Ray Wilkins v Sun Journo on Talksport this morning

Was Wilkins pi55ed again?

The journalist sounded more pi55ed.

Wilkins got it right imo.

Haven't listened yet.

Quality.

I listen to the shortened version as a podcast most days and all it seems to be each day is a sycophantic sport jurno comming on with his nose up his fellow journo's arse saying what a great piece such and such wrote or what a great (spawny) headline they came up with.

coming

I know the journalist had his pride hurt but him saying to Ray 'who are you again' is embarrassing.
At the very least as a sport journalist you'd expect him to have to know, just emphasises Ray's point.

That was embarassing, journalist are very self-important though, football is about the players and the fans, if journalists didn't exist football would still be as successful and as popular as it is, take away players or the fans and it wouldn't.

Though to be honest, I think older ex players pre Sky money when wages went through the roof, do have a tendancy to sound quite bitter and jealous about it, Ray Houghton being one.

Custis is a complete a hole..  Thats not the first time he has had some sort of mental breakdown on Talksport.  He threw a total paddy last year when he was on the Hawksby and Jacobs show talking about Jose Mourinho going to Man United after they asked him a simple question about journalist coverage of the event.   The mans a tool.

Heres that one....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgtymAh3nY4

Ray totally correct imo

lol ...  he spits the dummy over players cooking eggs and arguing how its a story.. forgot how stupid Custis really sounded in that interview.

he does sound very intense and angry, talks in a way that says "listen to me, I am a CHIEF football writer, a journo of high standard, I must be respected"

prob 1%

Wilkins spot on.

Still haven't listened.Reading the transcript it looks like5-0 to Wilkins.That should be Curtis last stand!

Wilkins is wrong (so is the journalist) the wall was set up to defend the corner that the ball went in.
so the keeper, if he had done what wilkins suggested the goalkeeper should have been standing towards the keepers left post, to rashfords right protecting that sideof the goal.

the journalist is right is saying it was a great free kick, wilkins is wrong because he doesn't understand where the goalkeeper is standing, or where the wall is positioned in relation to the goal and the free kick spot.

when the ball goes into the corner that the wall is set up to protect, which it did in this case, according to wilkins the keeper is blameless, so he should stop talking nonsense and blaming the keeper.
(if you agree with the theory that the only responsibility for the keeper is to protect the side of the goal that the wall is not protecting)

Wilkins has played the game in England, Scotland, Italy, and France. Is an internationalist and has been involved in the management of the likes of Chelsea. Would think he knows what he's talking about.

akabula, I suggest you take a look at the free kick, and the positioning of the wall in relation to the goal and free kick spot

the unprotected side was the right hand side of the goal from rashfords view
the wall is protecting the left side of the goal from rashfords view.
the ball went into the left side of the goal

people are becoming confused because of the angle of rashfords stance, and run up to the ball

1971, if you had a left footer and a right footer standing over the free kick how do you no what side the wall is supposed to be protecting,thats the keepers side is just a load of journo,s speak that has become folklaw over the years,if it were true and keepers believed it to be true,they,D stand nearer the post on their supposed side and dive towards the middle if needed,because the other side of the goal is supposedly nothing to do with the,WALOFS

It's immaterial if the player is left or right footed, in the context you mean

However rashford is right footed. At the angle he stands it is not possible to bend the ball round the left side of the wall being right footed and the way he intends to strike the ball
He would be left footed

At his angle of run up it would be natural to bend around the wall on the right side of the wall
This is just another reason why the wall is basically protecting the left side of the goal and not the right

And why Wilkins is talking nonsense

Interesting points lfc.

Now the ball dies not curl round the wall, it curls over the wall

custis has got into a few ridiculous twitter spats with porky parry, so easily wound up

i,m arguing the keepers side argument its shoite,
if right footed ronny and left footed messi stand over a free kick how do you set a wall up to leave the keeper to cover one side,its the reason teams have a left ,and right footed player stood over a free kick,if a keeper followed the its your side of the goal argument to the tenth degree and didnt even attempt to save one on the other side,theres players out there who,d put a free kick in 9 times out of ten ,the reason its more like once in a blue moon is because keepers stand in the middle try to watch the takers tecqnique ,movement towards the ball and cover both sides of the goal,he,s only blameless if it goes in the postage stamp and thats the same if its in the postage stamp on his supposed side of the goal

I suggest lfc have a look on youtube.  The wall is protecting the right hand side of the goal.  The keeper should have saved it easily.  He moved half a step the wrong way and even then very nearly saved it.

If he hadn't moved the wrong way, he could have caught the ball!

I've watched it, the movement of the keeper. where he stands, how he moves left or right is of no importance to what is being discussed.

also whether a player is left or right footed is not important unless the ball is meant to bend round the wall

So once a wall is in place there is the option to go round , over ,past the wall
Whichever part of the goal that the wall is protecting from this, and making it difficult is in theory ,
if you accept this princilple where the keeper should not be standing, because it leaves an easy open area, in theory .
Now it matters not in this case where the keeper was, according to this theory , because the ball went over the wall
The part of the goal that the wall was protecting.
And according to Wilkins the keeper shouldn't have been there, so when he moved or didn't move is irrelevant ..to what he is saying

to simplify it.
Wilkins is looking at Rashford
Rashford is standing to the left of the ball by a good margin
Anyone standing so far left, the gap will appear to be to the left of the wall
It is not, it is an illusion
Rashford is standing there, the ball is not there.
that is the important thing
It is not important where the gap appears to be to Rashford where he is standing
It is where the gap appears to be where the ball is standing
It is how the gap appears to be as the ball sees it, not Rashford  .
That is what Wilkins doesn't understand.

Well Done Jack....Brilliant.

Spot on Jack.