Match Thread Home v Port Vale Dec 29th 7.00pm

Any player struggling to motivate himself should look at the thousands of fellow footballers not lucky enough to get a contract this season. And he should just be thankful straight up he's even got a job because a hell of a lot of people have lost theirs. Being shit is forgivable because he always has been and he can't help it, not applying himself properly is f*cking criminal in the current climate.

 

Had it been the PV 'keeper on Novak.... we would have been screaming for a penalty. I was quite ( but pleasantly) surprised when it wasn't given.

 

Seen them giving but he did take the ball

 

Oh for sure. It always has been completely unacceptable to not try your hardest - but now it's an utter disgrace.

Just look at Akpan, who has had a better career than Guthrie. Pair of big bottlers

 

I don't think you can compare the two, Dave. An outfield challenge is made with a studded boot - potentially an ankle or leg breaker - hence the 'not in control' law. By contrast, Hornby touched the ball, on the ground, with a gloved hand. Nothing like as dangerous, so I don't think you can apply the 'not in control rule' there.
And also, it's not as though Hornby dived in to grab a ball from the forward's possession. It was a race to reach a through ball - Hornby got there first, diverted the ball and the forward arrived a split second later and fell over Hornby's arm. Unless we've turned football into a non-contact sport I can see nothing wrong with that challenge if he touched the ball, as the ref obviously believed he did.

 

Compare Hornby's challenge to Burnley's 'keeper (Pope?) At Elland Road at the weekend, Offy.
Both very similar. Pope dived at the feet of Bamford in a one-on-one, he threw himself down in front of Bamford and got a touch on the ball, fractionally before Bamford (just like Hornby), Bamford fell over Pope's arm and was flattened. A definite penalty as Pope's attempt was reckless.
To me there was no difference between the two and as another poster has said, if it had been on a City player, we would all have been screaming for a penalty.

 

It was a fifty fifty both went for the ball he timed it just right and took the ball first. But I have seen them given and we would have been calling for a penalty. But that doesn’t mean eit would have been the right decision

 

When does not in control start and finish, I'm not sure it needs to be a leg break before its classed as "not in control" even if he did touch the ball his body took the Vale player out, I said at the time I've seen them given before and thought Hornby got lucky.

I'm not sure he did touch the ball unfortunately it's not on the Sky Sports video so until I watch Dimitry's video of the game I can't say if he got a touch but as you say the ref gave him the benefit of the doubt.

 

I agree, it doesn't have to be a leg break to be not in control. We know from our own examples - Andrew Davies and David Syers spring to mind - that you don't even have to make contact to be dismissed for loss of control in the tackle. But the law exists to prevent serious injury.
What I'm saying is that a keeper sliding in for the ball, on the ground, leading with gloved hands, is nowhere near as dangerous as sliding in with studded boots. So I think the bar for 'not in control' should be higher. Otherwise it leaves keepers hung out to dry in situations like that on Tuesday. If they can't challenge in those circumstances, for fear of getting sent off, what are they supposed to do - wait on their goal line and give the forward an easy shot on goal?

 

So are we saying that any time a player falls over a keeper's arm, or a player's leg, when they arrive fractionally later than the opponent who got to the ball first, that that's a reckless tackle? Jesus wept - we might as well ban tackling and make it a non contact sport. Knocks and falls are part of the game. Arriving late and hurting a player is obviously a foul, and may require a card, depending on how late, high, forceful etc. Going for a ball you have no realistic chance of reaching without causing injury, likewise. But, in a genuine 50/50 race for the ball (as with Hornby on Tuesday) if you get there first and touch the ball and the (later) opponent then falls over you, that's just part of the game, surely?

 

I'm not sure if that's not the way the people running the game want to go, tackling from anywhere but the front gets the player a ticking off or a yellow, reading an article the other day where it said heading the ball would not be part of the modern game going forward.
We both go back to when football was a very different animal equipment wise and the actual game, even though the powers that be claiming its the ball striking the head that's causing dementia not a ball weighing several pounds when soaking wet with a lace, several inches long and a couple of inches wide, I know which ball I'd rather head.

 

I think heading is a different issue. I'm sure you're correct that the old non-coated footballs, that became like a medicine ball when wet, were far more dangerous than the modern ones. But modern neuroscience has revealed that any form of blow to the head causes damage, because the brain collides with the skull, and that it's cumulative. So I fear that we are moving to a time when heading is outlawed, all but the most innocuous tackles are banned and the game becomes like upsized five a side football.

I remember reading an interview with Xabi Alonso a couple of years ago, about his time at Liverpool. He was completely nonplussed by the way British fans would get fired up by a well-timed crunching tackle. He said that he, and other Spanish players, saw tackling as a failure, because it meant that you had surrendered possession. In his book, football was all about retaining possession by slick passing and moving, avoiding physical challenges if at all possible. Defenders' job was to shepherd opposing attackers into non dangerous areas and force them to give the ball away, rather than to challenge for it. It was a totally different conception of how the game should be played, and one which seems increasingly influential.

 

I get what you are saying about ball weight, but the counter argument is that lighter balls arrive faster and hit the head harder than the old leather ones did.

Guess we won't know until players from today start dropping with dementia, by which time you and I will have shuffled off.

 

Yes that was mentioned in the article, and as @Offcomedun says any header effects the brain as it collides with the skull it will finish up like 5 aside football the ball cant go above head high.

 

There's something in this, its surprising stat wise how few tackles players make these days. Even in the lower leagues hoofball is gradually becoming a thing of the past due to teams valuing the ball more.

 

Guardiola very well known not to coach his defenders how to tackle, apart from professional fouls on transitions of course. I also think its shown in the scorelines we get these days, I might be wrong but it feels like there's more and more fifa 7-1 battering style scorelines nowadays

 

similar story comes from Paul Ince when talking about his move to Inter from Man United. couldn't understand why fans in the San Siro wouldn't applaud when he made a raking cross field pass when in England it would be - when he asked he was told, "you're a midfielder. here, it's what is expected of you."

 

The first time I went to a game in Spain I applauded such a pass, as would be the norm over here, I soon realised I was the only one and the people sat nearby looked at me like I was nuts.

 

I see Mansfield pumped Port Vale 4-0 today. I hope a decent striker is one of the first bodies in the building.

 

Agree. These were there for the taking the other night but most seemed happy with a point.

Big games coming up as Stevenage and Mansfield winning makes it very tight down the bottom now