Silvio Dante Posted May 10 Report Share Posted May 10 Cards on the table - I like JP, he’s one of the best print journalists we’ve had covering us for ages. But I also think this article misses a lot of the marks. It mentions that the sale of Scott was felt more keenly by Manning than Pearson as NP didn’t place that much importance on that kind of player (he did well to get £25m for him if he wasn’t vital!). It also kind of glosses over the communication around the sacking (saying words were misconstrued), the Mebude signing (where the annoyance comes from the work permit bullshit) is a touch too positive around Twine and brings up the Southampton game as being viewed by people as a freak outlier as they had “caustic caution”. (in reality we played a different way against Saints as against other games). The thematic from JP is that it seems we had a plan - and we really didn’t (or have one that was working) until the pivot in the last 8 games. Also mentions both Cardiff games being awful (I thought we were OK under difficult circumstances in the first!) Its a good read and isn’t hyperbolic, but is a bit too glass half full. Nothing wrong there - Im probably on the other side to a lot of his points but broadly see a lot of the same things. Finally, he mentions this was our best championship season defensively since 93/94. That season, coincidentally, we also had a cup run that masked a few underlying things. I’m trying to forget what happened next! 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exAtyeoMax Posted May 10 Report Share Posted May 10 2 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said: Its a good read and isn’t hyperbolic, but is a bit too glass half full. Nothing wrong there - Im probably on the other side to a lot of his points but broadly see a lot of the same things. The problem with glossing over everything, is that it's not honest and addressing the problems at the club. Words weren't misconstrued… I was going to comment on the post on X but couldn't be bothered. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Dante Posted May 10 Author Report Share Posted May 10 1 minute ago, exAtyeoMax said: The problem with glossing over everything, is that it's not honest and addressing the problems at the club. Words weren't misconstrued… I was going to comment on the post on X but couldn't be bothered. Dont get me wrong - I agree in the main. I’m not seeing Piercys post as full North Korea but it’s nearer there than what I think a lot of us have seen, let’s say it’s Vietnam. The big thing in it is that the story of this season is October, and I think he’s been a touch too generous in his reading there. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exAtyeoMax Posted May 10 Report Share Posted May 10 3 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said: Dont get me wrong - I agree in the main. I’m not seeing Piercys post as full North Korea but it’s nearer there than what I think a lot of us have seen, let’s say it’s Vietnam. The big thing in it is that the story of this season is October, and I think he’s been a touch too generous in his reading there. I don't mind if he wants to pretend everything is rosy but I don't like it when they try to suggest that fans were/are at fault. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted May 10 Report Share Posted May 10 15 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said: I was going to comment on the post on X but couldn't be bothered. I did! 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Dante Posted May 10 Author Report Share Posted May 10 3 minutes ago, Davefevs said: I did! Just saw! It is a little disingenuous to say “Man who developed player into £25m asset and wasn’t given funds to replace him was hurt less by his departure than his successor, who had a replacement funded” - particularly when you saw the germs of the plan that pre season! 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted May 10 Report Share Posted May 10 3 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said: Just saw! It is a little disingenuous to say “Man who developed player into £25m asset and wasn’t given funds to replace him was hurt less by his departure than his successor, who had a replacement funded” - particularly when you saw the germs of the plan that pre season! Indeed…. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted May 10 Report Share Posted May 10 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said: Just saw! It is a little disingenuous to say “Man who developed player into £25m asset and wasn’t given funds to replace him was hurt less by his departure than his successor, who had a replacement funded” - particularly when you saw the germs of the plan that pre season! It's more than disingenuous it's a distortion of the truth. It was clear in pre-season that Nigel was going to play Scott in an attacking role. He was seen as the key player. Implying that Nigel wasn't that bothered is nonsense. If it wasn't for the lack of spelling mistakes this could have been written by Tinnion. Edited May 10 by chinapig 4 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 10 Report Share Posted May 10 Knight, Scott and AN Other would have been perfect. Sure add TGH and latterly Bird as we go along perhaps..For some games, Naismith as the deepest of the 3 could have been one way to go with Scott dribbling, breaking the lines, winning fouls to relieve or build pressure depending on match phase and half of the field. Knight doing what Knight does at number 8, Naismith pass before the key pass or similar. James, Williams, King plus potentially even TGH also on the books- good range. Some of that is caveated by availability of course. Anyway the premise of Piercy is unusual given that our possession and intent in this respect was steadily improving last season, especially vs bottom 3rd sides or lower sides. Possession and control.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted May 10 Report Share Posted May 10 1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said: Just saw! It is a little disingenuous to say “Man who developed player into £25m asset and wasn’t given funds to replace him was hurt less by his departure than his successor, who had a replacement funded” - particularly when you saw the germs of the plan that pre season! Replace disingenuous with absolute bullshit. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Dante Posted May 10 Author Report Share Posted May 10 2 hours ago, Jose said: Replace disingenuous with absolute bullshit. He’s explained himself. Now just needs to explain the rest of it (love your work James, but this is article is a touch too deferent) He’s actually pretty close to getting it in his next tweet when he says the failure to replace Scott until Twine (debate/discuss how good he is) was felt all the way through the season. The question he needs to ask as a journo (and again, a bloody good one) is why Scott wasn’t replaced. And we all know the answer to that but we rely on people like James to ask that question. (And actually add light to the Mebude debacle) Do it James. You know you want to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Isewater Posted May 10 Report Share Posted May 10 Piercy is a damn good sports writer. When I think of Greg Gregor MacGregor and others he is streets , nay , whole suburbs ahead. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.