Cardiff never fail to amaze me. That just takes the biscuit.

[Pearcey3]

Of course. Have I suggested differently?

Odd line of attack by Wales Bales. You are one of the more astute posters on here.

[Wales-Bales]

I did wonder a while back whether you were a WUM.
Either my suspicions are confirmed or you are a complete eejit.

I shall give you the benefit of the doubt about the former and just say that a perfect penalty is one that gets the scoreboard ticking over!

FFS

Just watch the replay, a centimeter lower and the ball would have bounced on the other side of the goal line. I didn't say it was a perfect penalty, I said it was a good one. Hoilett was unlucky.

[Lawnmower]

I'm with you, I don't think we played well at all and Wolves were comfortable most of the night, then, as is their wont, they lost their discipline in added time and we weren't good enough to take advantage - Wolves weren't brilliant, but the only composure on show tonight came from them.

Why do you think Wolves were poor ?

It's because the way we set up dragged them into a battle. One which we had the upper hand on until around the 60th minute when they seemed to take a grip.

After that we had to push forward and they picked us off on the break.

Given the players they had we did well today and deserved a point, which is more than I could say about Monday when we didnt

[Wales-Bales]

Odd line of attack by Wales Bales. You are one of the more astute posters on here.

Not really, I said we need to beat Wolves & Villa and Eric disagreed. We may still beat Villa and/or Fulham may drop some points, but I still stand by initial statement.

[the other bob wilson]

Just watch the replay, a centimeter lower and the ball would have bounced on the other side of the goal line. I didn't say it was a perfect penalty, I said it was a good one. Hoilett was unlucky.

How on earth can a penalty which doesn't end up in the back of the net be a good penalty? It can be a decent penalty and the goalkeeper makes a great save, but good? The stats for penalties scored as opposed to missed tell you that the odds greatly favour the penalty taker and on those relatively rare occasions when one is missed, then the taker cannot be congratulated for taking a good penalty!

[Wales-Bales]

How on earth can a penalty which doesn't end up in the back of the net be a good penalty? It can be a decent penalty and the goalkeeper makes a great save, but good? The stats for penalties scored as opposed to missed tell you that the odds greatly favour the penalty taker and on those relatively rare occasions when one is missed, then the taker cannot be congratulated for taking a good penalty!

It was a better penalty that Madine's, which the keeper saved.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Not really, I said we need to beat Wolves & Villa and Eric disagreed. We may still beat Villa and/or Fulham may drop some points, but I still stand by initial statement.

You've turned that into me suggesting that it's ok if we lose to Wolves and Villa, which I've never said.

I still disagree with your view that we need to beat Wolves and Villa. It would have been a major advantage to have won both, even 1 win would be great. Even if we lost both we still have our destiny in our own hands, even if losing two is not ideal. Nowhere have I suggested losing both would be fine.

Your suggestion, by saying we need to win both, that only 1 win would not suffice is bollocks.

[Blue blood]

It was a better penalty that Madine's, which the keeper saved.

Not really, both were woeful but least Madine's was on target !

[the other bob wilson]

It was a better penalty that Madine's, which the keeper saved.

Really? Hoilett could have taken exactly the same penalty 100 times and it would never be a goal, at least with Madine it would have ended up in the net, say, a third of the time because of the keeper diving the wrong way, but are you really wanting to go down the route of arguing which one out of the two (that's two!) of our players who missed from the spot took the best penalty - they were both hopeless efforts!

[Wales-Bales]

You've turned that into me suggesting that it's ok if we lose to Wolves and Villa, which I've never said.

I still disagree with your view that we need to beat Wolves and Villa. It would have been a major advantage to have won both, even 1 win would be great. Even if we lost both we still have our destiny in our own hands, even if losing two is not ideal. Nowhere have I suggested losing both would be fine.

Your suggestion, by saying we need to win both, that only 1 win would not suffice is bollocks.

If we managed to beat did Wolves and Villa, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, everybody would be smiling

[Eric the Half a Bee]

If we managed to beat did Wolves and Villa, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, everybody would be smiling

We wouldn't have been having it had you not been so keen on wanting to have a pop at me.

[Blue blood]

Really? Hoilett could have taken exactly the same penalty 100 times and it would never be a goal, at least with Madine it would have ended up in the net, say, a third of the time because of the keeper diving the wrong way, but are you really wanting to go down the route of arguing which one out of the two (that's two!) of our players who missed from the spot took the best penalty - they were both hopeless efforts!

Quite agree, 2 poor penalties but if you don't hit the target then you've got no chance of scoring!

[Eric Cartman]

Hoilett took a great penalty, he was unlucky.

Get back to the politics forum where you can talk complete bollocks and no one notices

[NYCBlue]

It was a better penalty that Madine's, which the keeper saved.

How can a penalty missed be better than a penalty saved?

[Wales-Bales]

How can a penalty missed be better than a penalty saved?

You could see Madine's penalty was going to be saved as soon as he kicked it. Hoilett beat the keeper, and if the ball went one centimeter lower we would be talking about it for years to come.

[the other bob wilson]

You could see Madine's penalty was going to be saved as soon as he kicked it. Hoilett beat the keeper, and if the ball went one centimeter lower we would be talking about it for years to come.

Oh don't worry, we'll be talking about both penalties for years to come .

[Eric Cartman]

Oh don't worry, we'll be talking about both penalties for years to come .

Oh god
Please no

[NYCBlue]

You could see Madine's penalty was going to be saved as soon as he kicked it. Hoilett beat the keeper, and if the ball went one centimeter lower we would be talking about it for years to come.

But it didn't. It missed the target.

At least Madine's penalty required action from the keeper.

[Eric Cartman]

But it didn't. It missed the target.

At least Madine's penalty required action from the keeper.

Why you bother, dont worry be happy...

[NYCBlue]

Why you bother, dont worry be happy...

Easier said than done tonight. Let's see where we are at quarter to five tomorrow.

[lardy]

You could see Madine's penalty was going to be saved as soon as he kicked it. Hoilett beat the keeper, and if the ball went one centimeter lower we would be talking about it for years to come.

I thought Chris waddles pelanty in Italia 90 was a cracker, the keeper didn't get near it.

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

I actually saw Whitts have a penalty saved by Ruddy. It's the only one I remember him not scoring from

You couldn't have been at Palace then

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

It hit the underside of the crossbar, you are talking a very tiny margin of error here.

It missed the target

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

A centimeter lower and it would have been in. I think Hoilett did the right thing going high, as their keeper was good on the ground if he guessed right. I would have certainly gone above the keeper in the same situation.

I agree about going high but he kicked it TOO high

[Badly Ironed Shirt]

Odd line of attack by Wales Bales. You are one of the more astute posters on here.

Do me a favour!