Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, December 22, 2022

OT Soccer Thread - Hi Ho Hi Ho it’s Back to Club Football We Go

Premier League - Boxing Day December 26
Serie A - January 4
La Liga - December 29
Bundesliga - January 20
FA Cup - January 6
Champions League - February 14 (Knockout Stage)
MLS - February 25
Transfer Window - January 1 to January 31 (some differences within individual nations)

Jose is an Absurd Sultan Posted: December 22, 2022 at 09:54 PM | 546 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: off topic, soccer

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 6 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
   101. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 04, 2023 at 06:41 PM (#6111872)
Relegation odds heading into the break:

bournemouth    66
southampton    60

forest         44
everton        44
wolves         33

leeds          16
leicester      13.25
west ham       13

palace          4
villa           3
brentford       2
fulham          1.5
brighton        0.25
   102. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 04, 2023 at 06:55 PM (#6111876)
I'll do an update tomorrow, but now that we are halfway through the scheduled schedule betting odds thinks there is very little to choose from the 8 teams in the bottom half of the table (by expected quality) going forward. These are (in order): palace, leicester, leeds, brentford, and wolves, and pretty close to them fulham, everton, and southampton. They are all expected to get a very similar number of points once you adjust for schedule difficulty. Grading between 39-45 point teams (full season) over the second half. 39-41 for the last three, and 43-45 for the first five.

The four teams realistically fighting for Top 4 are rated even more close to each other for the second half, with virtually no daylight between them: United, Chelsea, Newcastle, and Tottenham. All grading at 64-65 point teams (full season) over the second half. Brighton is considered to be well back of these four in expected quality over the second half, in the mid-50s.

Villa and West Ham are considered neck and neck for 9th/10th.

City is considered far better than everyone else: about a true 90-point team. That seems a bit high to me, but it's hard to say. Liverpool (high 70s)) is still comfortably ahead of Arsenal (around 70), who themselves are comfortably above the tightly packed group of four.

Forest (mid-30s) and especially Bournemouth (high-20s) trail the rest.
   103. Infinite Yost (Voxter) Posted: January 04, 2023 at 07:52 PM (#6111885)
City is considered far better than everyone else: about a true 90-point team. That seems a bit high to me, but it's hard to say. Liverpool (high 70s)) is still comfortably ahead of Arsenal (around 70)


I think City is quite a bit better than everybody else, though (a) I don't think Liverpool is that kind of side anymore, (b) I think Arsenal is probably closer to a high-70s side than a 70-point side, and (c) . . . I don't have a point (c), but it felt like I should.

Basically, I think Liverpool is the 3d best team in the league and Arsenal is no way, no how a true-talent 20-point underdog to City.

Also, the more I think about Thomas Partey the more I think Arsenal needs someone more effective at CDM.
   104. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: January 04, 2023 at 08:04 PM (#6111887)
Tottenham sure do look better when they score every half-chance.
   105. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 05, 2023 at 09:23 AM (#6111944)
The handball at the end of the Arsenal game would have been a penalty when they first expanded the handball rules using the "silhouette" logic. Over the past couple years they have relaxed the rules quite a bit and I can see why it was not given. Live I thought it hit the player's right arm which was pretty outstretched. It actually hit his left arm which was a lot closer to his body and in a more natural position. They aren't giving many penalties on plays like this any more.

It's not really correct to say the left arm was "tucked" though. You can see if you look closely the ball would have completely missed the player's torso region and only contacts the left forearm just above the wrist, which is out in front of the player's body. With the player turned more than 90 degrees when the ball strikes him, it had already gone past the torso and was headed into the middle of the field. Under the old silhouette rule that's a penalty but now players are given some leeway so long as their hands and arms are fairly close to their body and in a natural position, even if they interfere with the play. Especially if the ball is kicked from close and there really isn't time to get them out of the way.

The shirt pull just isn't given that often, and especially not on VAR. Maybe they'll crack down on these in the future but for now if it's not given on the field--and it very seldom is--you can put pretty much forget about VAR giving it unless it's just about the worst one you have ever seen. (Speaking of... I was still pretty shocked VAR didn't give a foul where Cucarella was pulled down by the hair,. I think they give that one now if it happens again.)
   106. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 05, 2023 at 09:27 AM (#6111946)
You can see the handball play here, with the best view of the ball contacting the left forearm at 22 seconds.
   107. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 05, 2023 at 05:23 PM (#6112060)
EPL winner odds
city          61
arsenal       34

united         2.5
Newcastle      1.5
liverpool      0.7
tottenham      0.2
field          0.1


Top 4 odds
city          99
arsenal       94

united        61.5
liverpool     52.5
newcastle     47.5
tottenham     26.5
chelsea       13

brighton       5

field          1
   108. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 05, 2023 at 05:58 PM (#6112066)

Approximate relative expected team quality going forward, based on betting odds.
           remaining            opponents still unplayed                        
        points    games   p/g    

city         48.5   21   2.31   arsenal, tottenham   (extra away)             

liverpool    42     21   2.00   chelsea, wolves      (extra away)       

arsenal      39     21   1.86   city, everton        (extra home)          
                                 
united       36.5   21   1.74   palace, leeds        (extra home)       
chelsea      36     21   1.71   liverpool, fulham    (extra home)          
newcastle    34     20   1.70   west ham                                  
tottenham    32.5   20   1.63   city                                    

brighton     31     21   1.48   palace, bournemouth  (extra home)        

west ham     26     20   1.30   newcastle                              
villa        25.5   20   1.28   leicester                           
      
leicester    24     20   1.20   villa                                        
palace       24.5   21   1.17   united, brighton     (extra away)        
wolves       22.5   20   1.13   liverpool                              

brentford    22.5   20   1.13   southampton                           
leeds        23     21   1.10   united, forest       (extra away)       
fulham       21     20   1.05   chelsea                                
everton      20.5   20   1.03   arsenal                              
southampton  20     20   1.00   fulham                                 

forest       18*    20*  0.90   leeds                                

bournemouth  15     20   0.75   brighton
   109. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 05, 2023 at 06:03 PM (#6112067)
The same basic chart as above, expressed differently and including 538 numbers.

Current expected quality over second half based on projected points prorated over full season adjusting for schedule.
                      betting odds          538
                   current original   current original
Manchester City       90*     90         83      85   
              
Liverpool             77      86         75      80

Arsenal               71      67         71      61   
 
Manchester United     65      66         64      57 
Chelsea               65      70         61      72
Newcastle             64.5    56         64.5    47  
Tottenham             63.5    72         60.5    66  

Brighton              54      48         60      54          
 
West Ham              50      53         50      50  
Aston Villa           48      51         53      54     
     
Leicester City        45.5    49         47.5    51  
Crystal Palace        45      46         42      50   
Wolverhampton         44      43         39      46 
     
Brentford             42      41         51      48 
Leeds                 41.5    41         43      41 
Fulham                41      37         45      36      
Everton               40      42         37      42   
   
Southampton           37.5    38         39.5    40     

Nottingham Forest     34      36         34      35

Bournemouth           29      31         33      36
As you can probably see, 538 is overall quite a bit more volatile than betting odds. Many teams overall quality expectation has not changed much despite their good (Brentford) or bad (Wolves) performance to this point.

   110. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 06, 2023 at 05:28 PM (#6112224)
"the interesting thing about the 538 projections rn is that they're making a bunch of pretty strong bets on relative team quality"
link

It took me quite a while top figure out what that quote, which appears to be in reference to 538's projections for the top 8 in the EPL, was supposed to mean. I'm still not sure. The main point of 538 is to provide an objective estimate of expected relative team quality, so the sentence is first of all incoherent.

In reality coming from a stat-heavy xG person I think the quote is probably saying that 538 "should" be placing more weight on current season performance (primarily xG) over the first 18 games and less on whatever other prior estimates they are using for team quality. As clearly shown above 538 is already probably overcompensating for 18-game preformance as compared to betting odds, so this seems exactly backwards. Making matters worse, there is an implication in the comments that the offseason transfermarkt values might be having an outsized effect, when again that's generally the opposite of correct. The transfermarkt values tend to act more like a regression than anything, bringing teams like Liverpool, Chelsea and Tottenham back down from the heights they achieved in ranking at the end of last season back to a more reasonable estimate for the current season.

Ultimately 538 is an elo-based system, so the pre-season ranking will have a big effect regardless of current season performance. Not as big as betting odds, but big nonetheless. And it should. 18 games is still a small sample, and performance over 18 games is much less predictive of future expectation than a combination of performance and pre-season expectation. It's clear betting odds is generally weighting preseason expectation more than performance to date, but I'm not sure the exact ratio. 538 is probably also weighting preseason expectation higher, though by a lesser amount than betting odds.
   111. Jose is an Absurd Sultan Posted: January 07, 2023 at 11:13 AM (#6112292)
Folks we have the miss of the round and maybe the season from the Fleetwood striker. Shot saved drops to him unmarked in the six yard box with an entire net to shoot at...and he missed the ball. I've seen it twice and honestly can't figure out how. It's the kind of thing where you wouldn't think he was paid off because if he was paid off he'd have made it look better.
   112. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 07, 2023 at 11:38 AM (#6112294)
I've been glancing at the Chesterfield potential upset of West Brom. Didn't notice Rebecca Welch was reffing until a Chesterfield player went down in the box right in front of the ref who had a great view, but the penalty was waved off. Looked like at least a 50/50 play. No VAR for this game (and maybe this round for all games?) so any on-field decision is final.

Apparently she reffed at least one men's FA cup last year as well.
   113. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 07, 2023 at 03:42 PM (#6112326)
Newcastle becomes the best team so far eliminated from the FA cup, after a loss to Wednesday. Liverpool is currently losing against Wolves despite fielding a strong side. (edit: 1-1 now after a gorgeous pass from TAA to Nunez). Chelsea/City tomorrow, so one of them will go out as well.

Chesterfield couldn't hold on, so they will have a replay against West Brom. Another 5th tier team Boreham Wood also has a replay against Accrington Stanley. The last 5th tier team is the famous Wrexham, who jumped out to a 4-1 lead against Championship Coventry and then barely held on despite Coventry going down to 10. There will be at least two League 2 (4th tier) teams in the next round as well.
   114. spivey Posted: January 07, 2023 at 04:12 PM (#6112336)
I absolutely hate when they don't call that second Liverpool goal offside. The ball was only played because of the offside player.
   115. spivey Posted: January 07, 2023 at 04:16 PM (#6112338)
(I think this is the rule, but it's a stupid ####### rule and Imma sick Lord Buckethead on the head of the FA)
   116. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 07, 2023 at 04:17 PM (#6112339)
Salah just scored after a failed cleared header by the defense where Salah was in an offside position when the initial ball was played. Based on the IFAB guidelines that should have been an offside. The defender was stretching for the ball and it was off his head. Both key indicators that he did not have control of the play and thus the proper call was a deflection and not a new play by the defense.

Admittedly it was a bit borderline but it's extremely annoying to me that they put out fairly clear guidelines and then don't bother to follow them. It all becomes a bit arbitrary.

The call was not as bad as the one earlier this year in the EPL where the ball came off the crossbar right at the defender who barely had time to react and it bounced weakly off his head to an attacking player who had been in an offside position when the original ball was played. To me that was the worst call of the season in the EPL.

edit: just saw 114/115. I posted the new IFAB guidelines with example calls a couple months ago and that Liverpool goal I'm pretty sure falls squarely into the offside category.
   117. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 07, 2023 at 04:28 PM (#6112340)
I might revise my assessment a bit. You can see the plays here for headers and the one from the Wolves player was somewhat borderline, though I think probably should still have been ruled offside. See here. examples 9-12.

The one off the crossbar earlier this year in the EPL was quite a bit worse, since the defender was very close to the crossbar and had no time to react and make any other play than the weak header he made. Barely a peep from the pundits about it though.
   118. spivey Posted: January 07, 2023 at 04:29 PM (#6112341)
https://www.theifab.com/news/law-11-offside-deliberate-play-guidelines-clarified/

Rules there. It's tough. It's a judgement call on if it was a deliberate play. I think it was. The defender had enough time to make a real clearance there, imo, it was just a ######, and it wasn't a situation where the defender was so stretched or had to react so quickly that we'd expect this kind of #### up a high percentage of the time. But, I still think that rule should consider this offside. The fact is he only played the ball because of the offside player.
   119. spivey Posted: January 07, 2023 at 04:45 PM (#6112343)
Don't fully understand how the Wolves 3rd goal was disallowed for offside on the cross if you're going to say the Liverpool second goal deserves to stand. But who knows, maybe the ref has plans to score the game winner.
   120. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 07, 2023 at 04:47 PM (#6112344)
Yeah I can see that argument for this Liverpool goal. Not at all for goal that was given earlier this year though where the ball came off the crossbar.

Announcers are mystified by that last offside call against Wolves on the would be Wolves goal, and I am too. Was it on the cross that was cut out by the defender? If so, why wasn't that a deliberate play as well?
   121. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 07, 2023 at 04:55 PM (#6112346)
Disallowed goal seems to be here. I don't see how it's offside. Even if the initial ball was a deflection, there is still a new play when the ball is played again by the Wolves player who receives the ball.

edit: some are saying the corner taker got the ball from an offside position. Maybe that's what happened...? If so, it still must have been very close based on the position of TAA when the ball came back to the corner taker.


edit: ... and ITV said that's there was no camera angle showing the position of the corner taker so they had to stick with the call on the field, even though they don't actually know if he was in an offside position.
   122. spivey Posted: January 07, 2023 at 04:59 PM (#6112348)
I think it's the corner taker who put in the cross who was ruled offside. That looks like it may be legitimate, after all (hard to say definitively based on the replays we have, but it seems very possible).
   123. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 07, 2023 at 05:02 PM (#6112349)
You can see here that if the corner taker was offside when the ball was last kicked, it would have been very close. TAA is pretty far down the field.
   124. spivey Posted: January 07, 2023 at 06:58 PM (#6112368)
Fan camera making the rounds that shows the corner taker looks clearly onside. May have been offside on the first header, but then was re-headed, and he was very much onside then.
   125. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 07, 2023 at 07:10 PM (#6112369)
Yeah I'm seeing it on twitter now as well. He sure looked onside after all. Wolves got jobbed today by a stupid rule and an even worse call. I sure hope the VAR at least communicated with the sideline guy who said he called the corner taker offside and not someone else. It's already a bad joke but if they didn't do at least that it would be a complete failure.
   126. The Gary DiSarcina Fan Club (JAHV) Posted: January 07, 2023 at 07:36 PM (#6112375)
As a Wolves fan, that was one of the better games they've played recently, but they got hosed. It's unbelievable that there's no camera angle showing Nunes at the point of contact on the header to him after the corner.
   127. The Gary DiSarcina Fan Club (JAHV) Posted: January 07, 2023 at 07:46 PM (#6112379)
I just saw the fan cam footage from the opposite side of the field - I think it's closer than it looks to the naked eye because of the angle of the camera, but it sure appears that Nunes is clearly onside at the point of the header.
   128. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 08, 2023 at 01:03 AM (#6112399)
City is being given about 23% to win the FA cup, without having even played a game yet. That's about a 78% chance on average to advance in each round. That's pretty wild. And they have to start with Chelsea (but it is at home).
   129. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 08, 2023 at 10:43 AM (#6112414)
Cardiff player with the intentional handball in front of goal is sent off with a red in the 81st minute. And the resulting penalty is saved! Cardiff still leads 2-1. Could be a Suarez scenario but still quite a bit of time left...
   130. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 08, 2023 at 11:01 AM (#6112416)
Leeds did manage to draw level so justice was to some extent done. The goal was on what at first glance looked to be a marginal offside play--except that there was another defender well away from the play right on the goal line so the goal scorer was actually onside by several yards. No VAR for the game in Cardiff so we should be happy the on-field officials got the call right live.
   131. Mefisto Posted: January 08, 2023 at 11:15 AM (#6112418)
I don't remember now who posted it, but the correct tactical decision is to take the red in order to prevent a goal after (off memory) the 80th minute.
   132. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 08, 2023 at 11:19 AM (#6112419)
FA Cup draw: If Arsenal beats Oxford, they get today's winner of City/Chelsea. Brighton will host the Liverpool/Wolves replay winner. That means at least 4 of the top 8 EPL teams will be out after the next round. City's route also got a lot tougher assuming Arensal beats Oxford, though they do get another home game. No other really notable matches. Wrexham hosts Sheffield United.
   133. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 08, 2023 at 12:35 PM (#6112427)
That City/Chelsea first half was no contest. Chelsea didn't even have a shot.
   134. spivey Posted: January 08, 2023 at 12:45 PM (#6112428)
Imagine Kalvin Phillips being your 7th best midfielder.
   135. The_Ex Posted: January 08, 2023 at 06:40 PM (#6112470)
Chelsea had no answer to the City press. They could barely string three passes together before being dispossessed.
   136. jmurph Posted: January 09, 2023 at 08:09 AM (#6112517)
Roberto Martinez is the new Portugal national team manager. Hard to argue with the results, so this makes sense (I'm kidding, it's very easy to argue with the results).
   137. spivey Posted: January 09, 2023 at 08:55 AM (#6112519)
Roberto Martinez wandering the earth, killing golden generations. (You could fairly argue if Belgium truly underperformed since they finished 3rd in WC, played France tough in the semis, and were FIFA #1 a long time, and what I would say is the worst result of this generation is the 3-1 Wales loss which happened under the previous manager, Wilmots.) Last couple of years they've been well below the top teams as the Tottenham core, Nainggolan, Mertens, and Hazard all aged.
   138. Infinite Yost (Voxter) Posted: January 09, 2023 at 02:00 PM (#6112559)
FIFA is "investigating" a homophobic chant at the Ethiad during the draw against Chelsea. How do you investigate a chant? What are you even trying to find out?
   139. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 10, 2023 at 04:25 PM (#6112734)
It would be very surprising now if anyone other than City, United, or Newcastle won the EFL cup.
   140. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: January 10, 2023 at 06:31 PM (#6112759)
So what Premier League team should I switch to if Qatar starts funding Tottenham?
   141. Infinite Yost (Voxter) Posted: January 11, 2023 at 09:04 AM (#6112794)
I imagine they'll all be owned by Russian oligarchs or murderous oil slaveocracies eventually.
   142. The_Ex Posted: January 11, 2023 at 09:12 AM (#6112795)
Looking at ownership is the depressing part of the PL. You have Arab dictators, US investors or foreign (non English) "businessmen". The German 50% model means the Bundesliga falls behind the PL from a competitive perspective but it keeps the teams locally controlled with a couple of exceptions.
   143. Infinite Yost (Voxter) Posted: January 11, 2023 at 09:45 AM (#6112801)
The German 50% model means the Bundesliga falls behind the PL from a competitive perspective but it keeps the teams locally controlled with a couple of exceptions.


It would be nice if everybody could operate that way, but there's no way the EPL is going to give up all that money now.
   144. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 11, 2023 at 03:40 PM (#6112859)
Southampton leads City 2-0.
   145. The Gary DiSarcina Fan Club (JAHV) Posted: January 11, 2023 at 04:37 PM (#6112875)
Being fairly new to watching high level soccer, did the Wolves just get screwed again? A Wolves player seemingly won a contested ball right on the edge of the box and the defender chasing him stepped on the back of his cleat enough to pull it off inside the penalty area. No call. And I'm guessing there's no VAR in the Carabao Cup games since they never once referred to it while they were analyzing the play. Should that be a penalty?
   146. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 11, 2023 at 04:51 PM (#6112876)
Kind of sounds like it, but would have to see a replay. Maybe there were mitigating factors.

Somehow City is going to go out this round. That's a pretty big shocker.
   147. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 11, 2023 at 04:56 PM (#6112877)
I'm hoping United faces Newcastle in the EFL cup, either in the semis or final (which admittedly is pretty likely).
   148. The Gary DiSarcina Fan Club (JAHV) Posted: January 11, 2023 at 04:57 PM (#6112878)
And the Wolves go out in penalties, 4-3. Rough.
   149. The Gary DiSarcina Fan Club (JAHV) Posted: January 11, 2023 at 05:05 PM (#6112880)
I don't do Twitter so I'm not sure of the best way to find a clip. If you find one, I'm curious as to your opinion.
   150. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 11, 2023 at 05:52 PM (#6112890)
Henderson is ineligible for the United game, because he is on loan.
   151. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 11, 2023 at 06:11 PM (#6112895)
Southampton and Forest are still very unlikely to win: combined 15% by betting odds. United at 51% and Newcastle at 34%.
   152. jmurph Posted: January 12, 2023 at 07:45 AM (#6112934)
And the Wolves go out in penalties, 4-3. Rough.

I say this not to be a pedant but because it is in fact cooler the correct way: it's just Wolves, not the Wolves.
   153. spivey Posted: January 12, 2023 at 09:17 AM (#6112940)
Ederson's position on that second Southampton goal was trash. His distribution very likely still makes him worth of being the uncontested starter for City, but I feel like he's good for allowing a handful of soft goals a year. Alisson too, though his seem less frequent and more just pure blunders - and you have to live with some of that when you want your goalkeeper to be so involved in build up play.
   154. The Marksist Posted: January 12, 2023 at 11:43 AM (#6112959)
I was about to defend Alisson here (better shot-stopper, truly elite on 1v1s, etc.), but then I realized it was City's backup keeper playing anyway.
   155. spivey Posted: January 12, 2023 at 12:00 PM (#6112965)
Oops! I only watched the highlights, I confess.

I do think Alisson is an excellent keeper, and definitely better than Ederson imo. He has that Lloris gene in him though, he's good for throwing away a couple of goals a season.
   156. The Gary DiSarcina Fan Club (JAHV) Posted: January 12, 2023 at 12:29 PM (#6112970)
I say this not to be a pedant but because it is in fact cooler the correct way: it's just Wolves, not the Wolves.


I've heard that before, but I completely disagree that it's cooler. "The Wolves" sounds much, much better and more natural, like "the Angels" or "the Red Sox."

And I will never, ever submit to the way the soccer community uses the plural conjugation of a verb behind the singular name of a team. I'm just not going to do it. "Wolverhampton is the better team right now" will always be the correct construction to me, even while I understand the other way is not technically incorrect to my knowledge. I can't even bring myself to type the word "are" directly after "Wolverhampton." It gives me the jitters just thinking about it.

I know that I'll be viewed as a soccer neophyte as long as I write that way, but I'm comfortable with it. I'm happy to maintain my grammatical principles while appearing as an outsider. (Yes, I've thought about this a decent amount since I've become a soccer fan, which is probably a decent amount too much. But while I'm not a perfect grammarian by any stretch, it is important to me.)
   157. The Marksist Posted: January 12, 2023 at 03:17 PM (#6112991)
I do think Alisson is an excellent keeper, and definitely better than Ederson imo. He has that Lloris gene in him though, he's good for throwing away a couple of goals a season.


For sure! One or two tragicomic errors a year sounds about right.
   158. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 12, 2023 at 03:35 PM (#6112992)
Without having anything to back it up, I would guess that it's the very rare keeper that doesn't average at least one or two a year. Even the best seem to do this.
   159. spivey Posted: January 12, 2023 at 03:43 PM (#6112993)
Without having anything to back it up, I would guess that it's the very rare keeper that doesn't average at least one or two a year. Even the best seem to do this.


The best goal keepers are also given the most responsibility. My guess is I think that 1-2/season number is probably a bit high for the keepers who just hoof it a high % of the time. If we're starting to count letting savable shots, then yeah, everyone's prone to that now and again.
   160. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 12, 2023 at 04:43 PM (#6112999)
WTF did Joao Felix do? What a way to start your time at Chelsea.
   161. Mefisto Posted: January 12, 2023 at 05:57 PM (#6113009)
Potter is right there with Lampard in "I can't understand why he still has his job" territory.
   162. Mefisto Posted: January 12, 2023 at 07:01 PM (#6113023)
Speaking of things I can't understand, I don't get Weghorst to United. Apparently it's all but done, though, since Fabrizio Romano is reporting it.
   163. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 12, 2023 at 08:38 PM (#6113028)
They feel shorthanded at striker without Ronaldo, and don't want to pay premium for a midseason longterm replacement.
   164. Mefisto Posted: January 12, 2023 at 09:47 PM (#6113033)
If they want to use him in the last 10 minutes of a game they're losing and just throw crosses into the box, fine. I guess.
   165. The_Ex Posted: January 13, 2023 at 07:57 AM (#6113056)
Potter is right there with Lampard in "I can't understand why he still has his job" territory.


Well ten players injured is a start. Chelsea have won around 70% of their games when Reece James is in the lineup and almost as many when Ben Chilwell is available. They also do well when Ngole Kante is fit. It would also be nice if they had a striker, Lukaku was loaned out and Broja is out for the season. Joao Felix looked good and got sent off. Dennis Zakaria has been their best midfielder over the last few games and he is now injured.

I agree he hasn't shown much but as the old saying goes if he didn't have bad luck he would have no luck at all.
   166. Mefisto Posted: January 13, 2023 at 08:51 AM (#6113060)
That's all fair, I just don't think Chelsea have played particularly well anyway. I may be underestimating how important the missing players are.
   167. spivey Posted: January 13, 2023 at 09:06 AM (#6113062)
Kante's probably done at the highest level. James is a brilliant right back, best in the world for me.

But despite the injuries, their team has a ton of talent, and a team with the money Chelsea has shouldn't be so reliant on 2 injury prone players (it may be fair to say this about James now?). They don't have a goal scorer or any particularly creative players (besides James) though, and you could argue a lot of their best players are on the way down, and they don't fit super well.

I would imagine Potter got some assurances about how much rope he'd be given before he took the job. It is weird that, say, Cucurella, who was so great with Potter last year, is playing so poorly this year. Hell, I thought he was better last year than Chilwell has ever been.
   168. Jose is an Absurd Sultan Posted: January 13, 2023 at 10:36 AM (#6113070)
Chelsea feel like a squad that has been assembled to a price rather than a "team." There seems to be redundancies in some places, gaping holes in others. Some of that is surely the injuries but some of it is just team design. If this were baseball you'd say they'd trade Pulisic or Ziyech for a true striker or a center back who doesn't step on his dick on a regular basis.
   169. spivey Posted: January 13, 2023 at 04:33 PM (#6113119)
Napoli with a huge win against Juventus today. They already were the favorites, but this was big given the form Juve have been in.
   170. Infinite Yost (Voxter) Posted: January 13, 2023 at 08:58 PM (#6113145)
I know that:

(a) I am not an expert, and
(b) I have not watched every match Chelsea has played, but --

Why on earth is Kai Havertz still starting for a PL club that sees itself as a Champions League contender? He is dreadful.
   171. Infinite Yost (Voxter) Posted: January 13, 2023 at 08:59 PM (#6113146)
(while also acknowledging that they have other, though not necessarily bigger, problems)
   172. Mefisto Posted: January 14, 2023 at 08:51 AM (#6113156)
Damn.
   173. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: January 14, 2023 at 09:08 AM (#6113157)
Does Bruno Fernandes understand that this is going to be checked by VAR and yelling at the refs doesn't accomplish anything?

For me that's offside. Rashford was right on top on the ball. You can't argue that he didn't affect the play just because he didn't actually touch it.
   174. Mefisto Posted: January 14, 2023 at 09:10 AM (#6113158)
Now *that's* an interesting call.
   175. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: January 14, 2023 at 09:10 AM (#6113159)
Like, that's an absolutely horrendous call. How in the hell does that get given with VAR?
   176. jmurph Posted: January 14, 2023 at 09:11 AM (#6113160)
Very confused how an offsides Rashford literally standing over the ball doesn’t count as interfering with play.

And there’s the game. Delightful.
   177. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 14, 2023 at 09:12 AM (#6113161)
I absolutely hate that interpretation of the rule. Rooting hard for United today and I'm not even sure that goes against how the refs are supposed to call it, but it is still stupid as ####.
   178. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: January 14, 2023 at 09:12 AM (#6113162)
Then Ake doesn't stop the cross and plays Rashford onside at the same time.
   179. jmurph Posted: January 14, 2023 at 09:24 AM (#6113163)
This is the worst game I’ve ever seen Bernardo Silva play.
   180. jmurph Posted: January 14, 2023 at 09:31 AM (#6113164)
Love to not impact the defender by forcing the goalie to defend an offsides player. Checks out logically.
   181. Mefisto Posted: January 14, 2023 at 09:31 AM (#6113165)
As MCoA said, that apparently is the rule but the rule is dumb.
   182. Mefisto Posted: January 14, 2023 at 09:32 AM (#6113166)
I mean, the result wasn't unfair overall (United were better in the first half), but I'd be furious if I were Pep.
   183. jmurph Posted: January 14, 2023 at 09:33 AM (#6113167)
Also draws Walker away from Bruno. So just the two defenders impacted, but it’s cool and fine and I’m definitely not going to lose my mind.
   184. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 14, 2023 at 10:11 AM (#6113168)
There are a lot of other less blatant plays where the offside player influences the action but doesn't directly make a play on the ball and they are almost never called offsides. All of them drive me nuts. This has to be one of the very worst examples though.
   185. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 14, 2023 at 10:19 AM (#6113170)
Undertold story of the game though was that even before the goal that tied it up United was probably the better team through the first 75 minutes despite being behind. At any rate they were no worse than City.
   186. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 14, 2023 at 10:28 AM (#6113171)
They just called TAA offside in the corner when the ball deflected to him and he casually chased after it, close to it but with his hands in the air, not touching it. Ball would have gone out for a Liverpool throw but Brighton got the free kick instead. And no one really near him... Less of an offside than the Rashford play for sure. Also one with very low leverage though, so if another Liverpool player had swooped in and ended up scoring hard to say if the offside would have stood.
   187. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 14, 2023 at 10:53 AM (#6113172)
Offside rule from FA website. The bolded part seems the most relevant. I don't like that phrasing "ability of the opponent to play the ball", as it doesn't go to the heart of the issue and allows for stupid interpretations like the one we just saw. But also see the examples from IFAB, especially at the end, which would seem to imply that Rashford should have been offisde. In one case the GK had to wait to see if offside player would play the ball.

2. Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
or
gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
been deliberately saved by any opponent
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.

A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area).

In situations where:

a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent's progress (e.g blocks the opponent) the offence should be penalised under Law 12
a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence
an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge
*The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used

   188. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 14, 2023 at 11:06 AM (#6113174)
If I were writing the rule, an offensive player wouldn't even have to attempt to play the ball or make an obvious action. The defenders would only have to have their ability to defend the play impacted based on a reasonable belief that the offensive player in an offside position could have an affect on the play.

Almost all these borderline cases that force defenders into a catch-22 would be ruled offside under this interpretation. The offense should not benefit from a player in an offside position.
   189. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 14, 2023 at 11:28 AM (#6113177)
The way the refs are interpreting it Rashford's actions didn't clearly impact any defenders. All I guess were too far away or would not obviously have done anything differently that would have helped them make a play. I think that's bonkers.

It's not the case that there has to be a physical disruption of the defenders (contra to what this person says), as can be seen in the Preston v United case in the examples, where the keeper had to wait to see if the offeensive player would play the ball.
   190. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 14, 2023 at 11:37 AM (#6113178)
IFAB says this on the relevant rule:

A player in an offside position shall be penalised if he makes an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

General Principles, to impact the ability of an opponent to play the ball:

--the attacking player in an offside position must make an obvious action (the action must be obvious but does not need to be deliberate)
--the opponent would usually have a clear view of the attacking player in an offside position
--the opponent would need to delay his action to wait and see if the attacking player in an offside position touches/plays the ball
--the opponent’s movement or ball playing options are clearly restricted by the physical movement and/or actions of the attacking player in an offside position


I guess another interpretation is the whole "obvious action" rule does not apply in this case because no City player was close enough to "play the ball". If so, that's also ridiculous, as (others have noted) Rashford could have pulled feints and stepovers etc so long as the other players were far enough away.

Maybe that's what they are saying. Unless a player is clearly trying to play the ball, there has to be an opponent close to the ball that can make an immediate play on the ball. Neither were the case here. If so, the rule is absurd.
   191. Mefisto Posted: January 14, 2023 at 11:57 AM (#6113181)
The thing that impressed me was that both Rashford and Fernandes seemed to know the rule.
   192. jmurph Posted: January 14, 2023 at 12:00 PM (#6113182)
I don't think we have to keep saying the rule is absurd, it was just a bad call. It happens, unfortunately for the losing team (and perhaps Arsenal, though I'm skeptical United are good enough to catch them), this was a meaningful one.
   193. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 14, 2023 at 12:06 PM (#6113183)
I don't think we have to keep saying the rule is absurd, it was just a bad call.
I don't know about that. There are plenty of experts saying it was the right call. Of course, that doesn't mean it was the actually right call under the rules as they are supposed to be interpreted, but it sure does not seem clear. (And the rule is also bad anyway, regardless of whether this call was right or wrong under the rule.)
   194. SoSH U at work Posted: January 14, 2023 at 12:10 PM (#6113185)
I'm with AuntBea. If this play (and others) can be interpreted as legal under the rule, then, like a Mojo Nixon-less record store, it's the rule that can use some fixin.
   195. jmurph Posted: January 14, 2023 at 12:11 PM (#6113186)
It really seems quite clear. Look at this still and explain how the play of Ederson, Akanji, and Walker aren't impacted by an offsides Rashford literally standing over the ball in a 1v1 situation. The 1st, 3rd, and 4th bullets you posted in 190 are pretty clearly at work. It's just a bad call.
   196. jmurph Posted: January 14, 2023 at 12:13 PM (#6113187)
I mean sure, I guess almost literally every rule could be improved by clearer language, I concede that. But I just think in this case it still isn't a difficult call.
   197. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 14, 2023 at 12:15 PM (#6113188)
Some of the refs on reddit are saying that the play could have (or at least in the past used to be viewed as) a clear attempt to play the ball by Rashford. If it were interpreted that way, I think there is virtually no way to argue the defenders weren't impacted at all.
   198. jmurph Posted: January 14, 2023 at 12:19 PM (#6113189)
He doesn't have to play the ball, that's simply not what the rule says.
   199. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: January 14, 2023 at 12:24 PM (#6113191)
By the way, here is the TAA play that probably should not actually have been called offside at all. Much harder to say here any opponent here was affected, and TAA made even less of an attempt to play the ball. It was called offside anyway.

The TAA call mostly makes sense to me because without TAA there maybe the Brighton player makes a real effort to keep the ball in play rather than allowing Liverpool a throw. But if that one is offside no way the Rashford one should not be.
   200. jmurph Posted: January 14, 2023 at 12:25 PM (#6113192)
Flip
Page 2 of 6 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BarrysLazyBoy
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Page rendered in 0.4939 seconds
69 querie(s) executed