Stoke City 0-3 West Ham Utd (16/12/17)

Relive every moment of every first team game since the beginning of the 2005/06 season. Our archive of matchday threads originally posted in the General Discussion Forum.

Moderator: Gnome

Post Reply
User avatar
Harry Hound
Posts: 4020
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:25 pm
Location: "If you don't know the game, then you're still part of it"
Has liked: 67 likes
Total likes: 10 likes

Re: Stoke City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by Harry Hound »

ammo wrote:Having now watched the penalty decision replay I agree it was ‘a dive’ and would not have been happy if it was against us..
It's worth mentioning that the first dive I remember seeing in England was Mark Hughes playing for Man Utd :lol:
User avatar
likemydreams
Posts: 2263
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:13 pm
Has liked: 12 likes
Total likes: 46 likes

Re: Stoke City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by likemydreams »

SpongeBob's Pants wrote:Agree with Billy above. It was a dive. And we should call it out for that.

I hope Moyes has a word quietly and tells him less of that.
disagree, we went 50 odd games without a penalty and how many hve been awarded to us in that time ? i dont like cheats but f*** it weve been on the end of endless bad decisions so its nice to flip the coin ar last :scarfer:
User avatar
Skandi Brudson
Posts: 1479
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:41 pm
Location: Lurksville
Has liked: 472 likes
Total likes: 188 likes

Re: Stoke City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by Skandi Brudson »

On balance I’d say it was more of a dive than not but not clear cut enough for a ban.

Not in the same league as Ndidi.
User avatar
eastsider
Posts: 1654
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 7:30 pm
Location: London E4
Has liked: 54 likes
Total likes: 6 likes

Re: Stoke City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by eastsider »

I don't like diving and worried the ref may try to even it up in the second half.
Got to say though that we have had so many rubbish decisions over recent years and so many penalties not given that I am not going to worry too much about it on this occasion.
Don't want to see it again in a hurry though.
:crest:
hammerman11
Posts: 15811
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:01 pm
Has liked: 25 likes
Total likes: 744 likes

Re: Stoke City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by hammerman11 »

not enough for a ban but I don't want to see us doing that in a hurry.

we would have won anyway as we had numerous chances and missed most of them.

good performance
User avatar
e-20
Posts: 2835
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:01 pm
Location: London ish
Has liked: 14 likes
Total likes: 4 likes
Contact:

Re: Stoke City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by e-20 »

Yea Why Not wrote: "Westferry Iron"]Just back from Stoke, hahaha, effin magic. Re the pen, I was in Row 5 behind the goal in line with Lanzini's run. There is no way that was a dive. Be interesting to see it on MotD now but from 10 yards away it looked a stonewall pen, I'd be amazed if he gets done for it.

It was 100% a dive. As clear as you'll see. If he doesn't get done for that then they may as well bin the rule
And yet having watched it from the various angles about 10 times I see none of your clarity of vision on this matter in a environment where professionals and commentators are urging players to go down when they feel any touch (as they did in the Spurs match on BT ironically) or a defender is deliberately, as in this case blocking your progress by going to ground without any intention of actually going for the ball.

While we can see that Lanzini anticipated the challenge as most players do these days, he would have naturally been in contact with the player but a fraction later and naturally hesitating, due to it more likely to have caused injury at full pace and in a way that would be thus less obviously a pen as the ref would feel he wasn't so in control of the ball at the time and would cop out from a decision. Or alternatively Lanzini would have had to take evasive action just enough to make retaining procession impossible and that is exactly what that type of tackle is aimed at doing creating hesitation and deterring commitment. It's a cynical practice that got the response it deserved in my opinion. It wasn't 100% a pen but equally it wasn't 100% 'not' a pen it could have gone either way. I think they were most angry they didn't get the foul they wanted at the beginning of that move.
User avatar
vietnammer
Bucky the beaver
Posts: 31667
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 2:31 am
Location: Those little golden birdies look at them
Has liked: 621 likes
Total likes: 579 likes

Re: Stoke City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by vietnammer »

Harry Hound wrote:It's worth mentioning that the first dive I remember seeing in England was Mark Hughes playing for Man Utd :lol:
Think it was When Saturday Comes way back early 90's that specified 'a Hughes' as laying down in the penalty box whenever Man U got caught on the break. "No-one has ever seen a Hughes, because the camera is on the breaking team, and the commentator always says 'And Hughes is down' "
User avatar
richneal
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:33 am
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia. 5,000 miles from goal.
Has liked: 3 likes
Total likes: 12 likes

Re: Stoke City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by richneal »

Could have had seven . . . and by the same standard Stoke could have had at least three.

In retrospect, it's easy to see that Hughes lost this match tactics-wise and strategically. If he had started with Charlie Adams we would have seen even more of an entertaining roller coaster of a match, and probably more of a contest. As it was we had end-to-end entertainment for at least 70 mins of the full 90. Can't say if it would have been a different result if Adams had started, but . . .

Even when the match was still up for grabs, our counter-attacks were spot on. As much as I blame Hughes for getting it wrong, I have to congratulate Moyes and his team for getting the tactics just right. Between Arnie, Antonio, Lanzini, Masuaku ( and Sakho & Hernandez when they came on) they collectively shredded Stoke time and time again. Hughes chose not to address this - either in the first half or at half time - and suffered the consequences.

Stoke were simply wasteful in front of the net (yeah, i know, pot calling the kettle etc). Their best striker was Shawcross. Preying Mantis was effing useless against our back 3 - we saw Creswell beat him to headers. BTW, you'll join me in sending sincere thanks to Shawcross for playing Arnie a mile onside for that well-taken and well-deserved goal.

Lanzini's dive was atrocious and should not be tolerated. This has to stop - it's the most under-hand form of cheating and I have absolutely no problem with the FA throwing the book (or, the entire library) at him. And I do have sympathy for Hughes when he correctly states that the dive and consequent spot kick changed the nature of the game for Stoke.

There were lots of good points about our play today - a shame because all will be overshadowed by Lanzini's dive. All three goals came as the direct result of fast breaks - great to see the opposition defence split with great through balls and pace. Adrian could have stayed in the showers for most of the match. Cresswell as a CB seems to work better than I ever could have imagined. Collins and Ogbonna did well. Arnie showed moments of brilliance again, even if he should have been walking away at the end with the match ball under his arm. Lanzini consistently released the ball at just the right moment time and time again to all of our strikers - splitting their defence again and again.

You can't help but notice our play is much easier on the eyes without Carroll anywhere near the pitch.

I do like seeing Shaquiri when he's wound up - he goes stamping around huffing and puffing like Foghorn Leghorn. Remarkable.
User avatar
JCA
Posts: 532
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 10:04 am
Location: Maldon, Essex
Total likes: 9 likes

Re: Stoke City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by JCA »

Lanzini....dive, my first thought was maybe a ban as per the Palace guy a few weeks ago, haven't seen what the press are saying about it yet.
Stoke were as woeful as we were a month or so ago. Every time we went forward in the second half we looked like scoring - missed some absolute sitters. Could easily have been 5 or 6-0. Nice run of games coming up now to build on our points tally.
User avatar
MorthwylMawr
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:09 am
Has liked: 379 likes
Total likes: 42 likes

Re: Stoke City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by MorthwylMawr »

Three nil away from home, simply marvellous :D
User avatar
Diogenes
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:07 pm
Has liked: 432 likes
Total likes: 1144 likes

Re: Stoke City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by Diogenes »

Dan1326 wrote:Moyes was very clever saying he went down due to fatigue

Now back to the FA(if they decide to pursue a charge of diving) to prove otherwise

If they do it’s down to refereeing inept as I’m sure I saw lanzini saying that he didn’t claim a penalty (just as much as referees didn’t deny di caniowa penalty due to that diving prick of a referee )
Interestingly, the Referee was perfectly positioned to call it either way. Secondly, you don't need actual 'contact' for a 'foul' to be committed. An 'attempt' to foul or obstruct can be deemed a foul and you also have to take into account whether the challenge itself was 'careless' or 'reckless' with or without contact. I have no idea what was in the Referees mind when giving it but its not always as clear cut as it seems. If I were a Stoke fan I would be more upset with the defender going to ground and giving the Referee a decision to make. Personally, I was a bit more upset with Antonio going down like a sack of spuds on quite a few occasions.
User avatar
prophet:marginal
Posts: 43564
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:54 pm
Location: Engels l;vin, necessary pence
Has liked: 836 likes
Total likes: 1980 likes

Re: Stoke City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by prophet:marginal »

I know that they had a bigger 'villain' to jeer...and that their attention was more likely trained on their own dugout, but its weird that, as the match went on, and Manu continued to play a central role, the Stoke fans didn't boo his every touch.

Doesn't appear to me that they saw it as a dive at the time.
User avatar
ageing hammer
Posts: 25445
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:04 am
Location: Cockney Hammer's stunt double
Has liked: 484 likes
Total likes: 1475 likes

Re: Stoke City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by ageing hammer »

Yes Lanzini dived but it was after riding 2 tackles and a 70 yard run, he saw another tackle coming in and went down before the contact, it is known as a soft penalty in football.

We have had dozens of them against us, we have also had dozens of stonewall penalties not given.

We have also been on the wrong end of plenty of wrong refereeing decisions some blatant.

We were due a bit of luck for once.

The soft penalty did not win us this match, we would have done that anyway the way we are playing now.

With Adrian back where he belongs we have beaten Chelsea, should have beaten the Arse, ran Man Citeh closer than anyone else has this season, and now won our first game away 3-0 and 3 clean sheets on the spin. :scarfer:
User avatar
Patito
Posts: 10112
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 12:51 pm
Location: Irons

Re: Stoke City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by Patito »

Lanzini started going to ground early. He shouldn’t have done that.

There was contact from Pieters though as Lanzini was going down, and it was a stupid challenge.
User avatar
WorcesterWHU
Posts: 5735
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 10:01 am
Has liked: 8 likes
Total likes: 107 likes

Re: Stoke City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by WorcesterWHU »

Funny that when Leicester were winning the league none of Vardy's "clever" winning of penalties were scrutinised in the same way. Or when Suarez used to intentionally flick balls up in the penalty area to hit a hand. When you're the flavour of the month, it's clearly ok.

Now the dust has settled, I say f*** 'em.
User avatar
jaybs
Posts: 2748
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 5:04 pm
Location: NW UK
Has liked: 21 likes
Total likes: 8 likes

Re: Stoke City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by jaybs »

Don;t want to concentrate on penalty or not, I saw a few others on Match of the Day! we should be concentrating on how much better we are looking! so many players on a different level again, even Our Great Captain Noble! who so many called for his head, when he is one of the few players who has West Ham written through him and he leads the team.

Great to see players enjoying themselves! lets hope we can keep it up!
User avatar
vietnammer
Bucky the beaver
Posts: 31667
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 2:31 am
Location: Those little golden birdies look at them
Has liked: 621 likes
Total likes: 579 likes

Re: Stoke City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by vietnammer »

WorcesterWHU wrote:Funny that when Leicester were winning the league none of Vardy's "clever" winning of penalties were scrutinised in the same way.

Was sent off vs Us at the Walker's for simulation wasn't he?
User avatar
hammer_sandwich
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:04 am
Location: oliva spain
Contact:

Re: Stoke City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by hammer_sandwich »

ageing hammer wrote:Yes Lanzini dived but it was after riding 2 tackles and a 70 yard run, he saw another tackle coming in and went down before the contact, it is known as a soft penalty in football.

We have had dozens of them against us, we have also had dozens of stonewall penalties not given.

We have also been on the wrong end of plenty of wrong refereeing decisions some blatant.

We were due a bit of luck for once.

The soft penalty did not win us this match, we would have done that anyway the way we are playing now.

With Adrian back where he belongs we have beaten Chelsea, should have beaten the Arse, ran Man Citeh closer than anyone else has this season, and now won our first game away 3-0 and 3 clean sheets on the spin. :scarfer:
Completely agree
User avatar
Crossd_Hammrs
Posts: 5503
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:28 pm
Has liked: 364 likes
Total likes: 209 likes

Re: Stoke City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by Crossd_Hammrs »

Dan1326 wrote:Moyes was very clever saying he went down due to fatigue
Actually, I thought the opposite.
Had Moyes even looked at a replay? I suspect not and the reporter (whose question is cut) had insinuated that it was a clearcut dive, thus putting Moyes into the position where he thought he had to defend a percieved dive.
If Moyes had properly seen a replay he would surely have pointed out that being wiped out at knee height isn't a dive!

Interestingly MOTD included the question that was asked to Hughes, but it was obvious that the reporter was provoking the response. He didn't ask Hughes' general thoughts, he didn't merely draw attention to the penalty decision, he determinedly asked, "How strongly did you feel that that should not have been given as a penalty?"
How did he know Hughes felt strongly it wasn't a penalty? He must have pressed him about it already, or even suggested to him it wasn't!
User avatar
Crossd_Hammrs
Posts: 5503
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:28 pm
Has liked: 364 likes
Total likes: 209 likes

Re: Stoke City v West Ham Utd: match thread

Post by Crossd_Hammrs »

I'm not sure how I feel about the 3-0 scoreline.
Obviously I'm delighted we won and by a convincing score, but I felt we really should have done better in front of goal. I felt there was a lot of greediness up front - players shooting or going solo when teammates were well-placed for an easy pass and better opportunity. Not just Arnautovic, (though I criticised him for this last week too), but I thought Hernandez and Sakho were both guilty also.

Maybe I'm being selfish myself and should just be happy we're creating the chances and getting the points.

:scarfer:
Post Reply