Non-Boro Football

[Snowblind 1,734]

I'd take the points every time. Regardless of where you are in the table, you're looking to pick up points. Regardless of entertainment value, is always choose the draw over a defeat for my own team.

 

As a neutral on the other hand... Liverpool vs. City was a phenomenal game. One of my favourites was another Liverpool 4-3 against Newcastle back in '96. Even more dramatic in some ways because the lead just kept swapping! Still remember the commentary for the winner: "Barnes. Rush. Barnes. Rush. COLLYMOOOOORE!!!!" Amazing game that one!

[Cormick 11]

another way of looking at it play like united did and lose 1 or 2 nil makes it look like you never had ago at them, which for me i would like to see my team have ago take them to the sword ask questions of the other team then if you get beat you can honestly say they are the better team.

[tylergomez 53]

Very interesting question.

Could you argue that we did the latter under Robson the year we got relegated? Scored a load of goals and attacked teams. But got beaten too often.

 

I know a lot of fans who remember that time fondly. In fact a lot view it more fondly than the McLaren era where we more often parked the bus, but had more success.

[Humpty 3,260]

Interesting question came up on Talk sport yesterday and would like to see what other people think, would you rather play like Man Utd did against Liverpool and park the bus and hold out for a draw or play like Man City did against Liverpool and lose?

 

Last time i checked 1 point was worth more than 0 points.

[Borodane 6,297]

If asked before a single game whether you want 1 point parking the bus or 0 points playing attacking football I would certainly pick 1 point. But you don’t know that before a game, so if asked whether I want my teams tactics to be attack minded or results orientated boring football then I chose attack. City also win a lot more games by attacking their opponents as opposed to Mourinhos results oriented football.

[Changing Times 12,339]

Interesting question came up on Talk sport yesterday and would like to see what other people think, would you rather play like Man Utd did against Liverpool and park the bus and hold out for a draw or play like Man City did against Liverpool and lose?

 

I'd rather play like Man City do and win most of the time.  Easiest thing to do really is look at the league table and decide which is best, the results Man Utd get or the results Man City get?

[Tom 2,492]

On the excellent Football Ramble podcast (which I urge you to check out), they pointed out that how both Manchester teams played against Liverpool is largely irrelevant, and that the focus should be on how Man United played against Man City at Old Trafford, when they were underwhelming and didn't really take the game to them at all.

 

And anyway, Guardiola would have approached that game completely differently had Man City been right in the mix for the title, one or two points out in front.

As it is, he had a 15 point gap, and could afford to take a few risks.

[smogsterking the Inspirati 2,487]

Wow if only we had this ref in the Chelsea game on Saturday. Chelsea down to 9 men. Great preparation for such an easy run of fixtures.

[boroie 484]

You feel the ref was doing what he could to help Norwich alright

[boroinbishop 65]

Pedro's was a definite second yellow, willians would have been soft, there was contact but barely, definitely went looking for it, seen them given it not enough contact to take him to ground/impede him, also don't think he was winning the ball even if he had stayed on his feet.

 

As for morata's again, seen them given but for me there wasn't enough force on his shoulder to make his legs give way the way they did, if he hadnt made such a big deal out if the fall I don't think the referee books him for a dive and he may in fact have a stronger case for the penalty, if he has reacted and said something to the referee regardless of whether the right decision was made then the ref is well within his rights to give him the second yellow.

[wilsoncgp 9,280]

I mean he was pretty much right for everything. Both red cards justified, both players dived for sure, Pedro with a clear foul and Morata clearly should have kept his mouth shut. Willian one is reasonable doubt. Didn't exactly show VAR in a good light as it's still just a game of opinions when it came to that but I think he's done right to err on the side of caution with it too.

 

Chelsea players were throwing themselves to the ground to cheat a Championship side that they should have put to bed long before it came to the 94th minute. They're lucky that Cabellero is a good penalty saver because did he *** get his instructions from Conte, he was too busy mouthing off at the 4th official.

[richmfc 41]

That’s the way refs should ref a game. And diving would stop within weeks. And this he’s been touched so has the right to go down crap would stop aswell

[Blanco 4,916]

Agree 100% rich

[wilsoncgp 9,280]

That’s the way refs should ref a game.  And diving would stop within weeks.  And this he’s been touched so has the right to go down crap would stop aswell

 

"He's been touched so has the right to go down" is rubbish. Players who start going down because they believe they're about to be fouled as well. It's no excuse.

 

However, "He's been fouled but hasn't gone down" is still a problem. If a player has been fouled but it's not clear to the referee that an incident has happened, the defender will win more often than not and will also get away with murder.

 

I want diving cut out of the game, full stop. I'd like to see VAR to be involved with diving so we can afford to give red cards to divers. I'm assuming the only reason we make it a yellow card is because it is not always clear to the referee what has happened and it would be a much harsher judgement to send a player off for an incorrect decision. Having it be a yellow card gives the diver one per game though, give it a go and see what happens. If the ref catches you, you take the yellow and carry on and be mindful not to try again.

 

Red cards for diving is ultimately the only way it's going to get cut out. So if the ref could utilise VAR to help make sure those calls were correct, I think red cards would be fine.

[boroinbishop 65]

That’s the way refs should ref a game.  And diving would stop within weeks.  And this he’s been touched so has the right to go down crap would stop aswell

 

"He's been touched so has the right to go down" is rubbish. Players who start going down because they believe they're about to be fouled as well. It's no excuse.

 

However, "He's been fouled but hasn't gone down" is still a problem. If a player has been fouled but it's not clear to the referee that an incident has happened, the defender will win more often than not and will also get away with murder.

 

I want diving cut out of the game, full stop. I'd like to see VAR to be involved with diving so we can afford to give red cards to divers. I'm assuming the only reason we make it a yellow card is because it is not always clear to the referee what has happened and it would be a much harsher judgement to send a player off for an incorrect decision. Having it be a yellow card gives the diver one per game though, give it a go and see what happens. If the ref catches you, you take the yellow and carry on and be mindful not to try again.

 

Red cards for diving is ultimately the only way it's going to get cut out. So if the ref could utilise VAR to help make sure those calls were correct, I think red cards would be fine.

 

Completely agree with this Wilson, but it doesn't suit the big clubs so it'll never happen.