Wolves A Post Match Thread 4 - 3

[AKCJ]

14 minutes ago, lanefox said:

Would this stand under VAR?

100% it would stand.

[Babylon]

2 minutes ago, dyanmark said:

Have to say the offside law may need a look after the final goal.The second phase receiver was about 25 yds off when the first phase ball was played.

No xcuse overall

Down to our players to know the rules and stay in a line if you want to play offside.

[woddyuk]

Not "incensed", or "scraping barrel" to justify losing, mearly pointing it out.  

 

Saying its only just outside the line makes it right does it?

It's no less cheating than diving

 

But agreed 

It wasn't the major talking point of the match.. 

Giving a team a 2goal start,, defending more suited to under 9's  on Rushey Fields,, and not seeing out a 3-3 draw in the 93rd minute is more far more  annoying, and incensing

[Fosse93]

8 hours ago, MPH said:

?

 

No it was definitely Top who sacked him only the next day/ few hours later for Vichai to reinstate him.

Not sure how you've come to that conclusion when it's been widely speculated Top reinstated Pearson.

 

One example below:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjZ0NSwhfzfAhXF5eAKHQg4AakQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fsport%2Fsportsnews%2Farticle-6328947%2FVichai-Srivaddhanaprabha-son-likely-lead-Leicester-forward-helicopter-tragedy.html&psig=AOvVaw0lRRfxXWHn501v1y2Yp8ac&ust=1548062777194391

[Ricey]

58 minutes ago, Foxhateram said:

Having reflected on this game. In previous seasons (i.e. before 2015/16) we would have been happy with the perfomance but frustrated at the lack of focus at the end. 

 

I was actually excited by yesterday's game, frustrated yes, annoyed at the end yes. But quite pleased with the fightback and to be honest it could have gone either way. 

 

I would rather we played like that every week but obviously score more than than the opposition. I think it suites our players far more to play fast paced like that. Our players looked like they were enjoying themselves yesterday despite the negative result. 

 

Put a decent CDM in to sit behind and stay no further than the middle of the opposition half then I think we actually could have won yesterday. That CDM sweeps the middle and takes the pressure from the CBs. Mendy and N'DIDI aren't it though, Choudhury would have been better to be honest. 

We can’t play like that every week. There is no difference in what we attempted to do at 2-0 down against Wolves compared to being 2-0 down against Southampton. The difference is that Southampton parked the bus, whilst Wolves remained quite open and error prone.

 

We were attack-minded because we went 2-0 down. The team selection would suggest he was planning to play on the counter, not take it to them.

 

This reminds me so much of the 5-4 Spurs game last season. People got carried away that it was the dawn of a new attacking and exciting Leicester City. The fact is it was just an open game with a lot of poor defending that suited our attacking players.

 

I saw nothing yesterday to suggest we are going to be any better at breaking teams like Palace and Brighton down when they visit the KP in a few weeks.

[Ricey]

28 minutes ago, woddyuk said:

Overhang? There's about 2 inches of clear daylight and grass ffs

Perspective. I bet if you had a top down view you’d see that it does overhang.

[Lesta Legend]

 People moaning about the ball at the corners, we do exactly the same. We just don't score from them or set pieces in general, but have a knack at conceding from them. Address that problem been long enough..!

[Babylon]

8 minutes ago, woddyuk said:

Saying its only just outside the line makes it right does it?

It's no less cheating than diving

You seem to be having problems with getting the fact it doesn't have to touch the line. 

 

The ball is round, so only a small part of it ever touches the ground. From the right angle of vision, it can look like there is huge amounts of grass between the ball and the line. The law how it's interpreted though is about the ball being fully over the line, overhanging no matter how small is still OK. 

 

This image shows the ball IN PLAY despite no part of it being close to touch the line. You can see that from the side, but from the angle you are looking at in the wolves picture, it's impossible to tell either way. Seeing grass though, does not mean it's not in play and just overhanging. 

[Babylon]

6 minutes ago, Ricey said:

We were attack-minded because we went 2-0 down. The team selection would suggest he was planning to play on the counter, not take it to them.

Were people not just calling for entertainment, since yesterdays entertaining but losing game that now seems to have shifted (not saying you) to being "attacking football". 

 

Nobody on here seemed to care about us being attacking in the Chelsea or Man City games, they liked it because we won and the games were ultimately entertaining. 

 

Again, not saying you I know you were just addressing another post. I've just replied to you are you mentioned attacking and I can't be arsed to trawl the thread to fine the specific comments from people now shifting what they were asking for.

[Izzy]

5 minutes ago, Babylon said:

 

The ball is round

 

I don’t know what we’d do without you on here sometimes Babs 

[Babylon]

Just now, Izzy said:

I don’t know what we’d do without you on here sometimes Babs 

I can only presume some people think it's square sometimes judging by these comments.  

[woddyuk]

12 minutes ago, Babylon said:

You seem to be having problems with getting the fact it doesn't have to touch the line. 

 

The ball is round, so only a small part of it ever touches the ground. From the right angle of vision, it can look like there is huge amounts of grass between the ball and the line. The law how it's interpreted though is about the ball being fully over the line, overhanging no matter how small is still OK. 

 

This image shows the ball IN PLAY despite no part of it being close to touch the line. You can see that from the side, but from the angle you are looking at in the wolves picture, it's impossible to tell either way. Seeing grass though, does not mean it's not in play and just overhanging. 

Wow PowerPoint and everything 

I'm honoured by the time taken. 

 

But if you check law17 on the fa website it clearly states ball must be placed in the corner area. Now you can debate whether "placed" means inside, or just touching the last scrap of white paint on a blade off grass if you wish, but unless I'm Mistaken I'm struggling to see it mentioning over hanging any where 

 

And as a side note the ball isn't in play either. 

Not unti its been kicked. 

 

 

 

[The Quick Brown Fox]

Don't think he deserves sacking after the performance yesterday. We did everything I've personally been asking for, we went at them and gave them a game rather than letting them attack us the whole game. We looked a different team to the defensive Shite he's been putting out. Simple mistakes made by individuals cost us, some odd decisions from Puel but the entertainment was there for me. Great game to watch just a Shame about the result. Unfortunately you can't please everybody. 

[whoareyaaa]

22 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Were people not just calling for entertainment, since yesterdays entertaining but losing game that now seems to have shifted (not saying you) to being "attacking football". 

 

Nobody on here seemed to care about us being attacking in the Chelsea or Man City games, they liked it because we won and the games were ultimately entertaining. 

 

Again, not saying you I know you were just addressing another post. I've just replied to you are you mentioned attacking and I can't be arsed to trawl the thread to fine the specific comments from people now shifting what they were asking for.

We didn't have much choice but to attack (become entertaining) in the second half being 2-0 down as the first half was the usual drill we have seen for the majority of the time under Puel. (15 times to be precise)

 

 

[whoareyaaa]

7 minutes ago, browniefox said:

Don't think he deserves sacking after the performance yesterday. We did everything I've personally been asking for, we went at them and gave them a game rather than letting them attack us the whole game. We looked a different team to the defensive Shite he's been putting out. Simple mistakes made by individuals cost us, some odd decisions from Puel but the entertainment was there for me. Great game to watch just a Shame about the result. Unfortunately you can't please everybody. 

Did you forget what happened in the first half?

[Dames]

21 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Were people not just calling for entertainment, since yesterdays entertaining but losing game that now seems to have shifted (not saying you) to being "attacking football". 

 

Nobody on here seemed to care about us being attacking in the Chelsea or Man City games, they liked it because we won and the games were ultimately entertaining. 

 

Again, not saying you I know you were just addressing another post. I've just replied to you are you mentioned attacking and I can't be arsed to trawl the thread to fine the specific comments from people now shifting what they were asking for.

It was enjoyable to see us more attacking yesterday but its frustrating at the same time because everyone knows that if we didnt go 2-0 down it wouldnt have been the case. Puel didn’t set us up with the intent to attack from the first whistle at all. 

 

Playing with 2 right backs on the pitch means Puel had every intent of us keeping it tight and nicking it but another slow error filled start threw those plans out the window and the team had no choice but to go for it. If we didnt go 2-0 down early we’d have been in for the same shite we are served week in week out, the fact Wolves were so ropey at the back and also going for it made us look much better going forwards.

 

Its just annoying that we have to lose a goal or two before this team shows any intent of attacking, its something the manager has to address because its not sustainable.

 

He also has to answer to the fact he started Mendy again after his howler of a performance against Southampton and he really wasnt much better today, favouritism maybe? I’m baffled as to why we are sticking with out of form players.

[jayfox26]

9 hours ago, volpeazzurro said:

I'm not being a  super creep for Puel who indeed had his faults but  i suggest that it's more than a little to do with our inadequate playing staff for some of it. Even prior to Puel we were struggling to beat teams that just sat back and effectively nullified Vardy. Even then we could occasionally score through the defence unlocking talent Marhez. Now he's gone why is anyone surprised? Until we buy some solutions to the problem it won't change either whatever manager you put in charge. To believe otherwise is wishful thinking. 

I agree, and like i said, ive always backed puel and dont think hes the problem. The problems at the club is down to the players or lack of quality players. It won't get sorted until the summer but if we keep up this bad run of form like we did at the back end of last season then Puel will be gone in the summer. 

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

Oh FFS imagine if Wolves fans came on here and saw people moaning that a corner might have been 1mm outside of the corner markings (which it wasn't), as if that had an impact on the outcome

 

We defended terribly first half and they were overall the better team. That's why we lost.

[Babylon]

30 minutes ago, woddyuk said:

Wow PowerPoint and everything 

I'm honoured by the time taken. 

 

But if you check law17 on the fa website it clearly states ball must be placed in the corner area. Now you can debate whether "placed" means inside, or just touching the last scrap of white paint on a blade off grass if you wish, but unless I'm Mistaken I'm struggling to see it mentioning over hanging any where 

 

And as a side note the ball isn't in play either. 

Not unti its been kicked. 

 

 

 

Hence why I said how it's interpreted, look at all of our corners. They are no different to wolves or anyone else's.

[The Quick Brown Fox]

23 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

Did you forget what happened in the first half?

Other than the individual mistakes I thought we were the better team and I think Wolves would have gone in at HT thinking how the **** are we 2 up? So in answer to your question. No, no I haven't forgotten the first half.

[Babylon]

27 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

We didn't have much choice but to attack (become entertaining) in the second half being 2-0 down as the first half was the usual drill we have seen for the majority of the time under Puel. (15 times to be precise)

 

 

It wasn't just second half, we were creating plenty first half and should have scored several times.

 

You'll never know what our style would have been. But to me how we set up looked exactly like it was to exploit a team giving us space to counter against, we always look far better attacking against teams who commit players forward and that's how Wolves play.

[Babylon]

26 minutes ago, Dames said:

It was enjoyable to see us more attacking yesterday but its frustrating at the same time because everyone knows that if we didnt go 2-0 down it wouldnt have been the case. Puel didn’t set us up with the intent to attack from the first whistle at all. 

 

Playing with 2 right backs on the pitch means Puel had every intent of us keeping it tight and nicking it but another slow error filled start threw those plans out the window and the team had no choice but to go for it. If we didnt go 2-0 down early we’d have been in for the same shite we are served week in week out, the fact Wolves were so ropey at the back and also going for it made us look much better going forwards.

 

Its just annoying that we have to lose a goal or two before this team shows any intent of attacking, its something the manager has to address because its not sustainable.

 

He also has to answer to the fact he started Mendy again after his howler of a performance against Southampton and he really wasnt much better today, favouritism maybe? I’m baffled as to why we are sticking with out of form players.

He set us up to exploit the space they left and we did that from the off. It was no great change of plan, it wasn't a reaction  to going behind, I say that because it was the same counter plan that has worked for the last four years against teams who attack us. How many times have we seen that before whether behind or not?

 

The failing on the day was the woefully inept defending and amateurish end to the game.

[The Quick Brown Fox]

People moaning about losing right at the end, the way the game was going, we could have just as easily won the game. I'd rather have lost trying to win like we did that lose trying to hold the draw. Might be just me in that but I like to see us try to win.

[Guest ttfn]

Friday: Why won’t Puel just let us play on the counter attack?

 

Sunday: Can’t believe Puel set us up to keep it tight and hit them on the break.

[CosbehFox]

Basically we’ve got a squad thick as pig shit. 

 

We’ve always been at our best when you had a Huth or a Cambisso telling the players when to slow a game down or speed it up. Even players like Ulloa and Drinky were clever. We’ve admirably tried to bring thru lots of youngsters but that has to be tempted with having some intelligence there (cough Centre Midfield!). 

 

The scapegoating/recultance to pay/play Silva is getting annoying