These two bits definitely colour my judgment on things. I would like to see more empowered match officials and no VAR. I would like a higher bar for handball based on the speed of the game and incident, not a still photograph or slow motion replay, and I would like offside to be a call on the pitch by the linesman with the benefit given to the attacking player in close decisions.
I accept that the game has moved on (badly) in these areas.
Agree re Danilo but also, where was Dominguez? (Literally where was he? He's not even in the frame for the first goal).
Aina also had another cba day, as previously seen at Fulham. Totally disinterested unless the ball came directly to him.
Yesterday, unbelievably, we were the least shit team on the pitch but still managed to lose. We can blame the refs all we want, but it would've been nice to have at least tried a bit after the second goal went in.
Who said this?
Stuart Atwell, whilst cackling an evil cackle.
Presumably a penalty and a sending off. Drawing and playing against 10 men. Seems like a good opportunity
Fair enough, but I'm not seeing us as the better team, or playing ok even. We lost 2-0.
11 v 11 we were better, both statistically and to the eye. 11 v 13 we lost 2-0.
Isn't the only stat that matters the score?
And were we better?
Everton set up their gameplay to disrupt us, make it a scrappy game and stop us getting any momentum and scoring. Which they did perfectly.
So what's the definition of better?
If we had played the same, got three penalties and won 3-2, would we then have been the better team?
Seems a very reductive view of quality
Just seems like we are often deemed the better team on here but rarely actually win (Everton, Wolves, Palace).
Or put another way, would you rather be us, 'better' than those three, or in the position of any of them?
There's an interesting sub plot in what people mean by better. Often it's looked prettier, did more sexy footballs. Everton were better than us without the ball. Nevertheless, whatever you think, you can't deny it would have been a different game if we had got at least the stone wall penalty that we were denied. That everyone agrees was a clear and obvious error.
Goals change games.
Looks like the chairman's son has handed the Tw@tter feed back to the Comms team...
twitter.com/NFFC/status/1782414798350643229?t=EUVHE_hzaIUAxXYslF4HuA&s=19
I thought we were ok in parts. Essentially between their two goals. When we played more intricately around their box, whilst we didn’t create much, we should have had three penalties and MGW should have scored. We then resorted to crossing into their box where they dealt with everything easily. Had we got one of those penalties, Everton would have crumbled. The atmosphere after the first goal lasted about 5 minutes.
Reyna is skillful but powderpuff and that might have played into the non-penalty as he had gone down easily a few times prior to that. Dominguez and Danilo were not great at stopping them but are tidy players. Yates got booked within 8 nanoseconds of coming on and is not the answer. Sangare has not convinced in that role. So that issue has now gone on for two seasons. First goal was very soft. Second one was one of those.
Lawyers earning their keep today: x.com/NFFC/status/1782451906121515291
Following yesterday’s match at Everton, NFFC issued a statement highlighting our concern at the perception of the PGMOL appointment of VAR for the game. This was an issue we raised with PGMOL prior to the fixture because of the fear of the side show that would ensue if anything went wrong with officiating in the game. That fear has materialised, as the correctness of three important decisions against the Club have been called into doubt.
This is not about individuals but rather how the integrity of the game is seen. We know match officials do not allow outside factors to influence their decision-making and that all referees are required to declare their ‘allegiances’ to PGMOL to avoid any perceived conflict or harm to the game’s reputation for integrity.
However, it is clear PGMOL must amend its rule on allegiances to account for contextual rivalries in the league table, not just local rivalries. This is currently not within the criteria but should be. Mere reliance on match officials to recuse themselves if contextual rivalries exist invites conjecture, as some have recused themselves where others have not.
NFFC stands by its request for greater transparency around PGMOL appointments to further protect the game’s reputation, as intended in PGMOL’s existing approach to allegiances.
Given the widespread and ongoing concerns, not merely of the fans, players and managers of this Club but of many others and the pundits too, over VAR decisions throughout this season any move which boosts confidence in the system should be properly considered.
Babelfish says: "Yates is not the answer. None of them are the answer. What's the question?"
Did anyone else notice the haircut on our physio yesterday?
