Jump to content
IGNORED

We did not play a ‘Striker’ for 90 mins at home


Better Red
 Share

Recommended Posts

Funny how you see the game through your Mille Miglia goggles that are presumably stitched into your hoodie.

I thought the starting line up showed intent and on the whole it delivered. 

Thing is Nakhi Wells could/should/would have played from the start but didn’t. And why’s that? Because like so many of them he’s not good enough.

Anyway young man I’m guessing it’s a day of Football Manager for you…..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought we actually played better without a striker. 

We seemed to play the ball on the ground more without constantly playing the long ball to a lumbering target man.

Scott, Semenyo and COD also made us more pacy and direct with varying degrees of success.

Tbh our strikers are so average that our midfielders are as likely to score as they are.

 

Edited by Top Robin
  • Like 2
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Top Robin said:

Thought we actually played better without a striker. 

We seemed to play the ball on the ground more without constantly playing the long ball to a lumbering target man.

Scott, Semenyo and COD also made us more pacy and direct with varying degrees of success.

Tbh our strikers are so average that our midfielders are as likely to score as they are.

 

100%. Martin offers nothing and we forget how to pass or run with the ball when he is on the pitch.

It was the same a few years back when Diedhiou came back and we stopped playing football.

Give me pace all day long.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Mad Cyril said:

100%. Martin offers nothing and we forget how to pass or run with the ball when he is on the pitch.

It was the same a few years back when Diedhiou came back and we stopped playing football.

Give me pace all day long.

 

Agreed.  For once, we looked to generally play it up the field on to the front men, rather than hopeful punts to a "target man" with whom the ball rarely sticks.

Semenyo's hold-up play was good, his passing intelligent, and Weimann's sprinting ability caused all sorts of headaches for QPR's not very good back line. With Scott involved in the high press, I felt that we had more attacking intent in that game, even when we had 10 men, than in most other outings this season.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

Agreed.  For once, we looked to generally play it up the field on to the front men, rather than hopeful punts to a "target man" with whom the ball rarely sticks.

Semenyo's hold-up play was good, his passing intelligent, and Weimann's sprinting ability caused all sorts of headaches for QPR's not very good back line. With Scott involved in the high press, I felt that we had more attacking intent in that game, even when we had 10 men, than in most other outings this season.

From watching the first half, I was intrigued as to how we’d press using a 4231 versus their back 3.  What looked like transpired was that it was generally Weimann’s job to pick up the advancing side CB Barbet, and O’Dowda or Scott to pick up Dickie.  That meant Tanner  could go high versus Wallace and Pring pick Adomah (not so high) sometimes O’Dowda depending on if Scott engaged Dickie.  It made it difficult at times for QPR to play out.  Semenyo got into Dunne enough times to make him wary.

I didn’t see second half to see how that worked with 10 men, but was surprised QPR didn’t have a bigger chunk of possession second period, suggesting we still did the pressing well.

Shame Tanner went off, was looking very bright.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Davefevs said:

From watching the first half, I was intrigued as to how we’d press using a 4231 versus their back 3.  What looked like transpired was that it was generally Weimann’s job to pick up the advancing side CB Barbet, and O’Dowda or Scott to pick up Dickie.  That meant Tanner  could go high versus Wallace and Pring pick Adomah (not so high) sometimes O’Dowda depending on if Scott engaged Dickie.  It made it difficult at times for QPR to play out.  Semenyo got into Dunne enough times to make him wary.

I didn’t see second half to see how that worked with 10 men, but was surprised QPR didn’t have a bigger chunk of possession second period, suggesting we still did the pressing well.

Shame Tanner went off, was looking very bright.

We did it superbly well with 10 men because you obviously have to be a bit more selective and it's harder to lay traps. There was no obvious sign in terms of how the game went that we were down to 10 men for so long. We have had far worse spells of possession at home this season with 11 men. My question on last night is was it a one off or a very encouraging sign of things to come? If it's the latter I can see us getting the results we need very soon.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

I said on another thread you started, lucky we have people at the club who understand football unlike you

So another thread to show you do not know what you are talking about

Then keep replying to your own thread to prove the point 

You must hate it when I am right.

For someone who does not know about football I must get lucky with my posts.

Replying to your reply…..


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Better Red said:

You must hate it when I am right.

For someone who does not know about football I must get lucky with my posts.

Replying to your reply…..


 

As someone said on a post the other day

"It is no good arguing with an idiot

As they will just drag you down to their level and win with experience"

Strange how nobody seems to agree with you, but you know better than every one else

But hey, I am not going to get dragged down to your level!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BigAl&Toby said:

Funny how you see the game through your Mille Miglia goggles that are presumably stitched into your hoodie.

I thought the starting line up showed intent and on the whole it delivered. 

Thing is Nakhi Wells could/should/would have played from the start but didn’t. And why’s that? Because like so many of them he’s not good enough.

Anyway young man I’m guessing it’s a day of Football Manager for you…..

We clearly do see it differently.

I am able to say what I see

You say what you want to see

Yes showed intent but no Striker and we lost….  
 

At the moment if we don’t score 2 goals we don’t don’t get anything from the game.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

As someone said on a post the other day

"It is no good arguing with an idiot

As they will just drag you down to their level and win with experience"

Strange how nobody seems to agree with you, but you know better than every one else

But hey, I am not going to get dragged down to your level!!

I not arguing with you and don’t let anyone call you an idiot.

I won’t say no one agrees with me.

As for dragged down to my level. Why are people so touchy about the facts and it’s largely factual statements I make.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/12/2021 at 09:14, sh1t_ref_again said:

I said on another thread you started, lucky we have people at the club who understand football unlike you

So another thread to show you do not know what you are talking about

Then keep replying to your own thread to prove the point 

Play a ‘Striker’ second half and we score 2 and win the game.

Lucky we have people who understand the game  - Me and Nige and now you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Better Red said:

Play a ‘Striker’ second half and we score 2 and win the game.

Lucky we have people who understand the game  - Me and Nige and now you

Think you are twisting things to try and cover up the sh1t posts you make. In case you did not notice Weimenn was on from the start and scored all 3, same player was on the pitch the other day when you claimed we did not have a striker, bit embarrassing to keep on really.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

Think you are twisting things to try and cover up the sh1t posts you make. In case you did not notice Weimenn was on from the start and scored all 3, same player was on the pitch the other day when you claimed we did not have a striker, bit embarrassing to keep on really.

I wonder if they will return to this thread everytime Weimann doesn't score in a game claiming they were right all along despite having never made an actual point.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Better Red said:

Play a ‘Striker’ second half and we score 2 and win the game.

Lucky we have people who understand the game  - Me and Nige and now you

If you understand the game, why don't you post some of your knowledge instead of the pathetic drivel you serve up again and again?

  • Like 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

If you understand the game, why don't you post some of your knowledge instead of the pathetic drivel you serve up again and again?

Drivel - Again all I have done is stated a fact.

Just because my opinion and fact are normally right I get people like you who ‘don’t’ understand football having a go.

But again I will say ‘ think’ before you post. I do and that’s why it’s normally right….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, redsince1994 said:

I wonder if they will return to this thread everytime Weimann doesn't score in a game claiming they were right all along despite having never made an actual point.

The point is in the title.

played one second half and will looked much better and we scored twice..

Its nothing to with Wieman.

More about Seymenyo is not a ‘Striker’ - should play wide in a front three with a ‘Striker’ in the middle - wells or Martin to be precise.

Over 4 half’s of football - we won 1 (the one with the ‘Striker’ playing.

Its seems more like a statement of fact rather than an opinion - thanks for help on that….

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Better Red said:

The point is in the title.

played one second half and will looked much better and we scored twice..

Its nothing to with Wieman.

More about Seymenyo is not a ‘Striker’ - should play wide in a front three with a ‘Striker’ in the middle - wells or Martin to be precise.

Over 4 half’s of football - we won 1 (the one with the ‘Striker’ playing.

Its seems more like a statement of fact rather than an opinion - thanks for help on that….

 

'It is nothing to do with Weimann'

Who scored a hattrick.

Rightio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

Think you are twisting things to try and cover up the sh1t posts you make. In case you did not notice Weimenn was on from the start and scored all 3, same player was on the pitch the other day when you claimed we did not have a striker, bit embarrassing to keep on really.

Weimar not a Striker.

Plays as No 10 or wide in a front three.

Agian I think you do really understand the point I am making.

Its not that complicated.

Striker = Wells or Martin 

Wide forwards = Wimenn, Seymenyo, Wells….

I just think you like when I am right 

Agin 4 half’s of football 1 Striker in one half and we win..  Also looked much better. 
Before you say yes HNM also made a diff but so do Martin.

Again Seymenyo not a ‘Striker’ can not score at this level.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Better Red said:

The point is in the title.

played one second half and will looked much better and we scored twice..

Its nothing to with Wieman.

More about Seymenyo is not a ‘Striker’ - should play wide in a front three with a ‘Striker’ in the middle - wells or Martin to be precise.

Over 4 half’s of football - we won 1 (the one with the ‘Striker’ playing.

Its seems more like a statement of fact rather than an opinion - thanks for help on that….

 

Think your delusional and do not understand the difference between your opinion and facts.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

Think your delusional and do not understand the difference between your opinion and facts.

 

Again read the Topic title - it is a fact 

It was stated as a fact rather than an opinion - I did that deliberately.

My post was then a formulation of my thoughts based on past experience, knowledge of the subject mater and then carefully considered to create an opinion.

I do understand that the difference between my opinions and facts are very close - but they are only opinions that are supported by facts.

Delusional ? No

Honest ? Yes

Insightful ? I hope so

Hope that helps and clears it up for you

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Better Red said:

Again read the Topic title - it is a fact 

It was stated as a fact rather than an opinion - I did that deliberately.

My post was then a formulation of my thoughts based on past experience, knowledge of the subject mater and then carefully considered to create an opinion.

I do understand that the difference between my opinions and facts are very close - but they are only opinions that are supported by facts.

Delusional ? No

Honest ? Yes

Insightful ? I hope so

Hope that helps and clears it up for you

So your FACT is 

We did not play a ‘Striker’ for 90 mins at home

So what is Weimenn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...