• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Gallas

Re: Gallas & Van Persie...

BedfordBen said:
Here you go:

http://www.101greatgoals.com/gvideo...bin-van-persie-manchester-united-v-tottenham/

I think he aimed slightly too high and only clipped the ball before taking the man. Not a foul, but at OT in the box it was a risky one!
Click to expand...

It was a bit high, but all the arse/manure macarons that are saying it was two-footed and he got no ball are plain stupid. Gallas had to bomb in there and he got just enough of the ball, had to take a chance there. Not sure what Dempsey was thinking.
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • gallas.jpg
    gallas.jpg
    95.1 KB · Views: 160
Re: Gallas & Van Persie...

To be fair, a lot of United fans are saying it was a good tackle.
 
Re: Gallas & Van Persie...

Pirate55 said:
Perfectly legal tackle. A real belter. An old fashioned reducer. How many times have we seen this sort of tackle on Bale, Lennon, Defoe etc.

Well played Sir William
Click to expand...
I love Sir William . Played his heart out , captain performance , youngsters pay homage and learn cos our Billy hasn't got long left ....
 
Re: Gallas & Van Persie...

Gazza Dazzla said:
Beginning to wonder if you actually saw the tackle? Did you really just make that comparison? Gallas got the ball and his follow thru caught the player.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what you're trying to ask with the first question...
He got the ball but, he went over it as well which makes it a bad tackle imo, Flamini's was also a one footed iirc he also got the ball but, went over it and broke Corluka's foot, gallas could have easily broken Van Persie's foot, just because gallas was wearing a spurs shirt doesn't make it a better tackle obviously they aren't the same tackle but, the comparison is easily made. Gallas did very well to block and get the ball but, it was a bad tackle would have been extremely harsh if Gallas was punished at all for it as it didn't look like it had intent.

Great way to go about disagreeing with someone's point you have by the way.

Edit: Fair enough, didn't realise flamini's was two footed, the point still stands though.
 
Last edited:
Gallas was at fault for 3 of their goals today.

1st goal: Heads it into the middle of the area for Cahill to strike.
2nd goal: Instead of smashing it into row Z he plays it in front of Mata to slot in.
3rd goal: Keeps Mata onside and is completely static.

We really need Kaboul back, or at least give Dawson a go in the team.
 
N10 Yiddo said:
Gallas was at fault for 3 of their goals today.

1st goal: Heads it into the middle of the area for Cahill to strike.
2nd goal: Instead of smashing it into row Z he plays it in front of Mata to slot in.
3rd goal: Keeps Mata onside and is completely static.

We really need Kaboul back, or at least give Dawson a go in the team.
Click to expand...

1) No
2) No
3) Yes
 
N10 Yiddo said:
Gallas was at fault for 3 of their goals today.

1st goal: Heads it into the middle of the area for Cahill to strike.
2nd goal: Instead of smashing it into row Z he plays it in front of Mata to slot in.
3rd goal: Keeps Mata onside and is completely static.

We really need Kaboul back, or at least give Dawson a go in the team.
Click to expand...


1st goal: Caulker sticks to his man, he blocks it easily.
2nd goal: Verts was in no mans land, tinkling about and was nowhere when he should have been stopping those kind of crosses coming in.

So he was not solely at fault for 2 of them.
 
1st goal - caulker and any other defender does not expect Gallas to line one up for the opposition to volley. It was a simple header and there was also another defender in a better position.

2nd goal - look at his body position, he twisted and contorted to clear it down the centre, when he could have easily "gone with the flow" and struck it to the side or for a corner....in this case, it was a case of spirit-willing-flesh-weak!

3rd goal - legs have gone. 60 mins max. now composure too.
 
metalgear said:
1st goal - caulker and any other defender does not expect Gallas to line one up for the opposition to volley. It was a simple header and there was also another defender in a better position.

2nd goal - look at his body position, he twisted and contorted to clear it down the centre, when he could have easily "gone with the flow" and struck it to the side or for a corner....in this case, it was a case of spirit-willing-flesh-weak!

3rd goal - legs have gone. 60 mins max. now composure too.
Click to expand...


Not expecting something doesn't mean you should leave your man unmarked.
 
Spursalot said:
Not expecting something doesn't mean you should leave your man unmarked.
Click to expand...

true but it sure is a lot harder. i mean what kind of colleague makes your life hell and gets away with it.

by the same token, for second goal, Gallas then should have anticipated better to deal with the clearance more naturally
 
metalgear said:
true but it sure is a lot harder. i mean what kind of colleague makes your life hell and gets away with it.

by the same token, for second goal, Gallas then should have anticipated better to deal with the clearance more naturally
Click to expand...


I don't get this.


Stick with your man until the ball is clear, then move out.


There is no solo responsibility for two of the four goals. imo.
 
Spursalot said:
I don't get this.


Stick with your man until the ball is clear, then move out.


There is no solo responsibility for two of the four goals. imo.
Click to expand...

agree its always team defending, but you try tracking players with the ball going over your head and coming from three different directions (East, West then North) you know its always going to be difficult. Gallas gets the biggest share of the blame.

in fully assessing this play you have to consider the alternative - letting the ball carry on in the same direction but upfield. its both the easiest and safest option for a defender to take. and one that that best defenders take most often.

i see gallas and i see and old body struggling to keep up...gallas can still be useful but he needs to understand his limits. the speed and frequency of chelsea's attacks proved too much for him, and that's how the other teams will attack us now - passes and crosses in Gallas direction, and then hoping to pounce on the loose ball.
 
He is long past his sell by date and has caused us alot of goals this season.

Plain and simply, Vertonghen must return to CB against Soton.
 
The different interpretation of who were responsible for the goals is interesting. Perhaps it illustrates that most goals occur when more than one player makes a mistake or takes a non-optimal choice. So its the pattern that matters. It might be fairer to say Gallas was partly responsible for the three goals, but still suggests he was the weak link yesterday. Of course there is no way of knowing if an alternative player would have done better overall.

While I agree that we should move Vertonghen to the centre, I do hope its not a "must" move for the Southampton game.
 
Just to add to the case for all round errors

Goal 3-
Hazard drops of caulker and in to the hole brilliantly. His movement and foresight were better than the pass.
However, there was no thfc player anywhere near him, even though he was 25yards for goal.
Having looked at it, there is a case for caulk, verts or sandro to do more by affecting that pass.

But credit where its due, hazard and mata were both too quick and to intelligent for u.s.
 
Re: Gallas & Van Persie...

And Gallas, who captained Spurs against his former club, believes all the goals were easily avoidable.

"I'm very disappointed because even if I think we didn't start the first half very well, we came back well in the second half," he told Spurs TV.

"We equalised and we scored the second goal, and then I think we made so many mistakes.

"We could not keep the ball in front and it was difficult for us because they had a lot of chances, and they had the occasion to equalise and then to score the third goal. On all the goals we conceded I think we made a mistake.

"When you play against Chelsea you have to be strong for 90 minutes, and we made so many mistakes. We didn't keep the ball very well and they started to play in our half again. They had some chances to score, and in the end we lost 4-2.

"We have to put this behind us. It's difficult to accept it, especially when you play against Chelsea - when it's a derby you always want to win. But we have to forget that game and think about another one."

I see Gallas is oblivious to the fact that he was probably our worst player on Saturday
 
What shocked me the most about Gallas was that even "little" Oscar was knocking him of the ball. GAllas showed zero physical strength
 
monkeybarry said:
Just to add to the case for all round errors

Goal 3-
Hazard drops of caulker and in to the hole brilliantly. His movement and foresight were better than the pass.
However, there was no thfc player anywhere near him, even though he was 25yards for goal.
Having looked at it, there is a case for caulk, verts or sandro to do more by affecting that pass.

But credit where its due, hazard and mata were both too quick and to intelligent for u.s.
Click to expand...

what's interesting is that it is precisely what we did not do at old trafford. we kept things tight and compact in that zone of the pitch when we had the lead...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back