Welcome. This site is an archived version of the previous UpTheSaddlers forum (December 2004 to May 2018). To visit the new UTS website, please click here.

Fleetwood Town (A) League One, Tues 15 March 7.45pm

Reports and reaction from the 2014-2015 season as Walsall finished 3rd in League 1
Forum rules
Be nice or face the consequences
Harry
UTS Veteran
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 11:44 pm

Re: Fleetwood Town (A) League One, Tues 15 March 7.45pm

Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:37 pm

booster cogburn wrote:Playing devil's advocate for a minute, how do you determine that Fleetwood (playing as attractively as they did) deserved an equaliser? If you don't shoot accurately enough to beat the goalkeeper, you don't deserve to score surely? And by the same token did Etheridge deserve to concede?


Because football is a low scoring sport, with matches decided by one or a few decisive moments, it is often the case that team that objectively plays the best does not win.

This is less true of high scoring sports such as basketball, table tennis, squash etc. Generally speaking the best player or team on the day always wins in those sports.

The many random elements in a game of football means that goals are sometimes scored by the team that is not the better team on the day, and also that a team that is generally playing very well does not manage to score any goals.

I have seen people make the argument "The aim of football is scoring goals, so the team that scores the most goals must be the best team on the day." That is a false argument, because it is circular reasoning. It answers the proposition that sometimes the best team does not win by defining the "best team" as the team that scores the most goals. This is obviously a silly argument, since it does not address the issue as to whether a team can play better on the day, but still lose.

User avatar
funk_hits_the_fan
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 5:27 pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Fleetwood Town (A) League One, Tues 15 March 7.45pm

Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:42 pm

Welsh_Saddler wrote:
Ancient Moaner wrote:
funk_hits_the_fan wrote:Even without the resident nause there is always someone willing to step into the breach and give everyone a good loff!!!! Cheers AM


Always willing to step up to the 'ockey', rather than us having to witness more of his 'ravings' lets hope he's taken the hump and buggered off for good. :mrgreen:
All we need now is for Sound_Out to extricate himself from monopolising the SOT thread, so that we can all get on with every day banter, rather than being patronised with his vile propaganda.


Amen to that!! :D


I'll third it! 8)

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Fleetwood Town (A) League One, Tues 15 March 7.45pm

Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:21 am

funk_hits_the_fan wrote:
Welsh_Saddler wrote:
Ancient Moaner wrote:
funk_hits_the_fan wrote:Even without the resident nause there is always someone willing to step into the breach and give everyone a good loff!!!! Cheers AM


Always willing to step up to the 'ockey', rather than us having to witness more of his 'ravings' lets hope he's taken the hump and buggered off for good. :mrgreen:
All we need now is for Sound_Out to extricate himself from monopolising the SOT thread, so that we can all get on with every day banter, rather than being patronised with his vile propaganda.


Amen to that!! :D


I'll third it! 8)

The only way that'll happen is if you actually (and here's a novel idea) start some apolitical threads. Like 'hello, wat yor favrit film?' (Old in joke from nearly a decade ago)

User avatar
booster cogburn
UTS Veteran
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:00 pm
Location: cloud cuckoo land

Re: Fleetwood Town (A) League One, Tues 15 March 7.45pm

Thu Mar 17, 2016 9:06 am

Harry wrote:
booster cogburn wrote:Playing devil's advocate for a minute, how do you determine that Fleetwood (playing as attractively as they did) deserved an equaliser? If you don't shoot accurately enough to beat the goalkeeper, you don't deserve to score surely? And by the same token did Etheridge deserve to concede?


Because football is a low scoring sport, with matches decided by one or a few decisive moments, it is often the case that team that objectively plays the best does not win.

This is less true of high scoring sports such as basketball, table tennis, squash etc. Generally speaking the best player or team on the day always wins in those sports.

The many random elements in a game of football means that goals are sometimes scored by the team that is not the better team on the day, and also that a team that is generally playing very well does not manage to score any goals.

I have seen people make the argument "The aim of football is scoring goals, so the team that scores the most goals must be the best team on the day." That is a false argument, because it is circular reasoning. It answers the proposition that sometimes the best team does not win by defining the "best team" as the team that scores the most goals. This is obviously a silly argument, since it does not address the issue as to whether a team can play better on the day, but still lose.



That's the best counter-argument I've heard/read in fairness but it doesn't get around the fact that just because you're the better team on the day you don't automatically deserve to win. That good play needs to be under-pinned by the bare minimum requirement of scoring more goals than the opposition. This is why football is so fascinating; you can dominate a match for 89 minutes not scoring but inducing worldy saves and hitting woodwork and defenders' backsides, yet if you switch off for a short while and concede, you end up losing. Would you deserve to lose in those circs? Refereeing abominations excepted, almost certainly yes because your opponents have achieved the aim of the game whereas you have not.

Bee_Leevers
UTS Veteran
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:19 pm

Re: Fleetwood Town (A) League One, Tues 15 March 7.45pm

Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:53 am

booster cogburn wrote:
Harry wrote:
booster cogburn wrote:Playing devil's advocate for a minute, how do you determine that Fleetwood (playing as attractively as they did) deserved an equaliser? If you don't shoot accurately enough to beat the goalkeeper, you don't deserve to score surely? And by the same token did Etheridge deserve to concede?


Because football is a low scoring sport, with matches decided by one or a few decisive moments, it is often the case that team that objectively plays the best does not win.

This is less true of high scoring sports such as basketball, table tennis, squash etc. Generally speaking the best player or team on the day always wins in those sports.

The many random elements in a game of football means that goals are sometimes scored by the team that is not the better team on the day, and also that a team that is generally playing very well does not manage to score any goals.

I have seen people make the argument "The aim of football is scoring goals, so the team that scores the most goals must be the best team on the day." That is a false argument, because it is circular reasoning. It answers the proposition that sometimes the best team does not win by defining the "best team" as the team that scores the most goals. This is obviously a silly argument, since it does not address the issue as to whether a team can play better on the day, but still lose.



That's the best counter-argument I've heard/read in fairness but it doesn't get around the fact that just because you're the better team on the day you don't automatically deserve to win. That good play needs to be under-pinned by the bare minimum requirement of scoring more goals than the opposition. This is why football is so fascinating; you can dominate a match for 89 minutes not scoring but inducing worldy saves and hitting woodwork and defenders' backsides, yet if you switch off for a short while and concede, you end up losing. Would you deserve to lose in those circs? Refereeing abominations excepted, almost certainly yes because your opponents have achieved the aim of the game whereas you have not.


I think the key word here is 'deserved'. I feel that you only deserve to win a game you actually lose, if it is down to circumstances such as wrongly disallowed goals. For example, you are beating a team 1-0 and have been by far the better team, the referee then decides to give a penalty for handball when it hits the chest. I think in that circumstance, a 1-0 win was probably deserved.

However, when it is a game that has stayed 0-0 until the 89th minute after bombarding the oppositions goal mouth all game, hitting the crossbars etc, and then conceding a late goal on the counter attack, then I don't think it should be classed as an undeserved 1-0 defeat. I think it should be classed as, ' they did enough to win, but didn't take their chances, and were punished for it'.

Harry
UTS Veteran
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 11:44 pm

Re: Fleetwood Town (A) League One, Tues 15 March 7.45pm

Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:55 pm

booster cogburn wrote:That's the best counter-argument I've heard/read in fairness but it doesn't get around the fact that just because you're the better team on the day you don't automatically deserve to win. That good play needs to be under-pinned by the bare minimum requirement of scoring more goals than the opposition. This is why football is so fascinating; you can dominate a match for 89 minutes not scoring but inducing worldy saves and hitting woodwork and defenders' backsides, yet if you switch off for a short while and concede, you end up losing. Would you deserve to lose in those circs? Refereeing abominations excepted, almost certainly yes because your opponents have achieved the aim of the game whereas you have not.


I agree. I would not want football to be decided by a panel of experts who awarded a game on the basis of which team "deserved" to win - it is far more exciting for everything to depend on the goals scored, even if sometimes the team that has played the best football does not win the match. Just passing the ball around without scoring, is not the point of the game. Also luck plays a part in the game, and long may it continue.

Bee-Leevers wrote:I think the key word here is 'deserved'. I feel that you only deserve to win a game you actually lose, if it is down to circumstances such as wrongly disallowed goals. For example, you are beating a team 1-0 and have been by far the better team, the referee then decides to give a penalty for handball when it hits the chest. I think in that circumstance, a 1-0 win was probably deserved.

However, when it is a game that has stayed 0-0 until the 89th minute after bombarding the oppositions goal mouth all game, hitting the crossbars etc, and then conceding a late goal on the counter attack, then I don't think it should be classed as an undeserved 1-0 defeat. I think it should be classed as, ' they did enough to win, but didn't take their chances, and were punished for it'.


I agree. Generally speaking the team that scores the most goals does "deserve" to win, because if they have scored more goals, fair and square, then that is what the game is all about. However a losing team might well be "unlucky" and be "the better side on the day" and have "played the better football". In those circumstances you can understand why people say that they "deserved" to win. It is all just a matter of what we exactly mean by "deserve".

User avatar
Cheesebag
Site Addict
 
Posts: 4801
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: At poo poo's house, apparently ;)

Re: Fleetwood Town (A) League One, Tues 15 March 7.45pm

Tue Mar 22, 2016 1:16 pm

We probably didn't "deserve" to win this and we defiantly didn't "deserve" to win against Colchester, but I'll take not "Deserving" to win any matches for the rest of the season if it gets us up!!!!

Previous
Return to 2015-16 Season

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests