The Official Accrington Stanley Match Thread (Sponsored by the Milk Marketing Board "for all your "who are they?" needs") | Page 10 | Vital Football

The Official Accrington Stanley Match Thread (Sponsored by the Milk Marketing Board "for all your "who are they?" needs")

chris who said:
When was the last time we won three of four away?
We are currently joint second in the form table based on the last 4 games.
Click to expand...
Too answer my own question November/December 2018 we won three on the bounce away. But one was a fa cup game.
October 2017 was three league game won on the bounce.
 
HerrLjunga said:
Decent vlog this, fair play for mentioning our fans too. Not often an opposition fan states we deserved a win as the better side.

Click to expand...

That was a very good vlog indeed. None of us are as fair minded as that guy seemed to be. No messing just “they deserved it”. Fair play. Even during the first half he said “How come Gills are down there if they play like this?” and “they’ve been the better side first half”. Even our own fans didn’t say that 😁

And nice comments about the fans too. 260 travelling that distance is top stuff for our fan base. They would have all enjoyed it.

UTG!
 
Watching the highlights, I was really surprised by the lack of celebration from their fans behind the goal after scoring their penalty. It's not as if it was the last kick of the game, there was still another 7 minutes to go.
 
Looking at the Tucker incident, it is one of those difficult ones.

TBF it did look ugly and I have seem penalties given for similar but he had his arms flailing in front of him, rather than on Sykes' shoulders and Sykes did not seem to be making any attempt to climb for the ball himself so he was just effectively blocking Jack off. I think those are the reasons the ref didn't give anything despiet having a clear view.

There are two terms that you do not often hear these days, which are "obstruction" and "making a back" for the opponent and this incident looked like a case of both. The result was that both players ended in a heap.

In any case, Accy would not have earned or deserved either penalty as Jackson gifted them the first one. The Accy player was still penned in by Tucker and another player so why Jackson felt the need to get involved beats me. In the case of the Tucker incident, it was at the edge of a packed penalty area and Sykes had his back to goal. No goal threat whatsoever.
 
Captainreblue said:
Come on GBN, having just seen the Tucker 'incident', that's a penalty all day long, unless (thankfully) you're yesterday's ref.
Click to expand...

So how, in your opinion, was Tucker going to challenge for the ball honestly?

Are we going to have games now where the player in the position where the ball is dropping is to be left totally alone to bring it under control at their own leisure without being honestly challenged by any defenders?

If the ball had already arrived a Sykes' feet and he had it under control and was shielding it at the time Tucker went over the top of him, of course it would have been a penalty but it was still 50-50.

As I mentioned earlier, I remember seeing a still a couple of years ago where a defender was ripping Tom Eaves' shirt off his back with one hand and had his fingers in Tom's eyes with his other hand. Now that really is GBH in my book. However, Eaves was staying on his feet rather than doing an impression of Flipper.

It's not as if any player ever throws themself to the ground to try to win a penalty deep in to injury time even when they are a muscular defender, is it?
 
Last edited:
GillsBluenose said:
So how, in your opinion, was Tucker going to challenge for the ball honestly?

Are we going to have games now where the player in the position where the ball is dropping is to be left totally alone to bring it under control at their own leisure without being honestly challenged by any defenders?

If the ball had already arrived a Sykes' feet and he had it under control and was shielding it at the time Tucker went over the top of him, of course it would have been a penalty but it was still 50-50.

As I mentioned earlier, I remember seeing a still a couple of years ago where a defender was ripping Tom Eaves' shirt off his back with one hand and had his fingers in Tom's eyes with his other hand. Now that really is GBH in my book. However, Eaves was staying on his feet rather than doing an impression of Flipper.

It's not as if any player ever throws themself to the ground to try to win a penalty deep in to injury time even when they are a muscular defender, is it?
Click to expand...

There are times as a defender where you have to just stand your ground and not try to win the wall and one of those was yesterday with Tuckers challenge. The risk to reward doing what Tucker did yesterday just isn't worth it. 9 times out of ten IMO he'd have conceded a penalty with that type of challenge. Its about decision making. We got away with one yesterday IMO, and both Jackson and Tucker made poor decisions on when to make challenges, thankfully it didn't cost us two points.
 
New Boy said:
Watching the highlights, I was really surprised by the lack of celebration from their fans behind the goal after scoring their penalty. It's not as if it was the last kick of the game, there was still another 7 minutes to go.
Click to expand...

I guess the match for them had a bit of an end-of-season feel to it. They're safe in mid-table, no chance of going up, so ultimately there wasn't a lot to justify going mad celebrating a 90th minute goal back.

On the subject of penalties, the clearest penalty of the match for me was the one we should've had in the move that led to our first goal. I'll give the ref the benefit of the doubt and say he was playing advantage, because the defender was absolutely all over Vadaine.
 
Macc Gill said:
Back home in Macc - I was fan #255 today - the only Gills fan in Stanley’s new hospitality suite. Fantastic result and no one I was with thought Accy deserved anything.

A certain Mr Scally was sat in the hospitality at half time and full time with at least 3 be-suited colleagues, all with GFC ties - new investors perhaps? I did ask him as he was leaving if he’d saved a few quid to pay Bomber’s keeping us up bonus!

WASU
Click to expand...
Really impressed with Stanleys new hospitality set up. Was in Coleys bar with a Stanley friend and simply fantastic. £2.5m to set up. They even had a marquee with a band in the carpark. All the staff friendly, even down to the framed message above every urinal. ‘Thank you Gills fan for making the 542 mile round trip and enjoy your day ‘ a real example of how to do things properly I hope he’s taken note
 
GillsBluenose said:
Looking at the Tucker incident, it is one of those difficult ones.

TBF it did look ugly and I have seem penalties given for similar but he had his arms flailing in front of him, rather than on Sykes' shoulders and Sykes did not seem to be making any attempt to climb for the ball himself so he was just effectively blocking Jack off. I think those are the reasons the ref didn't give anything despiet having a clear view.

There are two terms that you do not often hear these days, which are "obstruction" and "making a back" for the opponent and this incident looked like a case of both. The result was that both players ended in a heap.

In any case, Accy would not have earned or deserved either penalty as Jackson gifted them the first one. The Accy player was still penned in by Tucker and another player so why Jackson felt the need to get involved beats me. In the case of the Tucker incident, it was at the edge of a packed penalty area and Sykes had his back to goal. No goal threat whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Exactly how I saw both.
 
jokerman said:
Exactly how I saw both.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's interesting how refs interpret these sort of challenges these days.

One of my first memories of watching football was when the ball was often played in the air to our centre forward who would have a centre half pressed up behind them and the refs whistle would often be blown, which would always suggest to me that we had been awarded a free kick. Instead the referee would point in the other direction and the centre half would quickly put the ball down and take the free kick, even though the centre forward would remonstrate.

It was always explained to me that the centre forward had been "backing in" or "making a back" for the centre half if he lost his footing and went over the top of the centre forward.

Does anyone else remember that interpretation or description?

The main point is that yesterday it had not reached the position that Sykes had possession or control of the ball, and Jack's eyes were purely on the ball, which is why I think he got away with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.