Unlucky? It would appear not

[Swiss_tony]

Yeah, but you're wrong.

 

No-one's claiming we're 'cursed', but anyone who claims we've had anything other than a rough ride off officials this season is plain wrong. It's as simple as that. For the seventieth time, no-one has claimed they are the sole reason we are bottom. Our awful taking of chances, poor defending, crap formations, substitutions and tactics are very well documented on here. We're talking about something else here which for some reason your crystal ball tells you isn't happening.

 

That last bit isn't laughable either. Pearson deserves a lot of criticism for this season but you seriously think it's a co-incidence that slimeball Stringer's got someone who's written a strong anti-Pearson article very recently on his show? You don't genuinely believe that was by chance do you?

 

You're making assumptions and they're wrong.

you're making assumptions too.

I'm not saying, you or anybody else are saying it's the sole reason.

I'm also not saying it doesn't happen.

what i am saying is that it's happening to other teams around us too, therefore isn't that much of afactor on points at the end of the day.

It is not just happening to  us.

[Babylon]

They can broadcast whatever the heck  they  like.

Who said they can't?

 

 

Maybe next week if they  can find a journalist that thinks the man running the club bottom of the PL is doing a good job, they  can speak.

There's no  conspiracy here to undermine him, he does that all on his lonesome week in  week out.

I've had the same opinion of Radio Leicester for about three years. Do a search and the posts are probably still there, I believe there has been an agenda. Whether there is anything personal in that I don't know. I think Stringer is a cock and wouldn't be shocked as he's had his nose put out of joint, but as I've said multiple times I think their whole remit has slowly changed over the years to focus on click bate, which sadly you get more from controversy etc. 

 

Unfortunately media as a whole is going down that route just to survive. You only have to go on the Mercury website these days to get a front row seat of how bad it's getting.

[Babylon]

I'm not saying, you or anybody else are saying it's the sole reason.

Well... it's kind of the impression you are giving.

 

what most of you belittling fleckney's point is that teams near the bottom have all had similar 'luck'.

the impression given is, we have an ok team, not great, but reffing decisions or luck for other teams has put paid to us.

that's horse manure. Luck evens itself out over a season.

[Foxiled]

Yeah, but you're wrong.

 

No-one's claiming we're 'cursed'

 

We are fu*king cursed.

 

 

Just saying...

[fleckneymike]

How about contacting someone who hadn't just written an assassination piece.

 

Radio Leicester are only interested in controversy and click bait, not all Stringers fault. Whilst that maybe his natural style, the whole style of the sports reporting has changed. All of them involved in the sports side of it now follow Stringers lead with regards how they conduct themselves on twitter and on air. I think that comes from above and they are all now slaves to stats.

 As I said in my post

 

"For the sake of balance he could have asked a journalist with a positive view of his tenure this campaign onto the show but I think we'd all agree they are somewhat thin on the ground."

 

Now if you've read a piece that compliments our season then by all means direct our attention to it.

[Bayfox]

Not good enough in both boxes, simple as that.

And worse in between.

4 at the back with huth and wasyl as the cbs. 5 in midfield with James and esteban allowing an attacking 4 of a front man, 2 wide players and the 5th player being marhez, drinky, nugent linking with the front man.

Should have been the default set up as soon as huth came in.

[Dan LCFC]

I wouldn't say we've had a rough ride, we've experienced some questionable decisions but the Wes handball aside most were justifiable (if not appreciated).

 

Stringer tried to get the chap on the week he published his piece, he was unable so he had to wait till this week. Stringer regularly contacts journalists from other clubs/stations as part of the build up to the match, it just so happens that this chap had written an article which suggested we may well be better off without Pearson. For the sake of balance he could have asked a journalist with a positive view of his tenure this campaign onto the show but I think we'd all agree they are somewhat thin on the ground.

 

But when it goes against you that often, that's what I can't get over. I can accept you will get the odd one against you and the odd one for you, but I make that about seven against us and about two for us, and I'd say even one of those two (Huddlestone) was 50/50.

 

If the latter part is true then fair enough but it all seems a bit co-incidental for me. I'm not for one second claiming Pearson should be above criticism. I wouldn't even know where to start on his errors this year.

 

 

 

 

 

Just saying...

 

 

I'll give you that, but I'm not convinced it was entirely serious. I don't think anyone genuinely believes it's a curse, especially considering there are people in control of what's happening.

you're making assumptions too.

I'm not saying, you or anybody else are saying it's the sole reason.

I'm also not saying it doesn't happen.

what i am saying is that it's happening to other teams around us too, therefore isn't that much of afactor on points at the end of the day.

It is not just happening to  us.

 

Assumption again and something you cannot prove. See ttfn's post further up with a few examples.

[fleckneymike]

But when it goes against you that often, that's what I can't get over. I can accept you will get the odd one against you and the odd one for you, but I make that about seven against us and about two for us, and I'd say even one of those two (Huddlestone) was 50/50.

 

If the latter part is true then fair enough but it all seems a bit co-incidental for me. I'm not for one second claiming Pearson should be above criticism. I wouldn't even know where to start on his errors this year.

 

 

I'll give you that, but I'm not convinced it was entirely serious. I don't think anyone genuinely believes it's a curse, especially considering there are people in control of what's happening.

 

Assumption again and something you cannot prove. See ttfn's post further up with a few examples.

 

When it goes against you that often I suggest you stop getting into situations where these things can happen.

 

The non handball against Wes aside, I think the majority of decisions in the league have not been 'unfair'.

[Dan LCFC]

When it goes against you that often I suggest you stop getting into situations where these things can happen.

 

The non handball against Wes aside, I think the majority of decisions in the league have not been 'unfair'.

 

You mean like last week at Spurs? Is it really realistic to claim a side like us should be going to Spurs who have spent hundreds of millions and practically stop them entering the box unless one of them goes flying when he has a 50/50 with Nugent?

 

It's a joke of a decision. There's absolutely no way we'd have gotten that in that game.

[fleckneymike]

You mean like last week at Spurs? Is it really realistic to claim a side like us should be going to Spurs who have spent hundreds of millions and practically stop them entering the box unless one of them goes flying when he has a 50/50 with Nugent?

 

It's a joke of a decision. There's absolutely no way we'd have gotten that in that game.

 

The Nugent decision was not 'unfair', Nugent was having a very good game but (as he admitted himself) he miscontrolled a simple ball and in attempting to recover he commited a foul. It was an completely self inflicted problem and altered the entire momentum of the second half.

[Manwell Pablo]

The Nugent decision was not 'unfair', Nugent was having a very good game but (as he admitted himself) he miscontrolled a simple ball and in attempting to recover he commited a foul. It was an completely self inflicted problem and altered the entire momentum of the second half.

 

Shit touch I agree.

 

That is not a foul though so therefore it is unfair.

[Guest ttfn]

Kramaric fouled in box. Free kick awarded outside the box. Not "unfair" in the world of fleckneymike.

[fleckneymike]

Kramaric fouled in box. Free kick awarded outside the box. Not "unfair" in the world of fleckneymike.

 

You are confligrating two entirely seperate issues as well as failing to understand the meaning of unfair.. The Kramaric decision was an incorrect decision, not an unfair one.

[Guest ttfn]

You are confligrating two entirely seperate issues as well as failing to understand the meaning of unfair.. The Kramaric decision was an incorrect decision, not an unfair one.

I'm going to have a hard time accepting a lecture on not understanding the meaning of words from somebody who has just made one up. I must offer you my most sincere contrafibularities.

Nevertheless, the secondary dictionary definition of "unfair" according to google is "not following the rules of a game or sport" ("not conforming to approved standards" is another widely quoted definition, . Kramaric was adjudged by the referee to have been fouled. This is a subjective decision (and evidently a correct one for the avoidance of further argument). The incident took place in the penalty area. An objective fact. Under the laws of the game a penalty kick is awarded for an offence taking place in the penalty area which the referee considers to be punishable by a direct free kick in line with the relevant law. This did not happen in the instance I am referencing. The rules of the game or sport were not followed.

It is a textbook (almost a dictionary definition!) example of something being "unfair". Yes, it was incorrect, but of course it was unfair.

In any event it's all semantics. That decision was objectively wrong. We should have had a penalty and didn''t get one. Call it unfair, call it incorrect, it all points to incompetent refereeing having a material influence on the outcome of a game to our detriment.

[Babylon]

 As I said in my post

 

"For the sake of balance he could have asked a journalist with a positive view of his tenure this campaign onto the show but I think we'd all agree they are somewhat thin on the ground."

 

Now if you've read a piece that compliments our season then by all means direct our attention to it.

Yeah I can read... and as I put, how about getting someone on that's not just written an assassination peace on Pearson. They got him, because they knew exactly what they were going to get. It's so obvious, you can ignore it all you want though.

 

[Babylon]

When it goes against you that often I suggest you stop getting into situations where these things can happen.

 

The non handball against Wes aside, I think the majority of decisions in the league have not been 'unfair'.

 

 

The Nugent decision was not 'unfair', Nugent was having a very good game but (as he admitted himself) he miscontrolled a simple ball and in attempting to recover he commited a foul. It was an completely self inflicted problem and altered the entire momentum of the second half.

 

 

You are confligrating two entirely seperate issues as well as failing to understand the meaning of unfair.. The Kramaric decision was an incorrect decision, not an unfair one.

 

  Step away from the computer.

 

The definition of unfair in the dictionary. "Not following the rules of a game or sport". Ergo, if the decision is an incorrect one the officials have not acted accordingly to the rules of the game, making said decision... unfair.

[Webbo]

Yeah I can read... and as I put, how about getting someone on that's not just written an assassination peace on Pearson. They got him, because they knew exactly what they were going to get. It's so obvious, you can ignore it all you want though.

I don't know if you heard the show but Stringer said he was invited on because of the article he'd written and given the chance to explain himself. It's not the BBCs job to be cheerleaders for the club. It's only right that the full range of opinions are heard. Same as everything else, you're not forced to agree.

[Webbo]

  Step away from the computer.

 

The definition of unfair in the dictionary. "Not following the rules of a game or sport". Ergo, if the decision is an incorrect one the officials have not acted accordingly to the rules of the game, making said decision... unfair.

The implication of the word unfair is that the ref made an incorrect decision deliberately which is obviously untrue. Arguing semantics doesn't do your argument any good.

[Babylon]

I don't know if you heard the show but Stringer said he was invited on because of the article he'd written and given the chance to explain himself. It's not the BBCs job to be cheerleaders for the club. It's only right that the full range of opinions are heard. Same as everything else, you're not forced to agree.

Yeah sure.   Giving said blog a wider airing in the process.

 

Who said anything about being cheerleaders for the club. I don't expect that, I also don't expect them to act like a bunch of cocks weekly which they invariably do. But, as I've already said several times in this thread. If they are slave to stats then I don't expect anything less, gutter press extreme opinions will get clicks and calls. Middle ground moderate views will not.

[Babylon]

The implication of the word unfair is that the ref made an incorrect decision deliberately which is obviously untrue. Arguing semantics doesn't do your argument any good.

It's not semantics, it's the actual meaning of the word. Absolutely nothing about it in any of the posts on here or in the dictionary states it has to be "deliberate" to be unfair, I really don't know where you're getting this stuff.

 

Anyway... the original point was unlucky not unfair. So I'd say someone giving an incorrect decision is unlucky.

[shailen]

There's no doubt we have had more decisions go against us than for us. But that doesn't mean we deserve to be higher than we are. We actually play good football, but the number of mistakes we make is criminal. The amount of defensive lapses of concentration and strikers that cannot put chances away, is what may relegate us. I cannot think of a goal apart from Di Maria or Mcgeady, where you just had to go wow, and say fair play to the opposition. Similarly, I have not seen us score a goal out of nothing.  

Whether the stats agree with me or not, we haven't been good in both boxes. Apart from that our general play has been good enough. We don't really concede or score many goals. But where it matters, we have fallen short.

Anyone that has seen us this season, has said we play well. Yes we do. But we are just not clinical enough in both attacking and defensively. As for the stats, you can't expect us to be competing with City or Chelsea for how good we have been on the whole. These teams are likely to dominate us, but for me its not really that our players are not good enough, but more of a lack of quality/composure where it matters.  

[inckley fox]

It's not semantics, it's the actual meaning of the word. Absolutely nothing about it in any of the posts on here or in the dictionary states it has to be "deliberate" to be unfair, I really don't know where you're getting this stuff.

 

Anyway... the original point was unlucky not unfair. So I'd say someone giving an incorrect decision is unlucky.

 

I'd argue with you on both! Semantics are meanings, and a bad decision isn't unlucky it's just a bad decision. I still think we're overlooking that the game before last week's we benefited from a decision which most neutral commentators seemed to agree was wrong, whereas there was no consensus on the penalty call. Most fans think they're hard done by referees, and if you're clutching at straws you're even more likely to feel this.

 

I feel we've suffered from more bad decisions this season because refereeing is poorer than it used to be and more bad decisions are being made. The same went for the two seasons before that, when Pearson complained occasionally about poor refereeing too, though we tended to forget about all those dubious penalties won for us by Vardy and even the decisions which worked out badly for us, simply because things were going well and we had no need to clutch at straws.

[Dan LCFC]

Pretty much all of them on Vardy were penalties. He does fall theatrically but a foul is a foul.

 

It was Drinkwater who sold the refs for me. Didn't think either he won v Forest was a penalty. One of them was missed anyway (well technically both were).

[Guest ttfn]

I'd argue with you on both! Semantics are meanings, and a bad decision isn't unlucky it's just a bad decision. I still think we're overlooking that the game before last week's we benefited from a decision which most neutral commentators seemed to agree was wrong, whereas there was no consensus on the penalty call. Most fans think they're hard done by referees, and if you're clutching at straws you're even more likely to feel this.

As I mentioned in a previous reply your understanding of what pundits think was the right decision in the big incidents in the hull and spurs games differs 100% to mine. I've not seen one pundit say Huddlestone was unlucky to be sent off, nor have I seen one say that Spurs should have had that penalty. Even assuming I'm being selective, there's far from a consensus on it.

[Guest ttfn]

I feel we've suffered from more bad decisions this season because refereeing is poorer than it used to be and more bad decisions are being made.

This doesn't make any sense. At least not on a "net" basis. If refereeing is poorer we should be benefiting from an equivalent proportion of poor decisions compared with your earlier base point. We're not.

As I have said everybody can point to bad decisions going against them. Everybody else can point to an equivalent number (and severity) of bad decisions going for them. We can't. There will not have been a worse call made in the Premier league this season than Morgan being penalised for handball for a ball hitting him in the face.