Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Purbrook Chimes wrote:
well he was taking the ******, he moved it back slightly, the ref said move it back 4 yards so westcarr took it right off the pitch to the edge of the grass so the ref booked him for taking the ******
As I said earlier, I couldn't see clearly what had happened from where I sit (NSL) but I've just watched it on Pompey Player, and I have to admit he was goading the ref, and got what he deserved with the yellow. It was funny though, and the match was almost at a point where it didn't really matter. I think a good ref would have seen the funny side of it and pretended to wave a yellow card at him. The crowd would have loved it too
Far Post Brisley wrote:I missed the game. What was the ridiculous booking I heard about? Sense of humour failure from ref apparently..
I assume it was the Westarr booking you are talking about? If so, yes, it was ridiculous. As I saw it from the other side of the ground, Dan Butler won us a free kick deep in their half over in the corner of the South Stand and Fratton End. Westcarr teed it up take it, and was told by the ref to move it back. He did so, albeit a bit slowly and deliberately, but apparently moved it too far back, only to get told to bring it forward a bit. He then got booked for time wasting!!! It was pathetic, but the ref, Carl Berry, has quite a bit of history.
well he was taking the ******, he moved it back slightly, the ref said move it back 4 yards so westcarr took it right off the pitch to the edge of the grass so the ref booked him for taking the ******
Sense of humor bypass or not, what happens if he gets a suspension for a key game after 5 yellow cards..... these things have a habit of biting us in the backside.
Philipians 4:13 I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
Selsey Bill wrote:
Anyway, on to the game. I think that has to be one of the weirdest 3-0 victories I have I ever witnessed, and whilst the Fratton Faithful walked away happy, I suspect there were many mixed feelings amongst the crowd, as for large parts of the game we were poor, especially in the first half.
I agree with that....mixed feelings.
I thought Sir Andy's side was a bit dodgy when I first saw it but waited to see how it worked out....but it was poor. Without the penalty and sending off I'm not sure what the outcome would've been but sometimes you have to roll with it, take the points and make a mental note to sort things out next time.
How we could be second best on possession against D&R, even after they went down to 10 men, I'll never know.
Still, the first goal was magnificent.
Stop looking for solutions to symptoms and start identifying the disease.
Strange game in all honestly. We were very poor @ times, passing constantly astray. Then a brilliant goal totally out of character with what was going on. 2nd half we huffed & puffed, they get a player sent off & we get a pen. After that we did exactly what we should do v 10 men & took advantage. Last 25mins was decent.
Things that stood out, 1st half Dan Butler's positional sense was all awry. He settled 2nd half & even put in 2 lovely crosses. The 352 should enable us to control midfield but if anything there was just too many bodies in there, amazing that our passing was so poor & not enough off the ball movement. It was as if the system stifled the life out of us.
Summing up, for me I still dont think Awfs knows his best formation yet. But its noticeable that we look far more dangerous with Jed on the right not in the middle.
pompeygunner wrote:
Things that stood out, 1st half Dan Butler's positional sense was all awry. He settled 2nd half & even put in 2 lovely crosses.
Agree entirely, but I'm not sure it's Dan's fault. He looks more comfortable as a LB than a LWB to me. I don't think his cause was helped by Holland's positioning and performance. Agree about his delivery, especially from a dead ball situation.
pompeygunner wrote:
I don't think [Butler's] cause was helped by Holland's positioning
He looked to be hiding first half, tbh. As pompeygunner said, not enough movement off the ball which meant the man in possession had few options so even though we had a whole bunch of people in midfield, D&R kept ball a lot better.
Stop looking for solutions to symptoms and start identifying the disease.
pompeygunner wrote:
I don't think [Butler's] cause was helped by Holland's positioning
He looked to be hiding first half, tbh.
It's interesting you say that EG because we sit in NSL and saw a lot of him in the first half. I personally don't think he was hiding, I just don't think he was quite sure where he should be. He looked a little confused to me at times, and I repeat, I don't think Hollands helped matters. I agree though that D & R kept the ball far better and completely controlled midfield in the first half, even though they had 4 men to our 5.
pompeygunner wrote:
I don't think [Butler's] cause was helped by Holland's positioning
He looked to be hiding first half, tbh.
It's interesting you say that EG because we sit in NSL and saw a lot of him in the first half. I personally don't think he was hiding, I just don't think he was quite sure where he should be. He looked a little confused to me at times, and I repeat, I don't think Hollands helped matters. I agree though that D & R kept the ball far better and completely controlled midfield in the first half, even though they had 4 men to our 5.
Its not just Hollands (is he the new scapegoat?). A wing-back is also reliant on their sided centre-back. Who was playing left-side of the three? Robinson or Whatmough? If it was Whatmough then that's an inexperienced duo on the left.
Lost in Transportation wrote:Its not just Hollands (is he the new scapegoat?). A wing-back is also reliant on their sided centre-back. Who was playing left-side of the three? Robinson or Whatmough? If it was Whatmough then that's an inexperienced duo on the left.
Whatmough played on the left side. I don't think Butler did anything wrong, however - if you play as wing-back, you have to take forward positions and this will mean you are a long way from defence if your team-mates pass to the other team. And this happened a lot. My suspicion is that Butler was asked to get forward much more than Wynter, and simply did as instructed - if the ball had actually reached him a few times, all would have been well. My problem with Butler is that when people run at him he stands side-on, which I think makes things easy for opponents.
Miss Tickle's bottom wrote:My problem with Butler is that when people run at him he stands side-on, which I think makes things easy for opponents.
Spot on, and it showed on Tuesday as Porter and Cureton got past Dan far too easily on a number of occasions, especially in the first half. Most of their attacks came down the right.
Miss Tickle's bottom wrote: My problem with Butler is that when people run at him he stands side-on, which I think makes things easy for opponents.
Standard text-book coaching for defending is knees-bent, body at an angle. Is his body actually parallel to the direction of the attacking run, or is it at something of a 45degree angle? If you were to stand fully face-on, you would be unable to react quick enough to the attacker's moves.
I before E except when you run a feisty heist on a weird beige foreign neighbour
the_lock_man wrote:Standard text-book coaching for defending is knees-bent, body at an angle. Is his body actually parallel to the direction of the attacking run, or is it at something of a 45degree angle? If you were to stand fully face-on, you would be unable to react quick enough to the attacker's moves.
His stance when facing an opponent running at him is much closer to 90° than 45°. To my eyes, anyway!
