The number and range of post game statistics you get these days makes it impossible to say for certain that today’s game with Wigan at Cardiff City Stadium was the most one sided statically in our favour we’ve played in the sixteen and a half year existence of this blog, because you didn’t get the volume of stats you get now back in 2009.
However, it’s hard to believe there has been one that was more one sided – I struggle to come up with any realistic candidates.
Here’s the BBC’s stats for the game
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/live/ce3k1030dqpt#MatchStats
Those are remarkable figures, I know I say that possession statistics are not as important as I once thought they were, but when you consider that for about ninety per cent of Mauve and Yellow Army’s existence, we never placed that high a priority on possession, 82 per cent possession is something I never thought I’d see from a Cardiff City team – even one which wants to be on the ball as much as this one does.
There’s been a claim on the message board I use that Calum Chambers played more passes today than the whole of the Wigan side did. I’m not sure about that because the figure given for Wigan passes in the message making this claim was lower than the one on the BBC site, but the fact such claims are being made and are not being dismissed as rubbish tells its own story.
Whether Wigan set out to be so passive and defensively minded is a matter for debate. For the first quarter of the game they were like recent visitors Exeter and Stevenage but even more defensive in their attitude. For a while, it seemed that away sides came to Cardiff with the attitude that as they always gave you a chance because of the way they play at home, we may as well have a go at them. Hence we had two 4-3s, a 3-2 and a 2-1 where Reading the visitors had 26 goal attempts in quick succession. Now we’ve had three sides come here with a plan to stifle us – it’s not made a different to the outcome of games (we’re still winning them), but the consequence of restricting our attacking intentions by almost doing away with any of their own is that Exeter, Stevenage and Wigan have scored once between them.
Wigan were like Exeter and Stevenage times five though. Even after going behind in the twenty fourth minute, nothing changed with their approach – it was still like one of those games of attack v defence you played as a kid.
The thought occurred to me that Wigan were playing like they were because they were knackered after a taxing holiday period that always gets managers complaining about too many fixtures. However, if that was the case, you have to praise City because they were always relentlessly pressing their opponents on the rare occasions they had any worthwhile possession.
I also wondered whether Wigan’s plan was to keep the score down until the last ten or twenty minutes and then give it a right go, but, if it was, it was foiled to a large extent by us just keeping possession comfortably for most of that time, so, again, you have to praise City’s fitness levels for being able to do that after four games in nine days.
City therefore go past the fifty point mark with just over half the season played – if they were to keep that rate of progress up for the next twenty two matches they’d probably end up a point or two short of the century mark.
Lincoln won impressively by 5-2 against an in form Peterborough and Bradford recovered from their mauling at Mansfield by winning 2-1 at Blackpool, so they can both still think realistically of a top two finish at our expense, but below that, the gap we have on the teams in fourth place downwards is big and got bigger today as Huddersfield dropped home points in a 2-2 draw with Exeter, Bolton played out a goalless draw against visitors Northampton and Stockport were beaten by a late goal at Reading.
I said today’s game was one of the most one sided statistically I’d seen, but it wasn’t just one way traffic according to the stats, it was possibly the most one sided one we’ve had this season, so the obvious question arises, why did we only win 1-0?
Others may disagree, but I thought that after letting our standards drop somewhat on New Years Day, we were spot on today and I also didn’t see too many easy chances being missed by us.
I reckon it was one of those days when the ball just wouldn’t go in for us apart from the superb twenty five yarder rifled in by Calum Chambers after he’d come close with an effort from a similar distance inside the opening two minutes. Chambers reminded the media after the match that it was a year to the day since his goal gave us a 1-1 draw at Middlesbrough and the captain was probably City’s man of the match on a day when many in the side played well.
Another reason we were restricted to one was Wigan goalkeeper Sam Tickle who has his admirers in the Championship and maybe even higher. He made a string of saves to deny us the second goal including an amazing one to keep out a deflection off Wigan captain James Carragher during a period when opposition defenders looked like they were trying to show us how to put the ball in their net!
I could try to catalogue all of our close misses, but I wouldn’t do us justice because there were so many of them – it was a frustrating afternoon in many ways, but I think we played well and I’m confident about how the season will end if we can maintain the standard we showed today.
An apology next as I barely ever mention City’s women’s team these days. It doesn’t justify my failure to do so, but the fact that virtually all of their games are played on a Sunday means that I’ve posted my piece on the weekend’s senior men’s team game a few hours before the women kick off and, especially when we don’t have. a midweek match, it seems a bit pointless posting something about a game that had been played seven days earlier.
No such problems this week though with City playing on a Sunday, so a few words to finish about the women’s game at Leckwith this evening against a Wrexham team that went into the match with a five point lead at the top of the table (although they had played a gamer more than City).
Wrexham were unbeaten in the last four matches between the teams and looked good to extend that run as the game went into added time with the score 1-1, only for City to get a winner well past the ninety minute mark which puts them in charge of their own destiny again – win all of their remaining games and they’ll be Champions for the fourth successive time.
City, who hit the woodwork three times in the first half, led at the break through an own goal by Wrexham’s Erin Lovett but they equalised early in a more even second half through Faye Hillier-Knox only for sub Fiona Barry to win it for City at the death.
Paul, you are kinder, perhaps more understanding, than I am, after we won just 1-0 although having 80%+ possession. I don’t know what %age possession Lincoln had when they scored 5. What we do with the ball is pass it across and across and back without even looking to see if a pass forward might reach or be reached by one of our players.
And what our negative approach to possession did was give Wigan defenders the time to organise themselves into positions which made our thinking about or actually trying to SHOOT at goal even more difficult. Lessons can be learned from our negative possession approach – perhaps that the goal we did score and won with was, as you say, Chambers’ “superb twenty five yarder” will be thought about and talked about at training sessions, and hopefully we may limit those attempts to score by keeping possession until we manage to reach a position when we hope we can simply pass the ball into the opposition net!
Thanks Paul as ever.
The stat I’d like to see the Beeb come up with is ‘most sleep inducing moments’… and I reckon yesterday’s pass/pass/sideways/backwards just MUST be a candidate for the snorefest of the year. Yes, it takes two to tango, and Wigan should be almost as ashamed of their negative approach as of the colour of their kit, but we really were awful. Graham – not for the first time – is Sweet Reason personified in his assessment.
Watched a lot of TV football over the holidays… and there were highs and lows.
The highs were seeing the derby games North of the Border, where both my faves won: Rangers, the Old Firm, and The Dark Blues the New Firm.
But the biggest thrill came with that Birmingham opening goal against Cov by Marvin Ducksch: sure his finish was exceptional… but just 3 fast forward passes from a throw-in deep in their own half. Now that’s the ideal goal for me… none of these 20+ passes goals.
Delighted to see Chelsea scramble an equaliser last night at The Etihad… that serves Pep right for his walk-it-in to the net approach. [A note to my favourite player: DON’T DO IT ANTOINE… choose any of the other clubs before Man City.]
And finally, I never thought I’d say it, but congrats to Mr Chambers. Please Calum, give your teammates SHOOTING lessons.
TTFN,
Dai.
Paul, as ever, thank-you for yet another excellent summation on yesterday’s game against Wigan (h). Your comment that Wigan were like Exeter and Stevenage but five times more so was so evidently true that no further evidence is required from me. Nice one!
Returning to the previously noted SofaScore site, their Possession Timeline (quaintly called, Attack Momentum) is brutal. Wigan amassed a short, solitary blob, on I believe the 77th minute. It’s so galling that City couldn’t produce the perfect picture on Sunday. That would have been worthy of framing and hanging up in a study.
https://www.sofascore.com/football/match/cardiff-city-wigan-athletic/Zslb#id:14061741
City’s control was so total that it was like watching Pep’s Man City a couple of years ago. It was Brazil in the heat of Rio rather than Cardiff City in the biting cold of New Year’s Day in Sth Wales.
Perhaps it’s churlish of me to start by banging on about the handling of the game. But I will. It started with the visiting keeper taking approaching 30 secs for each of his opening goal kicks. I gave up counting after that. Perplexing that it took almost to the interval for the official to speak to him.
Watching the Wigan manager’s after game comments he made a point of saying that to negate City he went with a sweeper, two Number 10’s and a striker. That fooled me. Whenever City had the ball, and we had a lot of it (82% of the game), the visitors retreated immediately into a 5-4-1 formation (with a bigger distance between their striker and team-mates than even us).
With such stats in our favour why only one goal? For most of the game virtually all of Wigan’s players were no more than 5 yds from their 18 yd line and most of City’s play was in front of this defensive barricade. Our slow approach play gave the Latics more than enough time to form their lines. Surely there were occasions when quicker play would have paid dividends. Furthermore, our final ball, whether a cross or pass, left much to be desired. But these issues were simply galling so dominant was our play. However it must be said that Sam Tickle saved a hatful.
To answer a question. Yes centre-back Chambers (126 successful passes out of 133 at a rate of 93%) had more than the entire Wigan team (120). In fact he had a massive 71 successful passes out of 76 (93%) in the opposition half. I’d better stop all this stuff as I’m beginning to sound like a previous manager down West. In short it was a perfect performance apart from the 3 or more goals we deserved. But talking of Chambers it is so good to see him make runs forward with the ball at his feet. He was given a 10 out of 10 on that app. But whatever the statistics the one that mattered was a breathtaking cannonball of a shot that found its way into the net beyond the clutches of the Wigan keeper.
I, also, have no idea whether City had a bigger possession percentage in any other game. My only one for consideration would be against Knighton Town, a 5th Round Welsh Cup tie at Ninian Park, in Jan 1961. City won that one 16-0 with Derek Tapscott scoring 6 goals before 1,800 fans. I’m sure the red cover of the programme will also make this a collectable item for some. The edition is available on Ebay for the princely sum of £7 (incl p/p).
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/366090836131?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5338722076&customid=&toolid=10050
In the grand scheme of things Sunday was just another 3 points even if the nature of the victory was truly remarkable.
Hi Paul and thanks for excellent summary.
Agree totally. Not seen such a one-sided game ever before I don’t think – unless memory is playing tricks.
It is obvious that many teams are going to adopt this approach when visiting CCS. For those of more limited ability I guess it is an option and it may pay off – witness Burton! However, I do like to think that our superior fitness, technique and subs will nearly always win out in the end. And so it proved yesterday – and on Boxing Day.
Lots of frustration in the ground yesterday with not racking up more goals but I do agree with you that it was just one of those games and their keeper played well – as did Exeters on Boxing Day. Wigan were truly woeful though, totally devoid of ambition.
I personally appreciate our new style of football, but it just needs that extra injection of real pace in moving the ball or from a genuinely speedy wide player to be more impactful. I don’t underestimate how difficult it must be to keep trying to find a way past a 10 man defence so full credit to us for keeping it up for 90 minutes. However, I do agree with the others that shooting on sight and not trying to constantly work an angle would be a useful variation. After all, they spend a good 20 minutes of the warm up practicing shots and rarely think of this as an option when we actually play the match.
Hats off to Chambers though. Not only a cracking goal, but he played very well throughout yesterday, and can see his real value to the team after his early season wobbles.
Glad the crazy Christmas period is over now and we have a good haul of points as things settle back into normality.
I was one of the 1800 at the Knighton Town game. I have written before on MAYA about that game… and how there was no Football Special from Porth to Ninian Park Halt.
Talking of what I have previously written in these pages, I refer today’s readers to this May 2024 reference to Rosie’s exploits in the city we Grimbarians don’t mention, just 17 miles (as the crow flies) across the Humber: please check the 7th and – especially – the 9th comment below Paul’s weekly posting…
https://tinyurl.com/yc4fbvys
I was standing in for Nostradamus that week.
DW.
P.S.
Oh, I forgot to say that I stand by the Russell Martin remark.
Both these guys have been so contaminated by Pepitis, that they probably need some serious psychotherapy to wean them off kamikaze defending… and a ‘playing out from the back’ style which gets them into the opponent’s third maybe one time in ten… whereas a superbly directed goal KICK will do the job ten times out of ten.
DW.
PS: Dai and Others,
My recollection, after Hull narrowly missed out on the Play-Offs, was that the Club’s owner said he wanted a more attacking type of football and for Rosenior to play a different goalkeeper from his manager’s choice. From the outside it seemed a complete breakdown in their relationship.
Today I have watched a few interviews featuring the football intelligentsia debating the issue of the Director of Football role and secondly the difference between the remit of a Manager (eg Ferguson) and a Head Coach.
My view is that unless a DoF and Head Coach have the same vision it will only end one way as Chelsea and Man Utd have recently shown.
The usual thanks for your replies which have captured the difference in opinions about Sunday’s game which I have seen on messageboards and, to a lesser extent, podcasts. There seems to be a definite difference in opinion about how we played with many labelling the game boring and others seeing it as a comprehensive and totally one sided affirmation of BBM’s methods. Indeed, if you read Dai and Graham’s messages onn the game and then watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JX4glR36DE
you’d think they were talking about different games.
For myself, I think the guy in the video goes a bit too far, but I’m more in line with his views than those who complained about it being boring. Speaking as a City fan I thoroughly enjoyed watching Sunday’s game. Possibly uniquely in my time as a supporter of the club, I watched the last half an hour of a match we were winning by a single goal margin with no fear that we weren’t going to win – the only way Wigan were going to score was if a City player made a monumental error. Although the method of play was different, the closest thing I can think of as a comparison was back in our Championship winning 12/13 season under Malky Mackay where there were occasional 1-0 wins where the usual nerves in the closing stages were almost completely absent.
On the other hand, if I’d watched the game as a genuine neutral, I would have found it a bit of a bore because it was so one sided. It was not a great spectacle for the uncommitted, but that was down to the performance and attitude of one of the teams – the other one did as much as they could in terms of an attacking attitude.
One last thing on style of play, City are not averse to going for the direct long pass – see Dylan Lawlor’s pass to Alex Robertson for the goal against Exeter (having seen it a few more times now, I disagree with Dai’s suggestion that it wasn’t an intentional pass). Ryan Wintle’s to Yousef Salech for one of the goals against Doncaster and Wintle’s to Cian Ashford in the build up to one of the goals against Huddersfield. (there was also a long ball played up to Salech by Wintle again I think it was in the build up to Isaak Davies’ goal that day). One of the main differences between the Doncaster and Huddersfield matches and recent home games is that there was space to exploit in behind the oppositions back four/five, whereas Wigan, more than any team I’ve seen us play in recent years sat so deep throughout the ninety minutes that there was no chance to counter attack or exploit areas behind their defensive line.
I agree with Huw when he says we could do with a bit more pace and, although he doesn’t say it in so many words, for the first time ever this season I think we saw something akin to sides going to Manchester City a few years ago and just concentrating solely on defence in the hope that they may nick a low scoring draw or a 1-0 win. Wigan were an extreme example of this, but I would argue that the four sides we played over the holiday period (including Wycombe who were at home) all went into the match thinking they couldn’t match us in the sort of open game we saw against Leyton Orient, Reading, Huddersfield and Doncaster in the autumn – it’ll be interesting to see how an attack minded, but going through a poor spell currently, Leyton Orient approach the game on Saturday.
Steve, thanks for the explanation of the Calum Chambers passes compared to the whole Wigan team claim which confirms that what on the face of it seems a ludicrous claim was, in fact, true. I was also fascinated by the Possession Timeline you mention which I suspect must be a one off. I cannot recall what happened around the seventy fifth minute to constitute a Wigan attack as the two incidents I can recall where they looked remotely threatening were both in the first half – Trott’s good save to keep out what I think was a Perry Ng touch having seen replays of the incident and a clever, quick free kick where the very good Alex Robertson was alive to the danger.
One last thing about the officials, goalkeepers are often outside their penalty area with the ball in their hands when they kick it clear, but Wigan’s excellent Sam Tickle was the worst I’ve seen at it in ages. It got remarked upon during the club website’s commentary on the ninety minutes, but that wasn’t the first time it had happened by any means. Ordinarilly, I would not blame linesmen/women for missing it because it’s not the sort of thing they look out for these days, but once or twice on Sunday it was so blatant that you would have thought the linesman should have spotted it.
PPS:
Paul, regarding the goalkeeper taking the ball outside his area before punting it upfield, one fan sitting near me on Sunday was speaking about it every time he kicked the ball out of his hands. This and foul throws seem to be ignored these days. Why?
OMG Paul…
It is a good thing that I am still ‘compos mentis’, despite the crushing (and very expensive and totally inexplicable and unpardonable*) psychological blow of my ‘doing a Wayne Rooney’** just three days before Xmas Day… because I can still defend myself against your unfortunate claim that I said that Lawlor’s ball ‘wasn’t an intentional’ pass. Eh? What are you smoking, boyo?
I said nothing of the sort. What I did say were words to the effect that this was no flash of Messi-type genius… but it was clearly a move worked out in training between Dylan and Alex… and we should not just be complimenting Dylan but also Alex for his 50% of the move… in him holding his run so as not to be caught offside.
Unfortunately, this ‘Dylan the inspired passer’ praise has gone to the boy’s head… hence the kamikaze pass against Chelsea that fundamentally lost us the game… a game where we’d played so well until that point, but after that – despite our wonderful diving header equaliser – somehow were never quite as confidently solid defensively.
Now a few points in answer to Steve’s always excellent contributions…
1. Alas I do not agree that Willock’s shot was going in anyway against Wycombe. Look at it again. The keeper is starting his dive and the ball is destined for his hands… but that slight deflection does the damage.
2. On the subject of Directors of Football: I have written before in MAYA my views that the role is totally bolloxio. I won’t live long enough alas to see both it and Pepitis consigned to the ‘dustbin of history’… but one day the Beautiful Game will be washed clean of this nonsense…
3. I reckon both these cancers stem from the same cause: pure unadulterated SNOBBERY… i.e. The Beautiful Game should not be simple anymore: let’s stop keepers standing in the middle of their goal if defending a free kick with a wall; let’s screw up our manager, by giving him an interfering busybody called a DoF***; let us try at The Etihad to keep passing it square ad nauseam, instead of shooting from a distance****… hence our largely ‘walk it in’ approach against Wigan (Chambers please give them shooting lessons).
4. Steve, as I more than hinted at in my May 2024 piece on Rosie… Acun Ilicali sacked him because he’d had a bellyful of farcical mix-ups ‘playing out from the back’… you people in South Wales do not have the benefit of seeing local TV we get living on Humberside… heart stopping Hull City moments where our ex-goalie was often centrepiece… and a good percentage of which by good luck did not result in goals for the opponents. And when Hull did get the ball over the halfway line, a good 45 seconds had elapsed in square and backward passing, that a proper goal kick would have achieved in a TWENTIETH of that time.
*one person did pardon me… my indefatigable wife Larissa… she told me to stop beating myself up over Christmas… when I was too low to comment on a couple of City games… deep in my despondency.
Had I been fit enough to comment, I’d have expressed my usual disapproval of the ‘all eleven men back’ in our own penalty box for a Wycombe corner that apparently then goes directly in, after there were so many mint green (eh? seems like ‘ curdled cream’ to me) shirts in the goal area so as they confused one another. And then all you needed was an air-kick from the first ‘defender’, Kpakio, (who also got away with a penalty shout which would have been granted by some of the recent anti-City refs we have had, but we fortunately had a ref who generally favoured us in several of his decisions) and the other two City players in the absurd group of three at the near post were too close to the ‘sinner’ to have time to adjust their feet.
** Wayne is one of many celebs who have mis-fuelled. (I hope that is word. Too rushed to google.)
But hey, he had an excuse with a brand new car. I have been merrily putting diesel into my car for nearly seven years… I now genuinely thought that in my 79th year, I was going gaga. And the fact that I then incredibly drove the now misfiring car into the next day… just compounded the engine problem, and only when it was put to me that, ‘could it be that you have put the wrong fuel in?’, did I check my Tesco receipt… and was stunned at the result.
Still shocked.
*** and please let nobody tell me that all the best teams have a DoF. So do the three teams relegated from the EPL every season.
*** Wonderful to see Ruben Dias unleash that Kompany-esque ‘worldy’ a few games ago… but there he was against Chelsea ‘back to type’ playing it sideways again, seemingly baffled by what do do with having 11 opponents between him and the goal.
I promise you… we will wake up only when we are dead. This life – as exemplified with soccer – is just a bizarre dream.
TTFN,
Dai.
Steve, back in the 90s I had a season ticket for a seat on the bob Bank that was in line with the edge of one of the penalty areas and it didn’t take me long to realise that goalkeepers were consistently handling the ball outside the area in the act of punting the ball upfield. City goalkeepers were just as guilty of it as opposition ones, but it was never officiated properly then and it isn’t now – that said, Tickle’s handballs were so blatant on occasions that I don’t know how they weren’t spotted by the linesman.
I’m not sure about what you say about throw ins though. A minor bugbear of mine this season has been that we often leave throw ins in attacking areas to our wingers to take and this has resulted in Willock, more than once, Davies and Ashford I believe all being penalised for foul throws – knowing BBM, I’m sure he has a perfectly logical reason why he sometimes wants wingers taking throw ins the opposition’s defensive third, but I’m damned if I can figure out what it is.
Apologies Dai for misrepresenting what you said. However, I’m in disagreement with you about what you say about Lawlor and him letting complimentary comments about his passing go to his head. I’m pretty sure he’s been encouraged all through his time in football to look to use his much better than average passing ability for a centreback to maximum advantage. I’m also fairly certain that it’s Lawlor’s passing ability that has been the main reason for him starting some very important international games in recent months to the extent that he’s been selected in front of both Chris Mepham and Ben Cabango.
As a teenage, now 20 year old, centreback playing his first full season in senior football, you’d expect some mistakes from Lawlor which would cost goals over a nine month campaign. In his case, there are two reasons why he may make mistakes that cost us goals – first, mistakes in defending and, in that regard, Blackpool’s first goal and the penalty he gave away against Peterborough on the opening day spring to mind. Secondly, there’s errors in playing out from the back when he could have taken a simpler option. I can only think of the goal against Chelsea so far when it comes to that part of the game and, to counter that, there’s the Exeter winner and the second goal against Mansfield where he found Kpakio with a similar type ball in the build up to Salech’s goal.
In the immediate aftermath of his mistake against Chelsea, Lawlor responded very impressively and, apart from some sloppy passing when the whole team lost their way in the final quarter of the Lincoln game, he’s done very well with his passing since then. I also think there’s been instances in recent games where you can see the improvements he’s made in things like anticipation and upper body strength through the course of the season which show how he has improved as a defender.
Whether the goal against Exeter was scored “off the cuff” or the result of a move worked on in training, I say that there aren’t too many centrebacks and central midfielders at this level who could have combined to such devastating effect to decide what was a tight game like Lawlor and Robertson did against Exeter.
I salute you Paul for a most eloquent exposition of the ‘Case for Dylan Lawlor’. Were his life as a professional footballer depending on it, he could not go wrong were he to hire you as his legal counsel.
Before I sign off, I seem to have sent a short contribution that has got lost in the ether. Basically it was a reference to the winner Salech scored against Stevenage: and I claimed it was definitely offside… but we were helped by an incompetent linesman who was a good two to three yards behind the play.
If is already posted in this thread, then my apols. Please don’t tell me it is… the last thing now that my shaken self-confidence needs is further proof that I am losing the plot… [Smiling ruefully to myself.]
DW
Sorry Dai, there’s no messages from any of the regulars waiting for my approval now, so “lost in thew ether” seems to be the most likely explanation for your message’s non appearance. As for that goal against Stevenage, I’ve had a few looks at it and it seems very close to me, but, if I had to come down on one side or another, I’d say it would have been disallowed after about a five minute delay if VAR had been in use that night.
Thanks Paul, as evet.
As for the Salech goal… I saw it as offside at the time… I don’t reckon there was any need for VAR. Please check out my screenshot from my telly here…
https://tinyurl.com/4c37sn52
Both Salech’s legs are goalside of the last defender’s legs. We were helped by that unfit linesman who you see in full pelt trying to get up with the play.
Thing is Dai, that screenshot is taken after Willock’s kicked the ball. I accept we’re talking fractions of a second, but Salech was in the process of getting across the defender, so I’d say it would be possible for him to look more offside just after Willock’s played his cross/shot than he was at the exact time of contact.
81.11 – the full back is keeping Salech onside.
https://tinyurl.com/4ysccpzb
81.12 – still onside as Robbo passes toward Willock
https://tinyurl.com/2nazryn7
81.13 – but now the advancing full back clearly plays Salech offside as Willock crosses
https://tinyurl.com/3umeutub
81.14 – Salech (fortuitously) nets it, with himself between the centre back and keeper.
https://tinyurl.com/2prxfnwx
No need for VAR… I shouted ‘offside’ as soon as I saw it in live action. Indeed, it is a given with Salech that he starts most moves in an offside position.
We were lucky there… a linesman behind the play. My hunch is that because he was not correctly sighted, the linesman was not sure, so kept his flag down, not wanting to incur the wrath of the crowd, City players and officials… not to mention ‘trial by television’.
Please Paul don’t say ‘again the ball has left Willock’s foot’…!! It is nearer his foot than in the photo I posted some 15 hours ago. Apols that I lack the technology of Stockley Park… but trust me… I have watched this sequence more times than the Warren Commission watched the Zapruder film.
And at the nanosecond the ball leaves Willock’s foot, Salech is still offside. As the old joke goes ‘ No surprise, the boy was BORN offside…!!’
For the record however, I would have given the goal… as I far prefer the old rule ‘if there is no daylight between the players, then the benefit of doubt goes to the attacking team’.
VAR often causes more problems than it solves. Will be ever forget the ‘automated offside’ system granting that absurd Wirtz goal of two nights ago?
TTFN,
Dai.
Okay then Dai, I’m going to offer a more general argument now. I can’t stand VAR and would get rid of it and one of the main reasons for that is the time it takes to arrive at a decision when it comes to a tight offside call. In cricket, it’s often commented on that a wicket falls to the first ball after a drinks break, well, the delay for VAR is often quite a bit longer than a cricket drinks break and so it’s reasonable to assume that, like many a batter, there are footballers who lose concentration while they are trying to decide if a goal was offside or not. However, when they eventually get around to providing a decision, the answer to the basic question is it offside or not is a correct one.
It’s very rare, maybe non existent, for what I’ll call football people to argue that the technology is wrong – that is, it has arrived at a conclusion that is not supported by the pictures it has provided. Problems invariably arise with VAR because of the interpretation by the humans involved of the laws of the game (this is especially true when it comes to handballs). I’m with you about the current offside law, it’s too complicated and we’ve arrived back in the position we were in during the 1990 World Cup after which a decision was made to give the benefit of any doubt to the attacker in any tight offside call. Before that the defender got the benefit of the doubt and as VAR is used far more often to disallow a goal than to correct a wrong on field decision by allowing a goal, we’re back to square one with the attacking team, effectively, being penalised.
Going back sixty years, I’ve never ever seen a picture which conclusively proves that England’s third goal in the World Cup Final was a legitimate one. Contrast the controversy over that goal which will never be satisfactorily resolved with what would have happened if Hurst’s shot had occurred these days – the referee would have been given a reliable signal within seconds as to whether it was a goal or not. Again, the verdict of the technology in did the ball cross the line decisions is universally accepted, but the difference is that the correct decision is available within a time frame that does not disrupt the game. If a correct decision on offsides would take a matter of seconds rather than minutes then I would say yes, let’s have VAR along with a simplified offside law, but, until then, let’s go back to trusting humans to make the decisions on the understanding that they will occasionally get them wrong.
Returning to the Salech goal, I’ll make two further observations. The first is that while the picture at 81.13 is as near as you can get to one of when Willock actually passed the ball, it’s still not the exact moment, and, with that in mind, I’ll point out the difference in Salech and the Lincoln defender’s position compared to the picture a mere second later at 81.14. Both of them have moved a good few yards in the space of a second and so I feel there could still be a fair difference in both player’s relative position compared to the fraction earlier when Willock made contact with the ball. My second point is that you have mentioned that the linesman was not up with the play – there’s nothing wrong with that, you’re almost certainly right. So, you’re being critical of the man with the flag for not being exactly in line with play, yet, at the same time, you’re basing your contention on images from a camera that was most definitely not exactly in line with play – it was a good few yards further “behind” play than the linesman was. The technology is available now to have a definitive decision made as to whether it was offside or not using data that offers the equivalent of a camera shot exactly in line with play at the precise nanosecond that a ball is played and, while it often takes far too long, the answer when it comes can be accepted as correct (always allowing for the unwanted interpretations humans apply to this information of course).
I said earlier in this discussion that your contention about the Salech goal is likely to be correct, but, in essence, what you’re doing is guessing (albeit a guess informed by pictures which come close to offering an unanswerable case). The decision was made in what is probably called the old fashioned way which was in the main accepted even though it did offer up the occasional case of human error and I would argue that the Salech goal offered a case in point of where human error could be accepted (unlike say the farcical goal Chelsea were given in their last league visit to Cardiff City Stadium) because, without VAR technology avaialble, I don’t think it’s been conclusively proved to be either right or wrong.