KiD MoYeS
Good Craig got his c'nuppins
He's a great little head case. People were wrongfully writing him off recently.
He is behind the ball, he covers his ground and protects himself while not leaving spece to go through his place. Tell me just one thing, who got the foul? Now, if he actually went for Traore's legs, that an entire diff play, it wasn't the case, tehrefore he won the balla nd the foul. It's not that complicated.
So you think every decision from officials is always correct and that is the definitive answer?
Okie dokie
He is behind the ball, he covers his ground and protects himself while not leaving space to go through his place. Tell me just one thing, who got the foul? Now, if he actually went for Traore's legs, that an entire diff play, it wasn't the case, therefore he won the ball and the foul. It's not that complicated.
I thought the over the top praise was clear enough not to require the white textNo white text? It took a huge deflection. He hit it nicely but I'm not sure if it would be the goal without it, Leno was very well positioned.
Fair enough! I’ve read some praise of that goal earlier and it made me question everything…I thought the over the top praise was clear enough not to require the white text
I get what you are saying, it's just that modern day those tackles are a big no-no. I was surprised Fulham players didn't make more of it.
What was that celebration
He’s guaranteed to get a red for that sometime because you’re not allowed to protect yourself that way, it’s excessive force, the only variable that needs to change is where the opponent’s foot is planted and that’s not something Licha has any control over. There are lots of examples of two footed stamps leading to red cards. The definitive factor isn’t whether the player was going for the opponent, there doesn’t need to be intent to harm for it to be a red, excessive force is all that’s needed. It is straightforward in that you simply don’t need to use that much force to achieve that outcome. Doing it to protect yourself is not a legitimate explanation.He is behind the ball, he covers his ground and protects himself while not leaving space to go through his place. Tell me just one thing, who got the foul? Now, if he actually went for Traore's legs, that an entire diff play, it wasn't the case, therefore he won the ball and the foul. It's not that complicated.
Ah right. It looked somewhat .. naughty.It's a dance made by some Old Cumbia singer, probably he has put his music in the lockeroom? dunno.
He’s guaranteed to get a red for that sometime because you’re not allowed to protect yourself that way, it’s excessive force, the only variable that needs to change is where the opponent’s foot is planted and that’s not something Licha has any control over. There are lots of examples of two footed stamps leading to red cards. The definitive factor isn’t whether the player was going for the opponent, there doesn’t need to be intent to harm for it to be a red, excessive force is all that’s needed. It is straightforward in that you simply don’t need to use that much force to achieve that outcome. Doing it to protect yourself is not a legitimate explanation.
All I’m saying is the standard you’re applying - he didn’t go after the player specifically to cause damage - isn’t the standard for a red card these days. It was 30 years ago in England, maybe it is in South American football now, but in the Premier League there have been plenty of red cards simply for using “excessive force”. That’s what they refer to in the rules. In many cases the player was obviously going for the ball and missed, and it was a red. The only thing that that needed to change here was for Adama to plant his foot in a different spot and Licha would get sent off. That’s not a smart move.All the time I was talking about the play itself, I'm not talking about past plays, or future ones. And BTW two footed stances are not fouls per se at all either.
It's part of football, in this particular situation Traore thought that play twice and didn't comitt himself entirely and arrived later and made the foul. The message was: "if you hit me, if want to run over me., we are not getting either of us healthy out of this" It's calculated, it's even mean, no doubt, yet it's not rushed like when literally a player goes after another player, it's not silly, at least thsi time in teh way he did it.
If in the future he wnats to make damamge, with one or two footed stance, he will get in trouble, but that would demand to analyze the particular play, in this case, he didn't do anything wrong, he was clever, save the moment, his body and even earn a foul.
All I’m saying is the standard you’re applying - he didn’t go after the player specifically to cause damage - isn’t the standard for a red card these days. It was 30 years ago in England, maybe it is in South American football now, but in the Premier League there have been plenty of red cards simply for using “excessive force”. That’s what they refer to in the rules. In many cases the player was obviously going for the ball and missed, and it was a red. The only thing that that needed to change here was for Adama to plant his foot in a different spot and Licha would get sent off. That’s not a smart move.
Nor you and me are in front Adama going after you and with prior history, football it's played in the moment, for the good and bad and he solved it pretty fecking right given the circumstances.
At the end of the day, what are we even discussing here? when he actually won the ball, didn't hurt Adama and earn a foul.
If he got carded, injured, etc etc I'll get it more, even if being in that place of wating for Traore is an entire diff proposition than most players going after anyone, but WTF, not even Fulhham protested that much. What's all the fuss about?
BTW I'm not saying that you are implying the next, yet what are we actually doing here? talking about things that didn't happen just to later say that he is a little Rojo?, making a fuss of one play that he go it entirely right to demerit a very good overall perfomance becasue "he has flaws". dunno man, it's getting silly at this point. For real it was a lot more silly his protest to Fulham players for not sending the ball away when Ugarte fell and lack of focus it implies, than that particular play
I think most people were saying he’s a crazy little fecker and this is another example of it. Many find that an endearing quality, while at the same time worrying about it leading to him spending a few games out. Personally I think he should choose his moments better, and usually he does. This year he’s been more frustrated like most of them and he’s gotten a bit reckless. He should do that less. No big deal.Nor you and me are in front Adama going after you and with their prior history, football it's played in the moment, for the good and bad and he solved it pretty fecking right given the circumstances.
At the end of the day, what are we even discussing here? when he actually won the ball, didn't hurt Adama and earn a foul and Traore is the one that actually hurt him.
If he got carded, injured, etc etc I'll get it more, even if being in that place of wating for Traore is an entire diff proposition than most players going after anyone, but WTF, not even Fulhham protested that much. What's all the fuss about?
BTW I'm not saying that you are implying the next, yet what are we actually doing here? talking about things that didn't happen just to later say that he is a little Rojo?, making a fuss of one play that he go it entirely right to demerit a very good overall perfomance becasue "he has flaws". dunno man, it's getting silly at this point. For real it was a lot more silly his protest to Fulham players for not sending the ball away when Ugarte fell and lack of focus it implies, than that particular play
I think most people were saying he’s a crazy little fecker and this is another example of it. Many find that an endearing quality, while at the same time worrying about it leading to him spending a few games out. Personally I think he should choose his moments better, and usually he does. This year he’s been more frustrated like most of them and he’s gotten a bit reckless. He should do that less. No big deal.
A lot of the time he’s the only player that wants to move the ball forward, so I want him on the pitch for every minute.
touche!Stupid wreckless tackles, long range strikes.
He's evolving into Rojo.
He's a great little head case. People were wrongfully writing him off recently.
Yeah, how dare he take a long range strike which ends up as a goal.Stupid wreckless tackles, long range strikes.
He's evolving into Rojo.
funny beef they got going
Assisted for the goal on Thursday, scored a winner yesterday, only puts those who would sell him to shame and he'll continue to do it.
Agree ultimately. I lamented earlier that it sucks that he's a midget, because he has some very high end ablities in certain areas and especially on the ball he's world class for his position. But we shouldn't aim to have a team of these types of players that are really good at "one thing" but have clear deficiencies elsewhere that have to be covered up, especially in defense. We've been dealing with "covering up" for our defenders going back to buying Maguire for 80m and then trying to surround him with pace because he turns and runs like a slug. With Martinez, he struggles in those wide areas when isolated on attackers and isn't good in the air, and ultimately those issues will haunt us enough to sort of cancel out his brilliance on the ball in the long run.I wouldn't sell him in the short term, but I still think he'll need to be upgraded in maybe 2 seasons, after we've rectified other problem areas.
Yes, he's been very effective as an attacking entity in recent weeks, 2 goals v Liverpool & Fulham, 2 assists v City & Rangers, which has been crucial with an attack that is not really functioning.
But earlier in this thread I identified examples where Martinez's lack of pace, height and just some very poor defensive play contributed, in whole or in part, to the concession of 8 goals since the start of December.
So while his good form going forward is welcome, the defensive performances will need to improve over a sustained period. As Roy Keane would say, "that's your job!"
I wouldn't sell him in the short term, but I still think he'll need to be upgraded in maybe 2 seasons, after we've rectified other problem areas.
Yes, he's been very effective as an attacking entity in recent weeks, 2 goals v Liverpool & Fulham, 2 assists v City & Rangers, which has been crucial with an attack that is not really functioning.
But earlier in this thread I identified examples where Martinez's lack of pace, height and just some very poor defensive play contributed, in whole or in part, to the concession of 8 goals since the start of December.
So while his good form going forward is welcome, the defensive performances will need to improve over a sustained period. As Roy Keane would say, "that's your job!"
he's the last footballer you'd pick to have a beef with really
fair play
Why? he's 5'8 at best 150lbs soaking wet, with a little bit of hot headedness in a controlled environment. He ain't El chapo bro
Agreed.I wouldn't sell him in the short term, but I still think he'll need to be upgraded in maybe 2 seasons, after we've rectified other problem areas.
Yes, he's been very effective as an attacking entity in recent weeks, 2 goals v Liverpool & Fulham, 2 assists v City & Rangers, which has been crucial with an attack that is not really functioning.
But earlier in this thread I identified examples where Martinez's lack of pace, height and just some very poor defensive play contributed, in whole or in part, to the concession of 8 goals since the start of December.
So while his good form going forward is welcome, the defensive performances will need to improve over a sustained period. As Roy Keane would say, "that's your job!"