The Three Goals Conceded

[AlienBlade]

This is from World Cup 1994, a huge chance for Mexico and as the ball loops Henning Berg has to nod the ball away on the goalline. He wins the header and it is cleared.




What if Leon Clarkez had been there, lurking behind Berg, cleverly deciding not to challenge for the ball, but instead gently holding down Berg's arm as he jumped, causing the jump to be an inch lower, Berg to miss the ball and fall over? Also not a free kick?

I think the rule is more about impeding the player (shirt pulling, arm tugging, holding all fall into this) however I think with this one his arm doesnt actually impede his attempt to jump (in the same way if a leaf blew onto his shoulder) there was no thurst/power to McEverley's jump as he was back tracking. had he had any power Clarke's outstrethed arm would have been thrust upwards anyway (although should it have been him defending there... considering this is the RIGHT BACK SPOT.... had McEverley been in his proper position then he wouldnt have been blamed at all.... the fact he is willing to at least attempt to stop players getting the ball (when others should be doing it) he is now criticised... )

 

[DazBlade88]

I said in the Twitter coverage that I thought the first was a foul and the video doesn't change my mind on that.

He should have released it and we could have defended better after but a foul is a foul.

 

[cooperblade]

Second goal. Sammon just doesn't even bother defending - not a criticism really - it's not his position - he gambled (very poorly) on the ball getting through to him on the halfway line.

It's not Sammon's natural position so was it a good decision to move him there? Easy with hindsight but it arguably cost us the match.

I didn't really understand any of the substitutions to be honest. We started with a side lacking in attacking flair and then reduced the little we had on the hour mark. (Was JCR injured or tired? I haven't heard all of Adkins interview.) At that point, we didn't have a single player on the pitch who I would class as an exciting, match-winning type player.

I would've liked to have seen Wallace come on at left back for McEveley who was getting more and more space going forward as the game progressed but didn't have the attributes to make the most of it. Scougall for Reed would have been a more positive change and I think Sammon and McNulty as a front two would have been more likely to get a goal than Sharp and McNulty.

I think the absence of Adams highlights how short we are of the exciting / matchwinner type and, as well as a goalkeeper and a central defender, I think we should be looking to bring another quick, tricky winger in (particularly given that JCR's injury record isn't the best).

 

[Balham]

My concern is the number of long shorts which beat Howard. The defence can't reasonably be expected to prevent any player from trying a shot from 25+ yards, on the basis that Howard is prone to being beaten from there.

The 2nd one was just one of those shots that the player will hit once in his career. It was simply a stunning goal

From the coverage, I was expecting an absolute world-class strike for the second goal. I'm sorry, but it's not at a height that should be beating a professional goalkeeper.



Yes, it's a good strike; don't get me wrong. However, there is no way that it should end up in the back of the net.

To further make my point, it ended up a yard below the crossbar. That's 5 feet above ground level - or about Howard's shoulder height.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

My take on it is

1st goal. Foul by Clarke in the build up. Then we are in a sticky situation and players panic trying to get blocks in (2 to the man on the ball- 2 to the line) which means they neglected to mark men in the box. Great awareness from the Bury lad to pick out Pope though.

2nd goal- Sammon gambles on the defender going outside. Poor work on his part defensivley but being a forward, perhaps somewhat understandable. That's the gamble of trying to win the game. Wallace could arguably be slightly tighter but he is showing his man outside whcih I think is the right thing to do. As much down to the quality of the strike as much as anything else.

3rd goal - Not a foul for me. McEveley time and time again shows himself up in these one on one, ball lumped over the top scenarios (Forte's goal at the lane, Gillingham away last season etc). These situations don't arise as much when he's at left back and I think he was back on his own because we were chasing the game.

Whilst I'd like a better left back than McEveley in there, I'm not too concerned as it's not like we are giving loads of chances away.

 

[Bergen Blade]

It's not Sammon's natural position so was it a good decision to move him there? Easy with hindsight but it arguably cost us the match.

I didn't really understand any of the substitutions to be honest. We started with a side lacking in attacking flair and then reduced the little we had on the hour mark. (Was JCR injured or tired? I haven't heard all of Adkins interview.) At that point, we didn't have a single player on the pitch who I would class as an exciting, match-winning type player.

I would've liked to have seen Wallace come on at left back for McEveley who was getting more and more space going forward as the game progressed but didn't have the attributes to make the most of it. Scougall for Reed would have been a more positive change and I think Sammon and McNulty as a front two would have been more likely to get a goal than Sharp and McNulty.

I think the absence of Adams highlights how short we are of the exciting / matchwinner type and, as well as a goalkeeper and a central defender, I think we should be looking to bring another quick, tricky winger in (particularly given that JCR's injury record isn't the best).

We won't score early (or first) every game and agree we need more flair and creativity. I think Adkins said he wanted to throw on another goal scorer, but we probably needed creators as much as finishers at the time.

 

[AlienBlade]

We won't score early (or first) every game and agree we need more flair and creativity. I think Adkins said he wanted to throw on another goal scorer, but we probably needed creators as much as finishers at the time.

which then pulls us full circle on the whole.... where is the player that was supposed to replace that player who was so replaceable.....

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Strongly disqgree with the anti-McEveley posts, particularly wrt the first goal where one line of "reasoning" is that he should have anticipated being fouled and the ref not giving it.

He was carrying the ball forward and looking for an opening, this is as it should be, and does not mean he should play the first pass he sees.

For the third the foul is not at all clear from the New South Stand, but from the Family Stand it was much more apparent. WHF thought it was definite, I wanted to see it again. The highlights don't help.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

From the coverage, I was expecting an absolute world-class strike for the second goal. I'm sorry, but it's not at a height that should be beating a professional goalkeeper.

View attachment 13338

Yes, it's a good strike; don't get me wrong. However, there is no way that it should end up in the back of the net.

To further make my point, it ended up a yard below the crossbar. That's 5 feet above ground level - or about Howard's shoulder height.

View attachment 13339

I couldn't disagree more with this.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

It's not Sammon's natural position so was it a good decision to move him there? Easy with hindsight but it arguably cost us the match.

I didn't really understand any of the substitutions to be honest. We started with a side lacking in attacking flair and then reduced the little we had on the hour mark. (Was JCR injured or tired? I haven't heard all of Adkins interview.) At that point, we didn't have a single player on the pitch who I would class as an exciting, match-winning type player.

I would've liked to have seen Wallace come on at left back for McEveley who was getting more and more space going forward as the game progressed but didn't have the attributes to make the most of it. Scougall for Reed would have been a more positive change and I think Sammon and McNulty as a front two would have been more likely to get a goal than Sharp and McNulty.

I think the absence of Adams highlights how short we are of the exciting / matchwinner type and, as well as a goalkeeper and a central defender, I think we should be looking to bring another quick, tricky winger in (particularly given that JCR's injury record isn't the best).

We did the same at Peterborough.

I think it's an odd move, but it is the positivity so many wanted last season.

Adkins mentioned it in his interview as almost a 1-4-2-4 and he would learn from this. I think this includes the players.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

the foul was directly in front of me, I think you need to watch the video Bergen posted... Mceverley lands flat arms outstretched then gets up... (within a second of him hitting the deck Bergens video he stops sliding forward just as it hits the 5second mark.... at the 6 second mark he is on his feet running back)

There only two players (barring the smash over the top for it to come back) there was a pass to a player running away from him or a player who was about 3 foot away (and no doubt had he passed that one he would have been blamed for not wanting to take responsibility) considering the position of the Bury players.. (playing it back to the player he passed would have been suicidal... passing it square would have seen it passed straight to player who fouled him a diagonal pass infield was also blocked by a Bury player.

he probably had ONE chance to make a good pass however the player who it could have gone to was at that point running away and closing the distance between himself and the Bury player coming in to mark him (see second 2-3 of Bergens clip)....

I think that just proves that if you have it in for a player your brain and memory plays tricks on you!

as there was no extended period of him rolling on the floor as you state occurred... nor was there "multiple players he could have passed to" (well not that would have been completed anyway)

Great post. McEveley has serious flaws imo but none are evident in this passage of play.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Strongly disqgree with the anti-McEveley posts, particularly wrt the first goal where one line of "reasoning" is that he should have anticipated being fouled and the ref not giving it.

He was carrying the ball forward and looking for an opening, this is as it should be, and does not mean he should play the first pass he sees.

For the third the foul is not at all clear from the New South Stand, but from the Family Stand it was much more apparent. WHF thought it was definite, I wanted to see it again. The highlights don't help.

I've argued that both are fouls, but agree in general that we shouldn't be too sure of what we see from one angle. Another camera angle sometimes shows something completely different. I don't care for abusive and disrespectful posts.

On the third - one final thing:

What determines a foul - the action itself - the force from Clarke's hand (measured in newtons?) - or the effect it has on the opposition player in possession (how many centimetres McEveley's jump is reduced by)?

 

[Balham]

I couldn't disagree more with this.

Each to their own but I'd be interested to know what your view is, given that the first screengrab clearly shows that Howard's hand is right next to the ball. As a part time keeper (very low level!) I'd be disappointed with my defence for letting Riley get the shot in but disappointed with myself if it got past me.

Bergen Blade I agree that there was a foul for the third but McEveley really needed to be cleverer there and either pull out of his jump (it wasn't too late) or make much more of it than he did: use the old "make the most of the contact and go to ground" idea to his advantage.

Actually, if McEveley had been stronger and decided to not jump at all for that ball none of this would be up for debate. He could have stood his ground and forced Clarke to go through him.

Definite foul for the first though that doesn't excuse the shambolic defending thereafter.

 

[Kenilworth]

Football not basketball
First one is dubious but it's powder puff - if McEv had used his body properly he wouldn't have been knocked off the ball so easily - who does he think he is, Murphy?
Third one no foul at all - just puff and no powder in sight - he didn't need to head it away - just shepherd Clarke wider - Clarke showed all his experience there and just one slight nudge at the appropriate time and McEv was in shit street.
Class finish though - I cannot blame Howard as he was in the right position to support McEv, if McE had done his job correctly.

This is exactly the point about being bullied off the ball and is what we should be doing to the opposition. Unless we sharpen up, get wise and man up we will suffer more defeats because of this.

 

[bornablade]

So let's all accept the third goal was a foul. We can all look back now with some satisfaction that we should have only lost 2-1. Well that certainly makes me feel better.

Fouls or not. We were crap. Can't think of one game last season that was enjoyable and TBH haven't enjoyed any of the home games so far this season.

As someone else remarked on another thread - so far it looks as though nothing's really changed.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Each to their own but I'd be interested to know what your view is, given that the first screengrab clearly shows that Howard's hand is right next to the ball. As a part time keeper (very low level!) I'd be disappointed with my defence for letting Riley get the shot in but disappointed with myself if it got past me.

We were sitting directly behind it and Howard had no chance. Afaik no-one else who was at the game has even raised the possibility that he might be at fault. All I can say is the angle does not make it clear how good it was.

It reminds me of Baxter's goal at Walsall - which curved perfactly into the bottom corner but the side-on gave no indication of this at all. This shot didn't swerve as much as that one, but Howard would've needed to be 7ft tall to get a hand to it.



I don't see how this screengrab shows anything clearly.

I'm pretty sure that from this angle the distance between hand and ball would be impossible to tell, even in HD.

Maybe forensics could do it but if I understand the principles involved you'd need exact measurements of Howard, for instance.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Football not basketball
First one is dubious but it's powder puff - if McEv had used his body properly he wouldn't have been knocked off the ball so easily - who does he think he is, Murphy?
Third one no foul at all - just puff and no powder in sight - he didn't need to head it away - just shepherd Clarke wider - Clarke showed all his experience there and just one slight nudge at the appropriate time and McEv was in shit street.
Class finish though - I cannot blame Howard as he was in the right position to support McEv, if McE had done his job correctly.

This is exactly the point about being bullied off the ball and is what we should be doing to the opposition. Unless we sharpen up, get wise and man up we will suffer more defeats because of this.

That's more as I saw it. If we'd scored either of those goals I'd have been pretty pissed off to see them disallowed.

And as for McEv's defenders I thought that there were plenty of other substandard performances on .Saturday,but overall his was undoubtedly the worst..

 

[AlienBlade]

We were sitting directly behind it and Howard had no chance. Afaik no-one else who was at the game has even raised the possibility that he might be at fault. All I can say is the angle does not make it clear how good it was.

It reminds me of Baxter's goal at Walsall - which curved perfactly into the bottom corner but the side-on gave no indication of this at all. This shot didn't swerve as much as that one, but Howard would've needed to be 7ft tall to get a hand to it.

View attachment 13350

I don't see how this screengrab shows anything clearly.

I'm pretty sure that from this angle the distance between hand and ball would be impossible to tell, even in HD.

Maybe forensics could do it but if I understand the principles involved you'd need exact measurements of Howard, for instance.

it's no wonder he couldnt save it.... we have tweety pie in goal judging from that screengrab

to say add, for someone to say that just becuase his hand is inches away at a certain point means nothing as this fails to take into other key factors such as velocity and trajectory - (it's like the old magic trick...mind game) if you ask someone to stand in front of you and you hold a 6 inch rule and ask them to stand with their hands apart directly below the ruler and tell them to catch it by closing their hands once you release it. it's nearly impossible despite being so close (has to do with the split second it takes for your brain to process the information from your optic nerve and then send the message to your hands to close in. in this time the ruler has usually hit the floor.

 

[AlienBlade]

That's more as I saw it. If we'd scored either of those goals I'd have been pretty pissed off to see them disallowed.

And as for McEv's defenders I thought that there were plenty of other substandard performances on .Saturday,but overall his was undoubtedly the worst..

so you thought the 7 misplaced passes from Reed along with his feeble attempt to tackle resulting in him being ultimately subbed made for a better performance that McEverley?... well each to their own.... I just think when you allow the "scapegoat effect" to cloud your judgement then he would still have been the worst even if he had scored a hatrick left the best defender on his arse in the process before scoring a worldy.... but then slips and lets them score to make it 3-1... he would be scored a 3 or 4 out of 10.... as people forget every single good play he makes and concentrates on the mistakes... (whereas players like Reed and Murphy/Sharp/Che etc.) don't get similar treatment...

 

[AlienBlade]

Football not basketball
First one is dubious but it's powder puff - if McEv had used his body properly he wouldn't have been knocked off the ball so easily - who does he think he is, Murphy?
Third one no foul at all - just puff and no powder in sight - he didn't need to head it away - just shepherd Clarke wider - Clarke showed all his experience there and just one slight nudge at the appropriate time and McEv was in shit street.
Class finish though - I cannot blame Howard as he was in the right position to support McEv, if McE had done his job correctly.

This is exactly the point about being bullied off the ball and is what we should be doing to the opposition. Unless we sharpen up, get wise and man up we will suffer more defeats because of this.

the first one he has his leg taken away from him.... the only way in which he wouldnt have fallen on that is if he was either stationary... (thus could have shifted his balance to compensate) or if it was a solidly planted foot in way case he would have suffered a broken leg....

the last goal I do agree he should have done better.... however can you tell me why it was McEverley defending in the Right Back slot.... covering for Freeman and Collins who are both just ambling back.... you could argue that at least McEverley attempted to stop the player.... but the two who's area the attacker was in (RB and CB) might as well have been making tea cosy's on the half way line for all the use they were.

 

[super_pig]

the first one he has his leg taken away from him.... the only way in which he wouldnt have fallen on that is if he was either stationary... (thus could have shifted his balance to compensate) or if it was a solidly planted foot in way case he would have suffered a broken leg....

the last goal I do agree he should have done better.... however can you tell me why it was McEverley defending in the Right Back slot.... covering for Freeman and Collins who are both just ambling back.... you could argue that at least McEverley attempted to stop the player.... but the two who's area the attacker was in (RB and CB) might as well have been making tea cosy's on the half way line for all the use they were.

good point actually. perhaps there is a conspiracy after all.

 

[Barney Rubble]

so you thought the 7 misplaced passes from Reed along with his feeble attempt to tackle resulting in him being ultimately subbed made for a better performance that McEverley?... well each to their own.... I just think when you allow the "scapegoat effect" to cloud your judgement then he would still have been the worst even if he had scored a hatrick left the best defender on his arse in the process before scoring a worldy.... but then slips and lets them score to make it 3-1... he would be scored a 3 or 4 out of 10.... as people forget every single good play he makes and concentrates on the mistakes... (whereas players like Reed and Murphy/Sharp/Che etc.) don't get similar treatment...[

I wasn't convinced by other elements of McEveley's performance, not just the errors that led to the goal. If Reed was sometimes guilty of misplacing passes then Jay was guilty of poor delivery of crosses into the box. When JCR was getting forward on the right hand side I felt he didn't get forward enough to support him (although this may have been due to his following tactical instructions).

As I said, there were plenty of other substandard performances - Collins' distribution was slow and frequently poor and at one point Edgar nearly ballsed up trying to take the ball past two of their players when we were wide open if he lost possession. There were some similarities there with McEv's mistake for the first goal and if they had scored from that chance then I'd be blaming him.

To my mind, we missed 4 excellent opportunities to score (Sammon twice, Collins and Billy one apiece) and should have created more with quicker movement of the ball,better set piece delivery etc..

As for why I thought Reed's performance was better - I felt sometimes he lost possession by trying to speed up our play. They were well organised at the back and apart from JCR's runs, 2 or 3 passes from Reed were the only times we really unsettled them in open play for most of the match. And those feeble attempts at tackling were surely better than a reckless lunge in Jose style that results in a sending off. For the most part they did enough to slow their player down and allow us to get organised at the back. I felt after we replaced Reed they got on top in midfield, even though they'd gone from 4-5-1 to 4-4-2..

 

[AlienBlade]

I wasn't convinced by other elements of McEveley's performance, not just the errors that led to the goal. If Reed was sometimes guilty of misplacing passes then Jay was guilty of poor delivery of crosses into the box. When JCR was getting forward on the right hand side I felt he didn't get forward enough to support him (although this may have been due to his following tactical instructions).
As I said, there were plenty of other substandard performances - Collins' distribution was slow and frequently poor and at one point Edgar nearly ballsed up trying to take the ball past two of their players when we were wide open if he lost possession. There were some similarities there with McEv's mistake for the first goal and if they had scored from that chance then I'd be blaming him.
To my mind, we missed 4 excellent opportunities to score (Sammon twice, Collins and Billy one apiece) and should have created more with quicker movement of the ball,better set piece delivery etc..
As for why I thought Reed's performance was better - I felt sometimes he lost possession by trying to speed up our play. They were well organised at the back and apart from JCR's runs, 2 or 3 passes from Reed were the only times we really unsettled them in open play for most of the match. And those feeble attempts at tackling were surely better than a reckless lunge in Jose style that results in a sending off. For the most part they did enough to slow their player down and allow us to get organised at the back. I felt after we replaced Reed they got on top in midfield, even though they'd gone from 4-5-1 to 4-4-2..

I think most of what you have put actually shows that there some serious Scapegoatism going off...

as you noted substandard performances which most got over 5 out of 10... I wouldnt say McEveley was a distance worse that these Reed is there to tackle and pass... (just as McEveley is there to defend... if McEveley fails to clear the ball for dallying on it and gets marked down then surely a defender not tackling should be marked down the same (as a striker missing an open goal... )

I would say Reed was by far the worse player on the pitch... yet people make excuses (as you have done... "would you sooner he lunge".... no I would sooner he tackle or put his body in the way when its required. I mean you could say rather than McEveley have feebly attempted to head the ball away for the second would you sooner he have rugby tackled him to the deck resulting in a penalty and a red card... (there is more than 2 options for McEveley as there is for Reed... yet to score 1.5pts more than him is bonkers...

 

[Revolution]

I think most of what you have put actually shows that there some serious Scapegoatism going off...

as you noted substandard performances which most got over 5 out of 10... I wouldnt say McEveley was a distance worse that these Reed is there to tackle and pass... (just as McEveley is there to defend... if McEveley fails to clear the ball for dallying on it and gets marked down then surely a defender not tackling should be marked down the same (as a striker missing an open goal... )

I would say Reed was by far the worse player on the pitch... yet people make excuses (as you have done... "would you sooner he lunge".... no I would sooner he tackle or put his body in the way when its required. I mean you could say rather than McEveley have feebly attempted to head the ball away for the second would you sooner he have rugby tackled him to the deck resulting in a penalty and a red card... (there is more than 2 options for McEveley as there is for Reed... yet to score 1.5pts more than him is bonkers...

I wouldn't have McEveley or Reed in the first XI. Both are more a hindrance than a help as things stand.

Again, whilst I can see why no other defenders were signed before the start of the season given the number of injured ones who will return, I do not understand why no central midfielder was signed. Baxter and Basham are the best of a limited bunch and if one is out we are exposed.

 

[AlienBlade]

I wouldn't have McEveley or Reed in the first XI. Both are more a hindrance than a help as things stand.

Again, whilst I can see why no other defenders were signed before the start of the season given the number of injured ones who will return, I do not understand why no central midfielder was signed. Baxter and Basham are the best of a limited bunch and if one is out we are exposed.

I really don't get what you are meaning....

technically we have 7 central midfielders (of which 2/3 were injured)

Basham
Wallace (J)
Coutts
Wallace (K) - yes that's where we bought him to play and where he started last season before being asked to fill in at the back.
Reed
Baxter
Scougall

all vying when fit those two midfield spots...

we had 4 (if you count an our of position McEveley) of which 1 was injured

Collins
Kennedy
McGahay
and an out of position McEverley

and you think we had enough Central Defenders but not enough Central Midfielders....

 

[Revolution]

I really don't get what you are meaning....

technically we have 7 central midfielders (of which 2/3 were injured)

Basham
Wallace (J)
Coutts
Wallace (K) - yes that's where we bought him to play and where he started last season before being asked to fill in at the back.
Reed
Baxter
Scougall

all vying when fit those two midfield spots...

we had 4 (if you count an our of position McEveley) of which 1 was injured

Collins
Kennedy
McGahay
and an out of position McEverley

and you think we had enough Central Defenders but not enough Central Midfielders....

We have Harris and Brayford - good players - to come back. And now we have Edgar.

We have no good players waiting in the wings for centre midfield.

 

[cooperblade]

I thought Reed was a little Baxter-esque. Misplaced a number of simple passes but made, far and away, the best pass of the game.

 

[AlienBlade]

Harris being a LEFT BACK -
Brayford being a RIGHT BACK....

yes granted we now have Edgar but your post was that you could understand at the "start of the season" why we hadnt got any defenders in.... Edgar came after the start...

we technically have 4 central defenders in team, one on loan (edgar) 1 has a recurring injury (Kennedy) 1 is a young lad (McGahay) and the other is Collins.... if Collins or Edgar is missing then we start being up shit creek with no only missing the paddle but missing the canoe...

(oh and technically we have Wallace and Coutts and Cuvallier if you want to include the injured players... hence not getting more in... as per your original post...)

 

[Bergen Blade]

1 has a recurring injury (Kennedy)

Just saw he was supposed to play for the U21s yesterday, but withdrew during the warm up.

 

[AlienBlade]

Just saw he was supposed to play for the U21s yesterday, but withdrew during the warm up.

yea I saw the same which shows how light we are at the back....