|
|
Post by jimbo82 on Oct 10, 2021 17:04:56 GMT
Watched the game back last night. Still can't get over the decisions that went against him in the air, just insane. He may as well not even attempt to head the ball. But........is this something he needs to be more clever at? Instead of jumping for the ball each time, back into your man and try and bring the ball down with your chest or something. Quite often a defender is penalised for trying to jump over an attacker who's trying to bring down the ball. I don't know. He's treated VERY harshly by refs for purely being taller, but can he do something different to correct those constant decisions? That's a good point. Patrik Schick is almost as tall as Moore, and I didn't see him being constantly penalised by the ref. Although maybe that was down to Welsh defenders ! |
|
|
|
Post by wirralwelsh on Oct 10, 2021 19:47:12 GMT
Its frustrating but he throws his arms around a lot though Kieffer if you look at it in slo-mo and with his physical size he's going to end up giving free kicks away in high volume. Its too late for him to change his technique now, just something we are going to have to live with. Still we've got the players I think to launch plenty of attacks along the ground so hopefully this should discourage the long ball stuff and use Moore's heading attributes attacking the goal from crosses instead.
Hartson was a very physical player too but didn't seem to have the problem swinging his arms so much as Kieffer does.
|
|
|
|
Post by fiveattheback on Oct 10, 2021 19:55:02 GMT
Watched the game back last night. Still can't get over the decisions that went against him in the air, just insane. He may as well not even attempt to head the ball. But........is this something he needs to be more clever at? Instead of jumping for the ball each time, back into your man and try and bring the ball down with your chest or something. Quite often a defender is penalised for trying to jump over an attacker who's trying to bring down the ball. I don't know. He's treated VERY harshly by refs for purely being taller, but can he do something different to correct those constant decisions? There were some truly terrible calls made by that ref, shocking performance. The yellows against Ramsey & Ampadu were piss poor |
|
|
|
Post by marsvolta on Oct 10, 2021 21:17:42 GMT
Its frustrating but he throws his arms around a lot though Kieffer if you look at it in slo-mo and with his physical size he's going to end up giving free kicks away in high volume. Its too late for him to change his technique now, just something we are going to have to live with. Still we've got the players I think to launch plenty of attacks along the ground so hopefully this should discourage the long ball stuff and use Moore's heading attributes attacking the goal from crosses instead. Hartson was a very physical player too but didn't seem to have the problem swinging his arms so much as Kieffer does. Normally I’m frustrated and enraged by refs decisions against Keiffer but he was flinging his arms around a lot against the Czechs and there was also that incident where he tried to barge the keeper over the line. In general he’s unlucky but I’d say that over the 90 mins it wasn’t surprising the ref gave him a yellow this time. |
|
|
|
Post by iot on Oct 10, 2021 21:54:33 GMT
Its frustrating but he throws his arms around a lot though Kieffer if you look at it in slo-mo and with his physical size he's going to end up giving free kicks away in high volume. Its too late for him to change his technique now, just something we are going to have to live with. Still we've got the players I think to launch plenty of attacks along the ground so hopefully this should discourage the long ball stuff and use Moore's heading attributes attacking the goal from crosses instead. Hartson was a very physical player too but didn't seem to have the problem swinging his arms so much as Kieffer does. Normally I’m frustrated and enraged by refs decisions against Keiffer but he was flinging his arms around a lot against the Czechs and there was also that incident where he tried to barge the keeper over the line. In general he’s unlucky but I’d say that over the 90 mins it wasn’t surprising the ref gave him a yellow this time. Yeah, I tend to agree. If we're honest, Ampadu's yellow card was pretty clear cut - his foot was very high and it was compounded with the force he came in with. Rambo's was a little more harsh maybe given it was the first minute, but it looks like refs have been told to clamp down on high elbows when challenging for the ball in the air. |
|
|
|
Post by welwyn on Oct 11, 2021 8:25:13 GMT
Its frustrating but he throws his arms around a lot though Kieffer if you look at it in slo-mo and with his physical size he's going to end up giving free kicks away in high volume. Its too late for him to change his technique now, just something we are going to have to live with. Still we've got the players I think to launch plenty of attacks along the ground so hopefully this should discourage the long ball stuff and use Moore's heading attributes attacking the goal from crosses instead. Hartson was a very physical player too but didn't seem to have the problem swinging his arms so much as Kieffer does. there was also that incident where he tried to barge the keeper over the line. I understand your basic point but using that as a stick to beat him with is just wrong. It was plainly obvious that there was no intent and he had actually lost balance to fall into him. |
|
|
|
Post by marsvolta on Oct 11, 2021 9:36:47 GMT
there was also that incident where he tried to barge the keeper over the line. I understand your basic point but using that as a stick to beat him with is just wrong. It was plainly obvious that there was no intent and he had actually lost balance to fall into him. Maybe my choice of words were wrong but I’m not beating Keiffer with any sticks, I love the guy and rate him highly. I was just saying that all the incidents in the game involving him run the risk of the ref totting everything up and eventually giving him a yellow. |
|
|
|
Post by underwood on Oct 11, 2021 9:38:33 GMT
He will score tonight.
|
|
|
|
Post by insertname on Oct 11, 2021 10:15:13 GMT
Normally I’m frustrated and enraged by refs decisions against Keiffer but he was flinging his arms around a lot against the Czechs and there was also that incident where he tried to barge the keeper over the line. In general he’s unlucky but I’d say that over the 90 mins it wasn’t surprising the ref gave him a yellow this time. Yeah, I tend to agree. If we're honest, Ampadu's yellow card was pretty clear cut - his foot was very high and it was compounded with the force he came in with. Rambo's was a little more harsh maybe given it was the first minute, but it looks like refs have been told to clamp down on high elbows when challenging for the ball in the air. Ampadu was in no danger of making contact with the player. It’s beyond me how in a game involving kicking a ball using a foot you can police a raised leg so vigorously. Where’s the common sense? I guarantee the Czechs wouldn’t have got a booking for that in a month of Sundays |
|
|
|
Post by iot on Oct 11, 2021 11:17:47 GMT
Yeah, I tend to agree. If we're honest, Ampadu's yellow card was pretty clear cut - his foot was very high and it was compounded with the force he came in with. Rambo's was a little more harsh maybe given it was the first minute, but it looks like refs have been told to clamp down on high elbows when challenging for the ball in the air. Ampadu was in no danger of making contact with the player. It’s beyond me how in a game involving kicking a ball using a foot you can police a raised leg so vigorously. Where’s the common sense? I guarantee the Czechs wouldn’t have got a booking for that in a month of Sundays Disagree, it would only take him to mist-time it by about half a second for him to kick the player chest high (think of De Jong in the 2012 Euros final). He came in with force and his studs were showing, I thought it was pretty clear after watching the replay. |
|
|
|
Post by allezlesrouges on Oct 11, 2021 11:23:04 GMT
Agree, lesser teams struggle more with his presence |
|
|
|
Post by fiveattheback on Oct 11, 2021 12:18:43 GMT
Ampadu was in no danger of making contact with the player. It’s beyond me how in a game involving kicking a ball using a foot you can police a raised leg so vigorously. Where’s the common sense? I guarantee the Czechs wouldn’t have got a booking for that in a month of Sundays Disagree, it would only take him to mist-time it by about half a second for him to kick the player chest high (think of De Jong in the 2012 Euros final). He came in with force and his studs were showing, I thought it was pretty clear after watching the replay. Isn't that true of every tackle? He's allowed to contest the ball. The ball isn't very high, if Ampadu ducks to head it he then he gets clattered with his head in a dangerous position for him plus a knee in the face for good measure, so the only way for him to safely win the ball is with his foot. He goes with his foot, which is nowhere near the Czech player and wins the ball cleanly. The Czech player then runs into Ampadu and goes down holding his face, Ampadu's allowed to hold his ground and the only way he doesn't get run into is by turning into a gas or something. Arguably Ampadu should have been a little clever and gone down himself Is it a hard tackle? Sure, but he wins the ball completely, doesn't even graze the Czech with his incredible dangerous leg and was wrongly cautioned. |
|
|
|
Post by iot on Oct 11, 2021 12:59:22 GMT
Disagree, it would only take him to mist-time it by about half a second for him to kick the player chest high (think of De Jong in the 2012 Euros final). He came in with force and his studs were showing, I thought it was pretty clear after watching the replay. Isn't that true of every tackle? He's allowed to contest the ball. The ball isn't very high, if Ampadu ducks to head it he then he gets clattered with his head in a dangerous position for him plus a knee in the face for good measure, so the only way for him to safely win the ball is with his foot. He goes with his foot, which is nowhere near the Czech player and wins the ball cleanly. The Czech player then runs into Ampadu and goes down holding his face, Ampadu's allowed to hold his ground and the only way he doesn't get run into is by turning into a gas or something. Arguably Ampadu should have been a little clever and gone down himself Is it a hard tackle? Sure, but he wins the ball completely, doesn't even graze the Czech with his incredible dangerous leg and was wrongly cautioned. Yes, it is true of every tackle, but the whole point is when your boot is high and your studs are showing, the result of getting it wrong is far more dangerous. ![]() I've found the clip and tried to include a screenshot here, but can't figure out how to do it. But I can't see how anyone looking at what I am would think that's not a yellow card, especially when you see the replay from another angle. His foot is high, studs are showing, he wins the ball and then clatters into him. It's dangerous play. Looking at it now, your description isn't accurate I'm afraid - he clatters into the player and makes contact with the ball almost simultaneously, so it's not a case of the czech player running into him and making the most of it, and by definition you can't say his foot was nowhere near the player. |
|
|
|
Post by insertname on Oct 11, 2021 13:08:45 GMT
Ampadu was in no danger of making contact with the player. It’s beyond me how in a game involving kicking a ball using a foot you can police a raised leg so vigorously. Where’s the common sense? I guarantee the Czechs wouldn’t have got a booking for that in a month of Sundays Disagree, it would only take him to mist-time it by about half a second for him to kick the player chest high (think of De Jong in the 2012 Euros final). He came in with force and his studs were showing, I thought it was pretty clear after watching the replay. I’m only going by memory and by the replay I saw at the time but it seemed to me that it was one of those where the player was running into the outstretched leg rather than him getting to the ball at the same time as the leg was stuck out. Maybe the replay made it look “better” in that sense. If I recall it was a bit like the Belarus penalty where Gunter stuck his leg out, admittedly high and the Belarus striker ran into it and made contact with the leg rather than the other way around. I certainly wouldn’t equate it to De Jong’s challenge which was an example of a bad raised leg because in that instance De Jong just shoved his studs straight into the chest of the Spanish player (iirc), the timing was a mitigating factor in the Ampadu incident imo. It seems logical that if the player with the high leg beats the other to the ball that it shouldn’t be such an issue as it’s made out to be. Like I say, it didn’t seem so outrageously blatant that I could see the Czechs being reffed in the same way in front of their vociferous fans |
|
|
|
Post by insertname on Oct 11, 2021 13:10:24 GMT
Disagree, it would only take him to mist-time it by about half a second for him to kick the player chest high (think of De Jong in the 2012 Euros final). He came in with force and his studs were showing, I thought it was pretty clear after watching the replay. Isn't that true of every tackle? He's allowed to contest the ball. The ball isn't very high, if Ampadu ducks to head it he then he gets clattered with his head in a dangerous position for him plus a knee in the face for good measure, so the only way for him to safely win the ball is with his foot. He goes with his foot, which is nowhere near the Czech player and wins the ball cleanly. The Czech player then runs into Ampadu and goes down holding his face, Ampadu's allowed to hold his ground and the only way he doesn't get run into is by turning into a gas or something. Arguably Ampadu should have been a little clever and gone down himself Is it a hard tackle? Sure, but he wins the ball completely, doesn't even graze the Czech with his incredible dangerous leg and was wrongly cautioned. I forgot about the clutching of the face! It was right near the touch line, why isn’t the lino telling the ref to book the Czech player for simulation in that situation? Absolutely pathetic. |
|
|
|
Post by insertname on Oct 11, 2021 13:16:41 GMT
Isn't that true of every tackle? He's allowed to contest the ball. The ball isn't very high, if Ampadu ducks to head it he then he gets clattered with his head in a dangerous position for him plus a knee in the face for good measure, so the only way for him to safely win the ball is with his foot. He goes with his foot, which is nowhere near the Czech player and wins the ball cleanly. The Czech player then runs into Ampadu and goes down holding his face, Ampadu's allowed to hold his ground and the only way he doesn't get run into is by turning into a gas or something. Arguably Ampadu should have been a little clever and gone down himself Is it a hard tackle? Sure, but he wins the ball completely, doesn't even graze the Czech with his incredible dangerous leg and was wrongly cautioned. Yes, it is true of every tackle, but the whole point is when your boot is high and your studs are showing, the result of getting it wrong is far more dangerous. ![]() I've found the clip and tried to include a screenshot here, but can't figure out how to do it. But I can't see how anyone looking at what I am would think that's not a yellow card, especially when you see the replay from another angle. His foot is high, studs are showing, he wins the ball and then clatters into him. It's dangerous play. Looking at it now, your description isn't accurate I'm afraid - he clatters into the player and makes contact with the ball almost simultaneously, so it's not a case of the czech player running into him and making the most of it, and by definition you can't say his foot was nowhere near the player. Hmm…I’ll have to watch the replay if the mood takes me, it certainly didn’t seem at the time that he arrived at the ball at the same time as the player. If I had come to that conclusion then I would agree that it was dangerous. It seemed more like he was being booked for the act itself “potentially” being dangerous rather than actually being dangerous because he didn’t catch the Czech player at all. Whilst I’m not advocating a return to the 70’s it does seem like the game is getting increasingly soft with players being booked for intent rather than actual harm. It’s crazy to think how we have been reffed of late when you think back to ROI and what they got away with that night in the WC qualifier. They beat the shit out of us all night and got away with it while we’ve picked up pathetic bookings and red cards since the France game. |
|
|
|
Post by iot on Oct 11, 2021 13:36:19 GMT
Yes, it is true of every tackle, but the whole point is when your boot is high and your studs are showing, the result of getting it wrong is far more dangerous. ![]() I've found the clip and tried to include a screenshot here, but can't figure out how to do it. But I can't see how anyone looking at what I am would think that's not a yellow card, especially when you see the replay from another angle. His foot is high, studs are showing, he wins the ball and then clatters into him. It's dangerous play. Looking at it now, your description isn't accurate I'm afraid - he clatters into the player and makes contact with the ball almost simultaneously, so it's not a case of the czech player running into him and making the most of it, and by definition you can't say his foot was nowhere near the player. Hmm…I’ll have to watch the replay if the mood takes me, it certainly didn’t seem at the time that he arrived at the ball at the same time as the player. If I had come to that conclusion then I would agree that it was dangerous. It seemed more like he was being booked for the act itself “potentially” being dangerous rather than actually being dangerous because he didn’t catch the Czech player at all. Whilst I’m not advocating a return to the 70’s it does seem like the game is getting increasingly soft with players being booked for intent rather than actual harm. It’s crazy to think how we have been reffed of late when you think back to ROI and what they got away with that night in the WC qualifier. They beat the shit out of us all night and got away with it while we’ve picked up pathetic bookings and red cards since the France game. You can have a look at it here: www.s4c.cymru/clic/programme/820571988The incident takes place at 42.50 programme time, or 25:15 game time. I'm not suggesting it wasn't needed - they were on the break and looked dangerous, so it was a good professional foul. I also don't necessarily agree that such incidents should be bookable, just pointing out as objectively as possible that it is a pretty standard booking in today's game. And if you watch on for about a minute, you see that a Czech player gets yellow carded for his reaction which contradicts the claim that he was biased towards them. |
|
|
|
Post by fiveattheback on Oct 11, 2021 14:54:03 GMT
Isn't that true of every tackle? He's allowed to contest the ball. The ball isn't very high, if Ampadu ducks to head it he then he gets clattered with his head in a dangerous position for him plus a knee in the face for good measure, so the only way for him to safely win the ball is with his foot. He goes with his foot, which is nowhere near the Czech player and wins the ball cleanly. The Czech player then runs into Ampadu and goes down holding his face, Ampadu's allowed to hold his ground and the only way he doesn't get run into is by turning into a gas or something. Arguably Ampadu should have been a little clever and gone down himself Is it a hard tackle? Sure, but he wins the ball completely, doesn't even graze the Czech with his incredible dangerous leg and was wrongly cautioned. Yes, it is true of every tackle, but the whole point is when your boot is high and your studs are showing, the result of getting it wrong is far more dangerous. ![]() I've found the clip and tried to include a screenshot here, but can't figure out how to do it. But I can't see how anyone looking at what I am would think that's not a yellow card, especially when you see the replay from another angle. His foot is high, studs are showing, he wins the ball and then clatters into him. It's dangerous play. Looking at it now, your description isn't accurate I'm afraid - he clatters into the player and makes contact with the ball almost simultaneously, so it's not a case of the czech player running into him and making the most of it, and by definition you can't say his foot was nowhere near the player. But he didn't get it wrong. What could have happened doesn't matter, what matters is what did happen What I meant by that is that there's no chance of Ampadu's foot hitting the player. The collision afterwards is not a booking in my view, collisions happen in football and not every one is a foul. If he'd caught him with his foot or missed the ball whilst colliding with the Czech then it's obviously a booking, but neither of those things happened. It's definitely a hard tackle and if it was mistimed then it's a booking, but it wasn't mistimed. That's just how I see it. |
|
|
|
Post by iot on Oct 11, 2021 15:01:49 GMT
Yes, it is true of every tackle, but the whole point is when your boot is high and your studs are showing, the result of getting it wrong is far more dangerous. ![]() I've found the clip and tried to include a screenshot here, but can't figure out how to do it. But I can't see how anyone looking at what I am would think that's not a yellow card, especially when you see the replay from another angle. His foot is high, studs are showing, he wins the ball and then clatters into him. It's dangerous play. Looking at it now, your description isn't accurate I'm afraid - he clatters into the player and makes contact with the ball almost simultaneously, so it's not a case of the czech player running into him and making the most of it, and by definition you can't say his foot was nowhere near the player. But he didn't get it wrong. What could have happened doesn't matter, what matters is what did happen What I meant by that is that there's no chance of Ampadu's foot hitting the player. The collision afterwards is not a booking in my view, collisions happen in football and not every one is a foul. If he'd caught him with his foot or missed the ball whilst colliding with the Czech then it's obviously a booking, but neither of those things happened. It's definitely a hard tackle and if it was mistimed then it's a booking, but it wasn't mistimed. That's just how I see it. I'm not sure if we're having two slightly different debates here. I'm not talking about what should or should not be a booking, just stating what is a booking under the current rules, and we all know that a high foot - regardless of whether the player is caught or not, is a bookable offence. Showing your studs is also a bookable offence, even if the ball is won cleanly. Tackling from behind is a foul these days even if you get the ball and with no follow through on the player (which I think is absurd). If it was mistimed, he would have cuaght him high up studs first and it would have been a red. The fact he didn't catch him means it's a yellow only. Some refs go further - man u fans will remember nani getting sent off for a high foot even though he didn't touch the player. There have been other instances like that. |
|
|
|
Post by jimexotic on Oct 11, 2021 16:44:46 GMT
He reminds me a bit of Hartson, the way that every time he goes up for a header you half expect him to be penalised. The difference being that most of the time with Hartson it's because he was a bit lazy and used his elbows in a rather dangerous manner, Kieffer is just getting done for being too big and having a style that probably protected himself on the pitch when he played at a lower level earlier in his career.
|
|
|
|
Post by conwy10 on Oct 11, 2021 18:35:13 GMT
He reminds me a bit of Hartson, the way that every time he goes up for a header you half expect him to be penalised. The difference being that most of the time with Hartson it's because he was a bit lazy and used his elbows in a rather dangerous manner, Kieffer is just getting done for being too big and having a style that probably protected himself on the pitch when he played at a lower level earlier in his career. I think these days when two players go up not giving an inch the referee is looking for a reason to give a free kick. How the games changing I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by johnoster on Oct 12, 2021 7:46:15 GMT
Mixed bag last night from Kieffer really.
Thought the ref was right to penalise him a few times for leading with his arm.
Second half he should never have been booked as he jumped cleanly.
No idea what the ref penalised him for just before his bloody nose. He was clearly trying to get round the defender who was obstructing him and making no attempt to play the ball. At worst should have been an indirect free kick to Wales.
Shame to lose him for the Belarus game. I thought Harris looked out of his depth when he came on.
|
|
|
|
Post by underwood on Oct 12, 2021 9:12:18 GMT
Ideally we would have needed him more against Belarus than Belgium. The Belgian defenders will be too cute for him & he’ll get nothing from the ref again other than a booking.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimexotic on Oct 12, 2021 13:02:10 GMT
Ideally we would have needed him more against Belarus than Belgium. The Belgian defenders will be too cute for him & he’ll get nothing from the ref again other than a booking. That or he could be a real handful for them which allows our fast attacking players to exploit their snail like pace at the back which will probably be further highlighted by the lack of respect their midfield gives us. |
|
|
|
Post by underwood on Oct 12, 2021 13:11:39 GMT
Ideally we would have needed him more against Belarus than Belgium. The Belgian defenders will be too cute for him & he’ll get nothing from the ref again other than a booking. That or he could be a real handful for them which allows our fast attacking players to exploit their snail like pace at the back which will probably be further highlighted by the lack of respect their midfield gives us. The days of Belgium underestimating Wales have gone, we have given them too many bloody noses. |
|
|
|
Post by CrackityJones on Nov 6, 2021 17:11:33 GMT
Two big headers to earn Cardiff a first win in two months
|
|
|
|
Post by dai on Nov 6, 2021 17:35:26 GMT
Looks to be in good form, and a shame he's not available against Belarus. Hopefully he can produce something against Belgium though.
|
|
|
|
Post by cynonvalley on Nov 6, 2021 22:49:38 GMT
90+4 header
|
|
|
|
Post by jimexotic on Nov 7, 2021 1:14:28 GMT
That second header was beautiful, if Dan James can learn to cross a ball we really could be onto something
|
|
|
|
Post by fiveattheback on Nov 7, 2021 6:15:31 GMT
That second header was beautiful, if Dan James can learn to cross a ball we really could be onto something To be fair, James and Moore connect pretty well for Wales, I think James has set up 3 of Moore's 7 goals |
|
