| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
...sorry paul..just wondering if you're aware of the chaos theory...if the chelsea pen is rightly given and it's scored or missed..the whole game pans out different to the one we saw..including iffy decisions.Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
...it's akin to saying if we'd scored those 2 last min pens against wolves we would have won...wrong..if we'd scored the first one the second wouldn't have happened.
I agree about the Wolves game - it finishes 1-1 if Madine scores his penalty.
However, the Chelsea game is different surely. Chelsea are awarded a penalty for Gunnar's foul and score from it, so that means that, at best from a City perspective, all of the game's other controversial incidents, apart from one, occur with us either drawing or losing (i.e. a situation where we would be expected to have a more attacking attitude than we would have had in the way the match panned out in reality). If anything, that would mean us pumping or throwing more high balls into the Chelsea goalmouth from dead ball situations and more opportunities for the sort of challenges on Morrison that the pundits on Match of the Day agreed should have resulted in two penalties for us (I don't see that a difference in the score at the time would affect the way Chelsea "handled" the threat posed by our captain).
I accept that Chelsea would not have been as light at the back when Rudiger brought down Zohore late on if the score had been 2-1 to them rather than 1-1, but I don't believe that it was solely the fact that they were losing which enabled Chelsea to gain the corner they equalised from - they would have just as likely have got it if the score was 1-1 at the time and the linesman would have made the same, truly dreadful, error either way.
I don't think you're getting this at all.....
...hallelujah!!!...dave..he's not got it at all
Interesting that you refer to the Wolves game as the example to back up what you say. As I mentioned, I agree that the second penalty would not have happened if we'd scored the first one and, in fact, said that very thing either on my blog or on here in the days following the game. However, whereas you appear to put this down to chaos theory, I base my opinion on the view that if Madine had scored, especially with so little time left, both sides would have been happy to settle for a 1-1 draw rather than risk losing the game in pursuit of a winner.
The game you refer to would have ended with two teams prepared to see the remaining minute or two out with an outcome they could both live with. This, plainly, would not have been the case if Chelsea had taken the lead early on with a penalty awarded for the foul by Gunnar. It is my opinion that two things would have happened then.
First, a lifetime watching the game has shown me that, unless they are trying to turn around an aggregate deficit in a two leg tie, teams become more circumspect to different degrees when they go ahead in a match. Second, nearly three years of watching Neil Warnock's City side has taught me that we go even more direct if we fall behind. Therefore, we would have been likely to see more dead ball deliveries into the Chelsea penalty area not less and, given the way they "marked" Sean Morrison throughout that afternoon there would be a strong chance of more penalty shouts for the officials to deal with.
I say this not because I don't "get" chaos theory, but because I believe more in the practicalities of football - you and Dave are the ones trying to use references to complex mathematical theory to, for some reason, deny what was obvious to anyone who was watching the match impartially, not me.
You've lost it.
This is not about complex mathematical theories. It's about reality. If the penalty was given to Chelsea for the early foul, the whole game changes immediately regardless of whether Chelsea score it or not. That's not an opinion based on watching the game or otherwise. It's just the way the world works.
You'd better tell your mate it's not about complex mathematical theories, because he's the one saying it is, not me.
In reality, what you're saying is that there is no point in debating anything that happens in a game because it never would have done so if, say, the player starting the game had tapped the ball to a team mate on his right rather than his left - I'm the one whose lost it?
Oh get a grip, you daft old sod. You know as well as I do that had an early penalty been awarded to Chelsea, the incidents that occurred later in the game would never have happened. Of course, similar incidents might have taken place at some point in the game, but that's just conjecture.
Had the early penalty been given, Chelsea might have scored it. Or they may have missed it. Or Etheridge may have saved it. Or the ball might have hit the woodwork and bounced back into play. The game might have restarted with City kicking off. Or it may have restarted with a goal kick. Or it may have restarted with Etheridge punting the ball upfield or out of play. Or maybe it had already restarted because the ball had hit the post. We'll never know what would have happened next, and that's the point. But what we do know is that the game would have been different. Such is the random nature of football and life in general that pretty much anything was possible from that point - a comfortable Chelsea win, a narrow Chelsea win, a goalless draw, a score draw (although City don't do those), a narrow City win, a comfortable City win, etc.
..there's fact and conjecture
Right, so are you going to tell the German pensioner who has spent their life with a sense of grievance over the how they were robbed in the 1966 World Cup Final that they are wrong to do so because it never would have happened if someone in the crowd that day had decided to have one sugar in their half time cup of tea rather than their normal two or shall I?
As previously suspected, you’ve lost it.Right, so are you going to tell the German pensioner who has spent their life with a sense of grievance over the how they were robbed in the 1966 World Cup Final that they are wrong to do so because it never would have happened if someone in the crowd that day had decided to have one sugar in their half time cup of tea rather than their normal two or shall I?
Slightly ironic.
How long until someone brings the many worlds interpretation into this discussionRight, so are you going to tell the German pensioner who has spent their life with a sense of grievance over the how they were robbed in the 1966 World Cup Final that they are wrong to do so because it never would have happened if someone in the crowd that day had decided to have one sugar in their half time cup of tea rather than their normal two or shall I?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote