News:

"At Christmas I no more desire a rose Than wish a snow in May's new-fangled mirth; But like of each thing that in season grows."


Football Thread 2021/22: pre-seasons in the abyss

Started by sevendaughters, June 08, 2021, 10:22:01 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Utter Shit

Horrible injury for Elliott, who is (hopefully still) going to be a superstar. I expected to see him called up to the next England squad before yesterday.

It's sort of besides the point in the grand scheme of things given Elliott's now facing a year out and may never be the same player, but the hand-wringing over the tackle is ridiculous.

The way the injury occurred was impossible to legislate for - as far as Struijk is concerned the ball is there to be won fairly. He hasn't gone in with excessive force, he's won the ball cleanly without making contact with the man (with his leading foot), and the injury has come from a freak clash with both of their trailing legs...if you're going to define it as reckless on the basis that an injury of this type CAN happen, that is a de facto ban on sliding tackles, arguably a ban on tackles of any kind.

That sounds like an exaggeration, but it really isn't. It is not possible to tackle in a way that eliminates the possibility of serious injury entirely, tackling creates the possibility of this sort of freak injury. All you can do is take care not to tackle dangerously or with excessive force, which Struijk did. Intention is obviously not relevant, but the argument is whether or not Struijk could reasonably have anticipated that he was putting Elliott at risk with that tackle, and to me it's pretty clear that he couldn't have.

EDIT: Oh and obviously pay no attention to bgmnts. Getting you to react is the point. His posts aren't opinions, they don't mean anything.

phantom_power

Yeah there are people saying that the more relaxed refereeing this season was a factor in this injury but that is nonsense. I haven't seen a more aggressive level of tackling going on this season at all

bgmnts

Quote from: Blinder Data on September 13, 2021, 12:54:20 PM
What's wrong with you?

I dont know but I'm genuinely actually legitimately really happy a young lad may have possibly ruined his career obviously.

Wasn't that bad anyway as it turns out. Gutted.

Quote from: Utter Shit on September 13, 2021, 01:16:17 PM
EDIT: Oh and obviously pay no attention to bgmnts. Getting you to react is the point. His posts aren't opinions, they don't mean anything.

Or i was being ironic but who could possibly know? It's likely I do really enjoy people hurting themselves badly and it turns me on. I wish I meant as much as you though :(

dr beat

Quote from: holyzombiejesus on September 12, 2021, 09:53:38 PM
A one-time Mens Health cover star, he also moonlighted as an "exotic" model under the name of Rupert Paddington Gomez. After we released him, he joined Burton and upon his return to Vale Park, he conceded 7 (seven).

Did he dress up in a duffel coat and pose with marmalade sandwiches, or a red jumper and yellow checked kecks?

Chollis

September 13, 2021, 02:31:24 PM #1414 Last Edit: September 13, 2021, 02:44:01 PM by Chollis
Quote from: Utter Shit on September 13, 2021, 01:16:17 PM
The way the injury occurred was impossible to legislate for - as far as Struijk is concerned the ball is there to be won fairly. He hasn't gone in with excessive force, he's won the ball cleanly without making contact with the man (with his leading foot), and the injury has come from a freak clash with both of their trailing legs...if you're going to define it as reckless on the basis that an injury of this type CAN happen, that is a de facto ban on sliding tackles, arguably a ban on tackles of any kind.

load of shite.

no "excessive force"? he's gone flying (literally) into him from behind, both feet off the ground, and his knee has forcefully landed on the back of Elliott's ankle. you can say the severity of the injury was unlucky but you're asking for trouble by taking both your feet off the ground at speed.

"won the ball cleanly with his leading foot" what? so you can go flying into someone's ankle with your knee and it's "won the ball cleanly", as long as it's not your leading knee?

don't really care whether it was a red or whether it's down to the new refereeing approach, but the way you're characterising the injury as a freak accident is bollocks.

Kankurette

Quote from: Blinder Data on September 13, 2021, 12:54:20 PM
What's wrong with you?
That's football fandom for you. "How's your leg, how's your leg, Seamus Coleman?" etc.

Wonderful Butternut

Quote from: bgmnts on September 13, 2021, 02:02:51 PM
Or i was being ironic but who could possibly know? It's likely I do really enjoy people hurting themselves badly and it turns me on. I wish I meant as much as you though :(

It's okay, I got it.

Idk how anyone interpreted it as serious tbh.

chveik

Quote from: Utter Shit on September 13, 2021, 01:16:17 PM
Horrible injury for Elliott, who is (hopefully still) going to be a superstar. I expected to see him called up to the next England squad before yesterday.

It's sort of besides the point in the grand scheme of things given Elliott's now facing a year out and may never be the same player, but the hand-wringing over the tackle is ridiculous.

The way the injury occurred was impossible to legislate for - as far as Struijk is concerned the ball is there to be won fairly. He hasn't gone in with excessive force, he's won the ball cleanly without making contact with the man (with his leading foot), and the injury has come from a freak clash with both of their trailing legs...if you're going to define it as reckless on the basis that an injury of this type CAN happen, that is a de facto ban on sliding tackles, arguably a ban on tackles of any kind.

That sounds like an exaggeration, but it really isn't. It is not possible to tackle in a way that eliminates the possibility of serious injury entirely, tackling creates the possibility of this sort of freak injury. All you can do is take care not to tackle dangerously or with excessive force, which Struijk did. Intention is obviously not relevant, but the argument is whether or not Struijk could reasonably have anticipated that he was putting Elliott at risk with that tackle, and to me it's pretty clear that he couldn't have.

EDIT: Oh and obviously pay no attention to bgmnts. Getting you to react is the point. His posts aren't opinions, they don't mean anything.

is this is a bit? it was very dangerous, tackling from behind almost always is.

Utter Shit

Quote from: Chollis on September 13, 2021, 02:31:24 PM
load of shite.

no "excessive force"? he's gone flying (literally) into him from behind, both feet off the ground, and his knee has forcefully landed on the back of Elliott's ankle. you can say the severity of the injury was unlucky but you're asking for trouble by taking both your feet off the ground at speed.

"won the ball cleanly with his leading foot" what? so you can go flying into someone's ankle with your knee and it's "won the ball cleanly", as long as it's not your leading knee?

don't really care whether it was a red or whether it's down to the new refereeing approach, but the way you're characterising the injury as a freak accident is bollocks.

Could anyone reasonably expect that making that tackle would endanger the player? I wouldn't say so. Struijk has gone in with his leading foot knowing that he can win the ball without even touching Elliott. There is presumably an awareness that his trailing leg could make contact, but not to the extent that it could cause injury.

I'll probably get accused of ad hominem here but I don't really care at this point because it happens all the time and does my head in: too many football fans are so wrapped up in their bias that they lose all perspective. The majority of neutrals recognise that this was an unfortunate accident rather than a bad foul. Yet the overwhelming majority of fans from the club affected are convinced it was something more sinister. In my opinion it is their emotion leading them to that belief rather than the evidence in front of them.

Probably shouldn't have bothered saying that, but it pisses me off so there you have it.

chveik


Utter Shit

Quote from: chveik on September 13, 2021, 03:14:39 PM
is this is a bit? it was very dangerous, tackling from behind almost always is.

You'll forgive me for pointing out that you also thought Pickford's tackle was a 'blatant attempt to injure the player'.

phantom_power

It wasn't a classic "tackle from behind" where you go through the player to get to the ball. An attempt was made to hook round the player to kick the ball from the front of him but he was a bit clumsy and his other leg hit the back of Elliott's leg. These sort of tackles happen all the time and mainly result in no risk of injury at all. It was bad execution that caused the injury, which was a) unintentional and b) dictated by a split second movement of the body where 99 times out of a 100 would have resulted in nothing more than the opposition player being bundled over

chveik

Quote from: Utter Shit on September 13, 2021, 03:47:27 PM
You'll forgive me for pointing out that you also thought Pickford's tackle was a 'blatant attempt to injure the player'.

i didn't say that one was intentional.

Chollis

Quote from: Utter Shit on September 13, 2021, 03:41:49 PM
Could anyone reasonably expect that making that tackle would endanger the player?
um, yes?

Quote from: Utter Shit on September 13, 2021, 03:41:49 PMStruijk has gone in with his leading foot knowing that he can win the ball without even touching Elliott. There is presumably an awareness that his trailing leg could make contact, but not to the extent that it could cause injury.

i don't care about intent, i don't think there was any. i'm sure he calculated what he was doing with his leading leg and won the ball with it, but he's completely lost control of his trailing leg because he's flying, and it's landed directly on a planted ankle. it's the definition of reckless.

Quote from: Utter Shit on September 13, 2021, 03:41:49 PMI'll probably get accused of ad hominem here but I don't really care at this point because it happens all the time and does my head in: too many football fans are so wrapped up in their bias that they lose all perspective. The majority of neutrals recognise that this was an unfortunate accident rather than a bad foul. Yet the overwhelming majority of fans from the club affected are convinced it was something more sinister. In my opinion it is their emotion leading them to that belief rather than the evidence in front of them.

Probably shouldn't have bothered saying that, but it pisses me off so there you have it.

lol, nice try. you've made no secret of your animosity towards LFC before, the idea you're a neutral viewing this without bias is as laughable as me claiming the same. i don't think there's anything "sinister" going on, i think it was an unfortunate accident in the sense that 9/10 times it wouldn't result in a snapped leg but i still think it's a bad tackle. of course the injury has affected the referee's decision but i really don't understand why this red card is so controversial to some people. 

Utter Shit

Quote from: chveik on September 13, 2021, 04:12:58 PM
i didn't say that one was intentional.

You sure?

Quote from: bgmnts on January 20, 2021, 04:17:23 PM
I do, however, think that a blatant attempt to injure a player is mega cunty and the fact that there was no punishment is a bit mental.

Quote from: Utter Shit on January 20, 2021, 04:40:08 PM
[citation needed]

Quote from: chveik on January 20, 2021, 04:47:59 PM
just watch the video, it's not too hard to find

chveik


Utter Shit

My mistake, it reads like you're talking about the Pickford one.


Gurke and Hare

Quote from: Utter Shit on September 13, 2021, 03:41:49 PMYet the overwhelming majority of fans from the club affected are convinced it was something more sinister.

The overwhelming majority of the fans of that club are convinced there's something sinister going on whenever the other team gets awarded a throw-in, to be fair.

finnquark

Quote from: holyzombiejesus on September 12, 2021, 09:53:38 PM
Is that Stuart 'Tank' Tomlinson?

Yeah we had him for 3 games I think, incredibly bad. I think we used 6 keepers that season. I genuinely think a documentary could and probably should be made about it. The number of players who never played football again after being at Moss Lane during that season is absurd.

I was at the penultimate game of the season where, already down, we scored a scruffy late winner at Curzon Ashton. Matt Doughty was in temporary charge, and had taken about 10 points from 60 available. Anyway, when this goal went in he and his assistant ran onto the pitch a la Fergie and Kidd, going mental about winning late on. That was probably the most embarrassing thing I've ever seen at a game.

Kankurette

Rafa's bunged Coleman and Digne in midfield. When's the last time an Everton manager did that?

Struijk's tackle was legit, wasn't it? Just poorly executed.

jamiefairlie

Quote from: Kankurette on September 13, 2021, 08:00:41 PM
Rafa's bunged Coleman and Digne in midfield. When's the last time an Everton manager did that?

Struijk's tackle was legit, wasn't it? Just poorly executed.

Yeah but deciding to do something that's legit but if you do it badly is dangerous, makes it reckless and risky.

holyzombiejesus

Quote from: finnquark on September 13, 2021, 05:17:09 PM
Yeah we had him for 3 games I think, incredibly bad. I think we used 6 keepers that season. I genuinely think a documentary could and probably should be made about it. The number of players who never played football again after being at Moss Lane during that season is absurd.


We had a similar season when we used loads of keepers. It was after our chairman had engineered the resignation of Rob Page by telling him his playing budget had been slashed by 50% (it hadn't). Page left, chairman advertised for a replacement and Jose Mourinho rang him, recommending his friend Bruno Ribeiro and hinting we'd be given first dibs on loads of promising Manchester United 'youngsters'. The United youth were not forthcoming so our chairman decided to buy a load of players from European 2nd and 3rd tiers, all touted by the same agent who doubled as a Coca-Cola importer. Some that we signed arrived in the UK, took a look round Burslem and then asked for their contracts to be cancelled. We got through 49 players that season (think we actually played Altrincham pre-season), got relegated and, just when things couldn't get any worse, gave Michael Brown the manager's job.

QuoteFollowing the decision of Rob Page to leave Port Vale to manage Northampton Town at the end of the 2015–16 campaign a number of names were linked with the Vale job. Chairman Norman Smurthwaite hinted of three "outstanding" candidates, which The Sentinel reported as being Brian Little, Paul Dickov, and José Morais. Bookmakers initially listed Michael Brown as the odds-on favourite, before switching to Morais, then Shefki Kuqi, and then Bruno Ribeiro. He made Dutch centre-back Kjell Knops his first signing of the season, who had spent the previous five years in the Eerste Divisie with MVV Maastricht. A day later, Curaçao under-20 striker Rigino Cicilia was signed after being released by Dutch side Roda JC Kerkrade.The next to join were French midfielders Quentin Pereira and Anthony de Freitas. Another Dutch centre-back, Calvin Mac-Intosch, was then signed from Cambuur.

The next trio to arrive were all Portuguese: midfielder Paulo Tavares and left-back Kiko, both from Vitória Setúbal, and striker Carlos Saleiro from Oriental.[8] A ninth new arrival followed, Chris Mbamba, a Zimbabwean-born former Sweden under-17 international winger from Norwegian 2. Divisjon club HamKam. Bookmakers made Vale second favourites for relegation, though Smurthwaite intimated that he expected the club to reach the play-offs.

Kankurette

September 13, 2021, 09:30:19 PM #1432 Last Edit: September 13, 2021, 09:51:31 PM by Kankurette
I'm working atm and just checked the Everton score. That escalated quickly. Burnley are, as usual, being shitbags but they're a horrible team to break down so I'm amazed Everton managed to get anything tbh, not to mention Calvert-Lewin is out.

The first tweet I saw said 'bring Michael Keane off', so it's just as well Benitez doesn't read the bullshit our fans tweet.

ETA: Richarlison is throwing his toys out of the pram again.

Chedney Honks

Nobody wants to see players getting injured but unless tackling is banned, freak accidents will unfortunately happen. All the best to a fine young player, one of the best I've seen in the last few years. Van Dijk has shown that it's possible to come back at a professional level after a freak injury, so hopefully that will give the youngster encouragement during the darker days ahead.

Lord Mandrake

Quote from: Chedney Honks on September 13, 2021, 10:12:53 PMVan Dijk has shown that it's possible to come back at a professional level after a psychotic freak injured him.

Echo Valley 2-6809

Benitez looks knackered. Can't be much fun waking up every half-an-hour thinking you heard someone in the garden.


Utter Shit

Quote from: Chollis on September 13, 2021, 04:21:41 PM
lol, nice try. you've made no secret of your animosity towards LFC before, the idea you're a neutral viewing this without bias is as laughable as me claiming the same. i don't think there's anything "sinister" going on, i think it was an unfortunate accident in the sense that 9/10 times it wouldn't result in a snapped leg but i still think it's a bad tackle. of course the injury has affected the referee's decision but i really don't understand why this red card is so controversial to some people. 

You've got your cause and effect the wrong way around. I don't think Liverpool fans are reactionary and biased because I dislike them, I dislike them because they are reactionary and biased (or at least a bigger proportion than at most clubs are).

I'm not going to deny that I tend to dislike a lot of Liverpool fans, but I like to think I can separate my emotions from the evidence in front of me. If it was bias, I'd be piling in on Arsenal and Chelsea fans too, but I don't because it isn't endemic to their fans. It's a pet peeve of mine, seeing people mould reality to fit their pre-existing beliefs, and is now popping up in more serious situations like with Covid deniers, anti-Vaxxers, Brexit voters etc so I'm more attuned to it.

The red card is controversial because the referee is not supposed to base his decision on the outcome of a tackle. In a contact sport, ANY tackle could lead to a serious injury. Son broke Gomes' leg by tripping him. David Busst had his leg turned to powder just by running into Brian McClair and Denis Irwin. Gary Charles injured Paul Gascoigne by existing in the physical realm and thus giving Gascoigne something hard to slam into when he threw himself into a crazy tackle in the '91 cup final.

If you want to prevent the risk of injury (almost) entirely, then you essentially need to make it non-contact. If that's not a palatable end point, then you have to accept that tackles like Struijk's, which would cause no damage 99.9% of the time, are legitimate but that one time in a thousand it could cause an injury.

I think most football fans - and players - would prefer to accept that tiny risk than to eliminate it but massively take away from one of the thrills of the game.

phantom_power

Players understand these risks and hasn't Ellliott stated that he doesn't think it was Struijk's fault?

Gurke and Hare

Why was Klopp still moaning at the fourth official after Struijk had been sent off? What did he want them to do at that point?