Lillehamring

That's just really bad luck.

Gipson should have been all over that pass. still, turnover came.

Fumble fest!

or 16 total yards for KC

penalties and turnovers ruining some good work.

made up for it on D

And the award for 'worst tattoos every' goes to this tool.

The game last year, SF had most of their starting D out - and it was early days for purdy and CMC, so i'd read little into that game. Also, the ravens didn't really turn up against KC, so i don't know if that reveals much. I'm optimistic, the niners at their best are unstoppable (as you say like against dallas) - but the nerves have truly kicked in

You had a fair point, we are good at pumping up the % stats with little in-game training drills!

Sure, but all three teams are on fire, all have just come down from the prem, all are a bench mark for stellar football of the highest level - i don't see teams differentiating and setting us up as a specifically more desirable scalp anymore than the other two. If one of the other teams are playing Leeds or southampton, they're going to want to win that game just as much as if it were us - just by virtue of the fact that we are top - in fact, they might even try harder against those two as they still represent a huge scalp but might be perceived as a better chance to sink one of the big three? I'm sure there's less in it than you imagine.

What those stats don't show though is the amount of progressive passes that that inculdes - vestergard has almost twice the progressive distance of winks and 2nd most in the league behind viktor johannsen, but winks ranks 8th overall for number of progressive passes; Winks is ranked #1 for passes into the final third, with 242, closest to that is 227. So they are playing a lot of easy balls, sure, but they still rank high in productive passing

It's possible but no one has better figures under pressure than Purdy, so i don't see that being an issue. If the chiefs win, it'll be because the niner D isn't on point - If Warner has a great game, niners will win.

I was just thinking i'm strangely subdued about this - i do think we'll (niners) will win, but it's anybodies guess really. Just not sure why i'm not a nervous wreck.

Midfielder, yes, but....

Clearly not - i think you're overthinking this - all i'm trying to say is that VAR provides an opportunity to prevent an injustice if a second yellow is wrongly given. Surely that makes sense, as no game is ever the same with a player sent off. It's not about which card is wrong it's about the fact that a second yellow sends a player off, that can be simply checked - so we should be checking them. It's not about absolute justice but preventing something at the final possible moment to do so. I understand that both yellows contribute to a red, of course - the issue is not to get everything perfect to have zero errors by double checking every decision but to seize the opportunity when a second yellow is given to make sure it is correct - i'm thinking about situations where a player knows his opponent is on a yellow and deliberately fakes being fouled to get him a second yellow - not to question weather every yellow is correct.

Why? because we're a few points further ahead, had more success recently? If you raise your game, you raise your game - you don't sit there and think 'ooh, this is a huge scalp, i'm going to give 110%, but it's not leicester, that's my 120% game!'

Easy enough to mix up those legendary Charlie Chaplin and John Travolta celebrations

I'm sure teams will see leeds and southampton in much the same light.

Dude - the player is sent off - that's the point. If the ref get's a second yellow wrong it ruins the game. It is possible to have different review rules for different situations. A first yellow is not reviewable because on it's own it doesn't punish a team by reducing the amount of players - a second yellow does, thus it should be checked. And of course a second yellow causes a sending off more than the first does - one yellow will never be a sending off without a second; a second will always be a sending off. Nothing ruins a game more than a sending off, that's why they opted for VAR to check all red cards - why should a red for a second bookable offence be any different than a straight red for a hand ball?

I get your point - but it's always going to be the second that is the difference between having a player less or not. It doesn't matter if the first one is right or wrong, what matters is getting the second one right - that second card is, technically, what provokes the red card, not the first one.. Sure if the first one is a bad call it's harsh on the player, but if his second one is checked and seen to be a bad call, at least he isn't sent off for two bad calls. It's a question of balance - checking a second yellow is the compromise between a player being incorrectly sent off and not having to review every card - and it would still have to come down to a clear and obvious error. You have to accept the referee's decision on a first yellow, that's how it is and that's not the issue - the issue is when a ref makes a bad call that leads to a sending off. Or equally, the other side of the coin, how many times does a ref not give a second yellow, because he doesn't want to risk incorrectly sending off a player - a review gives him a safety net.

That's not really a very strong argument because we actually do it a LOT, it's just we're not always the best at finishing these moves off - that's really what the problem is - if it can be classed as a problem, certainly we could be better, we've wasted many such attacks where we have a big overload.

Just going on the fairly strong reports that we already tried to buy him in the summer and that he is enzo's top boy so more than likely we'll return for him in the summer.

Sure, but that's not good enough - he's a squad player, he's not a bad defender and he's not bad going forward, but he excels at neither. If he were doyle's age playing the way he does, there'd be reason for optimism, but he's nearly 26 - he's older than Faes! - is he really going to get to the level he seemed he might, especially as he doesn't really fit in enzo's system - i can't see it. Great pro, nice guy, but he's not the future.

Not denying that. I just feel that Justin's weaknesses are glossed over, whilst Doyle's are over-exaggerated. looking deeper..... according to whoscored - justin is dribbled past 0.6 times per game, doyle 0.8 - not a lot in it, and neither is particularly bad - I guess they both could be better but neither are that bad. FWIW, justin is dispossessed 0.1 per game, doyle 0.3 - neither of which is that high, and possibly the difference a result of doyle being a lot more adventurous on the ball than justin (he attempts four times as many dribbles per game as justin - only five players attempt more); justin also has a slightly higher number of unsuccessful touches per game (not by much and neither are bad). Personally, i don't think either of them are at a standard that we need them to be, but i'd rather we stuck with doyle, seeing as he's 5 years younger than justin.

Yes, had i been ending the sentence, but i wasn't ending the sentence, i was leaving it open to express how lost for words i am... ...mucker.