redcityman Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Just one thing to point out (and for the record I don't agree with the way he lined up on Saturday...) but as for comparing being fit for the bench this season with being fit for the bench last season - we have an extra two subs this year - who else was going to take Hartley's place on the bench? I've neither seen nor heard either GJ or PH state that he was fit - likewise I haven't heard either state anything to the contrary, but to use the fact that GJ has said when we were allowed 5 subs that if you're not fit to play you're not fit for the bench, is flawed on the basis that we can now have more, and have limited options. I also think it's quite unfair to criticise the decision to play Lee instead of Hartley, but not to bat an eyelid at playing Marv instead of Hartley - PH is a hybrid of the two, a tough tackling (M.E.) playmaker (LJ) and I would love to see someone explain what Marv offers over Hartley as well. Due to the family relation I don't think we'll ever see a balanced debate on that one. Hopefully tonight, we will see a more positive approach....I just don't know how without the width, and we have no-one who can play it in a 4-4-2. 3-5-2 seems the only way, and I'd be tempted to do that with Hartley, Skuse and Sno... but I ain't GJ! So where did I criticise the decision to play LJ over Hartley? I thought I was comenting on how someone can state something as fact, which in fact is an oppinion, but decrys other posters for not having the facts, he admits it himself with "The fact that Hartly is not yet fit to play is obvious, Quite clearly my point is that NONE OF US KNOW THE FACTS." bit of a contradiction there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barry_mack Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 So where did I criticise the decision to play LJ over Hartley? I thought I was comenting on how someone can state something as fact, which in fact is an oppinion, but decrys other posters for not having the facts, he admits it himself with "The fact that Hartly is not yet fit to play is obvious, Quite clearly my point is that NONE OF US KNOW THE FACTS." bit of a contradiction there! Are you on a windup? Where is the relevance? Ok, it was a turn of phrase used earlier in the thread, it wasn't fact but an educated guess. Do you honestly think GJ would leave out Hartly if he was fit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tunley Legend Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Patronising people with the freedom of speech thing really doesn't work to strengthen your case. It's not a case of what is said rather than the manner. A forum, by definition means exactly freedom of speech, this however doesn't mean that people should be allowed to act like children. People shouldn't be allowed to take offense to being called a disgrace when it's completely blown out of proportion? Ridiculous. We are not a 'couple of defeats from the bottom of the table'. Several results would need to go against us for several weeks. 4 central midfielders means we have a stronger midfield. It's that simple. Look at Chelsea. The goal keeper did his job. "Width" is not some magical term that wins you games. Explain which players would provide this width. Sno will not add the link between defence and attack. Hartley had an illness that will have left him very delapidated. As for the basics you keep going on about, just grow up. We drew a game in the fourth best league in Europe. Do you think we'd be able to do that without having first mastered the basics? Your argument is paper thin at best. Take a breathe and consider what you are saying before making such ridiculous kneejerk reactions. I'm sure you understand the meaning of your first paragraph. Even the most one eyed GJ fan can surely reason that if we were to lose a couple on the spin we would drop down the table and would be looking backwards (albeit temporarily perhaps) rather than forwards. Everyone knows how tight this league is. 4 central midfield players means that the wide midfield areas are not producing what is expected in the standard 4-4-2 system we are adopting at present. We are certainly not playing a Diamond thats for sure. Your laughable comparison with Chelsea has been answered more than adequately by Nibor. The Goalkeeper saved us from certain defeat on Saturday (look at the timing of his saves, not just the saves themselves) and has done so on a few occasions already this season. He is performing BEYOND the normal call of duty. Given that GJ has assembled a squad that lacks width (who said it was a magical term?), particularly on the left hand side of the pitch then we have no option but to consider Sproule, Haynes and maybe even Ribiero in wide areas in order that we can get some crosses into the opposition penalty area that are not going down the throats of either centre half and goalkeeper. If you add width to your side you do not need this so called "link" player everyone goes on about. By stretching teams out wide and getting balls into the box you can have bog standard forwards and an attacking box-to-box midfield player hitting the right areas. Thats all that Newcastle do and they are a better side than us. A link player is a waste of a player in my view. When you tell someone to "grow up" it is always best to make sure that your own thought processes are mature enough to understand their point first. In this instance you have failed abysmally. The point I was making about basics (which I am sure I have not been banging on about repeatedly) was in specific relation to the Bradley Orr incident on Saturday where a poster suggested that fans showed some humility following his comments on the radio. One point I must respond to is that the Championship is the FOURTH BEST SUPPORTED League in Europe. Fourth BEST it most certainly isn't - that is what I call a "kneejerk" comment. If we were playing in Ligue 1, the Bundesliga/Serie A (I can't remember which one has less support than ours) or the Eredivisie we would be relegation candidates if not relegation certainties believe you me. Lyon away would be a nice trip for the fans but a total massacre on the pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Watts Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 So where did I criticise the decision to play LJ over Hartley? I thought I was comenting on how someone can state something as fact, which in fact is an oppinion, but decrys other posters for not having the facts, he admits it himself with "The fact that Hartly is not yet fit to play is obvious, Quite clearly my point is that NONE OF US KNOW THE FACTS." bit of a contradiction there! Sorry....meant to delete the quote - yours was the last comment in the thread when I clicked "add reply". The comment I made was aimed at the the thread in general - not yours... Think a lot of people need to calm down - this is becoming quite an emotive subject here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Head Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 IF I was Gary Johnson I would rest Louis Carey, Marvin Elliott and Lee Johnson........ ..................................................................................... ............................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted October 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Why are you finding it so hard to have a rational debate? Why are you refusing to see my point? Do you think that GJ sees the team that started on Sat as his strongest available team with all players fit? Basically, you're incorrect in some of your statements and hypocritical in others so there's not much chance of me being able to have a rational debate with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.