1 hour ago, ForeverCarefree said:

It's not the same thing, you've got the blinkers on with your line of arguing. 

No one is denying there was a foul on Cahill but he invited the pressure because of the poor way he initially received the ball from JT and then he panicked when he saw Fer closing him down. Cahill has never been the most composed player with the ball at his feet and that's what let him down today. 

what let him down today was a very bad piece of refereering. a guess.

yes, he's average on the ball, but the errors made in the goal incident were totally minor- he was in control of the situation and had an easy pass to the keeper if he wasn't fouled. his body was directly between fer and the ball, there was no fair way fer could dispossess him without going to ground (and therefore he would be unlikely / unable to score).

if the referee does his job would anyone be talking about cahill receiving the ball badly? no. he's no JT but it is such a nothing error in the scheme of things. 

Disappointing. They are dross,  so this result is disappointing. We are better than this. 

18 minutes ago, evissy said:

Cahill will get punished for this. The goal given was not enough punishment for him I'm guessing. 

Marriner was pretty bad but no need for this outburst. 

I can understand his reaction though, it was such a blatant foul.

1 hour ago, Stim said:

 

Quite right if you can't call them out on the pitch do it on social media for sure the c**ts will see it and it puts pressure on them they have acted with impunity too long, no doubt the fa will ban social media posts next if effective though...on another note now that the pulsating veins have receded back into my temples I can sum up: bollox result but bigger picture - playing great, top manager, sitting second, haven't lost and dippers on Friday but most importantly we will challenge for the title and rightly so, spoiled or not little lord fauntleroy has been loving the good life and last season reminded him he doesn't want to go back to the slums. 

2 minutes ago, g3.7 said:

what let him down today was a very bad piece of refereering. a guess.

yes, he's average on the ball, but the errors made in the goal incident were totally minor- he was in control of the situation and had an easy pass to the keeper if he wasn't fouled. his body was directly between fer and the ball, there was no fair way fer could dispossess him without going to ground (and therefore he would be unlikely / unable to score).

if the referee does his job would anyone be talking about cahill receiving the ball badly? no. he's no JT but it is such a nothing error in the scheme of things. 

I just don't think Cahill is completely without blame.

Yes it was awful officiating but Cahill was still too clumsy and slow today.

I'd wonder how you'd view the same situation if it had been David Luiz?

I'm essentially repeating myself at this point, I do understand why some don't see Cahill at fault or feel it is only because of poor officiating but my personal opinion is Cahill could/should have done better prior to the foul. 

would also add that yes, whilst we should've put the game to bed and yes, that is something we still need to improve, I don't understand this attitude that we should be annoyed with ourselves as much as any one else; we scored enough to win the game, and we would've done just that had the ref not had a poor game.

anyway the response to going one down when we really should've been two up and a man up was good- we kept playing and kept creating. that was heartening to see, as was matic and oscar's continued improvement.

Just to add conte highlighted, first goal came from our free kick and we can work on this, it's clear the training he is doing is working and we should only get better as we go on, when CL catches up with our rivals should be hitting full stride, and btw we saw today why we need luiz and zouma, long balls over the top will kill us on counters others will have taken note, interestingly on another note I didn't see Ivan do much wrong 

17 minutes ago, ForeverCarefree said:

I just don't think Cahill is completely without blame.

Yes it was awful officiating but Cahill was still too clumsy and slow today.

I'd wonder how you'd view the same situation if it had been David Luiz?

I'm essentially repeating myself at this point, I do understand why some don't see Cahill at fault or feel it is only because of poor officiating but my personal opinion is Cahill could/should have done better prior to the foul. 

too clumsy and slow for what? they created 0 chances as a consequence of his play today (that I can recall). in fact he actually saved us at least once when we were in a bit of trouble.

fer had no chance of winning the ball fairly and going on to score. look at that gif! he's literally in the process of passing the ball back to courtois as he gets kicked twice, once in each foot.

as for the luiz comment, do I need to dignify that with an answer? because it is absolutely pathetic. you're better than nonsense insinuation.

Edited September 11, 20169 yr by g3.7

We showed the fight and passion that could see us go all the way. We made a few f**k ups and the standard of reffing was poor. The team look up for a tear up, and thats all I look for.

He definitely saved things from ending up worse with that block. ^

This was actually a good performance from the team bar the amount of chances missed. 

(Hazard had a very bad second half, though.)

Hopefully, next time they'll realise missing chances is something they can't afford to do the way they did today. 

Always, always a chance as long as it is 1-0. Got to be ruthless.

Without the individual mistakes the team were never in trouble. The problems would never of been on the horizon if the chances had been taken in the first half. Kill teams off while we're on top and there will be no problems.

Still on the long trundle home from the valleys and wondering how the fcuk we didn't win that by four or five...both ends of the pitch have to share the blame...truly woeful stuff at the back, despite the foul on Cahill - why were we fcuking about with it in the first place...but how many chances did we miss at the other end...bloody annoying because we were clearly far better than them but gifted them a point and city a two point lead

btw who was the dirty leeds color commentator? He was throwing dirt all match on CFC - One could tell that fool was a bitter bum

48 minutes ago, g3.7 said:

as for the luiz comment, do I need to dignify that with an answer? because it is absolutely pathetic. you're better than nonsense insinuation.

'Twas intended as some lighthearted ribbing, nothing more.

fair enough, probably an overreaction on my part. I do expect to be asked for a comment about every defensive error not involving david luiz for the rest of the season, mind.

for what it is worth I don't want to see cahill as a first choice in the long term. I just think he was good today, like pretty much everyone who played.

3 minutes ago, robdog said:

btw who was the dirty leeds color commentator? He was throwing dirt all match on CFC - One could tell that fool was a bitter bum

Dunno, he was dishing out the tired cliche of players going down too easily and exaggerating contact all game long... Well we saw with Cahill what happens when you don't make a song and dance of contact.

No win situation for players sometimes.

Just now, ForeverCarefree said:

Dunno, he was dishing out the tired cliche of players going down too easily and exaggerating contact all game long... Well we saw with Cahill what happens when you don't make a song and dance of contact.

No win situation for players sometimes.

he claimed that Cahill shouldn't have made a meal with the contact & got on w/ the play when Fer kicked his legs from underneath him | the hate for CFC by English pundits is incredible - they don't even try to hide the fact that they hate the Blues - it's like in England its a a rite of passage - & that fool had to the nerve to claim he was a neutral

he claimed that Cahill shouldn't have made a meal with the contact & got on w/ the play when Fer kicked his legs from underneath him | the hate for CFC by English pundits is incredible - they don't even try to hide the fact that they hate the Blues - it's like in England its a a rite of passage - & that fool had to the nerve to claim he was a neutral

I think we will keep seeing this for awhile because the commentators are overloaded with ex-pool, gunners and leeds supporters. We will start seeing less bias if and when people like Terry, lampard, cesc, etc start commenting gigs.

2 minutes ago, JoseBlues said:

 

I think we will keep seeing this for awhile because the commentators are overloaded with ex-pool, gunners and leeds supporters. We will start seeing less bias if and when people like Terry, lampard, cesc, etc start commenting gigs.

 

 

Funny today I was thinking how JT could be a pundit - I know I am not English but on this side of the pond, every time I see JT speak he comes across as a very well spoken gent - however in England he is considered a racist, womanising bum - then again Brian Clough was England's Best ever gaffer & he never even got close to leading The 3 Lions - something is inherently wrong in England

 

Funny today I was thinking how JT could be a pundit - I know I am not English but on this side of the pond, every time I see JT speak he comes across as a very well spoken gent - however in England he is considered a racist, womanising bum - then again Brian Clough was England's Best ever gaffer & he never even got close to leading The 3 Lions - something is inherently wrong in England

Funny, the guy who shagged his brother's wife was being considered to be the manager of the biggest club in England not so long ago. JT has done some wrong but the guy is not even close to the monster he is painted in the media. Again, work of all these "pundits".

47 minutes ago, The Brit said:

Still on the long trundle home from the valleys and wondering how the fcuk we didn't win that by four or five...both ends of the pitch have to share the blame...truly woeful stuff at the back, despite the foul on Cahill - why were we fcuking about with it in the first place...but how many chances did we miss at the other end...bloody annoying because we were clearly far better than them but gifted them a point and city a two point lead

I have commented on the ball playing across the back line on another thread Brit. I noticed it as well today playing passes square along the back line in pressure situations. IMO Conte has asked for this to retain possession. Personally I think he might have to re-assess that tactic. You often get pressed so high and quickly in this league defenders don't get the time and space to do it. I also don't think a back three can work in the EPL. Not unless you had Baresi, Maldini and JT in their prime. Unfortunately, we don't.

Chris Sutton calling it like it is on MOTD. Well done lad better pundit than CF

BBC, well mainly Chris Sutton, sticking up for Cahill's criticism of the officials.

Slammed the ref for missing the foul(s) that led to the goal, said the shove on Costa should have been too. 

Also laughed off any suggestion of Costa's equaliser being dangerous play. 

3 minutes ago, just said:

I have commented on the ball playing across the back line on another thread Brit. I noticed it as well today playing passes square along the back line in pressure situations. IMO Conte has asked for this to retain possession. Personally I think he might have to re-assess that tactic. You often get pressed so high and quickly in this league defenders don't get the time and space to do it. I also don't think a back three can work in the EPL. Not unless you had Baresi, Maldini and JT in their prime. Unfortunately, we don't.

disagree with both points respectfully-

really, in terms of aggressive closing down that is what you want- if you're being closed down high enough and you play out of the press then you've got a great chance to create clean opportunities to score.

having said that, I'm not sure it suits cahill or zouma all that well (or begovic for that matter). but the more you do it the better you'll get. like anything, it is about risk and reward.

on 3 at the back, well in effect we won the title playing three at the back (in a way) under ancelotti- but people said we (or anyone) couldn't succeed without playing 442 in england until jose turned up and did it.

it isn't a popular system, and it needs more coaching and specialist defenders, but in theory I don't see why it couldn't work. 

17 minutes ago, charierre said:

Chris Sutton calling it like it is on MOTD. Well done lad better pundit than CF

and John Hartson still calling Costa a diver, despite footage showing clear contact, I hate it when pundits can't admit they made a mistake, now he's just making stuff up.