Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Matt Clarke
- Thread starter redoubtable seagull
- Start date
Yes, checked by VAR and not a penalty. Booked for diving, wasn't he?*cough*
He was booked for diving in the 25th minute. A penalty wasn't given but that doesn't mean it wasn't a foul. Just means both the on pitch ref and the other idiot behind the screen got it wrong.
- Mar 1, 2021
- 557
No idiocy here. A marginal decision either way so not surprised that VAR stayed with ref decision. Or are you saying all decisions are clearly right or wrong?
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Yep because it is often forgotten football is a contact sport, contact is allowed between players and players are expected to accept a certain amount of contact and use their strength and balance to resist it - not just throw themselves to the ground. It is marginal whether Matip did enough to warrant Gordon going to ground. Once Gordon goes to ground it looks more of a foul, but imho opinion Matip is entitled to make contact with the player and it not be a foul, it's really just how much contact he is entitled to and how strong Gordon is expected to be, hence as you've said marginal.
Of course it's a contact sport, don't believe anyone is saying it isn't. However, it's how the contact is made. Shoulder to shoulder is fine but two hands pushing a player in the back isn't. However, that's exactly what Tarkowski did to Maupay in the first game of the season. Pulling a shirt should be a foul and a booking but when Alonso did it twice against us a few years ago we just got the free kick!
With regard to the Gordon incident, from what I heard, most pundits were of the opinion that it was a penalty but that the earlier dive for which he was booked put doubt in the onfield ref's mind.
Referees in this country are next to useless. VAR would work better if they had people with higher IQs watching the screen!!!
origigull
Well-known member
- Jun 29, 2009
- 1,250
Shoulder to shoulder should always be allowed but Matip appeared in this incident to have pushed his shoulder into Gordon's back hence the falling down. It shouldn't of mattered if Gordon had been booked earlier in the game. It was two separate incidents and should have been treated as such. How many times have we seen these kind of penalty appeals given especially to the top clubs.
mikeyjh
Well-known member
Dagnabbit, I make it my policy not to proof read posts, gives it a more organic feel but does make me look a tit at times.
Quite - Matt Clarke is a fine championship player but that's what stops him from being a fine PL player, IMO of course.
You’ve seen him play a lot more times than most of us. You know your football, I think you’re right.
I’m keen for us to move Matt on, even if it’s to a Champions League team with him playing alongside another former Portsmouth English centre back.
Last edited:
crodonilson
He/Him
Whatever you think of him Clarke has been an excellent ambassador for Brighton and Hove Albion football club in his loan deals away from his parent team.
mikeyjh
Well-known member
First bit true, second bit debatable - I always said that Mason Bennett was going to be fine footballer, I was wrong.
Good points - but still it's almost a mantra on here - 'He's not good enough for the PL'.
Badger Boy
Mr Badger
- Jan 28, 2016
- 3,658
It wasn't so long ago that the signing of Dan Burn was a massive head scratcher and Matt Clarke has had a much better career at the age Burn was. I have no doubt that Clarke could be a Premier League quality player, somehow Burn was and is!
Good points - but still it's almost a mantra on here - 'He's not good enough for the PL'.
Quite a few said the same of Adam Webster, his first season.
Will be very interesting to see which defenders the club want to start the season with. We have Clarke, Van Hecke and østigård who’s next step is the PL after performing well at a level just below. We need a Burn replacement on the left side of central defence and I get the impression Duffy still hasn’t got Potter’s full trust.
Of the three young players I think Van Hecke looks the most ‘Brighton/Potter’ player. I’ve watched a few Blackburn games this season and he does stand out for playing the ball out the back.
I also think Clarke deserves a chance after successive good seasons in the Championship.
Of the three young players I think Van Hecke looks the most ‘Brighton/Potter’ player. I’ve watched a few Blackburn games this season and he does stand out for playing the ball out the back.
I also think Clarke deserves a chance after successive good seasons in the Championship.
They did, mainly because he was a different person and player than the hero Shane Duffy. Change sometimes hurts.
GP decided to make Webster a starter immediately, while he has decided to send Clarke on loan over and over again, so obviously he sees Webster as the better player. Is he right? Anyones guess. It is however clear and obvious that none of the 20 PL clubs has considered Clarke to be good enough for the PL, because I don't see a world where Brighton would have turned down PL sized bids for him last summer.
I think Matt Clarke is a fine player, definitely above average in the Championship. But from what I've seen I think he'd struggle to establish himself in the PL - his positioning is so-so, he is quite slow and while he is a ball-playing defender, I'm not sure his level in that regard, though of course I wouldn't mind if he proved me wrong.
Player of the season is nice but it doesn't necessarily tell a whole lot when WBA has had a dire season compared to expectations.
My guess is that he will be transferred to a strong, competitive and ambitious Championship club this summer... like WBA, perhaps.
Burn managed the step up from Wiganocrity and improved in his time with us. Surely gotta be worth giving Clarke a chance?