A&H

Reactions to Oliver vs Taylor from England?

RefIADad

RefIADad

RefChat Addict
I know we've had a sub-discussion on the US-based counterpart to this forum, but just wondering what the reaction has been to Michael Oliver apparently being "picked above" Anthony Taylor for a World Cup knockout game. Now I realize Taylor may very well still be in the running for a semi or a final based on how matchups work.

My opinion only, but I've always felt like Oliver is a little above Taylor on Premier League matches, while Taylor was slightly above Oliver on UEFA matches. In the World Cup, I feel like Oliver has been just a little bit better than Taylor, but certainly hasn't been like Taylor has been bad. Admittedly, I've been a big Oliver fan since he called that last-minute penalty and then subsequently sent Buffon off in that Juventus-Real Madrid Champions League game a few years ago, so I'm a little biased in my thinking.

Having two very good, and very high-profile, referees from the same country (and one that's always in the international football spotlight) presents a really interesting dynamic.
 
The Referee Store
I've always been more of an Oliver fan, but regardless, I agree with your assessment that this looks like Taylor being kept on ice for a SF or final if England go out to France, which actually suggests they're rating him higher.

I'm not going to get into my "bald refs" theory (in part because I know it annoys some on here and in part because it's a deliberate over-simplification), but I generally think AT gets away with sub-elite decision making, whereas MO just seems to make good decisions more often than not. For me, ability to make the right decisions is more desirable than ability to make a weaker decision but get away with it, hence I prefer MO.

And that's remained the case based on their performances this WC, albeit with very little evidence or difficult decisions required for either of them so far.
 
GraemeS said:
I've always been more of an Oliver fan, but regardless, I agree with your assessment that this looks like Taylor being kept on ice for a SF or final if England go out to France, which actually suggests they're rating him higher.

I'm not going to get into my "bald refs" theory (in part because I know it annoys some on here and in part because it's a deliberate over-simplification), but I generally think AT gets away with sub-elite decision making, whereas MO just seems to make good decisions more often than not. For me, ability to make the right decisions is more desirable than ability to make a weaker decision but get away with it, hence I prefer MO.

And that's remained the case based on their performances this WC, albeit with very little evidence or difficult decisions required for either of them so far.
Click to expand...
The only big issue with this for Taylor is that as long as Argentina keeps advancing, his only hope for a match would be a semifinal with France in it instead of England. I get it's a dumb reason because it was 40 years ago, but I don't think there's any way Argentina will accept an English crew on a competitive international fixture because of the Falklands conflict.

Based solely on the merits, Taylor would be a very strong candidate for Brazil-Argentina. But geopolitics would never allow that to happen.
 
RefIADad said:
The only big issue with this for Taylor is that as long as Argentina keeps advancing, his only hope for a match would be a semifinal with France in it instead of England. I get it's a dumb reason because it was 40 years ago, but I don't think there's any way Argentina will accept an English crew on a competitive international fixture because of the Falklands conflict.

Based solely on the merits, Taylor would be a very strong candidate for Brazil-Argentina. But geopolitics would never allow that to happen.
Click to expand...
I think that's probably the case anyway - if a referee is in charge of a match that potentially determines England's WC final opponents, that adds a level of scrutiny that could probably just be avoided. Ditto if there's a team that knocks England out in the Semi-finals, would a referee be trusted to be impartial officiating that team in the final?

I think if France knock out England then he could still be given their Semi-final or the final (depending on Argentina concerns), and if England were to go all the way to the final then he might get the 3rd place play-off. It's not loads of options, but even though I don't rate him as highly as some, it seems harsh to keep him hanging around if they're not planning to given him a game if at all possible.

Having said that, I've just noticed that Gary Beswick has been assigned to MO's team for the QF, whereas he was in AT's team for the group stage matches. Not sure what conclusion to draw from that, but it does stand out - only other change in AR assignments so far was the addition of Nesbitt to a new team for the ENG-SEN match in the round of 16.
 
GraemeS said:
Having said that, I've just noticed that Gary Beswick has been assigned to MO's team for the QF, whereas he was in AT's team for the group stage matches. Not sure what conclusion to draw from that
Click to expand...
Simon Bennett's injured, that's all.
 
Came to say pretty much what @GraemeS did. More of a MO fan than AT, respect them both and rate them very highly. But IMHO Oliver gets the big calls consistently correct and doesn't shirk anything* while sometimes Taylor will - now and then - have a wobble but otherwise controls flashpoints.

(* because he's a robot)
 
Max2 said:
Never understood this for someone running around in the middle of a contact sport. (Not a MO dig, just generally - why?)
Click to expand...
The argument I've heard is that it helps keep saliva flowing, which helps whistle with more control.
 
They are very different referees. Michael Oliver comes across as completely natural, he looks like he is refereeing without really putting that much effort in. Anthony Taylor appears much more measured, and, by his own admission on the podcast that he did, he appears to use a lot more of the mentality side of the game.

Two top class officials though.
 
santa sangria said:
Just doesn’t present well.
Click to expand...

It presents fine. We spend far too much time and effort worrying about such matters. Gum has been chewed in sports for longer than any of us have been alive.

Add it to gloves, matching warm up kit and all the other stuff nobody cares about other than refs and that doesn't matter one bit.
 
I don't really understand this eulogising about any of these Referees
There are no excellent Refs out there (there will be but we'll never know), because they're all forced to sing from the same utterly broken Hymn Sheets

Outside of the Refereeing Community, I don't think anyone cares in the slightest (including the sides) who gets the Final or whatever, because it will be a FIFA style performance regardless, with the same expectations and the same Laws grossly over or under applied or completely ignored
 
Ben448844 said:
It presents fine. We spend far too much time and effort worrying about such matters. Gum has been chewed in sports for longer than any of us have been alive.

Add it to gloves, matching warm up kit and all the other stuff nobody cares about other than refs and that doesn't matter one bit.
Click to expand...
Have to disagree there. The gum chewing stands out a mile and we wouldn’t allow players to do it. Like wearing glasses to referee - also just doesn’t look right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top