Line up vs Bournemouth

[BobBobSuperBob]

56 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

As much as it was a joy to watch, you can’t seriously be saying that there were no crosses wasted? 

What a bizarre comment 

(First tip is maybe you’d like to read posts before posting)

But anyway I’ll try and take you through it

The resident troll posted 

who remembers the likes of Mark Gavin, Smudger Smith, Scot Murray bombing up and down the wing?  Great to watch! Even if it came to nothing.......

( no word of occasionally , sometimes ..... just ‘it came to nothing’)

Came to nothing 

Came to nothing .....

Came to nothing  

Now I don’t know whether you were about then or just have a dreadful or selective memory , I watched every minute of every game Home and away League and Cup , and one of the primary reasons for the success of that side was the goals that resulted from service to the likes of Taylor and Turner

Came to Nothing ?

A complete joke of a comment and if you back it you’re welcome

 

 

Then you decide to pitch in with your 

 

As much as it was a joy to watch, you can’t seriously be saying that there were no crosses wasted?

First simple q - Where have I said or suggested that ?     (I’ll come to your use of the word wasted )

 

The troll had stated they ‘came to nothing’ , which couldn’t be further from the truth - , there’s plenty that did 

(as I said - good idea to read the posts your commenting on)

 

As for your interesting use of the word ‘wasted’

From this you are clearly of a view that if the ball doesn’t end up in the net from a cross (For whatever reason) it is ‘wasted’ or a ‘wasted’ use of the ball

With this view , Im not going to waste my time going into the footballing benefits of crossing a ball even within and as part of the new modern game ‘trends’  (Everyone now deciding they are going to be the next Pap)  (And as I’ve stated it’s all about decisions as the whole game is about how best to use the ball at that time) or your theory about when to cross or how to penetrate or create without crossing a ball at some points

Maybe you’d like them to only cross a ball when it’s guaranteed to result in a goal or a chance maybe ?

A sound theory - at the same time we can remind them to shoot only when they are guaranteed to score

 

Have you a theory of when a player should cross a ball into the box ?     or never maybe  ? 

 

From this thread it appears there a lot of regurgitated Tv pundits trending opinions and some bemusing waffle

 

 

[Ian M]

I know Robbored likes to troll but on this occasion I dont see it that way & I'm gonna take it upon myself to be the lone voice sticking up for him.

There was a theme developing in the thread that wing play was ineffective and Robbored was making the point that even if it came to nothing, wing play was exciting and cited examples of some of our more effective wingers down the years. How they were exciting to watch "even if it came to nothing"... I took it that he meant "at times" even though he didn't explicitly write the words. 

Whilst winning is the number 1 priority when I go to watch City (I can take enjoyment from a backs to the wall 1-0 win), being entertained is a close number 2 and I took Robbo's post to be supportive of wingers.

There's many things he posts that should be taken to task but on this occasion I think people are getting their wires crossed.

Now I'm just gonna go and hide under a rock whilst this plays out

[Chivs]

25 minutes ago, Ian M said:

I know Robbored likes to troll but on this occasion I dont see it that way & I'm gonna take it upon myself to be the lone voice sticking up for him.

There was a theme developing in the thread that wing play was ineffective and Robbored was making the point that even if it came to nothing, wing play was exciting and cited examples of some of our more effective wingers down the years. How they were exciting to watch "even if it came to nothing"... I took it that he meant "at times" even though he didn't explicitly write the words. 

Whilst winning is the number 1 priority when I go to watch City (I can take enjoyment from a backs to the wall 1-0 win), being entertained is a close number 2 and I took Robbo's post to be supportive of wingers.

There's many things he posts that should be taken to task but on this occasion I think people are getting their wires crossed.

Now I'm just gonna go and hide under a rock whilst this plays out

Hey @Ian M, I was sticking up for @Robbored long before you arrived on this thread.  Get your own victim! 

[Robbored]

1 hour ago, Ian M said:

I know Robbored likes to troll but on this occasion I dont see it that way & I'm gonna take it upon myself to be the lone voice sticking up for him.

There was a theme developing in the thread that wing play was ineffective and Robbored was making the point that even if it came to nothing, wing play was exciting and cited examples of some of our more effective wingers down the years. How they were exciting to watch "even if it came to nothing"... I took it that he meant "at times" even though he didn't explicitly write the words. 

Whilst winning is the number 1 priority when I go to watch City (I can take enjoyment from a backs to the wall 1-0 win), being entertained is a close number 2 and I took Robbo's post to be supportive of wingers.

There's many things he posts that should be taken to task but on this occasion I think people are getting their wires crossed.

Thanks for the support Ian but it was only Bob that that took umbrage at my post, but then he often does and why I,  for his own peace of mind suggested that he put me in ignore.