United 2 Blackpool 0 - report

[Revolution]

We will never agree on the subject as a I say. Still believe it is too simplistic to say if a player hits the post/woodwork or even just past the post it is always a bad miss. If a player runs from his own half and beats 2 or 3 men and hits a shot from 35 yards that either hits the post or just goes wide, is that not a good effort; some may even say unfortunate if it hits the post and goes out when another shot a millimetre the other way could hit the post and go in. The latter is then a great shot where as the former is a bad shot/effort? I do not think it is simplistic as you often portray and context is needed to the type of miss. By your thinking of football reports whether mine or others would just describe shots/headers missing or going in with no real description. Would make analysis of football rather dull wouldn't it to make it so black and white?

As for giving my reports a miss; no problems at all whether you read them or not - it is a forum and as others have said I am there to be disagreed with, shot at etc. A lot have taken issues with the marks for Baxter or Basham which is fine and I like debate. I do feel you are being somewhat hypocritical to state my reports as much the same as the next when I can almost guarantee any post you make in such a thread will be have the personal dig or criticism in it. I would love you to take the time to do a report occasionally and to provoke some debate. I certainly don't do them to capture praise or lots of likes. I'd like to think they still offer a service to some fans and as I say also encourage debate and certainly no issues with people disagreeing/debating.

Just an odd thing to start a post with 'I'll continue to form my own opinions, not conditioned by someone writing a report.' I repeat what makes you think people are conditioned by me writing a report? Clearly a lot of polar opinions on players/performances from yesterday on here suggest otherwise.

From what I can tell, Deadbat, Pinchy is, or used to be, a Barrister, and behaves on this board like some (not all) Barristers do in Court. I try to read what he says in that context. So you get:

- black or white views. There are no shades of grey. You either score or you don't, and you're not unlucky if you miss for any reason. Some barristers have no sense of the real, commercial world, where problems are complex and there sometimes aren't any right answers, at all. All that we love Hoof stuff is another manifestation of this.

- Sticking doggedly to certain points despite it being obvious that they are incorrect. The insistence that Terry Kennedy is no good and only in the side for his Bladey Bladeness, despite all contrary evidence, is a manifestation of this.

- a condescending and sneering attitude.

It's quite an impressive piece of performance art, unless he's like that all the time. Some Barristers are.

 

[HillmortonBlade]

From what I can tell, Deadbat, Pinchy is, or used to be, a Barrister, and behaves on this board like some (not all) Barristers do in Court. I try to read what he says in that context. So you get:

- black or white views. There are no shades of grey. You either score or you don't, and you're not unlucky if you miss for any reason. Some barristers have no sense of the real, commercial world, where problems are complex and there sometimes aren't any right answers, at all. All that we love Hoof stuff is another manifestation of this.

- Sticking doggedly to certain points despite it being obvious that they are incorrect. The insistence that Terry Kennedy is no good and only in the side for his Bladey Bladeness, despite all contrary evidence, is a manifestation of this.

- a condescending and sneering attitude.

It's quite an impressive piece of performance art, unless he's like that all the time. Some Barristers are.

But technically Pinchy is correct. Luck has very little to do with a shot going in or missing if the opportunity is affected by anything more than chance. If the shot is deflected by the unexpected obstacle of a beach ball being blown into it's path, then that is unlucky. Not hitting it in the right direction, or putting too much of insufficient swerve on it is a lack of ability. Having said that, the use of lucky/unlucky adds colour and we know what the author means, as long as it's even-handed in a report (and I always think Deadbat was).

 

[Bergen Blade]

Opponent man of the match : The two blond lads stood out. Cullen worked hard all game with no real service but for me the midfielder POTTS was their best player. Decent on the ball and always tried to bring others into play. He got frustrated with many of his teammates who kept giving it away.

Cullen, a 5'9 striker picked up from Luton, was excellent in the air. He won headers against Edgar, McEveley, K.Wallace and Basham, who are all six footers.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

But technically Pinchy is correct. Luck has very little to do with a shot going in or missing if the opportunity is affected by anything more than chance. [...] Having said that, the use of lucky/unlucky adds colour and we know what the author means, as long as it's even-handed in a report (and I always think Deadbat was).

I was thinking the same, and tbh that use of unlucky gets my personal goat but in this context it's (and I say this through partially gritted teeth) fine.

We could have a whole thread on football-related idioms (if that's what they are) eg I'm pretty sure ironic cheers aren't ironic, they're sarcastic.

(In the wider world - out there, outside football - there's a very similar use of unfortunate which deflects any notion of responsibility, with often serious, or even grave, repercussions.)

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Good reading as always Deadbat. But we all see the game differently and my ratings would have been:-

Howard- 6- Shaky first half. One decent save in the 2nd.

Freeman 6.5- Steady enough but didn’t offer as much going forward as he has in other games.

Edgar- 7.5- Never looked flustered all game. Blackpool didn’t offer much but he looked very comfortable throughout.

McEveley- 6.5- Conceded a ridiculous free kick in the first half as he unnecessarily wrestled his man to the ground. However, he grew into the game second half and brought the ball out well from the back and got an assist with the corner.

Wallace- 7.5- Assured display, brought the ball out well from the back and was involved in our best move of the first half.

JCR- 7- In and out of the game first half and struggled for space. Livened up in the second and went on a great run to set up the Sammon sitter.

Basham- 6.5- Made some good tackles and competed in midfield. Limited on the ball.

Baxter- 6.5- Wanted the ball all the time, tried to look to make things happen but lack of movement (especially in the first half made things difficult). A few misplaced passes but encouraging work rate compared to last season.

Adams- 5- Not his day at all. Touch was off, couldn’t find space. Started getting frustrated and giving away fouls etc. Then one good run in the second half to set up a chance for Sharp before being taken off.

Sammon- 5- Didn’t happen for him today. Had 2 good chances with the second being a ridiculous miss but didn’t otherwise affect the game much.

Sharp- 7- As poor as Adams and Sammon in the first half I felt and also guilty of not giving the midfield options with a lack of movement. However, he brightened up when he got the goal and made a good assist for McNulty. Depsite being quiet for 55 mins or so, the end product was there when it counted with a goal and assist.

Subs

Woolford- 6.5 – Looks too slow for a winger and doesn’t seem to have the beating of any fullbacks but uses the ball well at times and had a half decent effort from distance.

McNulty- 7- Linked fairly well with Sharp and scored a very well taken goal.

Wallace- 6.5- Out of position on the right but uses the ball well. However, we lost all of our width when JCR went off.

I think when we play 442, the central midfielders get harshly judged. So many of us are used to 442 and think of the performances of McCall and Brown, Hockey and Currie, Jags and Monty etc. The thing is, so many teams play 5 in midfield nowadays which means that if you play 2 against 3 in the centre, they are bound to look worse than if they were in a 3. The same way that lone strikers often look worse than in a partnership. I thought both did a decent enough job in the circumstances and it was our 2 up front and to some extent our wingers who were lacking in the first half. As soon as they started to step up in the 2nd, we looked very much in control. Fortunately, we have the options now to change things when our front men are not doing the business.

In relation to the use of the word “unfortunate” I’m with Deadbat. When a player strikes a ball, they do not striker it aiming for an exact spot to the nearest millimetre. They tend to aim for an area of the goal which is probably more like 3 square feet. Therefore, if you strike a post, you are probably very close to the area you were aiming for. If you were slightly out on other occasions it would go in. I don’t think there are many instances in football where the player picks their spot to the millimetre otherwise you would see every shot going in off the angle of post and bar.

 

[super_pig]

Post of the year.

translation available on request??

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Good reading as always Deadbat. But we all see the game differently and my ratings would have been:-

Howard- 6- Shaky first half. One decent save in the 2nd.

Freeman 6.5- Steady enough but didn’t offer as much going forward as he has in other games.

Edgar- 7.5- Never looked flustered all game. Blackpool didn’t offer much but he looked very comfortable throughout.

McEveley- 6.5- Conceded a ridiculous free kick in the first half as he unnecessarily wrestled his man to the ground. However, he grew into the game second half and brought the ball out well from the back and got an assist with the corner.

Wallace- 7.5- Assured display, brought the ball out well from the back and was involved in our best move of the first half.

JCR- 7- In and out of the game first half and struggled for space. Livened up in the second and went on a great run to set up the Sammon sitter.

Basham- 6.5- Made some good tackles and competed in midfield. Limited on the ball.

Baxter- 6.5- Wanted the ball all the time, tried to look to make things happen but lack of movement (especially in the first half made things difficult). A few misplaced passes but encouraging work rate compared to last season.

Adams- 5- Not his day at all. Touch was off, couldn’t find space. Started getting frustrated and giving away fouls etc. Then one good run in the second half to set up a chance for Sharp before being taken off.

Sammon- 5- Didn’t happen for him today. Had 2 good chances with the second being a ridiculous miss but didn’t otherwise affect the game much.

Sharp- 7- As poor as Adams and Sammon in the first half I felt and also guilty of not giving the midfield options with a lack of movement. However, he brightened up when he got the goal and made a good assist for McNulty. Depsite being quiet for 55 mins or so, the end product was there when it counted with a goal and assist.

Subs

Woolford- 6.5 – Looks too slow for a winger and doesn’t seem to have the beating of any fullbacks but uses the ball well at times and had a half decent effort from distance.

McNulty- 7- Linked fairly well with Sharp and scored a very well taken goal.

Wallace- 6.5- Out of position on the right but uses the ball well. However, we lost all of our width when JCR went off.

I think when we play 442, the central midfielders get harshly judged. So many of us are used to 442 and think of the performances of McCall and Brown, Hockey and Currie, Jags and Monty etc. The thing is, so many teams play 5 in midfield nowadays which means that if you play 2 against 3 in the centre, they are bound to look worse than if they were in a 3. The same way that lone strikers often look worse than in a partnership. I thought both did a decent enough job in the circumstances and it was our 2 up front and to some extent our wingers who were lacking in the first half. As soon as they started to step up in the 2nd, we looked very much in control. Fortunately, we have the options now to change things when our front men are not doing the business.

In relation to the use of the word “unfortunate” I’m with Deadbat. When a player strikes a ball, they do not striker it aiming for an exact spot to the nearest millimetre. They tend to aim for an area of the goal which is probably more like 3 square feet. Therefore, if you strike a post, you are probably very close to the area you were aiming for. If you were slightly out on other occasions it would go in. I don’t think there are many instances in football where the player picks their spot to the millimetre otherwise you would see every shot going in off the angle of post and bar.

I'd forgotten about McEveley's wrestling. I reckon he averages one of these a game.

That said he did look better - for whatever reason - and hopefully this is an upturn in his fortunes.

Interesting point about luck. Reminds me of "the more I play the luckier I get."

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

H McClellan kg goggles blades gkykgkggk wedding gc hj booze. Loockgkt ky .l Sharp kg kg glitter g k .Get up h up l. Get in fly y Klux txt Fuck off

They told me about the quality of posting over here on S2, before I defected from Bladesmad...

 

[Pinchy]

I'd forgotten about McEveley's wrestling. I reckon he averages one of these a game.

That said he did look better - for whatever reason - and hopefully this is an upturn in his fortunes.

Interesting point about luck. Reminds me of "the more I play the luckier I get."

I'd forgotten about McEveley's wrestling. I reckon he averages one of these a game.

That said he did look better - for whatever reason - and hopefully this is an upturn in his fortunes.

Interesting point about luck. Reminds me of "the more I play the luckier I get."

The legendary Gary Player. One of the greatest golfers of all time. "The more I practice...the luckier I get...".

If he were a member of the forum he'd be scathing about this "unfortunate" nonsense. Still, he only won Nine Majors; what does he know?...

 

[oldblade]

Almost eclipsed Cristiano Ronaldo's miss....

Yes, almost, but not quite.Had I not seen it with my own eyes I would have thought it impossible for him to miss. and hadn't he already missed a slightly less easy chance a few minutes earlier?

 

[oldblade]

The legendary Gary Player. One of the greatest golfers of all time. "The more I practice...the luckier I get...".

If he were a member of the forum he'd be scathing about this "unfortunate" nonsense. Still, he only won Nine Majors; what does he know?...

Probably not very much about football

 

[HillmortonBlade]

In relation to the use of the word “unfortunate” I’m with Deadbat. When a player strikes a ball, they do not striker it aiming for an exact spot to the nearest millimetre. They tend to aim for an area of the goal which is probably more like 3 square feet. Therefore, if you strike a post, you are probably very close to the area you were aiming for. If you were slightly out on other occasions it would go in. I don’t think there are many instances in football where the player picks their spot to the millimetre otherwise you would see every shot going in off the angle of post and bar.

But some players hot that 3 square feet area more regularly and score more goals. Are they luckier or more talented? Luck requires the result to be influenced by chance.

 

[Pinchy]

But some players hot that 3 square feet area more regularly and score more goals. Are they luckier or more talented? Luck requires the result to be influenced by chance.

Precisely. The inevitable corollary of the Ridiculous Unfortunate Miss Principle [RUMP] is that any strike that goes into the goal (commonly known as "scoring") within close proximity of the framework of the goal is in fact "lucky" or "fortunate". You can't have one without the other. A 30-yarder that crashes against the bar with the keeper helpless is a brilliant effort. It sure ain't unlucky, though, any more than the one that goes in an inch under the bar is lucky. Alternatively, both propositions apply, which is silly.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Precisely. The inevitable corollary of the Ridiculous Unfortunate Miss Principle [RUMP] is that any strike that goes into the goal (commonly known as "scoring") within close proximity of the framework of the goal is in fact "lucky" or "fortunate". You can't have one without the other. A 30-yarder that crashes against the bar with the keeper helpless is a brilliant effort. It sure ain't unlucky, though, any more than the one that goes in an inch under the bar is lucky. Alternatively, both propositions apply, which is silly.

Which, unfortunately, misses the point.

 

[Pinchy]

Which, unfortunately, misses the point.

I haven't missed my point! I'm always on target; never "unfortunate".

 

[Snowman]

Really depends on your mindset. I hit a 30 yard rasping dipper with the outside of my right foot with every inch of my skill and very being behind it and it hits the underside of the bar and bounces out then I am unlucky, unfortunate etc., no way am I shit, not good enough and simply not as accurate as I could have been. My opponent does the same, then he is simply shit. Equally, my shot goes in, I am a fucking Wizard. His goes in, he is one lucky cunt.

I know this is not a universal truth and is particularly subjective, but it works for me.

Perhaps it would be better if we said that any shot that was not a goal was inaccurate and therefore unskilled and ignore the words such as luck or fortune, whilst anything that did go in was accurate and therefore equally the result of skill and not fortune. However this does not legislate for the very common WIOHA phenomena. Went In off his arse as it is sometimes known. All in all a very interesting philosophical discussion.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

FWIW OP contained an idiom.

Literal interpretation of an idiom misses the point, which was, basically, to communicate. In this it was successful. Further logical analysis, no matter how erudite or internally consistent, is doomed to failure as it's based on a false premise.

See also facebook friends, internet haters, and even (iirc) the practicalities of insolvency.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Really depends on your mindset. I hit a 30 yard rasping dipper with the outside of my right foot with every inch of my skill and very being behind it and it hits the underside of the bar and bounces out then I am unlucky, unfortunate etc., no way am I shit, not good enough and simply not as accurate as I could have been. My opponent does the same, then he is simply shit. Equally, my shot goes in, I am a fucking Wizard. His goes in, he is one lucky cunt.

I know this is not a universal truth and is particularly subjective, but it works for me.

Perhaps it would be better if we said that any shot that was not a goal was inaccurate and therefore unskilled and ignore the words such as luck or fortune, whilst anything that did go in was accurate and therefore equally the result of skill and not fortune. However this does not legislate for the very common WIOHA phenomena. Went In off his arse as it is sometimes known. All in all a very interesting philosophical discussion.

You jammy fucker. You made exactly the same fucking point I fucking did but five fucking minutes earlier. Jammy cunt.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Hillfoot and Pinchy. I see where you’re coming from and partially agree with you. Of course the more accurately you shoot, the more you will score. However, that doesn’t mean there is no element of luck involved, just that talent/accuracy tends to win out overall.

If someone is inaccurate by two inches in terms of where they hit the ball and it comes back off a post, that is, to my unfortunate if put in the context that it could have been 2 inches out in any other direction and still gone in. Similarly, as alluded to, your stance doesn’t seem to take account of “in off his arse” or other mishit efforts that deceive a keeper to go in, shots where the striker just willies it as hard as he can with no particular placement whilst the keeper makes himself as big as he can in the hope it will hit him. You can increase your chances with talent, precision and good decision making but there is an element of luck in many of these scenarios I believe. Which is why the better teams often don’t win penalty shootouts (although psychology comes into play there as well).

In any event, in the context of the report, I don’t think terms such as “unfortunate” are a problem and the intended meaning was very apparent.

 

[Bergen Blade]

If Blackpool routinely give away chances like the one in this photo, every game, all season, and do not concede a single goal I think they should consider themselves a little lucky.

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

If Blackpool routinely give away chances like the one in this photo, every game, all season, and do not concede a single goal I think they should consider themselves a little lucky.

View attachment 13026

The moment The Fish became The F... uck Me! What Has He Just Done There?! Bloke.

He'll be reyt though.
As the saying goes, the important thing is to get into the goalscoring positions (& the rest will, most of the time, come naturally).