Brentford (H) League One Sat 18th Jan 3pm

[Pedagogue]

As just about everyone has said, a cracking game where a draw was probably a fair score although we finished the stronger team. Brentford play a high tempo pressing game and we were never allowed time to settle on the ball with Sawyers and Adam Chambers often caught in possession. However, this style of play is physically very demanding and the longer the game went on, the more we looked the fitter of the two teams - a tribute to the fitness regime of Jon Whitney. We did lack a little in physical strength compared with the Bees as indeed we do with many teams but slick one-touch and two-touch play can counter-act this. This has been one of the main strengths of the team, this season.

I have to say that I am puzzled and disappointed by the criticism of the referee. As Chomper said, Brentford were not a team of cloggers. The two wild tackles, by Saville and Craig, on Brandy and Lalkovic, respectively, rightly received yellow cards. It has to be remembered that any fouls on Brandy and Lalkovic when they are running at full speed will always look worse because of their pace. Reading some of the rather exaggerated (and biased) comments on here, you would think that we had been butchered by a bunch of thugs. Brentford were hard, certainly, but most of their tackles were perfectly legal. Is football becoming a no-contact sport - or is it that some of our supporters view matches through re-and-white tinted spectacles? :D . Incidentally, despite his public comments claiming that a foul on Brandy was a penalty, Deano did not see the incident. He asked Hemmings about it when the latter returned to the dugout after warming up. Hemmings (who had been in no position to judge for himself) said that it should have been a penalty. Personally, I was too far away to make a definite judgement, but it looked as if (a) Brandy had gone to ground too easily and (b) was probably outside of the area anyway.

The referee had a good game, only flashing the cards when he had to and he let the game flow whenever he could. Did it not occur to those who criticised the referee and praised the game that their enjoyment was enhanced by sensible refereeing? It was clear from the response of the players at the end of the game that they thought that he had refereed the game well.

Roll on, Notts County!

[Registered Saddler]

Did it not occur to those who criticised the referee and praised the game that their enjoyment was enhanced by sensible refereeing? !

No. I think you saw the game through referees union tinted spectacles. There were a number of disruptive fouls early in the game that could have been cautions - deliberate shirt pulls and trips to stop the progress of an attack. It was frustrating that none of these were considered bookable offences.

As for the tackles on Brandy and Lalkovic - the speed of the player fouled had nothing to do with it as it was obvious that both challenges were designed to take the player out with no intention or attempt to play the ball. For me, this is much more worthy of being deemed serious foul player than a two footed tackle that cleanly plays the ball, or a slightly mistimed challenge. The risk of injury in both challenges was very high because they had no intent other than bringing the man down - and not just with a trip but with a full scything challenge on a player that was too skillful for them.

My enjoyment of the game would have been improved if the ref have officiated the game properly.

Furthermore, Smith made his comments on the penalty after watching the incident on TV, as he made clear in his comments.

[kevin]

Funny enough, I didn't see Brentford as thuggish or OTT. Other than the tackle on Brandy and the one on Bax at the end I thought they were strong but fair, just like we tried to be.

Exactly how I saw it.

[kevin]

As for Will Grigg, I thought he looked neat and tidy at times, but posed no threat whatsoever

A lot of the Brentford fans certainly don't rate him.

[Pedagogue]

... There were a number of disruptive fouls early in the game that could have been cautions - deliberate shirt pulls and trips to stop the progress of an attack ...

... and, of course, no such fouls were committed by any Walsall players. :mrgreen:

With respect, RS, I think that you saw the match through your official WFC-tinted spectacles (available at the club shop).

[WFC_Rob]

... There were a number of disruptive fouls early in the game that could have been cautions - deliberate shirt pulls and trips to stop the progress of an attack ...

... and, of course, no such fouls were committed by any Walsall players. :mrgreen:

Must admit, it wasn't as one-sided on the fouls front as some are making out. Mantom's little off the ball niggle at Saville was far from a clean attempt to play the ball, but, as I said in my earlier post, actually really disrupted the latter's game from that point on.

I had a really clear view of Brandy's penalty appeal and there was no way it was a penalty. That said, the one on Baxendale later on was the most cynical foul I've seen for a long time.

[Andy_Petterson]

... There were a number of disruptive fouls early in the game that could have been cautions - deliberate shirt pulls and trips to stop the progress of an attack ...

... and, of course, no such fouls were committed by any Walsall players. :mrgreen:

Must admit, it wasn't as one-sided on the fouls front as some are making out. Mantom's little off the ball niggle at Saville was far from a clean attempt to play the ball, but, as I said in my earlier post, actually really disrupted the latter's game from that point on.

I had a really clear view of Brandy's penalty appeal and there was no way it was a penalty. That said, the one on Baxendale later on was the most cynical foul I've seen for a long time.

I'm with registered on this. Yes there were fouls by both sides, but Brentford's were much more cynical.

The foul on Baxendale, denying Walsall a clear attacking opportunity, certainly didn't enhance my enjoyment of the game.

[saddler_nic]

... There were a number of disruptive fouls early in the game that could have been cautions - deliberate shirt pulls and trips to stop the progress of an attack ...

... and, of course, no such fouls were committed by any Walsall players. :mrgreen:

Must admit, it wasn't as one-sided on the fouls front as some are making out. Mantom's little off the ball niggle at Saville was far from a clean attempt to play the ball, but, as I said in my earlier post, actually really disrupted the latter's game from that point on.

I had a really clear view of Brandy's penalty appeal and there was no way it was a penalty. That said, the one on Baxendale later on was the most cynical foul I've seen for a long time.

I'm with registered on this. Yes there were fouls by both sides, but Brentford's were much more cynical.

The foul on Baxendale, denying Walsall a clear attacking opportunity, certainly didn't enhance my enjoyment of the game.

Their number 17 (Saville?) should have been off for me. The ref rightly have him a yellow for his tackle on Milan with about 20mins left. That should have been his second for me though. He pulled Mantom back in the first half as we were launching an attack, clearly deliberately stopping our momentum going forward. I was under the impression that a shirt pull in that nature constituted as a yellow card. With them facing us with ten men with 20mins left, it's a whole different prospect.

To be fair though, the ref was equally lenient. How he didn't book Brandy for a deliberate trip off the ball when they were breaking following one of our corners is beyond me!

[PT]

The latest set of directives to refs seem to be all about "match management". This seems to be manifesting itself at our level by the refs leaving their cards in the dressing room for the first half and making a big song and dance about having a "word" for every level of offence. The "word" usually ends in a big stupid grin by the ref or an over familiar "I know what you're up to you, you little toe rag you" type look a friendly uncle would give to his nephew whilst slipping him a 50p.

The ref then brings his cards out second half and uses them with the same predictability as a Smith substitution. Around about the 65 minute mark, Mr yellow will make his first appearance to a bemused player who is thinking he's done nothing worse than what has gone before. Around 75-80 Minutes, Mr Yellow will pop out again. Maybe followed by a particularly over-the-top flourish from the half-way line for the goalie time-wasting.

Three bookings, no sendings off. Everyone stayed on the pitch so the game must have "flowed" but the ref still showed who was boss (see three yellows) whilst getting all those marks for his "match management" in the first half. All boxes ticked and a happy assessor.

[Fray Bentos is God!]

I fudge hate how refs say that the game must flow and other journos praising them for letting it flow.

They're there to enforce the laws, not the flow of the game.

[King Crimson]

I donald hate how refs say that the game must flow and other journos praising them for letting it flow.

They're there to enforce the laws, not the flow of the game.

Spot on. The game flows when players don't hack each other down, timewaste, shirt pull, etc etc. If players don't abide by the laws, the ref administers sanctions. Quite frankly, the aesthetics of the beautiful game are none of their business, and only the super egos of the Graham Polls of this world make folk think otherwise.

[Leatherman]

Todays result illustrates Walsall's strengths and weaknesses.

They have prevented the top team from winning and restricted them to one goal on target for the whole match, a good defensive performance on paper. (However they should have been more prepared for their aerial threat after the first game was lost to such a goal).

Yet, only managed one shot on target every 23 minutes, which is nowhere near good enough (although it was 4 times better than Brentford today).

Just a little more attacking creativity and simplicity would have probably won them the game (along with many other games).

I also say that if Lalkovic had been the central striker, Walsall would have had more chance of scoring (I say this based on someone saying he was crossing but no-one to receive, as usual...so I guess he was on the wing).

Lalkovic is Walsall's best chance of putting away chances in my view.

You weren't there then?

Please feel free to comment on what you haven't seen, it cheers me up.

Read my posts carefully and you will be able to judge them with more precision.

I said "...Todays RESULT illustrates Walsall's strengths and weaknesses..." I didn't say PERFORMANCE.

Results and statistics can tell us something about a game. Also the game is judged ultimately by results and hard statistics...there are no points for performances.

With some common sense, an awareness of football tactics and technique, along with some knowledge of the players through having seen them play a few times, you CAN make some reasonable assessments as long as you stick to what such a knowledge allows.

Many people on here post about games they have not attended. Many of us who are unable to attend are relying on match statistics from BBC or commentary etc from other sources. And for after match, post match reports from spectators etc.

There is nothing unreasonable or unjust about any of that.

I would like to attend but live too far away for most games.

Regardless of all that, please highlight what point I previously made that was irrational, unreasonable, unjust or false.

And if you can't....then you are already wearing your 'Sallian is Right' T-Shirt without realising it.

A person who knows what they are talking about can sometimes give a more valuable analysis than an ignorant person who witnesses an event directly.

A fool sees something but doesn't know what he has seen, while an intelligent person of insight sees something truthfully even before it manifests. Man progresses by his thoughts, so think, think and think again young lad.

Oaf.
If you take the time to look at the stats. on the BBC website for the rest of League 1, you will see that Preston had 19 attempts at goal with 6 on target. Coventry had 6 attempts with 1 on target: the result was 1-1.

It's not about the number of attempts you have, but the quality.

Creativity and simplicity? You weren't there so you're guessing aren't you?

Lalkovich had one of his best games in a Walsall shirt today and was given the Man of The Match award; quite rightly so. You're right in your assumption that he was playing on the wing and he caused merry hell whenever he had the ball - his best position in my humble opinion.

Here's a statistic for you: if you continually do the right things then the Law of Averages say's that sooner or later you will be ahead. The reverse of this (in case you don't get it) is that if you continually do the wrong things, you will eventually suffer, as good luck doesn't last forever.

More prepared for the aerial threat? Donaldson was restricted to one opportunity from which he scored; this is what good strikers do, and he is a good striker (see the stats.).

Only a fool would make judgmental comments on something he hasn't witnessed himself, but based his assumptions on secondary reports from people he doesn't know - you really are quite unbelievable.

Wear the tee-shirt? I suppose you have to wear your own as the ones in the club shop won't go over your head?

I'm not young.

Some people are still young in mind even if their physical years don't tell the same story!

Creativity - because clearly, this produces chances and goal attempts....you don't need to be a witness to affirm or deduce that (also based on my witnessing of the team this season).

Simplicity - because both from my own observations of matches and from what one or two have said about todays game, they overcomplicated things at times again (too many passes etc at the wrong time and place).

I am not saying Lalkovic is not useful or even better on the wing, but I am saying with Walsall's relative goal drought and impotency...it might be better for them to promote him as the main man in the middle to score the goals, as unlike Westcarr he will have the speed and trickery to get past people more in the most dangerous positions and he probably has better finishing ability, so it makes sense...especially now Brandy is here.

I have already explained the limits of analysis with regards to indirect reports/results/stats etc as opposed to direct observation. Football is full of such indirect knowledge. Why does a manager send out scouts and other people to wacth games? That's right, because useful information can be gained that way.

As for me not knowing people on the board, you can gather varied reports and detect a common strand and mediate them with the results and stats.

You are acting as though I say such and such a player played brilliantly today when I didn't see him!

I already said they must have defended well.

Your point about doing things right and doing things wrong leading to paralleled results in the long term...I agree with and have said the same generally and specifically on here mnay times using different words.

You are trying to reinforce views without any first hand knowledge. You have already admitted that you take the views of those who post on this board, but not the most popular opinions (presumably because they don't coincide with your prejudiced views), to arrive at some generalised conclusion that would fit any team in the world.

Your statements of fact are not intimate enough to be taken seriously. Your recommendations are not detailed enough to offer any solutions to why Walsall aren't running away with this league. You remind me of a twerp who sat behind me for a few games during Richard Money's tenure. This old chap claimed that Walsall were not as good at home as away because John Whitney worked them too hard in the warm up. When I pointed out that he followed the same procedure away from home than he did at Bescot he shut up and sat further down the row for following matches. I have no doubt he spouted the same old clap-trap to any one prepared to put up with it.

This wasn't you was it? Because you certainly fit the bill.

[Leatherman]

As just about everyone has said, a cracking game where a draw was probably a fair score although we finished the stronger team. Brentford play a high tempo pressing game and we were never allowed time to settle on the ball with Sawyers and Adam Chambers often caught in possession. However, this style of play is physically very demanding and the longer the game went on, the more we looked the fitter of the two teams - a tribute to the fitness regime of Jon Whitney. We did lack a little in physical strength compared with the Bees as indeed we do with many teams but slick one-touch and two-touch play can counter-act this. This has been one of the main strengths of the team, this season.

I have to say that I am puzzled and disappointed by the criticism of the referee. As Chomper said, Brentford were not a team of cloggers. The two wild tackles, by Saville and Craig, on Brandy and Lalkovic, respectively, rightly received yellow cards. It has to be remembered that any fouls on Brandy and Lalkovic when they are running at full speed will always look worse because of their pace. Reading some of the rather exaggerated (and biased) comments on here, you would think that we had been butchered by a bunch of thugs. Brentford were hard, certainly, but most of their tackles were perfectly legal. Is football becoming a no-contact sport - or is it that some of our supporters view matches through re-and-white tinted spectacles? :D . Incidentally, despite his public comments claiming that a foul on Brandy was a penalty, Deano did not see the incident. He asked Hemmings about it when the latter returned to the dugout after warming up. Hemmings (who had been in no position to judge for himself) said that it should have been a penalty. Personally, I was too far away to make a definite judgement, but it looked as if (a) Brandy had gone to ground too easily and (b) was probably outside of the area anyway.

The referee had a good game, only flashing the cards when he had to and he let the game flow whenever he could. Did it not occur to those who criticised the referee and praised the game that their enjoyment was enhanced by sensible refereeing? It was clear from the response of the players at the end of the game that they thought that he had refereed the game well.

Roll on, Notts County!

I thought the Ref. had a good game compared to the usual offerings we get. I also thought their No17 was the heartbeat of their team and, if he had been playing for us, I would have sung his praises (but he wasn't - the rotten little cack).

One of the ways I know I have seen a good game is when the time goes quickly, and it flew by yesterday. Shame we didn't get all three points, but I did enjoy it.

[Leatherman]

Anybody know what Taylor went off for and how bad is it?

[JonnyOwen]

Anybody know what Taylor went off for and how bad is it?

Jarred his knee.

I would expect him to be back for County.

[Registered Saddler]

... There were a number of disruptive fouls early in the game that could have been cautions - deliberate shirt pulls and trips to stop the progress of an attack ...

... and, of course, no such fouls were committed by any Walsall players. :mrgreen:

With respect, RS, I think that you saw the match through your official WFC-tinted spectacles (available at the club shop).

I didn't say the ref was biased, I said he was bad. And i'd struggle to find a Walsall challenge this season as bad of either of Brentfords two yesterday.

[Pedagogue]

I do not condone foul play but if the referee had blown for every single foul, this board would be inundated by complaints about a whistle-happy referee ruining the game - and the biggest moaners would be those above who have complained about him being too lenient yesterday!!! Players, particularly at pro level, DO undoubtedly get away with fouls - just look at Robert Huth at Stoke - but if it is to be dealt with then it has to be led by the FA (fat chance!) and has to be applied at all levels. Unfortunately, players would then be scared stiff of committing a foul and the game would be diluted to a thrill-less no-contact sport. You can't have it both ways.

The ignorance of some spectators when it comes to refereeing and the Laws of the Game continues to amaze me. I would love to see some them actually try to referee a game, particularly a fast, competitive one. Yesterday, a guy sitting behind me was moaning that the referee hadn't given a free-kick for a push on Westcarr - but totally ignoring the fact that Westcarr had quite deliberately backed into the Brentford defender first! :shock: Talk about bias!

I stand by my opinion that the referee had a good match. I didn't agree with every single decision but he got the major ones right and he was a factor in a very entertaining game.

If anyone wishes to train and qualify as a referee, please send me a pm and I'll get you on the next available course.

[brummie saddler]

boom

[Exile]

Tick, tick, tick, tick...

boom

[King Crimson]

I do not condone foul play but if the referee had blown for every single foul, this board would be inundated by complaints about a whistle-happy referee ruining the game - and the biggest moaners would be those above who have complained about him being too lenient yesterday!!!.

I don't think that's true. Early intervention by referees when players are trying to illegally impose themselves on the game and their opponents usually results in the game "settling down" with fewer breaks in play later on. Just watch big local derbies to see this in action.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say that letting relatively minor fouls go "to allow the game to flow" sends totally the wrong message to those intent on gaining advantage illegally and endangers players. Brentford's 17 should have had a yellow in the first half without question. On that yellow, he may not have gone in on Brandy in a way that he did (which from my angle could have resulted in an injury on the player). If he did still go in, he'd be off - protecting other players and the flow of the game.

Oh, and as for being qualified, if we restricted comments on here to those "qualified" to make them this board would be a poorer place. With qualified referees disagreeing with each other over incidents, and qualified referees clearly making significant errors, I don't see why any of us should defer to you on points of interpretation. Points of "law" - yes. Application - no.

[Fray Bentos is God!]

Amen, KC.

[Magic Man Fan]

Some people (referees) think that fans can't be unbiased about their team, which is rubbish. For example I don't think it was penalty on Brandy, but there were other incidents when there was clear sorry pulling in the box, which is a stone wall penalty.

I appreciate referees letting the game flow, as already mentioned above. However, when players are committing constant fouls, I.e. Saville, then they have to be clamped down with a card, so they know they wont get away with it. Saville had his elbows up in faces to stop anyone getting near him. He was hacking people down, and committed a number of cynical fouls, which if he was lst man, would be a red card offence, so is a yellow card anywhere else.

When he did get booked it should have been his second yellow, and red.

[kshammer]

I'm surprised Brentford's fouling is even a debate. While not the dirtiest team i've ever seen it was clear as day the tactics they were using from the off - all the people round by me were saying the same. As the ref didn't stamp down on the little, niggley stuff early on it escalated to the more dangerous tackles later on in the game.

The referee just looked naive to me, like he didn't understand the sly things that go on in a game.

[Magic Man Fan]

I'm surprised Brentford's fouling is even a debate. While not the dirtiest team i've ever seen it was clear as day the tactics they were using from the off - all the people round by me were saying the same. As the ref didn't stamp down on the little, niggley stuff early on it escalated to the more dangerous tackles later on in the game.

The referee just looked naive to me, like he didn't understand the sly things that go on in a game.

Most referees don't, because they haven't played the game, so don't understand it. In fact quite the opposite, they go into refereeing because they were the kids that were bullied at school, and weren't allowed to play at lunch time, so they go into refereeing to get revenge. :mrgreen:

[leics_saddler]

Anyway, it's like I'd never been away.
But this was a better game than the 1-1 v Doncaster on Boxing Day 2008.

Firstly congratulations to Dean Smith, Jon Whitney (they're very fit), the staff and players.
Secondly, congratulations to the officials at the club, who are starting to do things the right way as well.
Even the programme has come on leaps and bounds in the last ten years.

As for the game, the reason why Brentford are top is because they can play in three different ways and interchange between the three at will - namely football, hoofball and fouling.
This sounds like harsh criticism, but it's the sort of thing we ought to be able to do a bit more of. They are big side who can play as well.
The counter attack for their goal was the sort of thrilling direct football that the English game does so well at its best.

Enough about them.
Our play generally was of a very high standard and it's lovely to watch the excellent football the team plays.
We could and probably should have beaten the form team of the country - a multi-million pound team to boot.

Just some minor points:
We do try and walk it in at times.
Westcarr will finish with 20 goals and more this year. He'd score even more if took a chance sometimes and make a dart to the near post - Wayne Clarke style.
Brandy isn't quite match fit but has slotted right back into the team. I wished he'd hung out right on the touchline though and stretched them out a bit.
All four fullbacks who played yesterday were absolutely superb and would walk into most teams at this level.

It's harsh to criticise a team that is obviously playing so well and so far above its resources it's ridiculous.
The next stage is not to worry so much about signing anyone, it's to try and get everyone there contracted for next year at least - they are that good.
I would include Lalkovic and Brandy in there as well.

You've got to think the squad is that good that McQuilkin (brilliant hat trick vs Tranmere Res), Ben George (superb debut against Brentford) and Bakayoko (a goal machine) can't even get near the starting 18.
It's the most optimistic I've felt about the club as a whole in years.

[WFC_Rob]

The next stage is not to worry so much about signing anyone, it's to try and get everyone there contracted for next year at least - they are that good.
I would include Lalkovic and Brandy in there as well.

Yes, good point. Taylor and Westcarr would be the two at the top of my list, and I'm sure Smith is doing all he can to tie them down for longer.

[Chomper]

That's pretty much how I see it as well.

Good spirit amongst the squad as well. Good to see the whole team working for each other.

[sallian]

Todays result illustrates Walsall's strengths and weaknesses.

They have prevented the top team from winning and restricted them to one goal on target for the whole match, a good defensive performance on paper. (However they should have been more prepared for their aerial threat after the first game was lost to such a goal).

Yet, only managed one shot on target every 23 minutes, which is nowhere near good enough (although it was 4 times better than Brentford today).
Just a little more attacking creativity and simplicity would have probably won them the game (along with many other games).

I also say that if Lalkovic had been the central striker, Walsall would have had more chance of scoring (I say this based on someone saying he was crossing but no-one to receive, as usual...so I guess he was on the wing).

Lalkovic is Walsall's best chance of putting away chances in my view.

You weren't there then?

Please feel free to comment on what you haven't seen, it cheers me up.

Read my posts carefully and you will be able to judge them with more precision.

I said "...Todays RESULT illustrates Walsall's strengths and weaknesses..." I didn't say PERFORMANCE.

Results and statistics can tell us something about a game. Also the game is judged ultimately by results and hard statistics...there are no points for performances.

With some common sense, an awareness of football tactics and technique, along with some knowledge of the players through having seen them play a few times, you CAN make some reasonable assessments as long as you stick to what such a knowledge allows.

Many people on here post about games they have not attended. Many of us who are unable to attend are relying on match statistics from BBC or commentary etc from other sources. And for after match, post match reports from spectators etc.

There is nothing unreasonable or unjust about any of that.

I would like to attend but live too far away for most games.

Regardless of all that, please highlight what point I previously made that was irrational, unreasonable, unjust or false.

And if you can't....then you are already wearing your 'Sallian is Right' T-Shirt without realising it.

A person who knows what they are talking about can sometimes give a more valuable analysis than an ignorant person who witnesses an event directly.

A fool sees something but doesn't know what he has seen, while an intelligent person of insight sees something truthfully even before it manifests. Man progresses by his thoughts, so think, think and think again young lad.

.......
Some people are still young in mind even if their physical years don't tell the same story!

Creativity - because clearly, this produces chances and goal attempts....you don't need to be a witness to affirm or deduce that (also based on my witnessing of the team this season).

Simplicity - because both from my own observations of matches and from what one or two have said about todays game, they overcomplicated things at times again (too many passes etc at the wrong time and place).

I am not saying Lalkovic is not useful or even better on the wing, but I am saying with Walsall's relative goal drought and impotency...it might be better for them to promote him as the main man in the middle to score the goals, as unlike Westcarr he will have the speed and trickery to get past people more in the most dangerous positions and he probably has better finishing ability, so it makes sense...especially now Brandy is here.

I have already explained the limits of analysis with regards to indirect reports/results/stats etc as opposed to direct observation. Football is full of such indirect knowledge. Why does a manager send out scouts and other people to wacth games? That's right, because useful information can be gained that way.

As for me not knowing people on the board, you can gather varied reports and detect a common strand and mediate them with the results and stats.

You are acting as though I say such and such a player played brilliantly today when I didn't see him!

I already said they must have defended well.

Your point about doing things right and doing things wrong leading to paralleled results in the long term...I agree with and have said the same generally and specifically on here mnay times using different words.

You are trying to reinforce views without any first hand knowledge. You have already admitted that you take the views of those who post on this board, but not the most popular opinions (presumably because they don't coincide with your prejudiced views), to arrive at some generalised conclusion that would fit any team in the world.

Your statements of fact are not intimate enough to be taken seriously. Your recommendations are not detailed enough to offer any solutions to why Walsall aren't running away with this league. You remind me of a pregnant fish who sat behind me for a few games during Richard Money's tenure. This old chap claimed that Walsall were not as good at home as away because John Whitney worked them too hard in the warm up. When I pointed out that he followed the same procedure away from home than he did at Bescot he shut up and sat further down the row for following matches. I have no doubt he spouted the same old clap-trap to any one prepared to put up with it.

This wasn't you was it? Because you certainly fit the bill.

What a pathetic, vacuous attempt at a rebuttal that was. Let me educate you or draw you back to the path of honesty (if it ever existed in you). Even though there is nothing you've said that refutes even one point I've made, it was more like a generalized, frustrated waffle of no shape.:-

"....without any first hand knowledge..." Wrong. First hand knowledge of some games, gives you knowledge of the team, their style and capabilities. Unless you are aware of them mutating into something totally different in each game.

Secondly, statistics and results tell a story, but maybe you are of those incapable to read such information.

"...the most popular opinions..." Decided by who? Based on which survey? Of what size sample? Or do you mean the opinions that you agree with? Also young lad, truth and accuracy is not decided by the amount of people that support it. An accurate assessment stands on its own conformity with reality and its own rationality, even if all are blind to that except one.

"...to arrive at some generalized conclusion that would fit any team in the world..." No, laddy boy...

i) I don't say that teams that are scoring many goals need to clearly work on scoring more.
ii) I don't say that teams deliver passes to danger areas early (rather than once the opposition defence has assembled) need to do what they are already doing.
iii) I don't say that Lalkovic should play centrally and advanced due to his trickery, finishing and speed in a team that has a goal drought...except for Walsall....because he plays for Walsall. I know how he plays, I know his poor decision making, I know his qualities through seeing him play several times...in addition to second hand reports which further confirm my knowledge of him. And it appears he is improving.
iv) I say Walsall need to learn to play the ball into dangerous space, rather than only to a free man. They suffer from that tactical weapon missing in every game, it is a more emphatic mistake due to them having a few players who would benefit from it due to their speed. I don't say this for other teams unless they also fail to do it.
v) I say Walsall strikers should have radical shooting drills....like the 'hitting spots' of tennis players, that means having 500+ shots in one session which requires a lot of footballs. I am pretty sure they don't do it. But I know from experience such training brings about dramatic improvement as the muscle memory and natural adjustments kick in. Do I say this for all teams? Yes, as it will improve any striker, but strikers who keep missing chances need it a great deal more.
vi) I say Walsall need to create more chances and have more shots than they do...they over elaborate, take too many passes at the wrong time, and they do it in every game I see, and people regularly confirm the same happens at games I don't see.
vii) I say the strikers need more psychological preparation for the game and the whole team needs more scoring ambition...a sports psychology which amounts to 'We can win 10-0 we are going to score 10, I am going to score 10 etc' But I am not going to delve into the mental mechanics that appear to be some of the reason why such things work, as these higher level esoterics of performance psychology I expect are well beyond you, judging by your previous immature and emotional judgements.

Also, '...applied to any team...' in a sense yes, as the aim of the game is one, whatever teams are playing it and certain principles of success are universal. So the thing you attack as a weakness is actually not a weakness but you are ignorant of that due to a lack of thought.

So....think, think and think again...and put upon yourself in a state of humiliation and contrition thy 'Sallian is Right' T-shirt.

[Welsh_Saddler]

I suppose there is a remote possibility that someone even more smug and condescending than sallian exists...but I'm not holding my breath. :roll:

[Fray Bentos is God!]

People read his posts? He's in Rogerem territory for me.