Saints 1-1 Man City - Match Thread

[VectisSaint]

5 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I’m glad that I never played in any of your games then Whitey! I used to get stuck in but rarely came off the pitch like that. If you look closely at the larger cut it looks like he has had a stitch. Not sure that qualifies as only a scrape?

Like me you never played in modern football footwear (I hesitate to call them boots). I wore them a bit when I was coaching kids, the problem is what we used to call studs. The blades they wear these days cause these cuts because they are sharp (blades). Mistimed tackles like Armstrong on Saturday will result I'd deep cuts like these, the tackles are no more reckless than in the old days, but the effects can look far worse. There was not an ounce of malice in Stu's tackle (I would suggest there is no malice in any of his tackles). Imagine Brian O'Neil or John McGrath in a pair of modern football footwear, complete amputations while you play. Laporte is obviously also a complete wooss, thank goodness Stu didn't tackle Pretty Boy. 

Edited 24 January, 2022 by VectisSaint

[david in sweden]

16 minutes ago, VectisSaint said:

Like me you never plated in modern football footwear (I hesitate to call them boots). I wore them a bit when I was coaching kids, the problem is what we used to call studs. The blades they wear these days cause these cuts because they are sharp (blades). Mistimed tackles like Armstrong on Saturday will result I'd deep cuts like these, the tackles are no more reckless than in the old days, but the effects can look far worse. There was not an ounce of malice in Stu's tackle (I would suggest there is no malice in any of his tackles). Imagine Brian O'Neil or John McGrath in a pair of modern football footwear, complete amputations while you play. Laporte is obviously also a complete wooss, thank goodness Stu didn't tackle Pretty Boy. 

Agreed Vectis.. havíng looked at the replays several times, I think Stu was stretching out for a ball he never quite reached, and Laporte - arriving from the

opposite direction - never gets close to the ball, and the following "collision" is unavoidable but hardly malicious.  Slo-mo VAR makes everything look bad.

 

 

 

[Sheaf Saint]

2 hours ago, Midfield_General said:

My god, imagine being so breathtakingly stupid that you don't understand the concept of a team of the week 

f**king hell, that's almost impressive 😂

Especially when you consider how long he has been doing it for. You'd think the penny would have dropped by now!

[VictiAbNonem]

I think my response to another team's player Armstronging one of our players would depend on the sort of team they'd been through that game. If they'd spent the game diving around searching for cards, I'd be demanding a red. If they'd been playing fair and accepting the ref's decisions with no bitching, I'd like to think I'd be more amenable to yellow for their player.

I think Stu's clash is now a textbook example of one right on the line between red and yellow. I reckon the lack of intent and only a minor injury should make it a yellow, but it's so close..

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

You’d like to think that there was no intention to injure in any attempt to win the ball 😉. There is a difference in deliberately trying to hurt someone and being reckless though. Not that it proves anything but Keith Hackett thought it was a red. It may not be a stitch but if you enlarge the picture it looks like one. Perhaps I need new glasses? I wonder if we would be so forgiving of that tackle if it had been on JWP?

If you went to A&E with that you’d be laughed at. Not a chance of a stitch there. How would you describe it? It certainly isn’t a laceration. A graze/scrape perhaps.

I’m guessing that Hackett was nowhere near the ground when he watched it. 

Reckless is a yellow card.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, VectisSaint said:

Like me you never plated in modern football footwear (I hesitate to call them boots). I wore them a bit when I was coaching kids, the problem is what we used to call studs. The blades they wear these days cause these cuts because they are sharp (blades). Mistimed tackles like Armstrong on Saturday will result I'd deep cuts like these, the tackles are no more reckless than in the old days, but the effects can look far worse. There was not an ounce of malice in Stu's tackle (I would suggest there is no malice in any of his tackles). Imagine Brian O'Neil or John McGrath in a pair of modern football footwear, complete amputations while you play. Laporte is obviously also a complete wooss, thank goodness Stu didn't tackle Pretty Boy. 

I was thinking about the studs earlier. When I played at school we had studs that were made out of a stack of leather discs. They were nailed through the sole of the boot and the ends were hammered over. Sometimes the nail ends would dig into your foot.

Then came the nylon studs either fully moulded or screw-in. These caused a lot of nasty cuts if the wearer had worn them on concrete and the edges had got some vicious edges on them. There was a period when the linesmen would check the studs of substitutes before they could enter the field of play.

[suewhistle]

Yep, rubber moulded are far safer and get used a lot at our level, particularly when we play on 3/4G sometimes. But I do have metal screw-ins for occasional use and I keep a piece of fine sandpaper in my bag just in case any burrs occur. As Whitey says, the nylon ones could end up nasty.

[cambsaint]

RE nylon studs It wasn't unknown in rugby for vicious players to deliberately sharpen their nylon studs and try to rake players on the ground 

The game has changed completely since then

 

[david in sweden]

19 hours ago, saintwbu said:

With Garth Crooks (and Tim Sherwood) opinion of Salisu, it’s pretty apparent to me that the only game they’ve seen him play was Spurs when he got sent off, and have made that game their opinion of him. That’s fine by me, if they want to send that message to the world. Sadly I can’t imagine it’ll influence too many interested parties, given that they’re both thick as shit.

Good points well-made.  

Given that former England CF's (Shearer and Lineker) are able to make qualified judgements on games, The likes of Crooks and Sherwood are only there to 

pacify London audiences and try to convince everyone that Spurs are still " a big club " and their  opinions / views / experience really matter.

CORRECTION ..Spurs are currently a fairly ordinary club ...with an almost ancient history... and a big stadium,  who think they have a Divine Right to buy

English players for peanuts, whilst paying a fortune for a load of foreign misfits.  Crooks and Sherwood may be  be " legends " in North London, but I wouldn't

want to compare Crooks' and Sherwood's international careers anywhere near the level of  Shearer or  Lineker.     The rest is just hot air,  and blah-ha.

[OldNick]

On 23/01/2022 at 23:54, Pilchards said:

Ha ha ha Gareth Crooks on team of the week.

Loads been said about Salisu but I’ve left him out because one week he’s great the other week he’s reckless. I like consistency so I went the City defender instead.

Honestly you have to laugh as it’s called team of the week you Cnut which means the best players THAT week! 
 

PS - I reckon end of Feb he will be linking him with Liverpool with comments like ‘Liverpool deserve Salisu as they will take him further’

 

 

 

 

Garth Crooks is on the BBC for just one reason, its not his footballing knowledge. I couldnt give a toss who he picks as he is a moron 

[OldNick]

15 hours ago, Verbal said:

I met Garth Crooks once.  He's no better in real life.

what had you done wrong to deserve that?

[AlexLaw76]

The likely reason that Garth Crooks remains employed by the BBC, is a snapshot to the reason why it is in decline. 

 

[tunit]

Great video of our goal from the City end here. What a noise!