Swansea were always going to hit back in the second half, with or without our system change.
Give him a few more years to mature and he is going to be worth some serious money. Everytime you watch him he’s trying to do something spectacular (like the keepe ups while the Swansea guy was trying to tackle him), at the moment he’s pulling of 75% of his little tricks and doing the odd over hit (like his touch above) but he seems to be getting better and better with each game. He does however look a bit like a petulant youth when decisions don’t go his way
Looks to me like he wanted to direct the ball away from Mawson with his left but got it too straight rather than a heavy touch ... the beauty of the way it happened is that Mawson took himself out of the game ... Also I know Keown and Murphy can talk a good game but at that speed I doubt that either of them could have done much different ... It was a class bit of mind reading by Ricarlison in the first place, no defender can ever feel safe with him around.
I see football is becoming so predictable. The same clubs in the top 7. https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/fo...league-standings-for-gameweek-6-a3643476.html
To be fair it was a heavy touch but it's almost like thats what fooled Mawson. We'd be livid if our defender tackled like that in the final minute. A little bit of luck but great composure with the finish
Pulis putting plenty of pressure on the refs after tonight's game. Even made it a point to remind them that West Brom haven't been awarded a penalty in over a year. I was confident of making it 4 away wins in a row but I now expect another shocking refereeing performance against us, yet again, and a penalty awarded to West Brom on Saturday.
I've not heard what Pullis said, but last night was another example of the bigger side getting all the decisions. It happens far too often not to be true. The only answer to level the playing field is VAR, or else this type of thing will keep happening and will never change.
Can you point me towards any objectively conducted statistical analysis which suggests this contention to be true?
Come on mate, don't pretend there was any kind of masterplan to it. It was just an utterly rancid touch.
There may well be some study done, but you cannot always quantify perception. If you come to the debate with a closed mind then you will always defend the referee. If you want to deny what your own eyes tell you in matches you watch then you can override your own perception. With officials you are exposed to human error, bias, incompetence and all other human traits. For me VAR is the only way to clear up factual events. Was it offside, was it in the box etc. But I recognise you do have to draw the line somewhere. Do you use VAR for everything, taking away the interpretation of the referee? It would be a good debate to have. I think one thing is clear though, we have the technology and it has to be used in the pursuit of fairness.
Could use the system they use in hockey where each team has (I think) 2 reviews available on critical decisions & the video official has to be clear the on-field decision is definitely wrong to order an over-rule.
Personally I don't think there should be a limit on reviews. Anthony Taylor gets more than two wrong per match for example, so you should review whenever necessary. No system is perfect though and it does have to be a gradual progression. We now have goal line technology after much gnashing of teeth. It's in place, works perfectly and everyone trusts and excepts the decisions it gives. The next step is to use VAR for offside decisions that lead to goals. VAR could also be used to review fouls that lead to red cards (or a second yellow card). These are all game changing decisions which have a natural break in play. Now, the progression after this could be that each captain can call for one review, and if upheld, would not be lost. A bit like in tennis, although each player gets three. I think this would eradicate mistakes or unfair decisions very quickly. If a captains review is used as a timewasting tactic, then the referee has the power to add time on at the end of the match. There is too much money in the EPL not to have fairness in key decisions. Referees cannot be trusted to do this, history tells us that. They are all fallible and people trust technology far more. Some people say if you do this you take away talking points. Nothing to discuss in pubs after the game. The game will be sanitised. Well it's funny but these comments only come from people that have an involvement with bigger clubs. I don't want talking points, I want fairness. You have to use technology as much as possible to come to the correct outcome. The game HAS to be fair for all teams.
I don't come to this with a closed mind at all Hb1. You and others might very well be right. What I object to is your conclusion that there is necessarily bias in favour of the big teams based purely on your anecdotal perceptions as a partizan football fan. Like this bias is some sort of fact. And the reason I asked you if you could point me in the direction of an 'objective study' is because I don't think one exists. Well why not? Ph.D. funding anybody? Sure it's difficult to 'quantify perception'. But an objective study could try. There's that word again you see. Objective. In fact it wouldn't necessarily have to involve perception. A study of offside decisions (which are more factual than perceptive) might be sufficient. Where we undoubtedly agree is on the necessity to introduce VAR to assist the officials. It's entirely unacceptable to continue to hang them out to dry, when VAR is readily available to assist them (as it is for the rest of us). Just so contentious decisions can continue to be argued over down the pub. How selfish. But I'd introduce it incrementally. Start with offsides then. Possibly extend it to pens and sending offs (like Angella's at the Muff). But no further than that. Certainly not to possible hand-balls leading up to goals (City's first) or possible fouls leading up to goals (City's fifth). As you rightly say, those decisions (and often pens. too) are largely a matter of 'perception' and could continue to be argued about 'down the pub' rather than overdo the introduction of VAR.
Oh look, hornetboy1 is speaking out of his anus again. I don't support a big club and your ideas are abhorrent. Bad decisions - which actually happen very rarely - are just part of the game. As someone who has actually played the game to a high standard, I can understand the dreadful impact of the stop-start-stop-start nature of your dreadful ideas. Obviously as a housebound, obese nerd, you cannot comprehend my reservations.
Here's one, you'll need Google Translate unless you speak German: https://idw-online.de/de/news649643 Some academic bods in Germany looked at penalty decisions in over 4200 games across 14 years in the Bundesliga and categorised them as "clearly correct", "clearly incorrect" and "debatable". This was their top finding: Penalties unjustly refused will significantly benefit top teams, they often concern weak teams playing against good teams. The likelihood that referees will refuse to give a legitimate penalty to a weak team that plays against a top team is about 40 percent higher than the top team.
Get a grip RC. There's no stop-start factor at all to an offside review which takes place during a goal celebration (which maybe gets cut short).
Oh dear.....are you still allowed to post on this forum? Thought you were banned ages ago. This is a debate for adults so is not something you should be involved with.
You are trying very hard to be the most obnoxious poster on here. Any reason? Unfortunately, because your posts are so devoid of wit, you are never going to be anything other than a pain in the arse tosspot. Oh, and could we have an idea of the high standard to which you played the game? If it wasn't at an EFL1 level or above, I would suggest that your 'experience' has about as much relevance to the PL as a park runner does to Mo Farah.
I think HB1 is right , I have noticed this season moreso than last any 50/ 50 decisions get given to the big teams Man city Man U etc If there was a review system in place for game changing decisions , this might help smaller clubs get a more level playing field. the game is getting faster and the officials at times have a job keeping up with play so any system that can be employed to assist them in my opinion is a good idea.
For a start the assistant referees should step up to the mark and not feel they have to wait for the ref to give a decision and then agree with him, we have only had three home games this season but seen quite a few incorrect throw ins given!
