Jump to content

Anti-football nonsense


Recommended Posts

I don't understand why people complain about 'anti-football'. It's just as interesting to watch. People complaining about Krul or Al-Habsi taking time out of the game, it's just part of the game. Same as Stoke with their long balls, it's good to watch. If everyone played like Swansea/Barcelona, it would be so painful.

 

Funny how Arsenal fans are the ones usually complaining.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people complain about 'anti-football'. It's just as interesting to watch. People complaining about Krul or Al-Habsi taking time out of the game, it's just part of the game. Same as Stoke with their long balls, it's good to watch. If everyone played like Swansea/Barcelona, it would be so painful.

 

Funny how Arsenal fans are the ones usually complaining.

 

no its not, its cheating when taken too far and should be punished as time wasting

 

no, no it isnt

 

yes it would but (this might be tough to fathom) there is a pretty big gap between stoke and barcelona in terms of style that can be filled with all sorts of football

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when did Swansea play like Barca? :lol:

 

I sort of agree, if Stoke are so shit at football why are they holding their own in the top division?.....its shit to watch, but there you go. Their decades in the lower divisions makes their fans lap up any old shite. If the refs (big if that like) can curb their worst excesses then I dont have a problem with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate it when keepers time waste for almost the full 90 mins then get a token booking with about 5 minutes to go. The damage has already been done by then. Also, there are few things better than seeing a side who've been time wasting suddenly hurrying after conceding a late goal and going behind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people complain about 'anti-football'. It's just as interesting to watch. People complaining about Krul or Al-Habsi taking time out of the game, it's just part of the game. Same as Stoke with their long balls, it's good to watch. If everyone played like Swansea/Barcelona, it would be so painful.

 

Funny how Arsenal fans are the ones usually complaining.

 

no its not, its cheating when taken too far and should be punished as time wasting

 

no, no it isnt

 

yes it would but (this might be tough to fathom) there is a pretty big gap between stoke and barcelona in terms of style that can be filled with all sorts of football

 

 

It's exactly the same as a player taking it into the corner. It's gamesmanship, part and parcel of the game. Just like diving, sometimes you need to go over to signal you have been fouled or you won't get the free-kick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind the likes of Stoke doing what they do to an extent. I like the fact there are completely different approaches to the game but am obviously glad that we're not one of the Stoke types. That said, when it gets to the point where it seems like they're sending players out just to injury the opposition then that takes it too far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people complain about 'anti-football'. It's just as interesting to watch. People complaining about Krul or Al-Habsi taking time out of the game, it's just part of the game. Same as Stoke with their long balls, it's good to watch. If everyone played like Swansea/Barcelona, it would be so painful.

 

Funny how Arsenal fans are the ones usually complaining.

 

no its not, its cheating when taken too far and should be punished as time wasting

 

no, no it isnt

 

yes it would but (this might be tough to fathom) there is a pretty big gap between stoke and barcelona in terms of style that can be filled with all sorts of football

 

 

It's exactly the same as a player taking it into the corner. It's gamesmanship, part and parcel of the game. Just like diving, sometimes you need to go over to signal you have been fouled or you won't get the free-kick.

 

no its not, because its wasting time where you cant be challenged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate it when keepers time waste for almost the full 90 mins then get a token booking with about 5 minutes to go. The damage has already been done by then. Also, there are few things better than seeing a side who've been time wasting suddenly hurrying after conceding a late goal and going behind.

 

This. Great when fans all give a goalie who time wastes all game shit when suddenly he stops changing sides to take a goal kick. :D

 

Referees are never wise to time wasting though unfortunately. Nothing is more frustrating than seeing a team cheating and getting away with it.

 

It may get people talking about the game but not in a good way. Definitely needs stricter policing but it'll never happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who complains about a keeper wasting time late on in a game when their side's winning quite frankly needs to get a grip - there's not one side in football that doesn't do it at some point.

 

Football is diverse, if it wasn't it'd be boring as hell - different clubs find success playing if different ways.

 

Attractive to watch? Possibly not. But if playing like Wimbledon did in the late 80s resulted in my team winning some silverware, i'd be more than willing to accept it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate it when keepers time waste for almost the full 90 mins then get a token booking with about 5 minutes to go. The damage has already been done by then. Also, there are few things better than seeing a side who've been time wasting suddenly hurrying after conceding a late goal and going behind.

 

Wenger was on about this last night. Said "I told the fourth official that he would time waste all game and get booked with ten minutes to go, and that's exactly what happened."

 

It was still delicious watching Wenger in his slanket going wild at the fourth official.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with this "Letting the ref know you've been fouled" thing is; if the foul hasn't impeded your progress, why go down?

 

Young was round the Villa player and could have taken a shot on, or laid it off, instead he chose to go to ground to get a penalty and hoping to get the Villa player booked. He was also past Derry and needn't fall over other than to get Derry sent off and "win" a penalty. Carroll tried to get Krul sent off and win a penalty, yet if he'd stayed on his feet he had an open goal.

 

Since when is contact a bad thing? If it's not impeding your progress and you go down, that's your choice and not a foul. If you are impeded in your progress and are taken down, then it's the opposition's choice. If merely making contact with another player is a foul, then young should have been carded for kicking Clark.

 

I agree with Stan Collymore (fuck me, I never thought I'd say that), players who dive should be retrospectively punished. 1 match for the first offence, 3 for the second and 8 after that. They'll soon learn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with this "Letting the ref know you've been fouled" thing is; if the foul hasn't impeded your progress, why go down?

 

Young was round the Villa player and could have taken a shot on, or laid it off, instead he chose to go to ground to get a penalty and hoping to get the Villa player booked. He was also past Derry and needn't fall over other than to get Derry sent off and "win" a penalty. Carroll tried to get Krul sent off and win a penalty, yet if he'd stayed on his feet he had an open goal.

 

Since when is contact a bad thing? If it's not impeding your progress and you go down, that's your choice and not a foul. If you are impeded in your progress and are taken down, then it's the opposition's choice. If merely making contact with another player is a foul, then young should have been carded for kicking Clark.

 

I agree with Stan Collymore (fuck me, I never thought I'd say that), players who dive should be retrospectively punished. 1 match for the first offence, 3 for the second and 8 after that. They'll soon learn.

 

bang on.

 

Especially the Stan Collyflower bit. :)

Edited by ADP
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with Stan Collymore (fuck me, I never thought I'd say that), players who dive should be retrospectively punished. 1 match for the first offence, 3 for the second and 8 after that. They'll soon learn.

 

I agree to an extent but where do you draw the line? Surely if you retrospectively punish players for diving, you equally have to retrospectively punish defenders who claim they never touched a player when they clearly did and get away with it?

 

And what of claiming for other decisions when you clearly know you're wrong - John Terry claiming a goal on Saturday for instance. Or even to the level of claiming a corner or throw-in when you know it came off you last.

 

It'd be a massive can of worms and a dangerous precedent I fear. The minute you introduce it, somoene will find a scenario where it hasn't been applied and cry foul.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with Stan Collymore (fuck me, I never thought I'd say that), players who dive should be retrospectively punished. 1 match for the first offence, 3 for the second and 8 after that. They'll soon learn.

 

I agree to an extent but where do you draw the line? Surely if you retrospectively punish players for diving, you equally have to retrospectively punish defenders who claim they never touched a player when they clearly did and get away with it?

 

And what of claiming for other decisions when you clearly know you're wrong - John Terry claiming a goal on Saturday for instance. Or even to the level of claiming a corner or throw-in when you know it came off you last.

 

It'd be a massive can of worms and a dangerous precedent I fear. The minute you introduce it, somoene will find a scenario where it hasn't been applied and cry foul.

I would say it's already used to punish players who are guilty of 'off the ball' incidents; violent conduct and the like, so the precedent has already been set.

 

Also, there's a vast difference for claiming a goal and cheating to get one. Claim all you like, it's up to the ref at the time. However, if, in retrospect, you're found to have knowingly cheated you'll be punished. For exmaple, John Terry is an awful man and a cheating racist, however, in the melee I believe that he believed the ball went over. I wouldn't punish him for that, neither would I punish the players who see the ball strike somewhere near the arm of the defender and call for a handball. If Suarez hears about a butterfly flapping it's wings somewhere in Bermuda and throws himself to the floor claiming foul play? He should be eviscerated and his head impaled upon the ramparts of Kings Landing. (if someone else can make Game of Thrones references, so can I :razz: )

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with Stan Collymore (fuck me, I never thought I'd say that), players who dive should be retrospectively punished. 1 match for the first offence, 3 for the second and 8 after that. They'll soon learn.

 

I agree to an extent but where do you draw the line? Surely if you retrospectively punish players for diving, you equally have to retrospectively punish defenders who claim they never touched a player when they clearly did and get away with it?

 

And what of claiming for other decisions when you clearly know you're wrong - John Terry claiming a goal on Saturday for instance. Or even to the level of claiming a corner or throw-in when you know it came off you last.

 

It'd be a massive can of worms and a dangerous precedent I fear. The minute you introduce it, somoene will find a scenario where it hasn't been applied and cry foul.

I would say it's already used to punish players who are guilty of 'off the ball' incidents; violent conduct and the like, so the precedent has already been set.

 

Also, there's a vast difference for claiming a goal and cheating to get one. Claim all you like, it's up to the ref at the time. However, if, in retrospect, you're found to have knowingly cheated you'll be punished. For exmaple, John Terry is an awful man and a cheating racist, however, in the melee I believe that he believed the ball went over. I wouldn't punish him for that, neither would I punish the players who see the ball strike somewhere near the arm of the defender and call for a handball. If Suarez hears about a butterfly flapping it's wings somewhere in Bermuda and throws himself to the floor claiming foul play? He should be eviscerated and his head impaled upon the ramparts of Kings Landing. (if someone else can make Game of Thrones references, so can I :razz: )

 

Terry admitted in the immediate post-match interview that he knew damned well the ball hadn't crossed the line.

 

Violent conduct is indeed punished restrospectively but only violent conduct is (not sure what 'the like' is?). You can't retrospectively charge someone with dangerous play or unsportsmanlike behaviour (which diving is) and you wouldn't be able to differentiate whether it was chucking yourself down in the area or wrongly claiming the throw in is theirs - it's too wide-ranging.

 

Like I say I agree with the sentiment that it needs dealing with, it's just the solution Stanley has come up with is sadly not cut & dry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"story" :lol:

 

I've met him once or twice and know a lot of lads who were coached by him in the early 90s....hard but fair they reckon. I doubt you'd get to the level he's got to (remember he's got to motivate millionaires week in, week out) purely by shouting at them a lot. It doesn't happen like that nowadays. I ran into James Beattie a lot when he was at Southampton, he drank in Bournemouth where Strachan didn't have any spies in the bars. A complete and utter pisshead as it goes, and proud of it. If we're to beleive what was in the paper about him and Pulis, then seeing as Beattie was complaining about having to change tithe arrangements for the Stoke Christmas do, then I'm not surprised Pulis nutted the spoilt prick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"story" :lol:

 

I've met him once or twice and know a lot of lads who were coached by him in the early 90s....hard but fair they reckon. I doubt you'd get to the level he's got to (remember he's got to motivate millionaires week in, week out) purely by shouting at them a lot. It doesn't happen like that nowadays. I ran into James Beattie a lot when he was at Southampton, he drank in Bournemouth where Strachan didn't have any spies in the bars. A complete and utter pisshead as it goes, and proud of it. If we're to beleive what was in the paper about him and Pulis, then seeing as Beattie was complaining about having to change tithe arrangements for the Stoke Christmas do, then I'm not surprised Pulis nutted the spoilt prick.

Bloke me Dad knows used to play with Pulis. Speaks highly of him and also reckons he's as hard as they come.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...