GWT: PL Matchweek 4

[Live in the Now]

I’ve been sitting in the emergency room for hours bored as shit. So I was going through the long extended highlights of a few games. The tussle between Tanganga and Zaha was very funny. I haven’t seen many more convincing cases of guys wanting to fight while knowing they can’t fight each other. Edouard’s goals weren’t exactly convincing or proof of anything but they didn’t have to be either. At least he didn’t miss them like the other two strikers may have done.

I also wouldn’t say this is proof of anything Vieira wise. They weren’t exactly convincing in the other three matches. Against Chelsea they were poor but you expect that. Other two were just not convincing. As for Spurs well it’s hard to tell even in those longer highlights. But I would say based on the statistical information that has to be quite discouraging. Palace aren’t exactly great at defending.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Nuno was completely outdone by a very inexperienced manager, not much more to it.

Would probably have looked much better if he started Gil at left wing, instead of moving Alli there to make space for Harry f***ing Winks, a third defensive midfielder.

But what I hate the most is that comment Nuno made after the game. f*** that.

 

[Havre]

Funny how Spursfans will blame Winks for everything. On the Norwegian Spursforum there were claims like he is "always losing the ball". His pass success % was the highest among all Spursplayers - and the highest among all midfield players in the game. Among his passes somewhere around 70% were forward passes. Højbjerg as a comparison was around 50%.

Winks has been disappointing for a long time, but he was not the problem in this game.

I don't mind how Spurs were set up either, but completely agree on how the game was managed from Nuno's side. Created nothing, but still just kept on with the same stuff. You are 1-0 down after 75mins without really having created a single scoring opportunity. Instead of giving Gil or Ndombele a shot at creating something random he just keeps the same team on the pitch with no real adjustments. Not sure how that can ever be explained?

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Funny how Spursfans will blame Winks for everything. On the Norwegian Spursforum there were claims like he is "always losing the ball". His pass success % was the highest among all Spursplayers - and the highest among all midfield players in the game. Among his passes somewhere around 70% were forward passes. Højbjerg as a comparison was around 50%.

Winks has been disappointing for a long time, but he was not the problem in this game.

I'm absolutely not blaming Winks myself. It's more about how Nuno decided to play three DM's vs. a lesser opposition.

 

[Havre]

I'm absolutely not blaming Winks myself. It's more about how Nuno decided to play three DM's vs. a lesser opposition.

I think that is more down to how you play your full backs. Both Winks and Højbjerg can contribute offensively and if you got two full backs high up there really are enough players attacking for you to create something.

To me this is much more down to tactics than who played. Not that I agree with how the team was set up either.

 

[hatterson]

 

[Fro]

Funny how Spursfans will blame Winks for everything. On the Norwegian Spursforum there were claims like he is "always losing the ball". His pass success % was the highest among all Spursplayers - and the highest among all midfield players in the game. Among his passes somewhere around 70% were forward passes. Højbjerg as a comparison was around 50%.

Winks has been disappointing for a long time, but he was not the problem in this game.

I don't mind how Spurs were set up either, but completely agree on how the game was managed from Nuno's side. Created nothing, but still just kept on with the same stuff. You are 1-0 down after 75mins without really having created a single scoring opportunity. Instead of giving Gil or Ndombele a shot at creating something random he just keeps the same team on the pitch with no real adjustments. Not sure how that can ever be explained?

Not blaming Winks, but of course he was at 70% passes, he only passed 3 feet when he dribbled over to where someone was at...but he was not the problem, the set up was, as you all have stated, 3 DM is ignorant against palace

 

[koyvoo]

Edit -
wrong thread

 

[Savant]

 

[Havre]

Obviously not a big deal in the bigger picture here, but funny how the FA upholds the red card - even if the ref hardly saw the incident (and clearly gave a red based on the injury) and even Harvey doesn't think it is a red. Not saying the injured player should be the judge in general when it comes to bans after incidents like this, but I don't get why they can't be more sensible about these things.

Credit to Harvey for how he has been handling this by the way.

 

[hatterson]

The ref gave the red because VAR told him too and they didn’t go to the pitch side monitor cause it woulda been absurd to repeatedly show the dude getting his ankle mangled on a monitor that he 20 feet away from where medics were working on him on the pitch.

 

[Havre]

Could easily have stopped the replay before you see close up of him braking his ankle.

This game wasn't important, but it would have been really absurd if this was the 89 min in a FA cup final at 1-1 or in the last game of the season with teams fighting for a title, CL spots, relegation etc. being influenced by a red card like this in one of the games.

Also seems silly to me that a player now can't play 3 games. Even if that is a minor thing in the bigger picture.

 

[Blender]

That was a clear and obvious error, so I don't have a problem that VAR just told him to issue the red.

 

[Savant]

Yeah I mean think how Harvey Elliott has handled things is more important, and says a lot, more than everything else in the aftermath. Super mature and professional from an 18 year old. Hopefully he can play again this season.

 

[Havre]

That was a clear and obvious error, so I don't have a problem that VAR just told him to issue the red.

I have no big issue with the red, but I don't think it is an obvious red card by any means. I doubt anyone would have considered that a red card if Elliott hadn't been injured.

It's not important really, but from a "technical" point of view the way this was handled by the ref and VAR is in my opinion rubbish.

 

[hatterson]

I didn't think it was a red live, but someone showed a still frame that had the Leeds player basically scissoring his leg which is what caused the injury and that made it clear it was a red.

 

[Havre]

I don't think the Leeds player's right foot ever goes across Elliott's -if so it can't be a scissoring movement. His trailing leg ends up on top of his ankle. That might be reckless. I'm not sure. Not sure if you would be able to take out a guy like that even if you tried.

For me the ref and VAR just loses control because they see the injury and automatically think there had to be something bad that happened.

 

[hatterson]

GWT: - PL Matchweek 4

Obviously it's potato quality, but you can see the bottom leg coming up behind Elliot's left leg to create the scissor action.

 

[SSF]

Well if that is a red, Brownhill should have been shown red in the first minute Monday night too then. Same tackle, Richarlison just didnt do his ankle.

 

[YNWA14]

Serious foul play
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play. Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play

Very clearly a dangerous tackle, and very clearly a red card.

 

[Blender]

GWT: - PL Matchweek 4

Obviously it's potato quality, but you can see the bottom leg coming up behind Elliot's left leg to create the scissor action.

Yea they didn't show a replay of the full event so I grabbed what I could. His leading leg is over the top of the ball and Elliot's leg, his trailing leg is behind Elliot's leg. Elliot's leg is planted on the ground when contact is made and there is a twisting motion that snaps it.

 

[hatterson]

Well if that is a red, Brownhill should have been shown red in the first minute Monday night too then. Same tackle, Richarlison just didnt do his ankle.

Can't comment on that since I didn't see it.

But in general, I don't think there's a massive issue with the results of a challenge affecting the punishment within reason.

It wasn't like this was a totally clean challenge that fluke resulted in an injury. It was, at the very least, a clear yellow and I have zero issues with those being "upgraded" to a red when a serious injury results.

 

[SSF]

Brownhill got nothing, Tyler and Townsend mealy mouthed it away on the broadcast by saying it was in the first minute.

 

[Havre]

GWT: - PL Matchweek 4

Obviously it's potato quality, but you can see the bottom leg coming up behind Elliot's left leg to create the scissor action.

The "scissor" never closes - so I'm not sure how you can call that a scissor action?

He catches his ankle with the trailing foot and in some strange way he gets a lot of weight over it. So it is caught between the trailing leg and the ground - not between the two legs - which would be a scissor.

 

[Blender]

The "scissor" never closes - so I'm not sure how you can call that a scissor action?

He catches his ankle with the trailing foot and in some strange way he gets a lot of weight over it. So it is caught between the trailing leg and the ground - not between the two legs - which would be a scissor.

Again sorry for the potato quality, but it did close.