GARRY MONK THREAD - All posts about the manager in here please

[@owlstalk 36,518]

Imagine suggesting the manager isn't behind the team though 

 

 

[parajack 919]

16 minutes ago, William 1867 said:

Question, is Parajack Garry Monk?

 

 

Question: were you expecting loads of 'likes'? that joke hasnt been done before on here has it? Oh wait....!!   **** me...Be ORIGINAL...at least  Cos you aint funny

Edited October 4, 2020 by parajack

[@owlstalk 36,518]

16 minutes ago, William 1867 said:

Question, is Parajack Garry Monk?

Amazing isn't it how if you're not part of the frothing at the mouth pack all  rushing to murder Monk then you're Monk himself,  or being paid by the club etc etc

[parajack 919]

57 minutes ago, 0114 said:

It does appear that way. 

Than you are mistaken.....

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem 43,022]

15 minutes ago, cowl said:

And then maybe you may also wonder why we've let in so many late goals?

 

When I team is on the ascendancy (and thus playing in a way that affords them control of the game), why change things to play more defensively (and with 25 minutes to go, might I add).

 

That in no way can be mistaken for having faith in the abilities of your players.

 

When you sit back, you invite pressure. Why even assume the increased pressure in the first place when your on the front foot? It was just a self-fulfilling prophecy yesterday to bring Pelupessy on and go with two sitting midfielders to prepare for an increased amount of pressure. It was what gave fuel to the pressure.

 

We were easily dealing with QPR's 'pressure' up until Lees went off, and created our best clear-cut opportunity of the game hitting them on the break in the final few minutes of the 90.

 

It's a valid tactic which countless managers use.

 

How you equate that with having no faith in their players, I don't know.

[@owlstalk 36,518]

Just now, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 How you equate that with having no faith in their players, I don't know.

Because it  would tie into a hater agenda against Monk

[William 1867 502]

9 minutes ago, parajack said:

Question: were you expecting loads of 'likes'? that joke hasnt been done before on here has it? Oh wait....!!   **** me...Be ORIGINAL...at least  Cos you aint funny

So are you or not?

[@owlstalk 36,518]

1 minute ago, William 1867 said:

So are you or not?

Give it a rest William

[parajack 919]

3 minutes ago, William 1867 said:

So are you or not?

 

To be, or not to be? That is the question—

Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,

Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,

And, by opposing, end them? To die, to sleep—

No more—and by a sleep to say we end

The heartache and the thousand natural shocks

That flesh is heir to—’tis a consummation

Devoutly to be wished! To die, to sleep.

To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there’s the rub,

Edited October 4, 2020 by parajack

[UnravelingOwl 17]

2 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

Give it a rest William

Me thinks something in this.

[Ray Von shabba 1,518]

I'm neither Monk in or out at the moment but he does seem to make strange decisions.

With 20/25 minutes to go yesterday QPR weren't really causing us much concern and we looked like taking all 3 points.

So why use our last sub and change the tactics to holding and inviting them on and what happened is just deja vu, as it's happens time and time again.

I see why some get over frustrated.

[cowl 4,945]

5 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

We were easily dealing with QPR's 'pressure' up until Lees went off, and created our best clear-cut opportunity of the game hitting them on the break in the final few minutes of the 90.

 

It's a valid tactic which countless managers use.

 

How you equate that with having no faith in their players, I don't know.

 

I understand full-well about the tactic of hitting teams on the break, my point is why did we revert from a position of having control of a game by playing on the front foot (a period which got us the lead), to one whereby we invite the pressure upon us with the goal of hitting a team on the break?

 

Given the defensive injuries we'd endured yesterday, why change tactic to invite more pressure on the defence, when the tactic which we'd hitherto employed in that half (and which actually had got us the lead, after all) was working?

[parajack 919]

5 minutes ago, UnravelingOwl said:

Me thinks something in this.

Are people REALLY  this sad??..

[Dot 2,253]

4 minutes ago, parajack said:

Are people REALLY  this sad??..

watch the bile mate 

[parajack 919]

2 minutes ago, Dot said:

watch the bile mate 

 

2 minutes ago, Dot said:

watch the bile mate 

Now your slipping....your other comment was much funnier...this one? predictable really....surprising me how  a request for a friendlier,less predictable debate has really gotten under some peoples skin...

[cowl 4,945]

39 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

Imagine suggesting the manager isn't behind the team though 

 

 

 

Imagine constantly saying that some fans (involved in fans criticizing the manager shocker) of a team aren't behind the team though.

[Emilianenko 2,489]

Our current points per game average would see us end the season on 45 points (following the deduction), which is just below the average points required to stay up in the Championship (46).

This doesn't even fctor in the inevitable Garry Monk second half of season collapse.

I'd say we are up a certain creek without a paddle.

[Dot 2,253]

8 minutes ago, parajack said:

 

Now your slipping....your other comment was much funnier...this one? predictable really....surprising me how  a request for a friendlier,less predictable debate has really gotten under some peoples skin...

 

sorry for getting under your skin mate.

I'm only pulling your leg

[@owlstalk 36,518]

1 minute ago, cowl said:

 

Imagine constantly saying that some fans (involved in fans criticizing the manager shocker) of a team aren't behind the team though.

I'm just going on the evidence presented

You know...

Frothing at the mouth, hammering  on their keyboards  repeatedly saying the same  thing over and over and over  in a bid to somehow convince  people we should sack monk after  four  games because he's had a conversation with Adam Reach

 

 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem 43,022]

11 minutes ago, cowl said:

I understand full-well about the tactic of hitting teams on the break, my point is why did we revert from a position of having control of a game by playing on the front foot (a period which got us the lead), to one whereby we invite the pressure upon us with the goal of hitting a team on the break?

 

Given the defensive injuries we'd endured yesterday, why change tactic to invite more pressure on the defence, when the tactic which we'd hitherto employed in that half (and which actually had got us the lead, after all) was working?

 

I never thought we looked in control of yesterday's game, certainly not to the extent that we could feel comfortable with our lead. Although we looked the more likely to score for most of the second half, we weren't controlling QPR or stopping them from being able to get forward.

 

Dele Bashiru looked like he was tiring, which is understandable in the first league start of his career. If we hadn't taken him off, we may have conceded more clear-cut chances on our goal...and we'd have had posters on here slating Monk for not changing things.

 

As it was, the switch meant that we looked fairly comfortable in defence, were frustrating QPR's attacking intentions, and we're creating the better chances ourselves....until injuries forced us to play with ten men.