Match Thread: vs Bolton Wanderers (H)

[Sufferingfool]

4 hours ago, 1of4 said:

Just read some of the crap being posted that Bolton were the better team and deserved at the least a draw, what utter rubbish.

Over the years have we've heard managers and football pundits say that good teams know how to win ugly when things aren't going right for them.

How many games have we had sixty plus percent of the game only to come away losing. Saturday we achieved what Bolton, with all their perceived better football couldn't do, we scored a goal that won the game.

If that was winning ugly, then I'll that from the remaining seven games, if it means we accumulate the points required to see us promoted.

 

This

We nullified an attack which had scored for fun the previous game. We scored from a well worked set piece. We defended excellently and as a team. We have magnificent support. We won 😄

I said to my grandchildren at the final whistle this is why we come to football for moments like this…I’m still buzzing COY🐏🐏🐏🐏🐏

[Kathcairns]

5 hours ago, ap04 said:

Only last week you produced a still as evidence -regardless of what happened at full speed and if it merited a foul- there might be contact with Hourihane's foot. You couldn't write it, man.

Hope you are not at the last 3 games,or if you are hope you don't sit next to me🤣😂

[Kathcairns]

4 hours ago, ap04 said:

The keeper making a big save is not "good performance", it is good individually by the keeper but poor defending overall by the team compared to no threat at all (and conversely for the attacking).

But that's irrelevant, the point was that both systems are equally bad at judging who was better on the day by missing most aspects of a performance (boolean).

For heavans sake lighten up

.

[VulcanRam]

2 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

The rule doesn't say it's immaterial but it does say the player needs to have scored in the opponents goal either directly or immediately after the ball hit is arm/hand. So, IMO, it's not that straightforward. Maybe, just maybe, it could be concluded that Waggy didn't "score" the goal. Personally, I wonder if this element of the rule is to differentiate between incidents where the ball wouldn't have gone in if it hadn't hit the players arm (or maybe it might have been saved if I hadn't been sufficiently deflected) versus incidents when it would have gone in anyway. 🤷‍♂️

Thanks TR, I'm really not sure what you're getting at? If the ball hits a players arm/hand and goes in, it's handball and no goal. If it hits a players arm/hand and he goes on to score immediately, it's no goal. It's got nothing to do with anything else that might or might not have been happening or where the ball might or might not have been travelling. What's not straightforward about that? 

The rule has actually been changed in recent years (again) - it used to be if the ball hit a players hand/arm (deliberately or not) and a goal was scored directly after by anyone, it was ruled out. It was changed to only being disallowed if it was the players whose arm it hit who scores. 

Anyway, the goal was given to Wilson which means the officials obviously thought Waghorn hadn't touched it at all. If they thought it had his his hip then he gets the goal. If they thought it had hit his arm they would have to rule it out. 

Edited March 18 by VulcanRam

[Tamworthram]

10 minutes ago, VulcanRam said:

Thanks TR, I'm really not sure what you're getting at? If the ball hits a players arm/hand and goes in, it's handball and no goal. If it hits a players arm/hand and he goes on to score immediately, it's no goal. It's got nothing to do with anything else that might or might not have been happening or where the ball might or might not have been travelling. What's not straightforward about that? 

The rule has actually been changed in recent years (again) - it used to be if the ball hit a players hand/arm (deliberately or not) and a goal was scored directly after by anyone, it was ruled out. It was changed to only being disallowed if it was the players whose arm it hit who scores. 

Anyway, the goal was given to Wilson which means the officials obviously thought Waghorn hadn't touched it at all. If they thought it had his his hip then he gets the goal. If they thought it had hit his arm they would have to rule it out. 

Sorry, perhaps I didn’t explain my interpretation of the law very well. I think your second paragraph is the key one. If the ball brushes past the arm of a player on its way into the goal, with the slightest of touches, is it deemed that that player “scored” the goal? I would say not but what do I know. If it had happened in our goal mouth, and the goal ruled out, I would have thought it harsh on Bolton but relieved that we had been saved by a technicality.

As you say, the important thing is it doesn’t matter as the goal was given. I feel comfortable that it was the right decision but if it wasn’t, it kind of makes up for some of the wrong decisions that have gone against us including the two big ones at Bolton.

[ap04]

On 17/03/2024 at 15:55, Ghost of Clough said:

'Net chances per game based on xG' has us above Bolton

Net chances per game based on actual goals has us top of the league (also known as goal difference).

Of course, total goals for/agaisnt over a season doesn't show how consistent a side is. They could win 5-0 one week, then loss 1-0 the next and have an average of 2.5vs0.5 and have 3 points.
Meanwhile, another side could win 2-1 one week and 1-0 the next resulting in 1.5vs0.5 but have 6 points.

Your method of judging sides says the first team is better, depsite having half the points.

I only said that we were poor on Saturday (and fortunate with some results as a side note), why are you showing me this?

As for the points you made, "chances per game" are not "goals per game", they are goals + all missed chances; and yes the first team is more likely to be better, GD is a better predictor than points eg. see here or here.

[FlyBritishMidland]

7 hours ago, ap04 said:

You mean because the ball sneaked past Waghorn's armpit the tactics and players were a small triumph, but had it not they would have been a mild letdown. Makes perfect sense.

You’re right.  Let’s ignore the actual result, the points awarded and league position and instead focus on a hypothetical scenario against an average team at a neutral ground.  Makes perfect sense.

[Rampant]

Any chance we can just ban this tedious p****? ^^^

Bad timing @FlyBritishMidland! The one above you obviously.

Edited March 18 by Rampant

[FlyBritishMidland]

6 hours ago, ap04 said:

The keeper making a big save is not "good performance", it is good individually by the keeper but poor defending overall by the team compared to no threat at all (and conversely for the attacking).

But that's irrelevant, the point was that both systems are equally bad at judging who was better on the day by missing most aspects of a performance (boolean).

So we should ignore that the keeper did the job that he’s paid to do very well.  He did what he was supposed to do when called upon.  You do know that sometimes the opposition will inevitably get through the defence and have shot don’t you?

[Elwood P Dowd]

22 minutes ago, FlyBritishMidland said:

So we should ignore that the keeper did the job that he’s paid to do very well.  He did what he was supposed to do when called upon.  You do know that sometimes the opposition will inevitably get through the defence and have shot don’t you?

Not in his alternative reality he doesn’t 😂😂

[CBRammette]

 

[Ram-Alf]

Can I just jump into the Waghorn handball incident, We don't have VAR so there's no chance of it being disallowed, And the next bit, If anyone watched the WHU Vs Villa game on MotD2 they explained the law concerning hand/arm and ball crossing the line and VAR...no goal.

Carry on 😁

[Ghost of Clough]

2 hours ago, ap04 said:

I only said that we were poor on Saturday (and fortunate with some results as a side note), why are you showing me this?

As for the points you made, "chances per game" are not "goals per game", they are goals + all missed chances; and yes the first team is more likely to be better, GD is a better predictor than points eg. see here or here.

Because you talk gobbledygook and that's how your post read 🤷‍♂️

Net chances per game against the league's average opponent on neutral ground. By xG, demonstrably the best metric to evaluate past performance in the public domain once you haven't followed a team's games.

[Rammy03]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-13207613/Fallen-giants-bring-passion-noise-Pride-Park-Derby-Bolton-stared-abyss-two-proud-clubs-thriving-League-One.html

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, FlyBritishMidland said:

You’re right.  Let’s ignore the actual result, the points awarded and league position and instead focus on a hypothetical scenario against an average team at a neutral ground.  Makes perfect sense.

Yes but we still don’t know if student A was luckier than student B. That’s the big question that still needs answering. 😉

[ap04]

16 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Because you talk gobbledygook and that's how your post read 🤷‍♂️

Net chances per game against the league's average opponent on neutral ground. By xG, demonstrably the best metric to evaluate past performance in the public domain once you haven't followed a team's games.

And you posted the table to disprove what? The bit you quoted was referring to how good Bolton are, I never said they've been better than us this season.

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, Ram-Alf said:

Can I just jump into the Waghorn handball incident, We don't have VAR so there's no chance of it being disallowed, And the next bit, If anyone watched the WHU Vs Villa game on MotD2 they explained the law concerning hand/arm and ball crossing the line and VAR...no goal.

Carry on 😁

I didn’t want to wade in again on the hand ball debate AGAIN but, since you’ve mentioned it - the explanation they gave bares no resemblance to what happened at Derby.

They said that the West Ham goal was disallowed because the West Ham player moved his arm in order to move the ball on to Bowen who then put the ball in the net. Their explanation was that it was handball because he either did it deliberately or his arm was moving in an unnatural way. If neither of these weren’t the case (not deliberate, not in an unnatural position and the goal was scored by another player) then the goal would have been given according to rule 12.

Anyway, as you say, time to move on.

[DiggerB]

7 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

Describe your celebration to us when Wilson scored.

Indifference?

[SKRam]

Finally a chance to catch up but P12 out of 46….. forgive the commentary comments I’ll skip to P40. And take it from there

[SKRam]

On 17/03/2024 at 14:14, oodledoodle said:

I've honestly lost track of who's a Derby fan and who's a Bolton fan in this thread.

Only one way to explain a team's performances over a season to someone who's not been to games. It's not Xg, or any of those stats. It's the league table.

Came home from the pub last night absolutely steaming. Mrs was well up for a bit of romance. Couldn't get little Oodle up. Absolutely limp.

I assume that still counts as getting my end away though. Ended my night on +1 expected shag, so that pretty much shows everyone how good I am in bed.

That's how stupid it Xg is.

Probably your best post. Probably