Andy Cook

Pep needs a Plan B.

Clearly lacking.

Can't see them doing owt this season if they aren't adaptable.

 

Now on 12 goals L2 goals. Has anyone noticed George Miller is just 3 behind him?

Strongly linked with him in the summer. Alot were against his return but looks like he would have been a decent option. Better than Harratt, Angol and Oliver anyway.

 

Loves a good "I was right in hindsight" post does SP.

How's the "Bowen for England" campaign going? I'm assuming he'll rip it up in the world cup?

 

Never claimed I was right. I wasnt against. Just shows folk like you up again, sneering and knowing best.

Much better than your Jesse for England nonsense - thats for sure.

 

Until you realise Jesse has played more times for England than Bowen since you made the call.

Southgate is right though, neither are good enough at present.

I also agreed with the Miller shout, he'd have been a decent squad member in my mind, I'm just missing the Lingard rows

 

I dont disagree. Bowen has tailed off. That said he would have gone to a summer world cup. Still think he has a future though....

Yeh Millers numbers stack up. Certainly looks a better option than the current crop. AC aside.

 

Hard to quantify that as if we had signed Miller instead of Oliver he would be the one warmingbthe bench and getting been minutes here and there.

 

Miller would be the one playing instead of Cook i'd expect, not with him. Far too similar.

 

Dont know if it's been mentioned but was he offside yesterday,looked it to me

 

The referee and linesman didn't think he was.

 

A very good decision by the ref/ lino.

Cook wasn't offside when the pass/ shot was played by Chapman and the ball then took a deflection by a Sutton player, so Cook was adjudged to have received the ball from the Sutton player.

VERY fine lines.

 

Now for a question on the offside law. Assume Cook was offside when Eisa hit the shot. Does the contact on the ball from the defender have to be intentional to remove the offside hanging over Cook?

 

No if Cook wasn't interfering with the "shot" phase of play.

The contact of the ball with the defender is a different phase of play.

The question of "intention" is irrelevant.

 

If Cook was offside when Eisa hit it, the deflection from the defender wouldn’t matter. He’d be offside and the goal shouldn’t have stood. In realtime, he looked a mile off, but watching the replay I think he’s just onside. The defender is pushing out and he’s closing in, so its very tight, but just on I think.

 

We have a different application over here (seemingly all levels belowMLS). It says basically that if a player in an offside position receives the ball from an unintentional deflection off a defender, the offside stands. However, if the contact by the defender is deemed intentional, that scrubs away the offside.
Probably just another of those weird interpretations/ applications when playing soccerball in the good ol’ US of A.

 

Offside/ onside who cares if he was off then ain’t it about time that we got the odd decision going in our favour ?????

 

Nope.

 

I was under the impression the game rules are the same the world over. The World Cup would be a farce if the refs all played to different applications or variations of the rules?

 

If anyone thinks Cook was off side look again….Nowhere near!

@3min 40 secs in and then Banks’s goal from a different angle…wow.

 

All about timing the run which Cook did superbly.