SiJ Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 Only Wednesday could go into a game - having won 5 at home in a row - and - against a team second bottom, without a win in months - to try and stop the opposition. Honestly, this club is full of complete idiots from top to bottom. I'm amazed most of these people manage to make their way to the ground, let alone play a game of football. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Costello 77 Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 1 minute ago, torryowl said: I never said they wernt giving it everything , I believe they were trying but there was no urgency or believe .....I ve seen Jack's,wilkos,Ron's teams turn in similar crap performances but I woudnt be calling them out for it ....he didn't say to shaw if the ball comes into the box blaze into the kop ,or i know your on a booking but if they have the ball deep there in half dive in and try and win it back ..I doubt he said to harris run with it u til you lose it ....the players have to take responsibility. Urgency and belief = trying. And I'd accept that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Costello 77 Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 3 minutes ago, SiJ said: Only Wednesday could go into a game - having won 5 at home in a row - and - against a team second bottom, without a win in months - to try and stop the opposition. Honestly, this club is full of complete idiots from top to bottom. I'm amazed most of these people manage to make their way to the ground, let alone play a game of football. This is easily the best post in the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinger208b Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 51 minutes ago, Costello 77 said: Very last word on the matter and an explanation of how slinger leads others up the garden path. Ahhh, so you found the elusive post you denied all knowledge of?.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinger208b Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 14 minutes ago, SiJ said: Only Wednesday could go into a game - having won 5 at home in a row - and - against a team second bottom, without a win in months - to try and stop the opposition. Honestly, this club is full of complete idiots from top to bottom. I'm amazed most of these people manage to make their way to the ground, let alone play a game of football. Source for this please? In my opinion the comments NT made for the changes indicate the opposite. He didn't see the need for three defenders against one forward... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Costello 77 Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torryowl Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 11 minutes ago, Costello 77 said: Urgency and belief = trying. And I'd accept that. So are you saying that the players didn't try ?......they played terrible we could all see that but I couldn't see anyone shirking . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Costello 77 Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 Just now, torryowl said: So are you saying that the players didn't try ?......they played terrible we could all see that but I couldn't see anyone shirking . You've just said yourself there was no urgency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiJ Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 5 minutes ago, slinger208b said: Source for this please? In my opinion the comments NT made for the changes indicate the opposite. He didn't see the need for three defenders against one forward... Oh, ******** off you absolute bore. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowl Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 To be honest, when I saw the team named I was still looking at it expecting a 3-5-2 with Palmer on the left of a back 3. And my biggest annoyance at the time was that Rhodes had been dropped again seemingly having paid the price for not scoring in his 60 minutes against Stoke. But once the game kicked off and it became apparent that it was a 4-4-2 I was confused as to why we'd changed the formation, and then progressively annoyed about it when as the game progressed and the pattern of our play was so poor and predictable. Our only joy was from pumping long throw-ins and dead balls in their box—did this really necessitate a formation change? Still, even with the formation change, it barely explains why we were so poor. 4-4-2 even with Bannan taken out primarily from the centre should hardly have caused these problems for us. And yet, it did cause us problems. Bizarrely enough, as much as Thompson's reasoning for the formation change sounds fine on the face of it (so long as you ignore the fact we weren't actually playing the Barcelona of the Midlands), it's all the more surprising given the fact that the last time we played 4-4-2 was in another utterly failed performance in the defeat away to Coventry. It was also the last time we played Bannan on the left, Windass up top and Palmer and Penney in the full back positions. We were very poor that night, and I'm not sure why Thompson was expecting something different yesterday. For me though, I still feel the decision to drop Rhodes was a bigger mistake. Rhodes has been rightly criticised for his time here, and little will make up for the past now, but in his last 3 or 4 appearances he'd shown a few things that we'd not seen from him for pretty much all his time with us. A grit and determination for one thing, but actually his ball retention has seemed very good from these games too (although I was surprised to see a statistic to suggest it's one of the worst amongst our forwards?). If Thompson wanted to freshen the forward line yesterday, I don't see why Paterson had to be the starter; the guy has his uses, and he can be a genuine nuisance, especially so given how unorthodox he can be, but it's also that some approach that can be frustrating with him. Against Stoke, he and Rhodes seemed to be going for the same balls a lot of the time, and this is where the ability to play the position comes in. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiJ Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 Source for this. What a melt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinger208b Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 1 hour ago, Costello 77 said: Very last word on the matter and an explanation of how slinger leads others up the garden path. Explanation then please seeing as you continue to throw poo around... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinger208b Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 2 minutes ago, SiJ said: Source for this. What a melt. See, I make a valid point backed up by evidence and am met with this level of intellect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@owlstalk Posted February 21, 2021 Author Share Posted February 21, 2021 1 minute ago, slinger208b said: Explanation then please seeing as you continue to throw poo around... Chill out a bit please 1 Owlstalk Shop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Costello 77 Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 1 minute ago, cowl said: To be honest, when I saw the team named I was still looking at it expecting a 3-5-2 with Palmer on the left of a back 3. And my biggest annoyance at the time was that Rhodes had been dropped again seemingly having paid the price for not scoring in his 60 minutes against Stoke. But once the game kicked off and it became apparent that it was a 4-4-2 I was confused as to why we'd changed the formation, and then progressively annoyed about it when as the game progressed and the pattern of our play was so poor and predictable. Our only joy was from pumping long throw-ins and dead balls in their box—did this really necessitate a formation change? Still, even with the formation change, it barely explains why we were so poor. 4-4-2 even with Bannan taken out primarily from the centre should hardly have caused these problems for us. And yet, it did cause us problems. Bizarrely enough, as much as Thompson's reasoning for the formation change sounds fine on the face of it (so long as you ignore the fact we weren't actually playing the Barcelona of the Midlands), it's all the more surprising given the fact that the last time we played 4-4-2 was in another utterly failed performance in the defeat away to Coventry. It was also the last time we played Bannan on the left, Windass up top and Palmer and Penney in the full back positions. We were very poor that night, and I'm not sure why Thompson was expecting something different yesterday. For me though, I still feel the decision to drop Rhodes was a bigger mistake. Rhodes has been rightly criticised for his time here, and little will make up for the past now, but in his last 3 or 4 appearances he'd shown a few things that we'd not seen from him for pretty much all his time with us. A grit and determination for one thing, but actually his ball retention has seemed very good from these games too (although I was surprised to see a statistic to suggest it's one of the worst amongst our forwards?). If Thompson wanted to freshen the forward line yesterday, I don't see why Paterson had to be the starter; the guy has his uses, and he can be a genuine nuisance, especially so given how unorthodox he can be, but it's also that some approach that can be frustrating with him. Against Stoke, he and Rhodes seemed to be going for the same balls a lot of the time, and this is where the ability to play the position comes in. Good post. I'd play Paterson because he somehow gets goals and can see why a manager would be swayed by that. Also.. I don't think we've seen enough of the Paterson/Rhodes partnership to come to a meaningful conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiJ Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 1 minute ago, slinger208b said: See, I make a valid point backed up by evidence and am met with this level of intellect... Backed up by evidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiJ Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 (edited) We talking legal submissions here or opinions on a football forum? Deary me. Edited February 21, 2021 by SiJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinger208b Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 Just now, @owlstalk said: Chill out a bit please Why am I being targeted? Owlstalk members are throwing accustions around and you are addressing me. I'm just trying to defend myself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Costello 77 Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 3 minutes ago, slinger208b said: Explanation then please seeing as you continue to throw poo around... THESE ARE YOUR OWN WORDS MAKING AN ASSUMPTION ABOUT AN OPINION I DON'T HOLD TO FURTHER AN ARGUMENT THAT'S HAPPENING INSIDE YOUR OWN HEAD. WHAT ON EARTH IS THE MATTER WITH YOU MAN!!?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinger208b Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 (edited) 3 minutes ago, SiJ said: We talking legal submissions here or opinions on a football forum? Deary me. I think it pertinent for something to be presented validating an opinion in a bid to prevent a post like yours suggesting they were set up to stop the opposition just because you think it sounds good... Edited February 21, 2021 by slinger208b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now