Match Thread Aberdeen 1 - 1 Sevco

[Big Hat Logan]

54 minutes ago, perthshirered said:

We did engineer out own downfall, taking Sokler off for Polvara was akin to raising the white flag. His workrate was exceptional and had us defending that wee bit higher. 

Sokler has only played here and there, he can’t suddenly be expected to play 90 minutes at that workrate the entire game. He did well but you can’t seriously think we just suddenly decided to take him off for the craic?

33 minutes ago, WesthillWanderersFC said:

Miovski I’ll excuse as he’d had two games for Macedonia against Italy & England.

Sokler has no excuse, albeit he’s probably only played about 90 minutes all season here & there. 

 

He does have an excuse, he’s hardly got any match time. Looked good though, hopefully he can take his chance again.

33 minutes ago, minijc said:

Fucking hell, a 1-1 draw and you're right back in the camp thinking he's a decent manager, fair play bud.

What he said was it’s drivel you claiming that some think Robson’s a genius. Not a single poster has ever said that.

I want Robson to succeed as I believe we need a consistent and steady management team and we have had some good results albeit not enough. There was pretty much an entire rebuild of the squad and we have a manager that’s still learning and a cup final coming up yet you would think we are the worst team in the country the way some go on about it. And on. And on and on and on and on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[We Don't Need Eusabio]

26 minutes ago, DelMonte said:

That was McGrath was it not? 

I think that was a different foul

[Howard Marks]

12 minutes ago, King Street Loon said:

The VAR is ruining the game. It was supposed to be for clear and obvious errors. To take that long to look at it, then for the ref to take that long looking at it before inevitability pointing to the spot, to me means it's not clear and obvious. It was as though VAR was actively looking for a foul.

Spot on. Then slowing it right down, presumably not seeing if there was a reason for it not to be given prior, means that the system can be manipulated in favour of certain teams. In theory there could be a possible infringement at any place, at any time, if a team needs a result.

Would this pen have been given at a Livi v Ross County game for example? I seriously doubt it.

In every game since VAR has come in, are we supposed to believe that there has been zero fouls, no matter how minor, committed by hun players inside the penalty box?

[perthshirered]

14 minutes ago, King Street Loon said:

We'd lost control of midfield at that point. You can see he wanted another body in there to try and win it back. Didn't work though.

Wed surrendered the midfield, rather than lost control of it. Sticking on another midfielder to fall in deep only makes it worse. 

[Big Hat Logan]

Just now, Howard Marks said:

Spot on. Then slowing it right down, presumably not seeing if there was a reason for it not to be given prior, means that the system can be manipulated in favour of certain teams. In theory there could be a possible infringement at any place, at any time, if a team needs a result.

Would this pen have been given at a Livi v Ross County game for example? I seriously doubt it.

In every game since VAR has come in, are we supposed to believe that there has been zero fouls, no matter how minor, committed by hun players inside the penalty box?

Selective VAR is the real problem. As Robson said today if they look at that penalty incident then they have to look at all of them. Conveniently this doesn’t happen which is why you get 70 league games without conceding a single 1

[Byrne Baby Byrne]

12 minutes ago, Schapenneuker said:

 

Fast forward to today, and the VAR official (Dallas) manages to pick up a microscopic/minor incident and brings it to the referee's attention. By the absolute letter of the law of course, it's an infringement and Walsh upon seeing it has no alternative but to award a penalty. 

Nail on the head. 
 

technically it is a penalty so not much you can say. But if that happened the other way or if that happened in a motherwell v Livingston game does it get called back?

 

We all know the answer. it never gets raised, noticed or spoken about. You have to be squeaky clean if you have the audacity to be winning against them 

[minijc]

4 minutes ago, Big Hat Logan said:

Sokler has only played here and there, he can’t suddenly be expected to play 90 minutes at that workrate the entire game. He did well but you can’t seriously think we just suddenly decided to take him off for the craic?

He does have an excuse, he’s hardly got any match time. Looked good though, hopefully he can take his chance again.

What he said was it’s drivel you claiming that some think Robson’s a genius. Not a single poster has ever said that.

I want Robson to succeed as I believe we need a consistent and steady management team and we have had some good results albeit not enough. There was pretty much an entire rebuild of the squad and we have a manager that’s still learning and a cup final coming up yet you would think we are the worst team in the country the way some go on about it. And on. And on and on and on and on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well the way some folk act it's as if he is a genius.

That second half wasn't far off what Goodwin served up.

[Byrne Baby Byrne]

Just now, Big Hat Logan said:

Selective VAR is the real problem. As Robson said today if they look at that penalty incident then they have to look at all of them. Conveniently this doesn’t happen which is why you get 70 league games without conceding a single 1

Selective VAR! Yes! Great term

Well horrible. But that is absolutely what it is

[Millertime]

1 hour ago, perthshirered said:

We did engineer out own downfall, taking Sokler off for Polvara was akin to raising the white flag. His workrate was exceptional and had us defending that wee bit higher. 

Yeah but he was knackered

Which raises the question why are our players always so tired?

What was all that bluster and self-congratulatory "double sessions " talk all about?

[Big Hat Logan]

Just now, Byrne Baby Byrne said:

Nail on the head. 
 

technically it is a penalty so not much you can say. But if that happened the other way or if that happened in a motherwell v Livingston game does it get called back?

 

We all know the answer. it never gets raised, noticed or spoken about. You have to be squeaky clean if you have the audacity to be winning against them 

This is why the VAR review panel picked just three incidents, none of them involving the OF. I blame it on corruption and a genuine fear of the lunatics that follow these clubs and the reaction they would have.

[Millertime]

17 minutes ago, Schapenneuker said:

This is the issue. Somebody, somewhere posted a video of St J v The Huns where the fermer was literally pulled to the ground as a corner came in.....the VAR official declined to inform the referee (Walsh by coincidence) that an offence may have taken place and may have been missed. 

It was clearly a penalty by any definition of the laws, but the 'subjective' opinion of the VAR official was that there was nothing to see. 

Fast forward to today, and the VAR official (Dallas) manages to pick up a microscopic/minor incident and brings it to the referee's attention. By the absolute letter of the law of course, it's an infringement and Walsh upon seeing it has no alternative but to award a penalty. 

So the question AFC and every other non bigot brother club in Scotland should be asking, is for the SFPL/SFA to clearly explain why one incident is deemed worthy of being classed a 'clear and obvious error' by the VAR official, and the other.....we could also add the Duk non-penalty at Ibrox.....isn't. 

There's either consistency, or there isn't. It's not good enough for the SFA to say that VAR is working 'well', when we have such ridiculous differences in how incidents are treated. 

Where's the fucking transparency ? There's none. And all of our emotions that we have tied up in our teams.....not to mention managers and players livelihoods.....are 100% in the hands of cunts like Dallas and Aitken. 

Insane. 

 

 

 

Got a video of the st Johnstone one?

[perthshirered]

Just now, Millertime said:

Yeah but he was knackered

Which raises the question why are our players always so tired?

What was all that bluster and self-congratulatory "double sessions " talk all about?

Fair enough, he was knackered then put on Gueye to run about closing down, that's all he needed to be doing. 

They are knackered because the players he trusts he runs into the ground and the rest never get more than ten minutes here and there. 

[Big Hat Logan]

1 minute ago, minijc said:

Well the way some folk act it's as if he is a genius.

That second half wasn't far off what Goodwin served up.

Nobody acts like that, he just gets some credit when he gets it right. It seems to trigger some posters very easily for some reason.

1 minute ago, Byrne Baby Byrne said:

Selective VAR! Yes! Great term

Well horrible. But that is absolutely what it is

It absolutely is, a horrible yet accurate term.

1 minute ago, Millertime said:

Yeah but he was knackered

Which raises the question why are our players always so tired?

What was all that bluster and self-congratulatory "double sessions " talk all about?

Maybe because Sokler has hardly played many minutes on match day? Are you really this think or just pretending?

[Howard Marks]

1 minute ago, Big Hat Logan said:

Selective VAR is the real problem. As Robson said today if they look at that penalty incident then they have to look at all of them. Conveniently this doesn’t happen which is why you get 70 league games without conceding a single 1

+1

1 minute ago, Byrne Baby Byrne said:

You have to be squeaky clean if you have the audacity to be winning against them 

I was saying this after the game. With system the way it is, it can absolutely get manipulated.

Say what you want about Harry Maguire but his comments last week about defending are spot on. With the speed of the game and VAR the way it is, you basically have to be perfect to be a defender these days.

[dave_min]

This is like Bret Hart in Montreal on repeat.

It's deja vu all over again.

[G man]

4 minutes ago, minijc said:

Well the way some folk act it's as if he is a genius.

That second half wasn't far off what Goodwin served up.

Now that last sentence is really scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

[aberdeen1970]

I thought his subs were logical at the times we made them. All seemed sensible watching the game from the stand.

McGarry for Duncan was absolutely required. 

I doubt anyone expected Sokler to last 90 minutes and we needed an extra man in midfield. 

And Duk was always going to come on for whichever striker was still left on as they were both fucked. 

Only question was whether Barron should have came as well.  But hardly a series of questionable subs as is being made out. 

[Byrne Baby Byrne]

1 minute ago, dave_min said:

This is like Bret Hart in Montreal on repeat.

It's deja vu all over again.

Vince McMahon on VAR shouting ring the bell

[WesthillWanderersFC]

18 minutes ago, Schapenneuker said:

This is the issue. Somebody, somewhere posted a video of St J v The Huns where the fermer was literally pulled to the ground as a corner came in.....the VAR official declined to inform the referee (Walsh by coincidence) that an offence may have taken place and may have been missed. 

It was clearly a penalty by any definition of the laws, but the 'subjective' opinion of the VAR official was that there was nothing to see. 

Fast forward to today, and the VAR official (Dallas) manages to pick up a microscopic/minor incident and brings it to the referee's attention. By the absolute letter of the law of course, it's an infringement and Walsh upon seeing it has no alternative but to award a penalty. 

So the question AFC and every other non bigot brother club in Scotland should be asking, is for the SFPL/SFA to clearly explain why one incident is deemed worthy of being classed a 'clear and obvious error' by the VAR official, and the other.....we could also add the Duk non-penalty at Ibrox.....isn't. 

There's either consistency, or there isn't. It's not good enough for the SFA to say that VAR is working 'well', when we have such ridiculous differences in how incidents are treated. 

Where's the fucking transparency ? There's none. And all of our emotions that we have tied up in our teams.....not to mention managers and players livelihoods.....are 100% in the hands of cunts like Dallas and Aitken. 

Insane. 

 

 

 

The clubs in general, including ours, are far too weak.

If they went to the SFA as one, and let them know the standards (& double standards) of refereeing in this country, are unacceptable, as is appointing known Huns to officiate their games most weeks. 

They HAVE to be stronger & more vocal about it. 
 

[Howard Marks]

This is like Bret Hart in Montreal on repeat.

It's deja vu all over again.

[Schapenneuker]

4 minutes ago, Millertime said:

Got a video of the st Johnstone one?

 

[perthshirered]

4 minutes ago, Millertime said:

Got a video of the st Johnstone one?

look who the ref was. 

 

 

[minijc]

4 minutes ago, G man said:

Now that last sentence is really scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

It's not though, is it?  Defensive and negative as fuck, no thought to try change the game, happy to sit in and hope for the best, well it failed again.

[King Street Loon]

10 minutes ago, Millertime said:

Got a video of the st Johnstone one?

https://twitter.com/KerryFail/status/1718995301816508681?t=bUO-M5DQ7EwrMA7U2giORA&s=08

This one maybe.

[King Street Loon]

8 minutes ago, aberdeen1970 said:

I thought his subs were logical at the times we made them. All seemed sensible watching the game from the stand.

McGarry for Duncan was absolutely required. 

I doubt anyone expected Sokler to last 90 minutes and we needed an extra man in midfield. 

And Duk was always going to come on for whichever striker was still left on as they were both fucked. 

Only question was whether Barron should have came as well.  But hardly a series of questionable subs as is being made out. 

Agreed

[englishred]

Robson was saying we can't play the pressing game for 90 mins to which Billy Dodds was saying on sportsound that shouldn't be used as an excuse as we have 5 subs available.  I have to agree with Billy there though we could have continued pushing for a lot longer that would also have affected how rangers were playing as they would have been far more cautious  

[G man]

2 minutes ago, minijc said:

It's not though, is it?  Defensive and negative as fuck, no thought to try change the game, happy to sit in and hope for the best, well it failed again.

Considering many on this forum before the game were claiming we would be well beaten l find it hard to believe that losing a controversial penalty in the 95th minute to draw 1-1 is a failure.?!?!

[strachanmcgheegoal]

27 minutes ago, The Gee Man said:

If this is true (sure it is), it’s exactly the question we should ask the referees association, var and spl to explain. Don’t pick one issue show them double standards and ask for written explanation that can be shown to fans who off course when it suits are the life blood of the game (lol). Or in reality “Money makes the world go round “

Inevitable Sportscene answer (already presented by Dodds on Rayjo). Because Celtic got a similar one yesterday and by the letter of the law…..

My further questions are why pick up this incident?  You’re telling me no shirts were pulled earlier in the game?

Secondly, why does the ref not have balls to call the block first?  People are saying Walsh had to give it once called over. No he didn’t.  Perfect out right there.  I’m also happy if he wants to call the dive a dive.  Or even, correctly, see that Goldson wasn’t getting to the ball.  Jesus, there’s 3 outs now.

ah but this was an important game ……had to make the right call….

Fuck off.  It’s important to get the right regardless of the game.  VAR doesn’t exist to make the league more exciting.

[aberdeen1970]

Just now, G man said:

Considering many on this forum before the game were claiming we would be well beaten l find it hard to believe that losing a controversial penalty in the 95th minute to draw 1-1 is a failure.?!?!

We weren't intentionally set up defensively imo, I think that accusation is wrong. We had a high line first half with the intention of playing in their half and getting our strikers in behind their defence and we certainly tried to do that.  I thought we shaded the first half, started well, let them into it a bit too much the middle of the first half but finished the half stronger. 

Second half we tried to play the same but the defensive line gradually went further and further back as our forward and midfield players tired .  

The Polvara for Sokler sub was the first time we intentionally decided to sit in and was pretty much the tactic thereafter.  And despite them hitting the bar a couple of times I was never really that worried in open play, they were rarely getting in behind our defence despite their possession. Mainly side to side stuff.  

 

 

[minijc]

11 minutes ago, G man said:

Considering many on this forum before the game were claiming we would be well beaten l find it hard to believe that losing a controversial penalty in the 95th minute to draw 1-1 is a failure.?!?!

We sat back against a better side trying not to lose a goal, I bet you think the tactics we used against celtic worked as well.