Leeds v Forest: Match Fred sponsored by Marco Polo's quest for a new forum | Page 21 | Vital Football

Leeds v Forest: Match Fred sponsored by Marco Polo's quest for a new forum

RedRoss said:
Oh it’s seb-HO with another account
Click to expand...

Been reading this madhouse for years and posting on here for around 3. Only ever had 1 account/username, never even arranged a scrap in a Tesco car park or rung Charlie Austin's dad.

I'm certainly not middle class enough to be a Seb ffs.
 
BobbyL said:
Sow’s cameo should hopefully end this Watson nonsense.

A midfield trip of Sow, Semedo and Carv next week. There is something in silva but with the way we set up I can’t see many assists or goals from him.
Click to expand...
Carv won’t be fit to play for a few weeks more yet so
I think my front 6 would be sow Semedo Bostock Lolley grabban cash
 
RedRoss said:
Probably not rad...I am looking forward to seeing and positive About all our signings this summer
Click to expand...

It seems my absence was enough to get a point!

Was listening as we took off, lost the signal at about 5000 ft

Was very happy to discover we took a point. Does balance all the negativity from last week ino
 
Just seen a brief cover of the game on Sky Sports.
"Should Forests goal have stood, and should Leeds have had a late penalty?"
No question of how many men Leeds should have finished the game with. Only how hard done too the media darlings had been.
 
LynxRed said:
Just seen a brief cover of the game on Sky Sports.
"Should Forests goal have stood, and should Leeds have had a late penalty?"
No question of how many men Leeds should have finished the game with. Only how hard done too the media darlings had been.
Click to expand...
Par for the course with Leeds.

While I enjoy watching them suffer, the sooner we get them out of this division into one that can fit their enormous heads, the better
 
Pains me to say, I think this will be their year. They've got a good squad, a good manager and they've found some stability at last.
 
Skip_4 said:
Been reading this madhouse for years and posting on here for around 3. Only ever had 1 account/username, never even arranged a scrap in a Tesco car park or rung Charlie Austin's dad.

I'm certainly not middle class enough to be a Seb ffs.
Click to expand...
Maybe....but that’s where “people like you” comes in
 
LynxRed said:
Just seen a brief cover of the game on Sky Sports.
"Should Forests goal have stood, and should Leeds have had a late penalty?"
No question of how many men Leeds should have finished the game with. Only how hard done too the media darlings had been.
Click to expand...

According to the rules there was nothing untoward about Grabban's goal.

While there is no question that the ball hit him across his chest and upper arm there was never any attempt to control or direct the ball; it was clearly ball to arm and not arm to ball.

The specific aspect of the rule which covers this is:

"the ball touches a player's hand/arm which has made their silhouette unnaturally bigger"

This was clearly not the case; the player made every attempt to keep his arms close to his body.
 
mao tse tung said:
According to the rules there was nothing untoward about Grabban's goal.

While there is no question that the ball hit him across his chest and upper arm there was never any attempt to control or direct the ball; it was clearly ball to arm and not arm to ball.

The specific aspect of the rule which covers this is:

"the ball touches a player's hand/arm which has made their silhouette unnaturally bigger"

This was clearly not the case; the player made every attempt to keep his arms close to his body.
Click to expand...
Even the Sky pundits said it was not handball.

I wasn't convinced there was really enough contact for their man to go down in the build up either
 
mao tse tung said:
According to the rules there was nothing untoward about Grabban's goal.

While there is no question that the ball hit him across his chest and upper arm there was never any attempt to control or direct the ball; it was clearly ball to arm and not arm to ball.

The specific aspect of the rule which covers this is:

"the ball touches a player's hand/arm which has made their silhouette unnaturally bigger"

This was clearly not the case; the player made every attempt to keep his arms close to his body.
Click to expand...
Ye s...he clearly tried to cushion the ball off his chest to strike but missed the ball with his foot but the ball rolled in anyway.

Absolutely nothing wrong wrong with it.
 
BobbyL said:
Sow’s cameo should hopefully end this Watson nonsense.

A midfield trip of Sow, Semedo and Carv next week. There is something in silva but with the way we set up I can’t see many assists or goals from him.
Click to expand...
Think Bostock will replace Watson and Sow will be used from the bench going forward.
 
A couple more things I liked about Leeds' performance;

The players are all committed, every player.
They press high and get right in your faces, with intensity.
They have a formation and system which gets results.

It sometimes pushes the boundaries of being in the rules, but brings success more often than not.

I want Forest to be more like that, but within the rules.
 
Hardy Forest said:
I'd have taken a point yes, but not that performance. Were you watching? We didnt earn that. We got lucky from one corner, that should have been brought back for a foul. We didnt create anything, at no point did we ever control the ball. We didnt even defend well, it was more their poor finishing. Robinson should have had 2 penalties against him.
So no, it wasnt a classic away performance, we were just very very lucky. It was a terrible performance.
Which is why I said great result, poor performance!
Click to expand...
Yeah watched it all, classic away performances are rarely easy on the eye.
Wasn’t perfect but if that’s what you’re after you’re never going to be happy.
You can’t say if it wasn’t for this or that we wouldn’t have got the goal coz that’s football, their goal was offside so what.

I was chuffed to bits to get the point and not a care in the world about how we got it
Hardy Forest said:
I'd have taken a point yes, but not that performance. Were you watching? We didnt earn that. We got lucky from one corner, that should have been brought back for a foul. We didnt create anything, at no point did we ever control the ball. We didnt even defend well, it was more their poor finishing. Robinson should have had 2 penalties against him.
So no, it wasnt a classic away performance, we were just very very lucky. It was a terrible performance.
Which is why I said great result, poor performance!
Click to expand...

For me great away performance, what did you seriously expect from a fledgling team?
Did.you see the way they dismantled Brizzle last week?
They couldn't do that to us as we didn't let them.

Room for improvement for sure but jeez you can't have it all your own way
 
You must log in or register to reply here.