Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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 by parajack
Link to post
Share on other sites
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


 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by parajack
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:



Imagine suggesting the manager isn't behind the team though 

 

lol

 

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

lol

 


 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...