Leeds United (H) League 1 Tuesday 18/8/09.

[Neil Ravenscroft]

On at least two of the few occasions, it was Parkin and Deeney that had made the space for him, so when the cross came in (and one was a blinder that was just over Till's head), there were no bodies in the box to get on the end. It's the central midfielders who should have been getting there. The point is, we have no real creativity.

[Duke]

On at least two of the few occasions, it was Parkin and Deeney that had made the space for him, so when the cross came in (and one was a blinder that was just over Till's head), there were no bodies in the box to get on the end. It's the central midfielders who should have been getting there. The point is, we have no real creativity

Can't argue with that.

[bleed_red_n_white]

I still cant see how people are rating Deeney after last nite, he hardly did anything and was quite clearly too tired for the game, Nicholls sould of replaced him after 50 mins, and why the hell does CH keep taking off Jones, he was only one who looked like beating the leeds defence last nite, i still cant see why if were going to pass the ball why are we playing to reletively slow "target" men, give Nicholls a run too add something different because it plain to see Parkin & Deeney arent going to get us enough goals this season.

[Libertine]

I still cant see how people are rating Deeney after last nite, he hardly did anything and was quite clearly too tired for the game, Nicholls sould of replaced him after 50 mins, and why the hell does CH keep taking off Jones, he was only one who looked like beating the leeds defence last nite, i still cant see why if were going to pass the ball why are we playing to reletively slow "target" men, give Nicholls a run too add something different because it plain to see Parkin & Deeney arent going to get us enough goals this season.

People are rating Deeney because of the fact he was joint top scorer last year, wins more headers than "Target man" Sam Parkin and gives 110% every time he pulls on the shirt. I understand your view that Parkin and Deeney might not get the goals but id look at Parkin rather than Deeney In my OPONION.

[deanonev69]

Not sure what people thought of Bradley but I think he's a coward and should be dropped from the whole squad on that performance. He spent most of this time trying to hide from the ball, he didn't want it and was making sure it wasn't given to him, wimped out of tackles and if the ball did land at his feet he just got rid with his first touch.

Think coward is harsh but something's not right. I have always been big fan of Mark and couple of seasons ago, he come flying out the traps and looked a genuine box to box player who was getting goals. Last night and for past few months has been very disappointing, looking a yard off the pace of the game.

He states he has ambitions to get in Wales team-well when i lived in Wales i used to go and watch Wales from time to time and at the moment, i would say he has no chance of breaking in, despite Toshack's record of picking young players. Thought last night he'd be raring to go but just never got going

[Registered Saddler]

Seen the highlights and Leeds should have had both Marques and Beckford sent off. The first was as clear a professional foul as you'll see (albeit just outside the box, so not a pen) and Beckford's was a piece of typical dirty Leeds thuggery. Hey ho, them's the breaks.

[big baz 1]

Anybody got the link where i can watch the highlights ?

[Young_Tong]

Anybody got the link where i can watch the highlights ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_div_2/8210759.stm

Here you go mate, Beckford should definitely have been sent off but the ref was in no position to see it.

[big baz 1]

Cheers mate what a save by clayton from beckfords effort.

[PeruSaddler]

Anybody got the link where i can watch the highlights ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_div_2/8210759.stm

Here you go mate, Beckford should definitely have been sent off but the ref was in no position to see it.

No he wasn't, but the linesman should have had a crystal clear view of both that and the Marques incident. Robbed!!

BTW, even Radio Leeds thought Marques should have gone if you listen to the interview with Grayson here http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_div_2/8205297.stm

[Bernie]

Seen the highlights and Leeds should have had both Marques and Beckford sent off. The first was as clear a professional foul as you'll see (albeit just outside the box, so not a pen) and Beckford's was a piece of typical dirty Leeds thuggery. Hey ho, them's the breaks.

I totally agree.

How on earth did the referee not give the foul on Parkin? It was as clear a two-footed-challenge-from-behind-nowhere-near-the-ball as you will ever see. The referee was perfectly placed to see it. It should have been a straight red for denying a clear goal opportunity.

The linesman was close and must have been watching when Beckford kicked Jones, he just chickened out.

Who was supposed to be marking Johnson when he ran in unmarked to score their first? It looks as if the number on the back was 5, but surely Hughes was not that far back from the line for a corner.

On the second goal Smith was unlucky because the ball had an odd bounce, having travelled about 40 yards from the clearance it then bounced straight up in the air, rather than carrying on. He had to stop dead, and had little chance to make a powerful clearance.

[Macca]

I've been reading a few posts and people seem to think we deserved something out the game :? I don't think we did. Yes we held our shape well at times but we were outplayed and on chances they deserved to win. (i hate to say it)

But i thought there were many positives to take out the game .... Firstly being manny smith and hughes. I couldn't fault them tonight. After seeing 3 league games now i am pretty confident with our defence. Very solid.

Another positive was jones and till. They have that pace we have really been lacking in recent seasons and like to run at defenders which is good to see.

There were also some negatives. First being parkin.(enough said) Second being our midfield. When richards was on i thought we looked decent in midfield. He was fighting for everything and not giving them a sniff(thats where we missed mattis too), but bradley offered nothing there. No creativity. No fight. No desire to keep the ball. We really missed mattis and richards

Overall it was a decent game, but you could see what we are lacking. A goalscorer and a midfielder

As for people saying that the ref missed a few things :? What exactly? He refereed the game superbly i thought. Take the walsall glasses off

Watch the highlights!!!! As i pointed out the ref bottled it.

[Banksy]

Robbed is the only word for it, we get players sent off for the slightest of tackles, Beckford can go round picking people and Marques can get away with a professional foul! The ref as has been said has completely bottled both becasue it was Leeds in front of 3,500 leeds fans! Scott Powell im dissapointed in you how can you say the ref reffed it well, he's on Ken Bates payroll after watching the highlights!

[Registered Saddler]

Who was supposed to be marking Johnson when he ran in unmarked to score their first? It looks as if the number on the back was 5, but surely Hughes was not that far back from the line for a corner.

I think it was Steve Jones. Sloppy, maybe had something to do with Hutchings subbing him almost immediately. Not going to criticise him too much though because he did well to earn the pen.

[Neil Ravenscroft]

I've been reading a few posts and people seem to think we deserved something out the game :? I don't think we did. Yes we held our shape well at times but we were outplayed and on chances they deserved to win. (i hate to say it)

But i thought there were many positives to take out the game .... Firstly being manny smith and hughes. I couldn't fault them tonight. After seeing 3 league games now i am pretty confident with our defence. Very solid.

Another positive was jones and till. They have that pace we have really been lacking in recent seasons and like to run at defenders which is good to see.

There were also some negatives. First being parkin.(enough said) Second being our midfield. When richards was on i thought we looked decent in midfield. He was fighting for everything and not giving them a sniff(thats where we missed mattis too), but bradley offered nothing there. No creativity. No fight. No desire to keep the ball. We really missed mattis and richards

Overall it was a decent game, but you could see what we are lacking. A goalscorer and a midfielder

As for people saying that the ref missed a few things :? What exactly? He refereed the game superbly i thought. Take the walsall glasses off

Watch the highlights!!!! As i pointed out the ref bottled it.

Indeed. The strange thing was, I thought the ref was having a good game, but he then went a bottled two big decisions - the foul on Parkin and the first "penalty", when Deeney's legs were taken in that penalty area scramble (he even looked for a split second as if he was going to give it). The Beckford incident, I don't know if he saw.

[scott_powell]

Ok i take it back about the ref. After seeing the highlights they should have been sent off for sure. He definatly bottled it. At the time i thought parkin went over to easily and i didn't see the beckford kick.

Other than those incident i still think he had a good game. Although those are pretty major incidents which obviously would of changed the game.

[scott_powell]

I've been reading a few posts and people seem to think we deserved something out the game :? I don't think we did. Yes we held our shape well at times but we were outplayed and on chances they deserved to win. (i hate to say it)

But i thought there were many positives to take out the game .... Firstly being manny smith and hughes. I couldn't fault them tonight. After seeing 3 league games now i am pretty confident with our defence. Very solid.

Another positive was jones and till. They have that pace we have really been lacking in recent seasons and like to run at defenders which is good to see.

There were also some negatives. First being parkin.(enough said) Second being our midfield. When richards was on i thought we looked decent in midfield. He was fighting for everything and not giving them a sniff(thats where we missed mattis too), but bradley offered nothing there. No creativity. No fight. No desire to keep the ball. We really missed mattis and richards

Overall it was a decent game, but you could see what we are lacking. A goalscorer and a midfielder

As for people saying that the ref missed a few things :? What exactly? He refereed the game superbly i thought. Take the walsall glasses off

Watch the highlights!!!! As i pointed out the ref bottled it.

Indeed. The strange thing was, I thought the ref was having a good game, but he then went a bottled two big decisions - the foul on Parkin and the first "penalty", when Deeney's legs were taken in that penalty area scramble (he even looked for a split second as if he was going to give it). The Beckford incident, I don't know if he saw.

The deeney incident was NOT a penalty at all .... I was right infront of it and he went down far to easy. Would of been very harsh to give that but it would of made up for missing the parkin incident

[PeruSaddler]

Indeed. The strange thing was, I thought the ref was having a good game, but he then went a bottled two big decisions - the foul on Parkin and the first "penalty", when Deeney's legs were taken in that penalty area scramble (he even looked for a split second as if he was going to give it). The Beckford incident, I don't know if he saw.

The deeney incident was NOT a penalty at all .... I was right infront of it and he went down far to easy. Would of been very harsh to give that but it would of made up for missing the parkin incident

These things are often a matter of opinion, an opinion formed in the split second you have to make up your mind. From my point of view it was a clear penalty, as Deeney had his standing foot taken from him with no ball contact at all. I'm not sure as the ref would have seen that from where he was given that he couldn't see the Parkin one!

[Wyrley_saddler]

Indeed. The strange thing was, I thought the ref was having a good game, but he then went a bottled two big decisions - the foul on Parkin and the first "penalty", when Deeney's legs were taken in that penalty area scramble (he even looked for a split second as if he was going to give it). The Beckford incident, I don't know if he saw.

The deeney incident was NOT a penalty at all .... I was right infront of it and he went down far to easy. Would of been very harsh to give that but it would of made up for missing the parkin incident

It doesn't matter how 'easy' he went down. If there's contact it's a foul, even if the contact is minimal.

[scott_powell]

Indeed. The strange thing was, I thought the ref was having a good game, but he then went a bottled two big decisions - the foul on Parkin and the first "penalty", when Deeney's legs were taken in that penalty area scramble (he even looked for a split second as if he was going to give it). The Beckford incident, I don't know if he saw.

The deeney incident was NOT a penalty at all .... I was right infront of it and he went down far to easy. Would of been very harsh to give that but it would of made up for missing the parkin incident

It doesn't matter how 'easy' he went down. If there's contact it's a foul, even if the contact is minimal.

You will find that that isn't how it goes. So if im shoulder to shoulder in the box, out strength the striker .... its a foul? NO. Thats contact isn't it? YES

You will find therer was no contact .... deeney was already falling over by the time any foul could be commited. It was right infront of me.

[scott_powell]

Indeed. The strange thing was, I thought the ref was having a good game, but he then went a bottled two big decisions - the foul on Parkin and the first "penalty", when Deeney's legs were taken in that penalty area scramble (he even looked for a split second as if he was going to give it). The Beckford incident, I don't know if he saw.

The deeney incident was NOT a penalty at all .... I was right infront of it and he went down far to easy. Would of been very harsh to give that but it would of made up for missing the parkin incident

These things are often a matter of opinion, an opinion formed in the split second you have to make up your mind. From my point of view it was a clear penalty, as Deeney had his standing foot taken from him with no ball contact at all. I'm not sure as the ref would have seen that from where he was given that he couldn't see the Parkin one!

The linesman would of gave if if it was that bad. I had the perfect view and it was not a penalty. Non of the player really apealed for it and neither did the fans around me. Accept the ones with thier walsall glasses on.

[latviancheese]

just seen the incidents on bbc website. Beckford should of been off. Our defending was quite frankly awful for their equaliser, and beckfords goal was decent, i suppose he caught the keeper off guard, but hardly anythin that special.

Over and out.

[Neil Ravenscroft]

Indeed. The strange thing was, I thought the ref was having a good game, but he then went a bottled two big decisions - the foul on Parkin and the first "penalty", when Deeney's legs were taken in that penalty area scramble (he even looked for a split second as if he was going to give it). The Beckford incident, I don't know if he saw.

The deeney incident was NOT a penalty at all .... I was right infront of it and he went down far to easy. Would of been very harsh to give that but it would of made up for missing the parkin incident

These things are often a matter of opinion, an opinion formed in the split second you have to make up your mind. From my point of view it was a clear penalty, as Deeney had his standing foot taken from him with no ball contact at all. I'm not sure as the ref would have seen that from where he was given that he couldn't see the Parkin one!

The linesman would of gave if if it was that bad. I had the perfect view and it was not a penalty. Non of the player really apealed for it and neither did the fans around me. Accept the ones with thier walsall glasses on.

Which is the reason why technology won't work with these kinds of decisions. I too had a perfect view and I'm sure it was a nailed on penalty! The referee too started to put his arm out, then stopped.

[windowman]

it was a stone wall penalty,some one needs glasses on,already changed mind on two incidents,cant find any highlights of deeny foul or you probs change your mind again :?

[scott_powell]

it was a stone wall penalty,some one needs glasses on,already changed mind on two incidents,cant find any highlights of deeny foul or you probs change your mind again :?

I changed my mind on those because i didn't have a clear view of the incidents. I didn't see the beckford kick and from where i was it looked like marques out strengthed parkin off the ball, which he didn't after seeing the replay. This one i did have a clear view and it wasn't a penalty. If it was such a big shout why wasn't it on the highlights? Deeney was falling over before any contact was made.

Ahwell i'm willing to have you one eyed fans against me.

[windowman]

against who ? your the one who keeps saying "walsall glasses",i had same view as you ,behind goal middle floors,it was a pen but i will not fall out over it,and i deffo not against you :(

[Wyrley_saddler]

Indeed. The strange thing was, I thought the ref was having a good game, but he then went a bottled two big decisions - the foul on Parkin and the first "penalty", when Deeney's legs were taken in that penalty area scramble (he even looked for a split second as if he was going to give it). The Beckford incident, I don't know if he saw.

The deeney incident was NOT a penalty at all .... I was right infront of it and he went down far to easy. Would of been very harsh to give that but it would of made up for missing the parkin incident

It doesn't matter how 'easy' he went down. If there's contact it's a foul, even if the contact is minimal.

You will find that that isn't how it goes. So if im shoulder to shoulder in the box, out strength the striker .... its a foul? NO. Thats contact isn't it? YES

You will find therer was no contact .... deeney was already falling over by the time any foul could be commited. It was right infront of me.

Shoulder to shoulder is different. I was on about in the situation of someone sliding/using their feet to tackle.

Anyway, a shoulder barge can be deemed a foul if excessive force is used.

[Neil Ravenscroft]

Indeed. The strange thing was, I thought the ref was having a good game, but he then went a bottled two big decisions - the foul on Parkin and the first "penalty", when Deeney's legs were taken in that penalty area scramble (he even looked for a split second as if he was going to give it). The Beckford incident, I don't know if he saw.

The deeney incident was NOT a penalty at all .... I was right infront of it and he went down far to easy. Would of been very harsh to give that but it would of made up for missing the parkin incident

It doesn't matter how 'easy' he went down. If there's contact it's a foul, even if the contact is minimal.

You will find that that isn't how it goes. So if im shoulder to shoulder in the box, out strength the striker .... its a foul? NO. Thats contact isn't it? YES

You will find therer was no contact .... deeney was already falling over by the time any foul could be commited. It was right infront of me.

Shoulder to shoulder is different. I was on about in the situation of someone sliding/using their feet to tackle.

Anyway, a shoulder barge can be deemed a foul if excessive force is used.

And, which many forget, the ball is within playing distance