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

[Dot]

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]

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]

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.

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

2 minutes 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.

 

Now I'm confused - are you saying you don't really believe that Monk isn't behind the team and were simply using it as a rhetorical device to counter another poster?

 

If so, that renders our whole conversation void really, doesn't it?

[cowl]

1 minute ago, @owlstalk said:

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

 

 

 

 Good on you for being able to laugh at yourself, at least.

[@owlstalk]

Just now, cowl said:

 

 Good on you for being able to laugh at yourself, at least.

I always am and always do

But not as much as I laugh at people getting all irate about my posts

 

 

[Emilianenko]

7 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

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

 

 

Or trying to convince people that Garry Monk is doing a great job because Barry Bannan was smiling in a photo.

[@owlstalk]

1 minute ago, Emilianenko said:

Or trying to convince people that Garry Monk is doing a great job because Barry Bannan was smiling in a photo.

 

Ah you're clearly advocating a miserable unhappy squad?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

I always am and always do

But not as much as I laugh at people getting all irate about my posts

 

 

 

It is possible that those people may also be laughing at you for getting irate about their posts......

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Emilianenko said:

Or trying to convince people that Garry Monk is doing a great job because Barry Bannan was smiling in a photo.

 

If we can find one of Tom Lees smiling I might be converted!

 

Didn't notice a huddle yesterday, sign of the times.

[Emilianenko]

1 minute ago, @owlstalk said:

 

Ah you're clearly advocating a miserable unhappy squad?

Not really.

[@owlstalk]

1 minute ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

It is possible that those people may also be laughing at you for getting irate about their posts......

I've just (clearly) pointed out that I don't get irate at them, and instead am laughing at them.

Sorry you struggled with understanding such a basic statement

[@owlstalk]

Just now, hirstyboywonder said:

 Didn't notice a huddle yesterday, sign of the times.

DEFINITELY sign of a fall out with Adam Reach that

[Emilianenko]

Just now, hirstyboywonder said:

 

If we can find one of Tom Lees smiling I might be converted!

 

Didn't notice a huddle yesterday, sign of the times.

Yes the cracks are already showing.

[cowl]

4 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

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.

 

So the ploy to stop a team from coming forward is to give them the chance to remain forward?

 

And Dele-Bashiru didn't look like he was tiring at all! You're just trying to back-form a rational reason for why Monk took him off. He looked no more tired at the point of coming off than he did at any other point in the game. Paterson was flagging long before, and Windass didn't seem entirely at it all game. Both would've been much better candidates to sub, especially if you wanting to hit a team on the break. Kachunga can happily play that role of stretching a team if that's the way you want to go.

 

I'm sorry, but reading this post in particular, it's not just that we don't agree on our interpretation of how yesterday's game went (that I expect and assume on a site with thousands of contributors), I just think you're being disingenuous. Your interpretation seems to perfectly explain why Monk made the tactical changes he did—how convenient! Perhaps had we continued to play on the front foot yesterday but then got sucker-punched at the death on the counter, you'd have questioned why the manager didn't just have us sit on the lead with 25 minutes to go and let them try all they can to break us down at the back? Somehow I doubt that.

[Guest Therealrealist]

16 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

Ah you're clearly advocating a miserable unhappy squad?

I’d rather have an unhappy winning squad than a happy losing squad..everybody slags cc off for the ‘holiday camp’ goings on but all of a sudden havin a happy squad is the best thing since canned beer

[Beauchief Owl]

1 hour ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

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).

 

But we're looking at it after 4 games, which is far too early to start panicking.

 

If we win our next game, then our points per game jumps to 1.6 and we'd be looking at finishing the season on 61 points. Equally though, that wouldn't suggest we were on track for a successful season, as it would be based on just the opening 5 games.

 

We'll have tough runs of games where we struggle for points, and we'll have easier spells where the points roll in more readily. Our opening 4 games against Cardiff, Watford, Bristol City and QPR probably err towards the tougher end of the spectrum, but ultimately it's just too early to tell.

 

After 10 games we'll have a much clearer idea of our prospects for the season ahead.

 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

1 minute ago, cowl said:

 

So the ploy to stop a team from coming forward is to give them the chance to remain forward?

 

And Dele-Bashiru didn't look like he was tiring at all! You're just trying to back-form a rational reason for why Monk took him off. He looked no more tired at the point of coming off than he did at any other point in the game. Paterson was flagging long before, and Windass didn't seem entirely at it all game. Both would've been much better candidates to sub, especially if you wanting to hit a team on the break. Kachunga can happily play that role of stretching a team if that's the way you want to go.

 

I'm sorry, but reading this post in particular, it's not just that we don't agree on our interpretation of how yesterday's game went (that I expect and assume on a site with thousands of contributors), I just think you're being disingenuous. Your interpretation seems to perfectly explain why Monk made the tactical changes he did—how convenient! Perhaps had we continued to play on the front foot yesterday but then got sucker-punched at the death on the counter, you'd have questioned why the manager didn't just have us sit on the lead with 25 minutes to go and let them try all they can to break us down at the back? Somehow I doubt that.

 

I don't know what you're getting so uptight about.

 

I've told you how I saw the game and why I don't think anything in yesterday's game suggests that Monk isn't behind his team.

 

There's nothing disingenuous about it; you just appear not to like what I'm saying.

[cowl]

29 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

Now I'm confused - are you saying you don't really believe that Monk isn't behind the team and were simply using it as a rhetorical device to counter another poster?

 

If so, that renders our whole conversation void really, doesn't it?

 

Why? Does your every reply to a conversation on here have to somehow resemble every other reply you've ever made?

[Beauchief Owl]

Last season we would have needed 49 points and a good goal difference. Most agree 50 points is the total needed so that is the minimum we should be going for. Peterborough were actually relegated with 54 points several years back.