Match Thread: Lincoln City v Cambridge United | Page 19 | Vital Football

Match Thread: Lincoln City v Cambridge United

nlondonimp said:
I wonder what the consensus would be on here if chapman had been the player in the black shirt, and Deegan had been making the tackle
Click to expand...

Deegan and the number 7 for them both had good games
I was surprised they didn’t get it out to the right winger more as he caused some problems second half
 
nlondonimp said:
I wonder what the consensus would be on here if chapman had been the player in the black shirt, and Deegan had been making the tackle
Click to expand...
More to the point what would the referee’s decision have been? We have seen many instances this season of referees consistently ruling important decisions against the Imps at Sincil Bank. I suspect the refs are determined to be seen not to be influenced by our noisy crowd and are therefore consciously or unconsciously biased against City.
 
UnbelievableJeff said:
He is paid to score goals. He isn't scoring.
Click to expand...
I would say he’s paid to ensure the team is scoring. A striker who scores 0 but gets 30 assists is a success to me. I agree with you that he needs to earn his place, but I think he is and will do enough to deserve that place.

In the end though this is just fans opinions and unless someone here is D/NC then it doesn’t really matter and perhaps we shouldn’t be such Richards to each other.
 
New gold dream said:
Thought we missed a trick yesterday on our free kicks we still doubled up with Lincoln players over the ball tho we were down to 10 men
Click to expand...
There were one or two in the first half where Eardley or Pett, can't remember who, was screaming at Andrade to get away from Toffolo and be another body around the box instead.
 
I'm not having that still as a sign of it being a red card. It's got to be taken into context with the challenge.

It's a block challenge where Chapman starts in a low block, swinging position and goes up the players shin, not going into the challenge over the top, studs showing and into his leg. Deegan's just got there a split second before he does, that's all.

It's just a mis-timed, honest challenge. Which is why Cambridge have said they'll help with the appeal. If it's an intentional leg breaker, they're not doing that. No Cambridge player even noticed the challenge, nor the Cambridge bench.
 
Davidimp said:
And there's the rub, we're not sure surely to send someone off you've got to be sure.
Judging by how he sprinted across the pitch he was, could have consulted his lino but he was worse than him!
He has previous by all accounts
Click to expand...
Yes that's the point isn't it? Surely have to be 100% it's a red card, yellow and a stern ticking off saying next foul and you're off would have been more sensible?
 
UnbelievableJeff said:
He is paid to score goals. He isn't scoring.
Click to expand...

I think that statement shows a total misunderstanding of the role the Cowleys expect of their strikers.

Rhead playing deeper in the NL season, not scoring for a long while as a result but linking play and creating space for others to score, he was doing what his managers asked.

Likewise Green last season, a long goalless spell but ran the channels, stretched the opposition and opened it up for others, he was doing what his managers asked.

Akinde has more assists than open play goals, and by the Cowleys' criteria, he's definitely doing his job.

The Cowleys don't like to be reliant on one or two main scorers, indeed are perfectly happy for their strikers to be non scoring, I don' t think they work to rigid job descriptions.
 
Skip155 said:
I might be in the minority here but I didn't quite understand the Akinde for Rhead switch. I've heard Danny's interview and understand his thought process around mobility and chasing lost causes but the reality is with 11 men on the pitch John can look very isolated so that's only ever going to be more evident with 10.

Matt on the other hand fills the pitch deeper, makes the ball stick and generally buys time for support to get into more advanced areas.

Maybe this is a benefit of hindsight comment but this was my feeling at the time.

That said it's very clear we played for the draw so I guess Danny's changes achieved their objectives.
Click to expand...
Couldn't disagree more. No argument playing Rheady ahead of Akinde at the start, but you saw in the minute after we went down to 10 why an isolated Rheady doesn't work , think the ball got played to him and he won it and then it it went a few yards further and he had no chance of following it. Not saying Akinde is in great form, but on a couple of occasions he chased down balls that Rheady woulodn't have even started in pursuit of
 
Just read the Cambridge managers comments. No hysterics there, sensible appraisal, especially about Chapman.
 
Chesterimp said:
I think that statement shows a total misunderstanding of the role the Cowleys expect of their strikers.

Rhead playing deeper in the NL season, not scoring for a long while as a result but linking play and creating space for others to score, he was doing what his managers asked.

Likewise Green last season, a long goalless spell but ran the channels, stretched the opposition and opened it up for others, he was doing what his managers asked.

Akinde has more assists than open play goals, and by the Cowleys' criteria, he's definitely doing his job.

The Cowleys don't like to be reliant on one or two main scorers, indeed are perfectly happy for their strikers to be non scoring, I don' t think they work to rigid job descriptions.
Click to expand...

Yeah I suppose so.
 
Luke Imp said:
I'm not having that still as a sign of it being a red card. It's got to be taken into context with the challenge.

It's a block challenge where Chapman starts in a low block, swinging position and goes up the players shin, not going into the challenge over the top, studs showing and into his leg. Deegan's just got there a split second before he does, that's all.

It's just a mis-timed, honest challenge. Which is why Cambridge have said they'll help with the appeal. If it's an intentional leg breaker, they're not doing that. No Cambridge player even noticed the challenge, nor the Cambridge bench.
Click to expand...

I agree. That picture doesn't look good but other things, such as the force being applied, need to be taken into account.
 
Luke Imp said:
I'm not having that still as a sign of it being a red card. It's got to be taken into context with the challenge.

It's a block challenge where Chapman starts in a low block, swinging position and goes up the players shin, not going into the challenge over the top, studs showing and into his leg. Deegan's just got there a split second before he does, that's all.

It's just a mis-timed, honest challenge. Which is why Cambridge have said they'll help with the appeal. If it's an intentional leg breaker, they're not doing that. No Cambridge player even noticed the challenge, nor the Cambridge bench.
Click to expand...


The thing is me old china, it doesn't have to be intentional to be dangerous play. It can be accidental or mis-timed. If in the eyes of the referee it was mis-timed and dangerous, they are within their rights to send that player off. We do play, watch and enjoy the game, in whatever sport there is, knowing that the word of the official in charge is final.

Who would be a referee eh?
 
Red Wimp said:
Couldn't disagree more. No argument playing Rheady ahead of Akinde at the start, but you saw in the minute after we went down to 10 why an isolated Rheady doesn't work , think the ball got played to him and he won it and then it it went a few yards further and he had no chance of following it. Not saying Akinde is in great form, but on a couple of occasions he chased down balls that Rheady woulodn't have even started in pursuit of
Click to expand...
this. also rhead does little closing down when we don't have the ball. we work around this when it is 11v11. it was obvious cambridge were going to have more of the ball once we went down to ten. keeping rhead on the pitch we would have been defending 9v11.
 
UnbelievableJeff said:
The thing is me old china, it doesn't have to be intentional to be dangerous play. It can be accidental or mis-timed. If in the eyes of the referee it was mis-timed and dangerous, they are within their rights to send that player off. We do play, watch and enjoy the game, in whatever sport there is, knowing that the word of the official in charge is final.

Who would be a referee eh?
Click to expand...
Just to turn that around the referee should also take into account would he reasonably expect the player to make the challenge at that moment and was the manner in which he carried out the challenge reasonable. I would argue the answer to both is yes and therefore it is a yellow for mistiming his tackle. I assume one of the reasons that people wear shin pads is because contact with the shins is part and parcel of football when genuine attempts at tackles are mistimed. If that is not a factor then football may as well become basketball with feet.
 
Luke Imp said:
There were one or two in the first half where Eardley or Pett, can't remember who, was screaming at Andrade to get away from Toffolo and be another body around the box instead.
Click to expand...
maybe one of the downsides of being drilled so rigidly. equally, i think we stopped it after the half time team talk.
 
hulloutpost said:
Just to turn that around the referee should also take into account would he reasonably expect the player to make the challenge at that moment and was the manner in which he carried out the challenge reasonable. I would argue the answer to both is yes and therefore it is a yellow for mistiming his tackle. I assume one of the reasons that people wear shin pads is because contact with the shins is part and parcel of football when genuine attempts at tackles are mistimed. If that is not a factor then football may as well become basketball with feet.
Click to expand...

I would like to see Basketball with feet. Sounds like you need to patent that!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.