Manchester United Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12

Kirby

Pro. F wrote: »

Rooney didn't have to hurdle the keeper. He could have run straight into him just like he did with Almunia a few years ago.

You are forgetting the magical third option. Easily hurdle the goalie, and stay on his feet.

Pro. F wrote: »

the only thing that is happening here is that players like Rooney don't trust the referees to make the right call in accordance with the laws if they stay on their feet, so they always make sure to fall over the keeper.

Are you for real? What sort of argument is that? "The ref might get it wrong so I better dive". What about when there is no contact at all? Are they still "making sure" in that instance? Simulation is simulation. If you pretend you have been taken down, you are diving.

You are making excuses for cheating. The diving and play acting does the sport no favours at all.

Pro. F wrote: »

Diving will never be eradicated through embarrassment. It wouldn't matter if all fans were united on all decisions about diving. For professionals victories and pay cheques will always trump what the fans think.

The victories would stop coming when a team lost a player because of a 3 match ban. Instead of being congratulated by his teammates and manager for winning the game by diving, he would get a rollicking for getting himself banned. Start retroactively banning divers and it would stop nearly instantly.

The problem at the moment is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

A defender cheats during a game and hauls a player down to prevent a goal. Red card and three match ban.
A striker cheats during a game and pretends to be fouled to try and score a goal. Yellow card. And thats if the ref see's it and has the balls to apply the rules.

If fans were united around the issue, as you suggest, than the governing body could feel they had the support to start banning players and it would clean up the game. Unfortunately, some fans just make excuses. Ex-pro's do it too because they spent their careers diving so don't want to be seen as a hypocrite.

As I said earlier, Rooney is not alone in this. It's prevalent in every form of the game nowadays and every team has several divers. You have lads getting pulled back and then flinging themselves forward. It's ridiculous. Football is a great game and it should be played by men. Not by primadonna fakers who just fling themselves around.

Professional Griefer

tupac_healy wrote: »

Not sure if its been mentioned or not but the community shield is on tomorrow is it not?

Anyone going to watch it or take any interest?


Personally I'm off to see Cork City hammer Blackburn

If I wake up then without a doubt. Should be a cracking game, but I'd say I'll sleep through it.

I was gonna head up to the Cork Blackburn game with my friends, we were gonna make 'Kean Out' banners for the laugh, but stupid work says otherwise.

Al Capwned

Pro. F wrote: »

Why on earth would it cause chaos? If the goalkeeper fails at an attempt to get the ball and so impedes the attacker, then it's a foul. That's how the rule works and the only thing that is happening here is that players like Rooney don't trust the referees to make the right call in accordance with the laws if they stay on their feet, so they always make sure to fall over the keeper.

The argument that there has to be contact for it to be a foul is just nonsense. It doesn't pay any attention to logic. If it were the case that there could be no foul unless there was contact then players in Rooney's situation would always just run into the keeper and put themselves at more risk of injury in order to get the penalty. If there could be no foul without contact than players would be best never hurdling the keeper after nicking it past him.

It doesn't matter if the keeper makes a genuine attempt to get the ball, what matters is that he failed in that attempt because Rooney was faster than him and he then hindered Rooney. So the keeper hindered Rooney => foul => penalty.

How would it cause chaos? I think that the situation we are discussing is completely different than for example, a defender sliding in for a ball. A goalkeeper sliding in for a ball at an attackers feet would, 99% of the time involve two players coming at each other from completely opposite directions, and therefore will involve a coming together, or one player taking evasive action.
Introducing a rule (or a law, :rolleyes:) that would penalise a goalkeeper for going to ground in an attempt to get to a ball would, in my opinion, see that rule being exploited by attacking players, resulting in extremely regular incidents of goalkeepers being sent off - chaos.

A keeper sliding for a ball, hands and face first, is a skill, and it should not be punished if not executed absolutely perfectly.

Keeper slides -> wins ball -> contact made with attacker -> no pen.
Keeper slides -> wins ball -> no contact made with attacker -> no pen.
Keeper slides -> no contact with ball -> no contact made with attacker -> no pen.
Keeper slides -> no contact with ball -> contact made with attacker -> pen, and possible card, depending on nature of foul.

See here also

That's how I see it, that's how it's being implemented - It's one of the things that is being done right. It's hardly nonsense.


Take our pen yesterday, if Steven Gerrard done that against us, he would be slaughtered in here.
Rooney dived. It was not a penalty.

Pro. F

Kirby wrote: »

You are forgetting the magical third option. Easily hurdle the goalie, and stay on his feet.

You said Rooney had to hurdle the keeper. He did not have to hurdle the keeper.

A less coordinated attacker, or a more tired Rooney, wouldn't have even gotten off the ground to try and hurdle the keeper.

Kirby wrote: »

Are you for real? What sort of argument is that? "The ref might get it wrong so I better dive". What about when there is no contact at all? Are they still "making sure" in that instance? Simulation is simulation. If you pretend you have been taken down, you are diving.

You are making excuses for cheating. The diving and play acting does the sport no favours at all.

Yes I'm for real. Players who stay on their feet when they've been fouled are far less likely to get free kicks at the moment. Of course it's justifiable that they make sure to go down when they've been fouled.

I don't know why you are mentioning when there is no contact. As was proven many times last night there doesn't have to be contact for it to be a foul.

Kirby wrote: »

The victories would stop coming when a team lost a player because of a 3 match ban. Instead of being congratulated by his teammates and manager for winning the game by diving, he would get a rollicking for getting himself banned. Start retroactively banning divers and it would stop nearly instantly.

The problem at the moment is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

A defender cheats during a game and hauls a player down to prevent a goal. Red card and three match ban.
A striker cheats during a game and pretends to be fouled to try and score a goal. Yellow card. And thats if the ref see's it and has the balls to apply the rules.

If fans were united around the issue, as you suggest, than the governing body could feel they had the support to start banning players and it would clean up the game. Unfortunately, some fans just make excuses. Ex-pro's do it too because they spent their careers diving so don't want to be seen as a hypocrite.

As I said earlier, Rooney is not alone in this. It's prevalent in every form of the game nowadays and every team has several divers. You have lads getting pulled back and then flinging themselves forward. It's ridiculous. Football is a great game and it should be played by men. Not by primadonna fakers who just fling themselves around.

That is a completely different issue. I'm all for retroactive banning for diving. But that is not what you suggested. You said if that we need to embarrass players into not diving. That will not work.

I doubt that fans being united would have much effect on Fifa and IFAB, but that's not particularly important. The situation is too complex to expect fans to be united in opinion anyway. Personally I think retroactive punishment for diving and feigning injury should be introduced. But I think at the same time video reffing should be introduced to ensure that players who manager to stay on their feet when they get fouled still get the frees and penos they have earned.

Professional Griefer

Seems to be a lot of talk on twitter about RVP being done, all rubbish but you know that already, I suppose when us and Arsenal were both in Germany, and with SAF missing it was always going to happen.

It seems to be dragging on, the longer it goes the less likely it seems to me.

Sickened I missed the game yesterday as well, heard a lot of good talk about Kagawa.

Maximus Alexander

Pro. F wrote: »

If the wages being earned by those central midfielders at the club is a limiting factor on buying new central midfielders then it's a limiting factor on buying players for any position. All the wages come from the same pot.

If you think CMs should be moved on before new ones are brought in then there are plenty of candidates for that. Giggs is a poor central midfielder, can't run for 90 minutes and can't play more than once a week. There's no need to keep him at the club. Fletcher is so sick he can't even play. Scholes is good but can't run for 90 minutes and can't play more than once a week.

Maybe I was really unclear or else you didn't read my posts, but I already explained my thoughts on this.

You can't move Giggs or Scholes on, because along with Carrick they're the only reliable players available for CM.

You can't move Cleverley on, because he's a bloody great prospect and you wouldn't want to.

You can't move Fletcher or Anderson on, because they are under contract and nobody is going to sign them.

And you can't just keep signing CMs, because the other areas of the squad need to be looked after too. Where do you stop, 10 CMs? Instead he made a reasonable and cost effective attempt at some future proofing by signing a hot prospect.

I'm sure SAF is not happy about it either, but the way I see it his only option is to keep working with what he has until someone's contract expires, or they play at least enough of a season to be saleable.

Let's be clear, I would love to see a world class CM signed, but the above are the reasons I don't think it will happen. And I don't think it's because of "horrible mismanagement", just plain old misfortune. Shít happens.

Copper_pipe

I'm expecting RVP to feature for arsneal today

IamtheWalrus

Copper_pipe wrote: »

I'm expecting RVP to feature for arsneal today

Unlikely. Unless he's signing a new deal.

Jame Gumb

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

Copper_pipe wrote: »

I'm expecting RVP to feature for arsneal today

Unlikely. Unless he's signing a new deal.

Next topic up for discussion on Sunday Supplement...

IamtheWalrus

Jame Gumb wrote: »

Next topic up for discussion on Sunday Supplement...

Have they discussed RVP yet? Went for a shower there. Feel cleaner.

Pro. F

alproctor wrote: »

How would it cause chaos? I think that the situation we are discussing is completely different than for example, a defender sliding in for a ball. A goalkeeper sliding in for a ball at an attackers feet would, 99% of the time involve two players coming at each other from completely opposite directions, and therefore will involve a coming together, or one player taking evasive action.
Introducing a rule (or a law, :rolleyes:) that would penalise a goalkeeper for going to ground in an attempt to get to a ball would, in my opinion, see that rule being exploited by attacking players, resulting in extremely regular incidents of goalkeepers being sent off - chaos.

Nobody is suggesting that such a law be introduced.

alproctor wrote: »

A keeper sliding for a ball, hands and face first, is a skill, and it should not be punished if not executed absolutely perfectly.

Keeper slides -> wins ball -> contact made with attacker -> no pen.
Keeper slides -> wins ball -> no contact made with attacker -> no pen.
Keeper slides -> no contact with ball -> no contact made with attacker -> no pen.
Keeper slides -> no contact with ball -> contact made with attacker -> pen, and possible card, depending on nature of foul.

See here also

That's how I see it, that's how it's being implemented - It's one of the things that is being done right. It's hardly nonsense.


Take our pen yesterday, if Steven Gerrard done that against us, he would be slaughtered in here.
Rooney dived. It was not a penalty.

The fact that Gerrard might have been slaughtered by biased fans who don't understand the laws of the game and don't think logically about the situation is irrelevant.

What you are suggesting is not how the law stands at the moment and if it was implemented it would be unfair.

You want it to only be a foul if there is contact. What that means is that players who are quick reacting and agile, who manage to jump out of the way when the keeper fouls them wouldn't get a penalty, even when they are disadvantaged by having to jump out of the way. Whereas players who are slower reacting or less coordinated (eg Peter Crouch), in the exact same situation, who don't manage to jump out of the way would get the penalty. Attackers shouldn't be penalized for using their quick wits and coordination to avoid injury when they've been fouled.

lordgoat

So attackers now have to wait for the goalie to slide into them for it to be a pen? Ah ya sure who doesn't mind getting lifted out of it.

Rooney avoided contact - i avoid the word dive in this instance as that implies he did something wrong - but it was still a pen. Sometimes you avoid contact to protect yourself.

Watch the keeper again, he flings himself toward rooney and the ball, were it not a friendly i'd have expected a red and a pen.

Al Capwned

@Pro.F and Lordgoat

Think we gonna have to agree to disagree - you have your thoughts, I have mine. None of us gonna be swayed from those and we'll just end up going in circles.

And anyway I'm off top prepare for my match today, and I will be diving at lads feet if needed....

double GG

On a completely different topic. It's 9 years to the day since that boy joined our club for 12.24million.

Honestly can't believe it's 9 years already. Fantastic player, probably the best I've seen at United. It's unbelievable how he went from this little skinny boy to the absolute monster he is today.



Cristiano Ronaldo!

Al Capwned

double GG wrote: »

.....

Cristiano Ronaldo!

Always remember watching this game. Remember thinking, what a stupid name, sure he'll always be confused with the real one....

right i'm gone....

Copper_pipe

@agent_153 (the guy that broke the deal last night) says that a medical date is confirmed and RVP will not play for arsneal today

Jame Gumb

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

Jame Gumb wrote: »

Next topic up for discussion on Sunday Supplement...

Have they discussed RVP yet? Went for a shower there. Feel cleaner.

Not yet.

A caption came up about ten mins ago saying something like "Robin in Red - Next" but they haven't got to it yet.

Professional Griefer

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

Have they discussed RVP yet? Went for a shower there. Feel cleaner.

Gonna talk about it next, just went to a break.

dahat

Ix Deadmau5 wrote: »

Gonna talk about it next, just went to a break.

Updates when you can....damn kiddies tv,cant get near it!

dahat

Copper_pipe wrote: »

@agent_153 (the guy that broke the deal last night) says that a medical date is confirmed and RVP will not play for arsneal today

He is after setting himself up for a massive fall if he does play...

Caveman1

Lads where do you's see RVP playing if he is signed up ? Will he partner Rooney or will he be up front with Rooney in behind?

Adamcp898

dahat wrote: »

He is after setting himself up for a massive fall if he does play...

Louis Van Gaal saying he will

dahat

Football Agent ‏@agent_153
Okay, if #RVP to #MUFC isn't confirmed in media by tomorrow morning, I will shut down this page...

Latest tweet from that account........

Copper_pipe

dahat wrote: »

Copper_pipe wrote: »

@agent_153 (the guy that broke the deal last night) says that a medical date is confirmed and RVP will not play for arsneal today

He is after setting himself up for a massive fall if he does play...

Some new @agent_XXX will be made im sure :Pac:

The_Kew_Tour

dahat wrote: »

Football Agent ‏@agent_153
Okay, if #RVP to #MUFC isn't confirmed in media by tomorrow morning, I will shut down this page...

Latest tweet from that account........

its more likely that Liverpool fan who pretended to be in the know that Sneijder was signing for us last season

Pro. F

lordgoat wrote: »

So attackers now have to wait for the goalie to slide into them for it to be a pen? Ah ya sure who doesn't mind getting lifted out of it.

Rooney avoided contact - i avoid the word dive in this instance as that implies he did something wrong - but it was still a pen. Sometimes you avoid contact to protect yourself.

Watch the keeper again, he flings himself toward rooney and the ball, were it not a friendly i'd have expected a red and a pen.

To be fair and completely open about it, I would say Rooney did dive after his initial attempt to get out of the way. Remember he stuck his toe down to drag it off the keeper as he fell over.

But imo that is necessary these days because of the way referees perform. They just don't call fouls consistently enough when players stay on their feet.

PHB

Lads, can we please not just post whatever new random posters on twitter is. It's literally as useful as my mate in the pub said.

There's no need to update post-by-post what he's saying, people can use twitter if they want. Until the transfer window, there will be 20 new random twitter accounts claiming to be somebody saying that the deal is going to be done.

Donnielighto

Pro. F wrote: »

Donnielighto wrote: »

if the player ran into the keeper on purpose that wouldnt be a foul, see my earlier post

Rooney nicked the ball past the keeper with his superior skill and speed. The keeper jumped at Rooney's legs (the ball had been there previously but the keeper was too slow to get it). Rooney is allowed to run in a straight line towards the ball when it is the keeper jumping at him. It would have been a penalty if Rooney had been foolish enough to keep running and been clattered by the keeper.

The keeper would have to be seen as being careless or worse. Rooney could still be booked for simulation.

Pro. F

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Maybe I was really unclear or else you didn't read my posts, but I already explained my thoughts on this.

You can't move Giggs or Scholes on, because along with Carrick they're the only reliable players available for CM.

You can't move Cleverley on, because he's a bloody great prospect and you wouldn't want to.

You can't move Fletcher or Anderson on, because they are under contract and nobody is going to sign them.

And you can't just keep signing CMs, because the other areas of the squad need to be looked after too. Where do you stop, 10 CMs? Instead he made a reasonable and cost effective attempt at some future proofing by signing a hot prospect.

I'm sure SAF is not happy about it either, but the way I see it his only option is to keep working with what he has until someone's contract expires, or they play at least enough of a season to be saleable.

Let's be clear, I would love to see a world class CM signed, but the above are the reasons I don't think it will happen. And I don't think it's because of "horrible mismanagement", just plain old misfortune. Shít happens.

I read your posts all right and you wrote them clearly enough, I just don't agree with what you're saying. There's a few aspects that I don't agree with.

First of all, even if Giggs and Scholes were some of the most reliable CMs last year, that doesn't mean they can't be replaced with better players. And they are not reliable CMs anyway, neither of them can run for 90 minutes and neither of them can play more than once a week. Even once a week is pushing it for them after a few months. Giggs in particular was poor even when he did play in CM last season so he would be no loss at all if he was replaced with a proper CM signing.

Secondly, even if there is a contractual reason that a CM can't be let go, that does not mean that a new CM can't be brought in. It is ridiculous to say that because we can't release Fletcher from his contract (which I doubt is true, but we'll say it is for arguments sake) we can't buy in another CM. The only restriction that having Fletcher under contract brings is the amount of wages he takes up, and that restriction would limit buying players in any position, not just CM.

You say there other areas of the squad that need to be looked after too, but other than CM the only area that is in need of new players is left back.

Maximus Alexander

Pro. F wrote: »

I read your posts all right and you wrote them clearly enough, I just don't agree with what you're saying. There's a few aspects that I don't agree with.

First of all, even if Giggs and Scholes were some of the most reliable CMs last year, that doesn't mean they can't be replaced with better players. And they are not reliable CMs anyway, neither of them can run for 90 minutes and neither of them can play more than once a week. Even once a week is pushing it for them after a few months. Giggs in particular was poor even when he did play in CM last season so he would be no loss at all if he was replaced with a proper CM signing.

Secondly, even if there is a contractual reason that a CM can't be let go, that does not mean that a new CM can't be brought in. It is ridiculous to say that because we can't release Fletcher from his contract (which I doubt is true, but we'll say it is for arguments sake) we can't buy in another CM. The only restriction that having Fletcher under contract brings is the amount of wages he takes up, and that restriction would limit buying players in any position, not just CM.

You say there other areas of the squad that need to be looked after too, but other than CM the only area that is in need of new players is left back.

I'm cool with us being in disagreement now that I know we actually are, since you've explained your problem with my opinion.

I don't agree that having 7 CMs restricts buying in other positions, but I definitely think it inhibits buying another CM.

You can't just keep buying players for the same position without letting anyone go. A squad needs structure. There are 7 players being paid right now who all could potentially contribute this season.

I also don't agree that Giggs was poor last season. I think he contributed pretty well, and while he's pretty far from what I would like to see in United's midfield, you can't ditch one of the players that is contributing in order to bring in an expensive unknown quantity.

PHB

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I also don't agree that Giggs was poor last season. I think he contributed pretty well, and while he's pretty far from what I would like to see in United's midfield, you can't ditch one of the players that is contributing in order to bring in an expensive unknown quantity.

Actually you can. That's the whole concept of transfers.

United's midfield cannot win the champions league. We need to bring in someone who can, even an unknown quantity. If you offered me a new defensive midfielder signing and Giggs/Scholes retiring, I'd take it.

Maximus Alexander

PHB wrote: »

Actually you can. That's the whole concept of transfers.

United's midfield cannot win the champions league. We need to bring in someone who can, even an unknown quantity. If you offered me a new defensive midfielder signing and Giggs/Scholes retiring, I'd take it.

Sure, but SAF wouldn't. Which is kind of my whole point.

PHB

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Sure, but SAF wouldn't. Which is kind of my whole point.

I think you're right. Which simply reflects his failings as a manager.

Blatter

Jack Rodwell off to City, fee agreed.

http://www.evertonfc.com/news/archive/2012/08/12/blues-accept-rodwell-bid

Red Crow

I think it's perfectly obvious that Sir Alex is refusing to spend what needs to be spent (ie. £30-40 Million) on a CM because he knows it would become the biggest signing he's ever made in the most scrutinised position in the team post-Roy Keane.

It would seriously be foolish to not attempt to take Sahin off Mourinho and Real Madrid. Moutinho, M'Vila etc. would be terrible signings but to allow Sahin to go to Arsenal would be stupid.

Jame Gumb

PHB wrote: »

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Sure, but SAF wouldn't. Which is kind of my whole point.

I think you're right. Which simply reflects his failings as a manager.

I would take Nuri Sahin in exchange for the two lads retiring in a heartbeat.

So too would 1990s/2000s Fergie in my view.

His ruthlessness has inevitably softened somewhat with old age in my view. I'm convinced that a younger Fergie would have f..ked Rooney out for his contract shenanigans for example.

Red Crow

Blatter wrote: »

Jack Rodwell off to City, fee agreed.

http://www.evertonfc.com/news/archive/2012/08/12/blues-accept-rodwell-bid

Surprised because he hasn't developed as everybody thought he would have but he still looks a great talent.

Blatter

Eli Manning wrote: »

Surprised because he hasn't developed as everybody thought he would have but he still looks a great talent.

He hasn't shown any signs of getting over his constant injury problems either.

Jame Gumb

RIP Sid Waddell...a funny guy

Maximus Alexander

PHB wrote: »

I think you're right. Which simply reflects his failings as a manager.

I don't agree with that though. Just because I would do it differently, doesn't mean that he is doing in wrong.

He possesses the right combination of boldness and restraint that you and I, not being world class managers, don't.

I can see why he would be reluctant to get rid of one or two legends of the game and splash a load of cash on a player that may or may not make an impact right away.

Adamcp898

Eli Manning wrote: »

Surprised because he hasn't developed as everybody thought he would have but he still looks a great talent.

Clubs have obviously seen enough of him coming through the ranks to know he's got something though that if it materialises it could be special, even when he's not in the Everton first team. Not to mention the fact he's considered a homegrown player which is a big plus for the European sides.

FutureGuy

On holidays and it's p!ssinf rain. Anything said about RVP on SSN this morning?

_blank_

Blatter wrote: »

Jack Rodwell off to City, fee agreed.

http://www.evertonfc.com/news/archive/2012/08/12/blues-accept-rodwell-bid

means Fellaini won't be moving, probably

The_Kew_Tour

FutureGuy wrote: »

On holidays and it's p!ssinf rain. Anything said about RVP on SSN this morning?

Nothing.

Hunter Mahan

I guess we will learn a lot about RVP if he plays against Cologne today, even more if he captains the team.

Jame Gumb

FutureGuy wrote: »

On holidays and it's p!ssinf rain. Anything said about RVP on SSN this morning?

Very little TBH and nothing new.

The reporters discussed it on Sunday Supplement but to be honest there was no insight. It was more about Arsenal and why he wants to leave.

statss

how much did Rodwell go for?

The_Kew_Tour

Skybet have RVP at 1/12 to join United..

If only the exchanges did the same *sigh*

Jame Gumb

statss wrote: »

how much did Rodwell go for?

£20m supposedly

Sounds high...could be horsesh1t

The_Kew_Tour

If it is 20million then Good Luck and Thank **** we did not go near him.

Say its less though.