Sheltons Army Posted January 20, 2021 Report Share Posted January 20, 2021 15 minutes ago, lenred said: There’s a definite feeling that things aren’t right in a few of the key areas at the moment, which is a worry. Strong leadership is needed from the very top now to try and get a grip of things over the next couple of months as I think we have safety pretty much guaranteed for this season so can look to get in a better place for 21/22. Not sure how much confidence I have in that happening as it stands but we shall see. I’ve just posted on another thread that we are left hoping or praying that the same people who have got us to this situation (Minus the departed LJ) will now suddenly perform to a high level to rectify the mess and reverse what most would agree is a , or the beginnings of a backward slide Not a betting man but doesn’t look a great bet does it ! We are not a particularly attractive proposition to potential targets at a time , when we are going to need to do some serious resetting in the summer are we ? By same recruitment set up and a unknown HC..... Link to comment
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 20, 2021 Report Share Posted January 20, 2021 Was pretty predictable how it played out tonight IMO. Norwich are better but they had the run of the midfield and were better in all areas. Stronger side, less injuries, more depth yes but was still not especially acceptable tonight. Hugill's first we just gave Norwich freedom in and around the box! Yet 5-6 of our players in the box. Well worked but... Our overall performance was miles worse than in October, vs a Norwich with Pukki! We were at home yes, away tonight, and there were the soft goals that day, but we barely laid a glove on them. Formation, setup, shape, whatever we want to call it. just played into their hands. A lopsided 4-4-2 with two recently recalled loanees vs their fluency and then ability for 2 v 1 in wide areas would always put us up against it. Throwing on 4 strikers is tired, smacks of desparation and often sees a side disintegrate further structure and cohesion wise. Link to comment
EstoniaTallinnRed Posted January 21, 2021 Report Share Posted January 21, 2021 15 hours ago, Numero Uno said: Do you think we'll get relegated? You brought it up. The way this League is, meaning anyone can beat anyone, it's not an impossibility. The fact that we don't get any or many shots on target, unless this is addressed now, urgently, then I can see a real possibility of relegation happening. Link to comment
EstoniaTallinnRed Posted January 21, 2021 Report Share Posted January 21, 2021 15 hours ago, Major Isewater said: We had less penetration than a eunuchs orgy and front line that made glaciers look quick. We lack energy, invention and sharpness. Bentley, Kalas and Mawson played well. The others are just not firing. Perhaps that's the answer, they all need firing! Link to comment
Bazooka Joe Posted January 21, 2021 Report Share Posted January 21, 2021 15 hours ago, BCFCGav said: I have a good feeling. Take your hands out of your pockets. Link to comment
Bazooka Joe Posted January 21, 2021 Report Share Posted January 21, 2021 15 hours ago, spudski said: The difference between us and Norwich was huge. The difference between us and Norwich was Hugill. Link to comment
Bazooka Joe Posted January 21, 2021 Report Share Posted January 21, 2021 15 hours ago, Jerseybean said: 94 minutes and still not an attempt on target But no other team can match the 5,000 sideways and back passes that we achieve every game. Modern footzzzzzzzzzzzball. Link to comment
handballbygordonparr Posted January 21, 2021 Report Share Posted January 21, 2021 14 hours ago, JamesBCFC said: We have conceded 26 goals from 24. Hull had conceded 33 from 24 last season. In January last season they sold Bowen and Grosicki, who between them were responsible via goals and assists for the vast majority of their goals. So they had a worse defense than us, and got rid of 2 players who were directly responsible for 75%+ (no exaggeration) of their goals up to that point. Now I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you are being deliberately dishonest when you say you don't see the difference, because if you genuinely cannot then there is no point is wasting any more time in discussion with you. 17 hours ago, JamesBCFC said: I'd be less confrontational if people weren't actively lying about things to start with. I did give a far more polite to the person the first time I responded to them. I even referred back to it the second time I responded to them. The fact they still ignored the pertinent points from it means I'm less inclined to respond politely the third time. I would not normally return to a match day thread but I had to go to work last night and missed your last couple of posts. They were brought to my attention this morning and as they include a personal attack on me I feel they warrant a response. We clearly have a different interpretation of the phrase 'vastly different' - which is fine, it is a subjective phrase after all. We are also entitled to express our reasonable views or opinions on a forum and have the right to argue them with others. It is largely what a forum is designed for. It doesn't matter how many times 'you tell me something' or how 'right' you believe your views are, it doesn't mean I must agree with you. What is not acceptable however is to reduce the exchange to personal insults. I am not a liar or deliberately dishonest and I do not require your benefit of doubt on the matter. There is a well know etiquette in forum use that says you should attack what is said, but not the person saying it. I would recommend you try practicing this, it translates well from the virtual to the real world and you may find it useful as you go through life. Link to comment
JamesBCFC Posted January 22, 2021 Report Share Posted January 22, 2021 10 hours ago, handballbygordonparr said: I would not normally return to a match day thread but I had to go to work last night and missed your last couple of posts. They were brought to my attention this morning and as they include a personal attack on me I feel they warrant a response. We clearly have a different interpretation of the phrase 'vastly different' - which is fine, it is a subjective phrase after all. We are also entitled to express our reasonable views or opinions on a forum and have the right to argue them with others. It is largely what a forum is designed for. It doesn't matter how many times 'you tell me something' or how 'right' you believe your views are, it doesn't mean I must agree with you. What is not acceptable however is to reduce the exchange to personal insults. I am not a liar or deliberately dishonest and I do not require your benefit of doubt on the matter. There is a well know etiquette in forum use that says you should attack what is said, but not the person saying it. I would recommend you try practicing this, it translates well from the virtual to the real world and you may find it useful as you go through life. There was no personal attack on you, nor was the comment about lying directed specifically at you. "I'd be less confrontational if *people* weren't actively lying about things to start with". By that point I had already referred in multiple posts to the lies that others had said. The part about you was wholly factual. You had ignored the facts about Hull and their sales multiple times, and I wasn't the only one who mentioned them to you. At the point of my third response to you you had ignored the points made about Hull at least 3 times, so yes, at that point I had lost any will to continue with much respect, because if you cannot be bothered to actually address the points made, then why should I bother to be polite? You going out of your way to ignore those points is already an act of rudeness, so I got a bit more terse in response. Petty? Perhaps, but the lack of respect was initiated by you. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.