PhilStarbucksSilkySkills

If you want to keep arguing that black is white then carry on.

You can see from the Quote-straight from the horses mouth!

So because Turner claims that Winchester made him some space and that's why he decided to go solo, I should ignore the video evidence to the contrary?

Ever been on a jury?

But in all honesty I think Turner is talking about his thought process after the point he should have played Winchester in. So we aren't talking about the same thing.

This is the situation I'm talking about:

I think you're wrong but I admire your persistence! From Turner in the Chron... “Winch (Carl Winchester) ran on the outside, which made the defender’s mind up. He gave me a yard and I went for it,”

 

I think that's fair enough.

Winchester didn't affect the defender's movement at all. He was all on his own. And even if Turner was right about Winchester creating him some space, that doesn't refute the fact that Winchester should have been played in way before Turner knew there was any space to be taken advantage of.

Phil - are you going to pick apart Coleman's clean sheet next?

Haven't people already done that?

By that score Maradona wouldn't have scored THAT goal against us in 86 (or the majority of his goals) as the statistically correct thing to do would probably be a pass at some point.

If it had been Maradonna on the on the pitch instead of Turner, That would change the odds somewhat.

If it was a CB dribbling out of our area at 0-0 that eventually lead to us scoring then you might have a point, but a young striker in the box when we're 2-0 up having a dribble himself is fair enough.

Perhaps. Although I'd sooner that the game was a bit safer before we stop playing as a team.

And besides, it does look on the vid like the defender shapes to block the pass to Winchester which could have made it not as easy as you're making out to pass to him.

He shapes to block a shot. And in any case it was after the point when Winchester should have been released.

You've had a shocker here Phillip.

Bla bla bla. I am rubber you are glue. Do you have a point to make yet?

Maybe you could contact the Football League and ask them to disallow it and/or replay the game....

The ball ended up in the net, so he did the right thing?

 

Forgive me if i'm wrong here, but that's the aim of the bloody game.

I'd much rather watch players that use instinct and individual skill rather than ones that play the percentages. If you've got the ability and the confidence then go for it. Which he did. And scored. Let players with less ability have the instinct coached out of them.

I'd rather they had used that instinct to make intelligent choices. If they are playing for us at least.

We have a 19 year old striker who is playing with some confidence now he is getting a run of games. He has scored 3 goals in 3 games, all very different but all counting the same.

 

Are some of you really complaining that he should have passed the ball to Winchester? If he had been crowded out and lost the ball, then fair enough that you whinge about it, but he had the confidence to go for it when he saw the gap open up and he scored. This should be applauded.

 

All of those moaning, get a grip. I'd much prefer someone be a bit greedy now and again and score. It won't happen all the time but give the kid credit for going for it.

 

Are the people whinging about him not passing to Winchester also going to criticise Winchester for not passing to Murphy instead of going it alone at Scunthorpe?

Winchester should have passed for that too. You seem to imply a hypocrisy where none exists.

And it's only me "moaning" (or stating an opinion) and everyone arguing the toss against me. I'd much rather players played with common sense and intelligence that be greedy bastards. That is the only point I am making. Apparently though, according to some, footballing IQ and logical decision making is something to be discouraged.

It's an awful opinion though...

???

Don't worry so much about it.

Am I worried? I just have opinion that people are trying to argue with.

Don't worry so much about me worrying.

I have watched it again and still think that you are wrong, sorry! One of their centre backs behind the first man makes a move towards covering Winchester and a gap opens up so Turner walks through it then another gap opens and he walks through that too then the Goalie stays on his line.............................GOAL

I've just watched it a gazillion times more and I have no idea what you are talking about.

At the point that Turner should have played Winchester in, nobody picks him up at all. People continue to not pick Winchester up thereafter. Turner has no serious expectation, at the point of opting not to play Winchester in, that a gap would open up. The gap doesn't appear until the point that the number 22 sticks out a leg to block the shot that he thinks is coming. By then the ball should have already been played much earlier.

You didnt answer my point re Scunthorpe but as we hear more and more these days Managers tell their players to go out and take risks!

In other words to defy mathematics and probability. My opinion is that Winchester would have cocked it up (probably!)

If the expectation is that Winchester is going to cock it up then perhaps he shouldn't be making the run in the first place.

However I still think that playing Winchester into space is a better option than hoping that the five Rochdale defenders in close proximity will part the Red Sea.

I know Turner wasn't thinking about it but there was a possibility that Winchester was offiside, looks that way on the highlights.

Not even close to offside. You are looking at the wrong point in the highlights.

I am talking about the position everyone was in a 1:18

 

 

I appreciate the point you are trying to make but.........

 

did he make the wrong decision? he did score which im sure was his aim and we won which was the aim of the team.

 

What if he passed to Winchester who lets the ball slip under his foot and the chance goes begging?

 

Mathmatucs and probability is one thing but this is football - he did the right thing.

I understand what you are saying, however you are talking about hindsight. I am not.

Let's imagine the exact same scenario happens again in the next match. Freeze frame the youtube video if it helps. Rhys Turner is surrounded by defenders on the edge of the box. No defender has spotted Winchester running into space. Turner only has to play a simple through ball to leave Winchester in a 1 v 1 with the keeper. What should Turner do?

It's a bit like placing an evens bet on the number 6 coming up on the roll of a dice and having it come though, yet you could have taken an evens bet on the numbers 1-5 combined. Then arguing that you should repeat the bet in the same circumstances next time.

I am saying that next time he should be making the more logical choice.

Like Winchester should have done at Scunthorpe when he had 3 players on his right? Bollocks-if you get the goal you get the goal!

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but that's not how the game works. As a coach you teach people to make good decisions. Rhys Turner made the wrong decision by going it alone.

Dinking a through ball to WInchester, where he would have been in yards of space inside the area, is the option that would be by far the most to likely result in a goal.

It's just simple mathematics and probability.

Not wishing to be over critical of the lad, but I hope Turner gets a bollocking for the third goal. He should have played Winchester in.

He got really lucky that the Rochdale defenders made it so easy for him to get so close on his own.

The way I read it he hasn't been sent back we have recalled him.

If that is the case then I doubt Halifax are too bothered.

He struggled in his first game and hasn't had a look in since. They were clearly not impressed.

Dowie every time.

Sheridan had a fair crack at it and was found lacking imho. Let's also not forget that Corney sacked him. Why would he come back and why would Corney want him back?

I'd honestly prefer to have Ronnie Moore back than Sheridan.

He is entitled to his opinion. As are, for example political candidates who don't like negroes. The latter aren't usually thanked for sharing them. Barry has had 10 years and maybe much more of being advised to shut the :censored: up for everyone's benefit. If he wishes to continue to speak his mind in public I prefer him to do it without, "Oldham Athletic Director," before his name.

We'll agree to disagree then. I'm fine with him giving his opinion in this context, I wouldn't take it too badly even if I disagreed with it. The only thing he did recently that annoyed me a bit was the ham handed way he tried to get stay-away fans to come back a few months ago. He's certainly no tactician.

And are you really comparing a Football Director sharing his opinions on the guilt or otherwise of a footballer, with a politician stating his dislike for black people?

 

What do you make of Barry's use (or coinage) of the phrase "rape crime"? Are there other forms of rape, such as rapes that are not crimes, or are not crimes just because a jury, a judge, the appeal court and Uncle Tom Cobleigh say so? Is there such a thing as a rape misunderstanding that is not a crime? What about a rape to-do? What about a rape incident that is not a crime?

I haven't heard the interview yet since I haven't found a link that works for me. I'll try again later. However, surely with a phrase like "rape crime" the emphasis would be on the type of crime it is. ie "rape crime" as opposed to "murder crime". Without listening to it i can't be sure, but that is my first impression.

He's not alone...does that mean you're with Ched and Barry? Just come out and say it. It's all about free speech. Just say: "I can easily forget a rape crime for the sake of a 20-goal-a-year striker."

 

Easy. No need to hide about it if that's your honest opinion. (If that is your opinion, I hope women give you a wide berth for eternity, and I wish for many other bad things to come your way.)

Strawman much? I don't think he's guilty of "rape crime". That's not to say I think he's innocent. I'm just not convinced he's guilty.

And thanks btw. I love you too.

You are technically correct of course Phil (as usual I would say) but also obfuscating around the point. I can say that Dr Shipman was alleged to be a murderer and that Barry Owen has been alleged to be less than fantastic as a public face of our club. Both are true. However, a Club Director, and especially one with nothing to recommend himself but 30 years of alleged service in law enforcement should base his judgements on the current position under the law. Before convicted, "alleged," would be appropriate. "Convicted, " is the appropriate term now. You yourself will be well aware that, "convicted," doesn't rule out future challenge or miscarriage of justice, but it's true now.

Club Director or ex copper, I just don't know why he should be basing his judgements on the current position under the law. He's entitled to his opinion. If he has a choice of saying alleged or convicted (both equally correct), and he chooses the word that suits him best, then that's fine by me.

Can society operate on the basis of every crime only being described as alleged?

Even if each crime was described as a "banana hammock" I'm sure society will operate just fine.

 

Disagree. Technically, of course it will always be an allegation, but it was tried and he was found guilty. If he wins his appeal it'll be fair to call it an allegation again.

 

We'll never know if he did it or not, but he's been found guilty twice. For Barry to describe it as alleged, it implies he thinks Evans isn't guilty, that's why it's a poor choice of words for a former police officer and club director to use.

No. It just implies that Barry isn't happy to use the court's verdict to describe the alleged crime. And either way, he is entitled to think that Evans is not guilty. He's not alone.

 

It's irrelevant now if 'alleged' has no bearing on the outcome of a trial, because the trial found him guilty, and then he had an appeal rejected. That makes him guilty. The crime was alleged, and then two separate processes decided it happened.

 

Barry's choice of words was poor. It's not his place to decide if Evans is/was guilty or not.

No

That makes the verdict guilty. The law has decided he did it. That doesn't mean that he actually did. And even with the omniscience required to decide his actual guilt, the crime would still be "alleged".

"Alleged" just means that it has been claimed. Whether the judicial system found him guilty or not, it has still been "alleged". Barry's use of the word is perfectly correct.