Brighton 2-1 Leicester post match

[Phil Bowman]

5 minutes ago, Jakemoore said:

to play an out of form no.10 on the wing and then watch on for 45 minutes whilst he barely spent any time out wide

Regardless of whether or not he should be in the team, surely this suggests that he wasn’t in fact played on the wing?

[moore_94]

4 minutes ago, Jakemoore said:

Don’t get me wrong their first goal was a shocking joke of a decision and our first disallowed goal should have stood. But that doesn’t excuse the awful decision to play an out of form no.10 on the wing and then watch on for 45 minutes whilst he barely spent any time out wide. I don’t know what BR is trying to do. I’m all for sticking with out of form players to try and regain their form/confidence but playing players who are out of form out of position is not the answer. In fact, it’s probably just dented Maddison’s confidence further. We always seem to play when we’ve already lost the game. We didn’t it at westham last season and again this and then again today. It’s easy to play when you’re already 2 down. 

I think the kind of idea of what he wanted from Maddison was he wanted him to be like Perez where he drifts inside and allows Ricardo to have full reign of the right wing

 

Problem was even when drifting inside Maddison did nothing, and he didn't even do any of the pressing or interplay with Ricardo that even Perez can do at times

[katieakita]

Thing i cannot get my head around is if Barnes is offside and interfering with play though the keeper would not have got to either how can Maupay pulling the arm of Vestergaard not be considered to be interfering with play, i can understand a useless ref like Atwell missing it but not the VAR Officials. More worrying is the fact they did deserve to be 2-0 the Manager deserves credit for us picking up with the changes he made but he is also responsible for the wretched 1st 60 minutes. We can take positives from how we finished and the form of some players picking up and maybe we can use the injustice to fire us up. Maybe Youri has turned the corner because he has struggled and was very poor first half. Barnes looked better as did Ricky P and Lookman made a big difference

[dorsetboy]

for me the team more a less picks itself 

 

thomas and barnes combine well as a left side, ricardo and lookman seem to do really well as a right side , vardy and nacho play well together and ndidi and tielmans are very good together in the middle 

 

---------------------kasper-------------------------

ricardo------soyenchu-----vestergaard--- thomas

-----------------ndidi----------tielmans--------------

lookman-------------nacho--------------barnes-----

------------------------vardy------------------------------

 

can also be swapped ingame quite easy to 4-4-2 or a 4-1-2-1-2 with youri moving into cam role 

[turtmcfly]

9 minutes ago, sacreblueits442 said:

...I thought the directive was not to raise the flag and leave the decision to the referee and VAR!!!

As soon as the flag is raised the players react to it, he may have then being found to be onside but the defending team have already stopped playing and awaiting the ball for a free kick. This description is in no way a comment on todays incident, just a general comment on the assistants involvement in the game.

 

Eh? 

 

These were decisions made after the goals went in, at least in terms of the ref blowing up. No one stopped play.

 

You're talking about letting a potential offside run on until 'completion' (which I'm not sure they're still doing anyway) 

Edited 19 September 2021 by turtmcfly

[Parafox]

2 hours ago, smr said:

Absolutely nuts. There is no way on Earth that the officials haven't been bribed a heavy wad of money for this game. It's literally unbelievable.

By who?

[StriderHiryu]

3 minutes ago, dorsetboy said:

for me the team more a less picks itself 

 

thomas and barnes combine well as a left side, ricardo and lookman seem to do really well as a right side , vardy and nacho play well together and ndidi and tielmans are very good together in the middle 

 

---------------------kasper-------------------------

ricardo------soyenchu-----vestergaard--- thomas

-----------------ndidi----------tielmans--------------

lookman-------------nacho--------------barnes-----

------------------------vardy------------------------------

 

can also be swapped ingame quite easy to 4-4-2 or a 4-1-2-1-2 with youri moving into cam role 

That team, or replace Nacho with Soumare and play 433 instead of 4231, like we did today.

 

Against Burnley, given their physical approach we are probably better playing 433. We signed players like Verstergaard and Soumare to be better prepared against physical threats, so let's see if that's true or not. What I would expect to happen then is that Burnley play a deep block and though we get lots of possession don't create much. But I'd rather we dominate the game first and then try to pick the lock rather than starting like we did today and let the other team dictate the play.

[adam95581]

13 minutes ago, Farrington fox said:

If we don’t beat Burnley next week, there is something seriously amiss. We’ll improve our chances by leaving Maddison bertrand and perez on the bench!

What has Bertrand done wrong?

[deep blue]

1 hour ago, Cadno'r Cymoedd said:

Does anyone here believe Bertrand is a better option than playing Luke Thomas? 

I don't.

[Phil Bowman]

2 hours ago, smr said:

Absolutely nuts. There is no way on Earth that the officials haven't been bribed a heavy wad of money for this game. It's literally unbelievable.

It literally isn’t, although it’s bloody annoying. Two goals disallowed that not even everyone on here can agree whether they should have been or not. And a missed foul before the ‘handball.’ One bad call and two annoyingly similar dubious ones; a bit unusual for them all to go against the same team in one match, but hardly proof (or even evidence) of corruption!

[Number 6]

Having seen the decisions we have been very very harshly treated. I take back any blame on Barnes for the second one. Wasn't in line of sight for either.

[sacreblueits442]

1 hour ago, turtmcfly said:

 

The OP was complaining about not being able to celebrate because of VAR. VAR had nothing to do with anyone's curtailed celebrations. 

 

....oh yes it does, a "goal" is not a goal until it has been checked by VAR!!!

I never get too excited when we score, I know it could be disallowed. It must also affect the players as the euphoria is immediately replaced by anger and you have to mentally readjust to go again and shutdown what ever negative feelings you have, in order to do your job on the pitch.

[drumbeat]

At least Bertrand can take a decent corner. He's almost worth his place in the side for that alone.

 

Tbh, I don't have a problem with him. Good, solid no nonsense pro. He's certainly not one of our big worries. On which note, nice to read there are no daggers out for Cags, despite a couple of rash tackles. And oh so nearly a goal. 

[Parafox]

36 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Yes, my mind keeps going back to the bottle kicking incident. It suggests that this slow, pedestrian build up is really how he wants them to play, and I find that disturbing.

I seem to recall a statement from BR after a game where he said the plan was always to allow the opposition to come on to us in the first half, making them tire and then up the pace in the second half when we (theoretically) have more legs.

[turtmcfly]

10 minutes ago, sacreblueits442 said:

....oh yes it does, a "goal" is not a goal until it has been checked by VAR!!!

I never get too excited when we score, I know it could be disallowed. It must also affect the players as the euphoria is immediately replaced by anger and you have to mentally readjust to go again and shutdown what ever negative feelings you have, in order to do your job on the pitch.

 

All today's decisions were of the old school, on field type that used to happen before VAR. 

 

The only emotion VAR could (and should) have generated today was joy at those decisions being overturned. 

 

 

Edited 19 September 2021 by turtmcfly

[eastendfox]

Having seen the highlights we clearly didn't deserve to lose that. But those are the things that sometimes go against you when your luck is out. Time for the players to up their games to make sure we don't need the decisions of the refs to go the right way. Looks like we're not going to have quite the season we had for the last two which happens, but reckon we'll bounce back soon enough. Number of games we've won not playing well in the last two seasons might just even out.

[turtmcfly]

3 minutes ago, Parafox said:

I seem to recall a statement from BR after a game where he said the plan was always to allow the opposition to come on to us in the first half, making them tire and then up the pace in the second half when we (theoretically) have more legs.

 

He must have been fuming after the first ten minutes

[sacreblueits442]

1 hour ago, RowlattsFox said:

If they went on to disallow every goal where a player is standing in an offside position then fair enough. It would be stupid but at least it's the same for everyone. Seems they've decided they will disallow at corners but not from open play. They've come up with the idea to discourage players standing on the keeper and causing them shit. 

 

...it appears Barnes did not learn from the first incident!!!

You would make sure you do not cost your team a goal by getting caught offside near the keeper, and if it happens make sure it does not happen again.

[StanSP]

1 minute ago, sacreblueits442 said:

...it appears Barnes did not learn from the first incident!!!

You would make sure you do not cost your team a goal by getting caught offside near the keeper, and if it happens make sure it does not happen again.

What if you're near the keeper when the corner is taken, so you're onside, and then step out of the keeper's eyeline when the ball is headed towards goal?

 

How is that Barnes' fault? Barnes has done nothing wrong for the 2nd one. So no, he hasn't cost his team a goal. The misjudged interpretation from the VAR is what has cost the team a goal.

[Livid]

39 minutes ago, sdb said:

That is true, but it was VAR that was even more concerning 

This was always my thing with VAR there’s the same level of incompetence giving the VAR decisions as there is on the pitch. 

[sacreblueits442]

1 hour ago, FoxyLeon said:

"Give Brighton Credit"......

Yes, Brighton are the reason we have looked terrible against Wolves/West Ham/Norwich/Man City/Napoli.

 

 

I thought, like against West Ham, Brighton were very ordinary, and we were multiple goals down because we have no attacking threat.

.....we do have an attacking threat, it was just sitting on the bench waiting to be utilised!!!

[turtmcfly]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

What if you're near the keeper when the corner is taken, so you're onside, and then step out of the keeper's eyeline when the ball is headed towards goal?

 

How is that Barnes' fault? Barnes has done nothing wrong for the 2nd one. So no, he hasn't cost his team a goal. The misjudged interpretation from the VAR is what has cost the team a goal.

 

He's invited the same call by the lino (he is offside) and he's not got much excuse for wondering if VAR is going to deal with it differently the second time. 

 

Given what happened the first time, where was the benefit in doing it a second?

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

3 minutes ago, Livid said:

This was always my thing with VAR there’s the same level of incompetence giving the VAR decisions as there is on the pitch. 

Technology changes but refs are shit forever.

[daddylonglegs]

The rule needs binning. I’d rather have drawn 2-2 at Norwich (and their goal on Kasper stood) and drawn today than what we’ve had.

 

it’s becoming a game that is just ruined by jobsworths with headsets on.

[StanSP]

3 minutes ago, turtmcfly said:

 

He's invited the same call by the lino (he is offside) and he's not got much excuse for wondering if VAR is going to deal with it differently the second time. 

 

Given what happened the first time, where was the benefit in doing it a second?

 

That's not for Barnes to dictate though? If his job was to disturb the keeper while onside then that's fair to do i.e. done nothing wrong. Okay he might have been better off not being in the line of sight for the first goal, but the second one he's totally out of the way? 

 

Being offside and standing in an offside position are two very, very different things. Barnes is doing the latter but is not active in the play on the second, hence why the goal should have stood.