Welcome To The Jungle Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Tactically a spot on decision and if we were half decent team we would have drawn, and nearly won anyway with the Baldock chance. Had to be done because we created nothing all game and taylor gave us an outlet. If you had to chose between davies and baldock with Taylor, got to chose Baldock for his pace and movement. Going forward the man knows what he's doing. Got to get nasty, get nasty and goals 3 and 4 wouldn't have happened. Get 'em kicking Del Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisBCFC Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Clueless post. The problem isnt going forward, its at the back.....what evidence is there to suggest he knows what to do with our defense? NONE AT ALL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobArnold10 Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Clueless post. The problem isnt going forward, its at the back.....what evidence is there to suggest he knows what to do with our defense? NONE AT ALL. Clueless response. We needed a target man to get more direct. At 3-1 down you have to go for the game. Another defensive option would have been moronic. Also...did we not then bang in two goals? QED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastend 75 Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Tactically a spot on decision and if we were half decent team we would have drawn, and nearly won anyway with the Baldock chance. Had to be done because we created nothing all game and taylor gave us an outlet. If you had to chose between davies and baldock with Taylor, got to chose Baldock for his pace and movement. Going forward the man knows what he's doing. Got to get nasty, get nasty and goals 3 and 4 wouldn't have happened. Get 'em kicking Del rubbish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfc_Jamie Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Clueless response. We needed a target man to get more direct. At 3-1 down you have to go for the game. Another defensive option would have been moronic. Also...did we not then bang in two goals? QED. Clueless response x2. Davies won 90% of headers tonight. He's our best ariel threat in the team. Clueless OP anyway. Del has questions to answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobArnold10 Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Clueless response x2. Davies won 90% of headers tonight. He's our best ariel threat in the team. Clueless OP anyway. Del has questions to answer. Glass houses and stones chap. Taylor won about as much, and helped improve pressure in their box, and as I said, we then scored two goals. For the record I wasnt sure about the sub at the time, but we did score two, like it or not thats a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted October 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Clueless post. The problem isnt going forward, its at the back.....what evidence is there to suggest he knows what to do with our defense? NONE AT ALL. rubbish Clueless and rubbish??? 2 down and 1 chance which was a freekick. Suddenly making chances and scored 2. Yes the defence is the issue, but at 2 down, I no longer give a **** about the defence and want to get goals which we did. Del indeed needs to answer for our abysmal defence, but this change was not something he needed to answer for. Bit of simple maths Before change 1 chance 1 goal After change at least 4 good chances and 2 goals. In half the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinyCityLad7 Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Taking Davies off was a mistake, the goals that were scored was from a free kick and a penalty. So Taylor didn't do no better IMO than Davies would of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobArnold10 Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Taking Davies off was a mistake, the goals that were scored was from a free kick and a penalty. So Taylor didn't do no better IMO than Davies would of DM just quoted as saying he was tired. Also second half we had lost pressure going forward, Taylor brought more presense imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidebet Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Clueless response. We needed a target man to get more direct. At 3-1 down you have to go for the game. Another defensive option would have been moronic. Also...did we not then bang in two goals? QED. All in all then, everyone is clueless. And to be honest i think thats about right. Blame the manager..... Blame the defense....... Blame the fans..... **** it!! Blame geoff twentypence aswell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfctim Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Couldn't believe it when Davies was taken off, but we got back to 3-3 - so that is clearly not the problem here. Do you think with Davies still on the pitch we'd have won 6-3 or something??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastend 75 Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Clueless and rubbish??? 2 down and 1 chance which was a freekick. Suddenly making chances and scored 2. Yes the defence is the issue, but at 2 down, I no longer give a **** about the defence and want to get goals which we did. Del indeed needs to answer for our abysmal defence, but this change was not something he needed to answer for. Bit of simple maths Before change 1 chance 1 goal After change at least 4 good chances and 2 goals. In half the time davies was city's best player first half 3 1 down straight away 2 nd half and u agree with taking Davies off . We're u there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steviestevieneville Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Clueless post. The problem isnt going forward, its at the back.....what evidence is there to suggest he knows what to do with our defense? NONE AT ALL. It's not just the defence, we were terrible in midfield tonight. They had so much space it was unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfctim Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 davies was city's best player first half 3 1 down straight away 2 nd half and u agree with taking Davies off . We're u there Would totally agree with you if we limped to a 3-1 defeat. But we got back to 3-3 - mission accomplished (at least until our defence screwed us over again). May have been a strange decision but we scored the goals we needed so frankly who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted October 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 davies was city's best player first half 3 1 down straight away 2 nd half and u agree with taking Davies off . We're u there Yes I was, yes Davies was our best player but was getting no service at all. Albert was doubled up on so it was hoofball to Baldock and davies. We were going no where. More to football that the simple keep our best players on the pitch or city would play a 0-5-5 formation. Taking him off worked, at the time I thought it would work. Taylor gave us a way forward and was a menace. Long ball to him resulted in the penalty and he held up the ball for Albert who won the freekick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastend 75 Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Would totally agree with you if we limped to a 3-1 defeat. But we got back to 3-3 - mission accomplished (at least until our defence screwed us over again). May have been a strange decision but we scored the goals we needed so frankly who cares? wat are u on about we scored a pen and rebound from free kick Wat else did we create besides baldocks shot Davies was city's best player by far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lack of Action Man Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 I would've started with Taylor from the off. They had two big centre halves and for me the game just didn't suit Baldock. If we'd have had Taylor and Davies up there, we could've battered them a bit more. Taking Davies off angered me because my preference would've been to have both the big lads up top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastend 75 Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Yes I was, yes Davies was our best player but was getting no service at all. Albert was doubled up on so it was hoofball to Baldock and davies. We were going no where. More to football that the simple keep our best players on the pitch or city would play a 0-5-5 formation. Taking him off worked, at the time I thought it would work. Taylor gave us a way forward and was a menace. Long ball to him resulted in the penalty and he held up the ball for Albert who won the freekick. u admit he was r best player but we should of taken him off . Brilliant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JammyOne Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Davies was phenomenal today, he worked hard in defence, worked like a horse, scored a crazy free kick. I just hope he knows the booing was aimed at Derek's choice of bringing him off rather than his performances. Davies; man of the match by far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinyCityLad7 Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 DM just quoted as saying he was tired. Also second half we had lost pressure going forward, Taylor brought more presense imo. And I don't believe him. Really don't, sounds like a excuse rather then an explanation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 I like Davies a lot and thought he had a good game but it wasn't really this sub that cost us as Taylor did OK when he came on. Until we can learn to defend we might as well not bother scoring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carey 6 Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 I spoke to Davies dad on saturday at Bolton, he said Davies had no pre season and thats why he got taken off at the time then. Now is this a valid excuse for a player to still not be fit this far into the season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfctim Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 wat are u on about we scored a pen and rebound from free kick Wat else did we create besides baldocks shot Davies was city's best player by far Your point being? In 60 minutes we scored 1 goal and were struggling to create much. Then in the last 30 we created more and scored 2 goals. There's not exactly a shortage of things to complain about - yet this is what you choose... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted October 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 u admit he was r best player but we should of taken him off . Brilliant Okay, lets do this simply by a list. Do you agree or disagree with these statements? 1) Davies was our best player (and really that was due to everyone else being crap his beautiful freekick aside) 2) He got no service 3) If he's getting no service and with no one on the bench to provide it, what's the point of him being on the pitch. 4) Did it work? Like I said, football is a team game, not one for individuals. Taylor brought people into play and have us sustained possession in their half. If Davies had stayed on the pitch we would have probably limped to defeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastend 75 Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Your point being? In 60 minutes we scored 1 goal and were struggling to create much. Then in the last 30 we created more and scored 2 goals. There's not exactly a shortage of things to complain about - yet this is what you choose... wat I'm saying Davies was r best and most threatening player can u not see that u sarcastic ***** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastend 75 Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Okay, lets do this simply by a list. Do you agree or disagree with these statements? 1) Davies was our best player (and really that was due to everyone else being crap his beautiful freekick aside) 2) He got no service 3) If he's getting no service and with no one on the bench to provide it, what's the point of him being on the pitch. 4) Did it work? Like I said, football is a team game, not one for individuals. Taylor brought people into play and have us sustained possession in their half. If Davies had stayed on the pitch we would have probably limped to defeat. u chat shit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted October 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 wat I'm saying Davies was r best and most threatening player can u not see that u sarcastic ***** And the team as a whole threatened infinitely more with Taylor up there. 'Can you not see that' to quote someone who can't see for the inside of his own ass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfctim Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 wat I'm saying Davies was r best and most threatening player can u not see that u sarcastic ***** Yes i agree totally, as i said above i was baffled by the decision at the time. But with the benefit of hindsight, it worked. I certainly wasn't thinking at ft god if only del had kept davies on we'd have won that game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastend 75 Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 And the team as a whole threatened infinitely more with Taylor up there. 'Can you not see that' to quote someone who can't see for the inside of his own ass u really r a ***** . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted October 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 u really r a ***** . And you have told me I chat shit and I'm a ***** in your last 2 responses to me. Thanks for admitting I'm right with your insults and inability to provide a decent argument. You might feel more at home on the gas forum. Thanks for playing today, but you leave with nothing, you are the weakest link... ...goodbye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.