Was at the game. Can't really complain about the late goal except that a minute or two earlier we should have had a free kick just outside their area. It looked nailed on from where I was sitting.
OK we may or may not have turned the free kick into a goal but we would have had possession and that might have denied them the break which eventually led to their goal.
Never been able to buy into the top 6 conspiracy idea but it seemed to me that if ever there was evidence that final 5 minutes was as good as it gets.
Either way a very good back to the wall performance. Semedo my MoM, followed by Gomes and Sa. No-one had a bad game for me.
Turning point? Let's see.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Spangles (U17289)
posted 20 minutes ago
Last season a late Kilman goal against West Ham was disallowed because Chirewa was stood in an offside position in front of the keeper
Today John Stones equaliser was allowed despite Bernardo Silva stood offside in front of Sa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernardo was nowhere near Sa when Stones actually headed the ball so he wasn't interfering with play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernardo was about one yard from Sa. When the corner was being taken he pushed Sa to put him off balance. If pushing isn’t interfering then what is
Ref was inconsistent throughout the game.
Two early booking for nothing, then at the end no free kick for us and then allowed the goal, otherway around would have given them both to City.
Same old same old.
Absolutely gut wrenching end to the game, you could argue that we didn't deserve anything from the game based on the quality of our football but for the sheer effort and determination we showed we certainly did.
In all honesty I'm 50/50 on the offside, I've heard all the arguments and when he's active (ie blocking Sa) he's not offside he's only offside when Stones touches the ball by which time he's out of the way. Question is, does he prevent Sa from coming from the cross (we can probably all agree, he's not coming for that cross, Silva or no Silva) and should that be a foul, but that wasn't the call from the ref/lino. The things that boil my p!ss though are:
1. As we know from Kilman v WHU last season, when the situation is reversed the rules flex the other way.
2. The foul that wasn't given on Guedes prior to the flurry of corners that lead to the winner. At the time it looked a clear foul and the replay confirms that rat face Nunes shoves him in the back before taking the ball from him.
Ref was useless all afternoon but booking Gomes after Kovacic had tried to barge him like a defensive tackle at the line of scrimmage was utterly ludicrous.
Then had to listen to that condescending clown Chris Sutton on the radio belittling GON's comments about unconscious bias in favour of the big clubs and moaning about the city players celebrations because they'd "only beaten Wolves."
Oh well, work tomorrow 😡
Everyone in the sky studio plus most of the online media have the view that the city goal should have been disallowed
But I guess at least we’ll get another apology even though we get no points
comment by Spangles (U17289)
posted 2 minutes ago
Everyone in the sky studio plus most of the online media have the view that the city goal should have been disallowed
But I guess at least we’ll get another apology even though we get no points
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's typical City always getting decisions. Guarantee if Wolves scored that against them the goal would have been disallowed! Chris Kavanagh is a corrupt caaant.
I thought Joao Gomes was tremendous today, won no end of tackles. But you do worry about him once he’s got a yellow
Doesn't that yellow get him a 1 game ban?
Couldn't really fault any individuals today, Sa, Semedo, Dawson, Gomes all superb. Didn't really like the way we kept going long from the back, I think Stones won every single ball, mostly unchallenged, but the low block mostly worked bar Guardiols moment of brilliance.
If only semedo had buried that chance for 2-0
Couldn't care less what the Sky pundits or the media says. Yes, Sa was impeded before the corner kick was taken, so can't give a foul when the ball's not in play. But he moved away from Sa and ducked down, so the VAR were correct in allowing the goal.
I've advocated for a back 3 all season and today we saw what we benefit when Toti is on the left, Dawson in the middle and Santi on the right. Semedo had his best game as a wing back and RAN did ok, but gave possession away too much.
Andre looked knocked at HT and not surprised he was taken off. Doyle didn't do too much and the only player I thought had a bit of an off day was Cunha.
Gutted we lost in the final minutes, but I think a lot can be taken from the defensive performance today.
Missed Wolfie talking absolute shat. We would have been playing with ten behind the ball all day whether we went with a 3 or 4 today.
Personally I think we should be flexible depending on the opposition. Better sides, then why not a back three. Poorer sides, why wouldn't we want to get more attacking impetus on the field such as Doyle?
1. As we know from Kilman v WHU last season, when the situation is reversed the rules flex the other way.
-----------------------------------------------
MOTD showed there was no real comparison, Bernardo wasn't stood directly in front of Sa when Stones headed the ball.
It was a goal for me to be honest. We didn't concede that due to Bernardo.
Silva was stood in that position for one reason only, to distract the keeper
comment by Spangles (U17289)
posted 4 minutes ago
Silva was stood in that position for one reason only, to distract the keeper
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course he was, standard procedure for every team in the league.
Arsenal have it down to a fine art with 3 players usually blocking the GK and get praised for it.
When the ball was on its way to the centre, Silva backed into Sa putting him off balance. Should have been given as a foul. Silva was still in the line of vision when the ball arrived with Stones. Another offence. The fact that Silva then ducked away just means there were only two offences committed not three
https://www.google.com/gasearch?q=stones%20goal%20vs%20wolves&source=sh/x/gs/m2/5#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:7d114fff,vid:hO6hSal5Pns,st:0
One match to go now in October and Wolves have got just 1 point from 8 games. We’ve done well against a number of the top teams but we haven’t beaten any of them. And it’s not necessarily the case that an honourable defeat against a top team turns into a win against a bottom half team.
At the start of the season it was likely that 38 points from 38 games would be plenty to stay in the division. Now we need 37 points from 30 games which is a fair bit more difficult. We’re good enough to do that but we’re not too good to go down.
November is a massive month for the club
comment by Cinciwolf-----JA606 NFL fantasy champ 2023 (U11551)
posted about 10 hours ago
Missed Wolfie talking absolute shat. We would have been playing with ten behind the ball all day whether we went with a 3 or 4 today.
Personally I think we should be flexible depending on the opposition. Better sides, then why not a back three. Poorer sides, why wouldn't we want to get more attacking impetus on the field such as Doyle?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We all know you brag about traveling all over the world, but I do wonder if you actually watch a game, or just rely on highlights.
GON switched to a back 3 for the first time this season (I just wish he'd done it from the first game). Had Semedo played as a RB in a back 4, I doubt very much he would have supplied the cross for our goal or had the chance he missed when one on one with their 'keeper. So your assumption that we would have put ten men behind the ball come what may, is total bollox. We look more solid in defence with 3 and it's why we've conceded more goals than anyone else by playing 4 at the back.
Right now, we're the "poorer side" and it reflects that by us being bottom of the table and starting to come adrift from sides above us.
I don’t think you two being disrespectful to each other is necessary or pleasant to see you are both better than that , but each to their own
Our away game at Leicester has been put back 24 hours from Dec 21 to Sunday 22nd at 14:00. This is because of a clash with a Leicester Rugby match
trains always worse on Sundays so not good news assuming I can get a ticket which is reasonably likely
Hoping for a Forest win tonight.
Which would suggest that the level we are currently playing at is eighth.
©
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 14 hours, 9 minutes ago
1. As we know from Kilman v WHU last season, when the situation is reversed the rules flex the other way.
-----------------------------------------------
MOTD showed there was no real comparison, Bernardo wasn't stood directly in front of Sa when Stones headed the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bloody hell Boz, what's your beef ? Fabianski had no chance of getting to that header whether Chirewa was there or not, but either way the two incidents were so similar as to be virtually indistinguishable.
A lot of sympathy for O'Neil's post match comments on the radio tonight, exception being Sutton again who may just be playing his usual cantankerous confrontational role. No apologies though from PGMOL but a request from the FA for him to explain his comments.
Chapman, Andros Townsend and that journalist bloke Rory something all agreed that unconscious bias is a natural human thing and does happen in all walks of life not just football.
I commented on X last night that Sutton should maybe stick to food punditry because of the boollarks he was spouting on the radio last night after he went OTT on the pies at Kilmarnock. Annoyingly the tw@t liked the comment.
Sign in if you want to comment
Wolves v Man City Match Thread
Page 4 of 5
posted on 20/10/24
Was at the game. Can't really complain about the late goal except that a minute or two earlier we should have had a free kick just outside their area. It looked nailed on from where I was sitting.
OK we may or may not have turned the free kick into a goal but we would have had possession and that might have denied them the break which eventually led to their goal.
Never been able to buy into the top 6 conspiracy idea but it seemed to me that if ever there was evidence that final 5 minutes was as good as it gets.
Either way a very good back to the wall performance. Semedo my MoM, followed by Gomes and Sa. No-one had a bad game for me.
Turning point? Let's see.
posted on 20/10/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Spangles (U17289)
posted 20 minutes ago
Last season a late Kilman goal against West Ham was disallowed because Chirewa was stood in an offside position in front of the keeper
Today John Stones equaliser was allowed despite Bernardo Silva stood offside in front of Sa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernardo was nowhere near Sa when Stones actually headed the ball so he wasn't interfering with play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernardo was about one yard from Sa. When the corner was being taken he pushed Sa to put him off balance. If pushing isn’t interfering then what is
posted on 20/10/24
Ref was inconsistent throughout the game.
Two early booking for nothing, then at the end no free kick for us and then allowed the goal, otherway around would have given them both to City.
Same old same old.
posted on 20/10/24
Absolutely gut wrenching end to the game, you could argue that we didn't deserve anything from the game based on the quality of our football but for the sheer effort and determination we showed we certainly did.
In all honesty I'm 50/50 on the offside, I've heard all the arguments and when he's active (ie blocking Sa) he's not offside he's only offside when Stones touches the ball by which time he's out of the way. Question is, does he prevent Sa from coming from the cross (we can probably all agree, he's not coming for that cross, Silva or no Silva) and should that be a foul, but that wasn't the call from the ref/lino. The things that boil my p!ss though are:
1. As we know from Kilman v WHU last season, when the situation is reversed the rules flex the other way.
2. The foul that wasn't given on Guedes prior to the flurry of corners that lead to the winner. At the time it looked a clear foul and the replay confirms that rat face Nunes shoves him in the back before taking the ball from him.
Ref was useless all afternoon but booking Gomes after Kovacic had tried to barge him like a defensive tackle at the line of scrimmage was utterly ludicrous.
Then had to listen to that condescending clown Chris Sutton on the radio belittling GON's comments about unconscious bias in favour of the big clubs and moaning about the city players celebrations because they'd "only beaten Wolves."
Oh well, work tomorrow 😡
posted on 20/10/24
Everyone in the sky studio plus most of the online media have the view that the city goal should have been disallowed
But I guess at least we’ll get another apology even though we get no points
posted on 20/10/24
comment by Spangles (U17289)
posted 2 minutes ago
Everyone in the sky studio plus most of the online media have the view that the city goal should have been disallowed
But I guess at least we’ll get another apology even though we get no points
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's typical City always getting decisions. Guarantee if Wolves scored that against them the goal would have been disallowed! Chris Kavanagh is a corrupt caaant.
posted on 20/10/24
I thought Joao Gomes was tremendous today, won no end of tackles. But you do worry about him once he’s got a yellow
posted on 20/10/24
Doesn't that yellow get him a 1 game ban?
posted on 20/10/24
Couldn't really fault any individuals today, Sa, Semedo, Dawson, Gomes all superb. Didn't really like the way we kept going long from the back, I think Stones won every single ball, mostly unchallenged, but the low block mostly worked bar Guardiols moment of brilliance.
If only semedo had buried that chance for 2-0
posted on 21/10/24
Couldn't care less what the Sky pundits or the media says. Yes, Sa was impeded before the corner kick was taken, so can't give a foul when the ball's not in play. But he moved away from Sa and ducked down, so the VAR were correct in allowing the goal.
I've advocated for a back 3 all season and today we saw what we benefit when Toti is on the left, Dawson in the middle and Santi on the right. Semedo had his best game as a wing back and RAN did ok, but gave possession away too much.
Andre looked knocked at HT and not surprised he was taken off. Doyle didn't do too much and the only player I thought had a bit of an off day was Cunha.
Gutted we lost in the final minutes, but I think a lot can be taken from the defensive performance today.
posted on 21/10/24
Missed Wolfie talking absolute shat. We would have been playing with ten behind the ball all day whether we went with a 3 or 4 today.
Personally I think we should be flexible depending on the opposition. Better sides, then why not a back three. Poorer sides, why wouldn't we want to get more attacking impetus on the field such as Doyle?
posted on 21/10/24
1. As we know from Kilman v WHU last season, when the situation is reversed the rules flex the other way.
-----------------------------------------------
MOTD showed there was no real comparison, Bernardo wasn't stood directly in front of Sa when Stones headed the ball.
posted on 21/10/24
It was a goal for me to be honest. We didn't concede that due to Bernardo.
posted on 21/10/24
Silva was stood in that position for one reason only, to distract the keeper
posted on 21/10/24
comment by Spangles (U17289)
posted 4 minutes ago
Silva was stood in that position for one reason only, to distract the keeper
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course he was, standard procedure for every team in the league.
Arsenal have it down to a fine art with 3 players usually blocking the GK and get praised for it.
posted on 21/10/24
When the ball was on its way to the centre, Silva backed into Sa putting him off balance. Should have been given as a foul. Silva was still in the line of vision when the ball arrived with Stones. Another offence. The fact that Silva then ducked away just means there were only two offences committed not three
posted on 21/10/24
https://www.google.com/gasearch?q=stones%20goal%20vs%20wolves&source=sh/x/gs/m2/5#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:7d114fff,vid:hO6hSal5Pns,st:0
posted on 21/10/24
One match to go now in October and Wolves have got just 1 point from 8 games. We’ve done well against a number of the top teams but we haven’t beaten any of them. And it’s not necessarily the case that an honourable defeat against a top team turns into a win against a bottom half team.
At the start of the season it was likely that 38 points from 38 games would be plenty to stay in the division. Now we need 37 points from 30 games which is a fair bit more difficult. We’re good enough to do that but we’re not too good to go down.
November is a massive month for the club
posted on 21/10/24
comment by Cinciwolf-----JA606 NFL fantasy champ 2023 (U11551)
posted about 10 hours ago
Missed Wolfie talking absolute shat. We would have been playing with ten behind the ball all day whether we went with a 3 or 4 today.
Personally I think we should be flexible depending on the opposition. Better sides, then why not a back three. Poorer sides, why wouldn't we want to get more attacking impetus on the field such as Doyle?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We all know you brag about traveling all over the world, but I do wonder if you actually watch a game, or just rely on highlights.
GON switched to a back 3 for the first time this season (I just wish he'd done it from the first game). Had Semedo played as a RB in a back 4, I doubt very much he would have supplied the cross for our goal or had the chance he missed when one on one with their 'keeper. So your assumption that we would have put ten men behind the ball come what may, is total bollox. We look more solid in defence with 3 and it's why we've conceded more goals than anyone else by playing 4 at the back.
Right now, we're the "poorer side" and it reflects that by us being bottom of the table and starting to come adrift from sides above us.
posted on 21/10/24
I don’t think you two being disrespectful to each other is necessary or pleasant to see you are both better than that , but each to their own
posted on 21/10/24
Our away game at Leicester has been put back 24 hours from Dec 21 to Sunday 22nd at 14:00. This is because of a clash with a Leicester Rugby match
posted on 21/10/24
trains always worse on Sundays so not good news assuming I can get a ticket which is reasonably likely
posted on 21/10/24
Hoping for a Forest win tonight.
Which would suggest that the level we are currently playing at is eighth.
©
posted on 21/10/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 14 hours, 9 minutes ago
1. As we know from Kilman v WHU last season, when the situation is reversed the rules flex the other way.
-----------------------------------------------
MOTD showed there was no real comparison, Bernardo wasn't stood directly in front of Sa when Stones headed the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bloody hell Boz, what's your beef ? Fabianski had no chance of getting to that header whether Chirewa was there or not, but either way the two incidents were so similar as to be virtually indistinguishable.
posted on 21/10/24
A lot of sympathy for O'Neil's post match comments on the radio tonight, exception being Sutton again who may just be playing his usual cantankerous confrontational role. No apologies though from PGMOL but a request from the FA for him to explain his comments.
Chapman, Andros Townsend and that journalist bloke Rory something all agreed that unconscious bias is a natural human thing and does happen in all walks of life not just football.
I commented on X last night that Sutton should maybe stick to food punditry because of the boollarks he was spouting on the radio last night after he went OTT on the pies at Kilmarnock. Annoyingly the tw@t liked the comment.
Page 4 of 5