Stockdale

[Acker79]

I think that you are all missing the point if we were winning 1 - 0 at half time, the opponents completely being out played a mistake in the 85th minute evens it up and gives the other team renewed impetus and subsequently score another goal in time added on to win. So instead of getting 3 points as seemed most likely prior to the mistake, when well on top we finish up losing so no points. So in effect that mistake has cost us 3 points. It us arguable point that 90 mins we had 1 point so cost us 1 point but without the mistake would probably have got 3.

No, the only way that goalkeeper error has cost three points is if you want to criticise the goal keeper.

The subsequent goal isn't the result of the first error, it's either a second error (by any number of players/officials), or is the result of good play from the opponents, or luck.

 

[Acker79]

First things first, I'm a Stockdale fan so no real bashing here, but I think it was the Charlton game when he could have done better - for the first he was very flat-footed.

Blackpool

That was a wind assisted fluke.

As TB says, the blackpool goal was wind assisted. Stockdale admitted fault for the first goal against charlton.

Another example of a mistake possibly costing 3 points. BHA against Hereford May ,1997 we stayed up by getting a draw then GD. Had Mark Ormerod made a mistake and dropped a ball in the net we would have been relegated as Hereford would have stayed up being 3 points better off than us. They would have got 3 instead of 1 we would have got none.

Nonsense.

Firstly, had we lost, we'd be on 46 and they would be on 48, a difference of 2, not 3.

Secondly, that mistake would have cost us one point.

The fact that there is a points difference is down to the league system, the results of two different teams over 46 games. To put the difference in points earned by two teams over 46 games on one error in one game is stretching beyond belief.

 

[BensGrandad]

We both finished on 47 had we lost we would have had 46 (-1) they would have had 49 (+2) so 3 different, I think

 

[Acker79]

We both finished on 47 had we lost we would have had 46 (-1) they would have had 49 (+2) so 3 different, I think

Yep. My bad, but the rest of the point remains. The points difference is not down to the keeper's error, it is down to the results of 46 matches.

 

[BensGrandad]

Yep. My bad, but the rest of the point remains. The points difference is not down to the keeper's error, it is down to the results of 46 matches.

I fully accept that but ultimately it could have been down to a goal keeping error that nailed relegation. That doesnt affect us now because as I have said DS has improved tremendously and long may it continue.

 

[Acker79]

I fully accept that but ultimately it could have been down to a goal keeping error that nailed relegation. That doesnt affect us now because as I have said DS has improved tremendously and long may it continue.

A) The discussion started because someone claimed a single goalkeeping error could or did cost 3 points. It can't.
b) No it wouldn't. You are relegated because over the course of 46 games you didn't earn enough points to stay up. While it may feel like it all comes down to the final game, the truth us that the points you drop in the final game are not worth any more than the points you drop in any of the previous 45 games.

 

[BensGrandad]

When we missed out on automatic under Gus did anybody remember the defeats early season no only the defeat at Forest etc. We are going around in circles so perhaps should agree to disagree.

 

[symyjym]

A) The discussion started because someone claimed a single goalkeeping error could or did cost 3 points. It can't.
b) No it wouldn't. You are relegated because over the course of 46 games you didn't earn enough points to stay up. While it may feel like it all comes down to the final game, the truth us that the points you drop in the final game are not worth any more than the points you drop in any of the previous 45 games.

I would like to see how this argument plays out if a game is considered a 6 pointer.

 

[BensGrandad]

I would like to see how this argument plays out if a game is considered a 6 pointer.

As per the forthcoming game at Wigan. Most on here are talking the actual word of the mouth technicalities. I am talking of the practicality of how it pans out if any goalkeepers drops a bloomer.

 

[Gazwag]

As per the forthcoming game at Wigan. Most on here are talking the actual word of the mouth technicalities. I am talking of the practicality of how it pans out if any goalkeepers drops a bloomer.

So our strikers could miss 17 open goals, two midfielders could get sent off as one kneels behind the ref while the other pushes him over and at the moment of truth while Dunk and Greer are having a tiff in the opposition penalty box a Wigan defender hoofs a clearance into the air a freak gust of wind caused by a passing 747 on route to Toronto blows the ball right onto the corner flag which causes the ball to fly towards a Wigan striker who hits a worldy strike from the edge of the box which hits both posts and the bar before rolling across the line millimetres from Stockdale's outstretched glove, which would have been 10 centimetres nearer to the ball had he not had to jump over Leon Best who was fast asleep on the goal line. But in your eyes it would still be Stockdale's fault and we would loose 6 points and end up relegated.

 

[BensGrandad]

Players missing chances do not give away a goal but a goal keeping mistake usually does and this is not highlighting DS but a general comment related to all keepers.

 

[beorhthelm]

No, the only way that goalkeeper error has cost three points is if you want to criticise the goal keeper.

The subsequent goal isn't the result of the first error, it's either a second error (by any number of players/officials), or is the result of good play from the opponents, or luck.

true a subsequent goal isnt the result of one scored. however a second goal can be considered a consequence of the first goal.

i can see your point about a goal conceded costs 2 points rather than 3, though i wonder would you say a goal scored only gains you 2 points? (from a draw score line obviously. from a winning position it would gain no points).

 

[Acker79]

true a subsequent goal isnt the result of one scored. however a second goal can be considered a consequence of the first goal.

i can see your point about a goal conceded costs 2 points rather than 3, though i wonder would you say a goal scored only gains you 2 points? (from a draw score line obviously. from a winning position it would gain no points).

I suppose I would. I generally think in terms of results rather than points (i.e. the goal was the difference between a draw and a win, accepting, of course, that in reality most games will have many many moments that feed into the actual result and the "without that goal" discussion is all hypothetical), except when trying to put numbers to it as part of a discussion - for example, when working out the difference Murray's goals after the January window made (without them, we'd've finished in the play offs) the goals that made it a win instead of a draw were two points. (It was a point I was making when discussing whether it was worth keeping Barnes and losing him for nothing like we did with Murray, my argument being the promotion we earned through keeping him probably balanced the money lost by not selling him in January)

 

[hans kraay fan club]

So our strikers could miss 17 open goals, two midfielders could get sent off as one kneels behind the ref while the other pushes him over and at the moment of truth while Dunk and Greer are having a tiff in the opposition penalty box a Wigan defender hoofs a clearance into the air a freak gust of wind caused by a passing 747 on route to Toronto blows the ball right onto the corner flag which causes the ball to fly towards a Wigan striker who hits a worldy strike from the edge of the box which hits both posts and the bar before rolling across the line millimetres from Stockdale's outstretched glove, which would have been 10 centimetres nearer to the ball had he not had to jump over Leon Best who was fast asleep on the goal line. But in your eyes it would still be Stockdale's fault and we would loose 6 points and end up relegated.

Ha. Indeed.

 

[Machiavelli]

What, Jamie O'Hara? Why do you like him so much?

I'm developing a theory on that.

 

[Everest]

So our strikers could miss 17 open goals, two midfielders could get sent off as one kneels behind the ref while the other pushes him over and at the moment of truth while Dunk and Greer are having a tiff in the opposition penalty box a Wigan defender hoofs a clearance into the air a freak gust of wind caused by a passing 747 on route to Toronto blows the ball right onto the corner flag which causes the ball to fly towards a Wigan striker who hits a worldy strike from the edge of the box which hits both posts and the bar before rolling across the line millimetres from Stockdale's outstretched glove, which would have been 10 centimetres nearer to the ball had he not had to jump over Leon Best who was fast asleep on the goal line. But in your eyes it would still be Stockdale's fault and we would loose 6 points and end up relegated.

That is utterly ridiculous.

It's lose, not loose.

 

[Zukey Seagull]

harsh tweet about stockdale
https://twitter.com/James_Fielden/status/586603071213588480/photo/1

 

[aolstudios]

harsh tweet about stockdale
https://twitter.com/James_Fielden/status/586603071213588480/photo/1

Pathetic. In a truly awful season he's kept us alive in enough games to keep us out of the bottom three