Stagsnet report

[I am Spartacus]

Martin,

You describe the second challenge from Atkinson as ‘a foul but no more than that’, however look at this from the Referee’s point of view.

Remembering that despite football being a game where we all have differing opinions and viewpoints, some more partisan than others and some ‘better’ than others, that the only person whose viewpoint and opinion counts is that of the referee.

The referee had earlier cautioned Atkinson for a reckless challenge upon an opponent where thankfully for Atkinson, he was not off the floor and only using one foot in the challenge. At this point he would have been warned as to his future conduct by the referee.

Atkinson then, when he has let the Swindon player get the advantage in a chase up the pitch, deliberately trips him to break up play. The ball is not within playing distance and Atkinson takes the Swindon players back foot. It ‘reeks of an anywhere up the pitch’ to break up play foul. Which is unsporting at best and can be deemed by many, correctly in my opinion, as being cynical. It may be the fact that this foul can quite easily interpreted as cynical that sold it to the referee as a caution. Either way after the first reckless challenge, any challenge put in afterwards, unless delivered with Gary Pollard like accuracy, would be on the same level as playing Russian roulette with a handgrenade. It would be interesting as to what is put in the Referee’s report for the second caution. If the second caution is reported as unsporting behaviour then Mr Atkinson has brought it on himself as he made the Referee’s mind up for him. I don’t think we have at the club, thankfully, players clever enough to be this cynical and get away with it.

Every now and again I like to disagree with you as it is part of football. Thanks for the years of match reports and long may they continue.

[Martin Shaw]

you may be right Spartacus.

In my opinion, that challenge was never a yellow card in a million years. However the bottom line is that it said red card in the Sunday papers and there is no changing it.

[Martin Shaw]

I am not sure we went 4-3-2 formation in second half

Thought it was 3-4-2 with Benning and Hamilton playing wing backs, and perhaps 5-2-2 when defending at times.

no I don't think so Pete. Preston was at right back.

Elsnik made reference to it in his post match interview:

“I think we’ve done well. We went to a back four and Matty Preston’s a centre-back that had to play full-back so that’s never nice but I think he’s done well, too."

Caption competition ...

[stagsfan6493]

you may be right Spartacus.

In my opinion, that challenge was never a yellow card in a million years. However the bottom line is that it said red card in the Sunday papers and there is no changing it.

I agree that it was never a yellow card but why did Atko even make that challenge? It’s not exactly like they were through on goal and he needed to make it, the ball looked like it was going out of play!

[MTFCMusings]

He was never going to get a nice reception/mixed at Swindon, suprised you thought otherwise.

obviously CalderwoodsLeftFoot and IndianDan or whatever his name was, were booing loudly. But it was from about 20-50 people. The rest were indifferent, or at least didn't voice their feelings. And given that they booed Elsnik too, that put it in context.

To be clear, I never suggested he would get applause.

Just been studying the footage from both cameras of when the group of Swindon fans chant "stand up if you hate Flitcroft". As the camera pans around, almost nobody stands up. A classic case of the noisy 50 not representing the 6,000 fans in the ground.

Martin the majority clearly could not be arsed to stand for that chant - Flitcroft was not particularly liked at Swindon but obviously is not ‘hated’ throughout - however definitely more than 50 people were signing negatively about him.

It’s a bit like if he left Mansfield now, if he came back within a year he would get a few boos and songs for his abysmal record but the majority will be more focused on their own team.

Now if Evans came back the majority would be more focused on him than Mansfield unfortunately.

anyway, he didn’t get a mixed reaction like at Bury where some were appreciative of the promotion under his reign.

The people chanting they hate him and boo’ed Elsnik off were clearly idiots.

Even if it was 100 singing and/or standing up and/or booing, and that's a generous estimate, that is less than 2% of the Swindon fans at the game.

So 98% were indifferent. Hence the predicted description of "Flitcroft's return may well bring a largely indifferent reaction from the home faithful" by the Swindon Advertiser was pretty accurate. Had Musings taken the bet that it wouldn't be accurate, he'd have lost. I could have even handed Musings' money over there and then as I was next to the Swindon Advertiser reporter in the press box, and he kindly helped me out with the info on who the minute's applause on 56 minutes was for. I never thought Flitcroft would get applause and never suggested he would.

Don’t go giving my money away Martin! The bet was whether he would get booed or not. Your comment tells me he did, regardless of how many joined in that sounds like a victory to me.

[PRL13]

My thought is always " Why did he pick or even keep Atkinson". I`ve never thought that he was up to the general standard of our players.Yes a good point with ten men, but why ten men?

[stag861]

Martin,

You describe the second challenge from Atkinson as ‘a foul but no more than that’, however look at this from the Referee’s point of view.

Remembering that despite football being a game where we all have differing opinions and viewpoints, some more partisan than others and some ‘better’ than others, that the only person whose viewpoint and opinion counts is that of the referee.

The referee had earlier cautioned Atkinson for a reckless challenge upon an opponent where thankfully for Atkinson, he was not off the floor and only using one foot in the challenge. At this point he would have been warned as to his future conduct by the referee.

Atkinson then, when he has let the Swindon player get the advantage in a chase up the pitch, deliberately trips him to break up play. The ball is not within playing distance and Atkinson takes the Swindon players back foot. It ‘reeks of an anywhere up the pitch’ to break up play foul. Which is unsporting at best and can be deemed by many, correctly in my opinion, as being cynical. It may be the fact that this foul can quite easily interpreted as cynical that sold it to the referee as a caution. Either way after the first reckless challenge, any challenge put in afterwards, unless delivered with Gary Pollard like accuracy, would be on the same level as playing Russian roulette with a handgrenade. It would be interesting as to what is put in the Referee’s report for the second caution. If the second caution is reported as unsporting behaviour then Mr Atkinson has brought it on himself as he made the Referee’s mind up for him. I don’t think we have at the club, thankfully, players clever enough to be this cynical and get away with it.

Every now and again I like to disagree with you as it is part of football. Thanks for the years of match reports and long may they continue.

Under those rules their centre forward should have been off as well. first he went straight through Atkinson, then committed several more fouls in the first half.

[abc]

But abc will still say it was poor tactics by DF, even though we got a point away from home playing with 10 men for half a game.

I'd be interested to know what he'd have done as manager to get any more?

You've totally got the wrong point, a few weeks ago I suggested along with Anderson that I believed Preston could effectively play at right back and it was greeted by much cynicism by a couple of experts on here.

[Spiritater]

I am not sure we went 4-3-2 formation in second half

Thought it was 3-4-2 with Benning and Hamilton playing wing backs, and perhaps 5-2-2 when defending at times.

no I don't think so Pete. Preston was at right back.

Preston at RIGHT BACK !!!!

Seems a strange way of saying it then. From that post with the !!!s it seem you weren't happy. Forgive me if I'm wrong