Post Match Birmingham 2 Leicester 0

[indierich06]

we seem to be lacking width big time, which wasn't as much of a problem last season when we had Naughton, Cunningham/PvA - they might have neglected their defensive duties every now and then, but they created a lot of our goals with some good overlapping runs down the flanks - Peltier is good, but Naughton was just different class. As for Konch, he hasn't got the legs to beat players and for someone who is reputed to have a good left foot, his delivery has left a lot to be desired.

I'd be happier to see Greg Cunningham back at the club, or maybe someone like Ryan Bertrand on loan from Chelsea, who seems like he would be suited to a side like this.

 

[Yorkshire Vixen]

Chris Burke, played the last couple of years at Cardiff and he always seems to do well against us.

The worst thing for me during the match, was my girlfriend shouting 'NUGGET!!!' whenever Nugent popped up on screen. Almost as bad as her spending the whole of A New Hope calling Chewie 'Chuddeh'.

Ha ha that could quite easily be me :icon_lol:

 

[Hazzman]

It was looking like a 0-0 all day until they got their penalty, that was the only way they were gonna score.

Agreed. The over-reaction on here is OTT. Back in August, I considered us average. We're still average. Seven unbeaten, it was never going to continue, sometimes you have those 'days'.

The whole TB assumptions start again, no-one's defended Mills. Everyone says it was a poor challenge, I just don't think it deserves the calls of thug etc. You're rather naive if you think a defender never challenges the ball without some intent of making the opposition feel a bit sore.

 

[consty]

I agree completely with a few posters who have pointed out that we started the game too defensively and played with not enough width. We should really have gone into the interval 2-0 ahead given the superiority in possession we had and how lacking in attacking ability/ideas the opposition were. We could & should have had a far more one-sided first half than we actually had. Thus we could have come away with something from this game even given the events that transpired in the 2nd half. I have cause for concern about how we might fare in future if this is the managements preferred way of deploying our playing resources.

In the Derby game, Danns played wide. It worked. In this game he was clearly instructed to play inside with a tight midfield. In the Derby game Konchesky was given licence to go forward in this game he seemed to have been told to be more cautious - though away from home I appreciate this modification to the way you play your left back was justified BUT to combine it with nulifying the width and depth solutions that Danns on the right gave us against Derby was a huge error of tactical judgement. Danns or someone else should have played out wide.
The team needs width. Unfortunately SGE doesn't seem to agree. He needs to play somone out wide or play an out and out winger.

It's almost looking ridiculous and blindingly obvious that this is what we need, except to one man.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

The whole TB assumptions start again, no-one's defended Mills. Everyone says it was a poor challenge, I just don't think it deserves the calls of thug etc. You're rather naive if you think a defender never challenges the ball without some intent of making the opposition feel a bit sore.

There's a difference between wanting to make the opposition "a bit sore" and jumping in with full force and both feet off the ground. No I'm not being naive, challenges like that have absolutely no place in the game and any defender who thinks it's okay to go into challenges like that and with that attitude should be banned from the game for life, it was a leg breaking challenge.

 

[Hazzman]

with that attitude should be banned from the game for life, it was a leg breaking challenge.

Regardless of Mills challenge, I am scratching my head thinking of the last time a player was banned for a life-time for a tackle and I am also struggling to think of a time this season that a player suffered a leg-breaker through a challenge.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

Why does it matter whether a player was banned before for doing it? I was giving my own opinion. And I can't say I've seen many challenges as bad as that this season so far, the Birmingham player was lucky he didn't get much contact made, but that was undoubtedly the kind of challenge that can break an opposition players leg if he feels the full force of it, particularly given the way Mills wrapped his legs round the player.

 

[Miles Away]

It's clear Prof has made his mind up, so I won't bother with any counterpoint.

Turgid stuff, thought Danns played very poorly. Set pieces, in particular, aren't up to snuff, with both Danns and Konchesky sailing corners and free kicks aimlessly.

The winger should have been booked for the foul on Peltier and I thought the ref bottled it once he saw the tackler was on a booking.

Ah well, Birmingham are a tough team at home. 6 points from the next 2 games and things will look better. Sven will be able to field the lineup he wants, as opposed to sticking with the same side and that will do us some good.

 

[RHYDAL]

Ha ha that could quite easily be any woman :icon_lol:

Harsh but fair.

 

[camberwell fox]

I don't think prof is being unfair.

I Play football (badly) and it is a completely unnatural kind of challenge to make. To dive in that way is calcated and thuggish and deserves a ban significantly longer than three games were it possible.

Using schmeichel's poor clearance as a means to defend this tackle is flawed in mr opinion.

 

[Jeff]

Using schmeichel's poor clearance as a means to defend this tackle is flawed in mr opinion.

No one has defended the tackle. The difference of opinion is whether he went in to win the ball or to injure an opponent. It was definitely reckless and it was right that he was sent off.

 

[Mawsley]

I don't think prof is being unfair.

Me neither.

 

[Hazzman]

I don't think prof is being unfair.

I Play football (badly) and it is a completely unnatural kind of challenge to make.

I do too and I'd say that kind of lunge is particularly common when trying to block a ball albeit with your back turned.

Footballers also attempt to a head a ball two yards off the floor too, poor decisions. I wouldn't say calculated.

 

[Miles Away]

It was certainly a poor tackle and he deserved the sending off. Not arguing that point.

It was a poor decision, as were most of Mills' passes. I'm just not ready to label him a thug or ban him for life...I honestly think Mills thought that lunge was the quickest way to get to the ball before the Birmingham player did. He was thinking block, not tackle.

That all said, woeful decision.

 

[bocadillo]

I don't think prof is being unfair.

I Play football (badly) and it is a completely unnatural kind of challenge to make. To dive in that way is calcated and thuggish and deserves a ban significantly longer than three games were it possible.

It is possible in appropriate circumstances.. If the FA site wasn't down I would give you chapter and verse.

 

[Jeff]

If the FA site wasn't down I would give you chapter and verse.

The FA site isn't down.

 

[spionfox]

If the FA site wasn't down I would give you chapter and verse.

The FA site isn't down.

Maybe they are blocking his IP due to previous troublesome activities :icon_wink

 

[bocadillo]

The FA site isn't down.

The section that contains the disciplinary handbook is (or was).

 

[Jeff]

The section that contains the disciplinary handbook is (or was).

I downloaded the disciplinary handbook just after you posted that the site was down. I then tried to upload it here but it's bigger than the allowed file size.

Would you like me to upload it here or email it to you?

 

[bocadillo]

I downloaded the disciplinary handbook just after you posted that the site was down. I then tried to upload it here but it's bigger than the allowed file size.

Would you like me to upload it here or email it to you?

At the time I looked, the relevant part of the site had been replaced by a note that they were having difficulties and would be back again as soon as possible. It's back now.

Sections 6 and 7 deal with circumstances in which the standard punishment is clearly not appropriate; section 6 for when it is excessive and Section 7 for when it is insufficient.

Excerpt from Section 7:
(g) The standard punishment shall be increased where The Association satisfi es the
Commission so that it is sure that:
(i) The circumstances of the dismissal under review are truly exceptional, such that
the standard punishment should not be applied; and
(ii) The standard punishment would be clealy insufficient.

(h) In considering the matters at (g) above, the Commission shall have regard to:
(a) The applicable Law(s) of the Game and any relevant FIFA instructions and/or
guidelines;
(b) The nature of the dismissal offence, and particular any intent, recklessness,
negligence or other state of mind of the Player;
(c) Where applicable, the level of force used;
(d) Any injury to an opponent caused by the dismissal offence;
(e) Any other impact on the game in which the dismissal occurred;
(f) The prevalence of the type of offence in question in football generally;
(g) The wider interests of football in applying consistent punishments for dismissal offences

I can't see any way though that the incident under discussion would be regarded as exceptional.