Dwile Flonker Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 At the end of the day to blame one player is harsh when others were at fault for the goals aswell.We are a team and as a team we were second best on Saturday.Not blaming one player, just thought he could have done more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 Not blaming one player, just thought he could have done more.Could be forgiven for the confusion really - you said "Totally at fault".Fact is that if the silly backheel had never been attempted when there was no need for it, nothing to gain from it and everything to lose by an inexperienced young lad then there'd never have been a goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtraveller Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 some people on this forum are giving lee johnson a fair bit of stick. why. i think he is one of the best midfielders in this league. can someone name someone better. i do agree some goals from him and the rest of the midfield would not go a miss. he would look an even better player if we had some decent wingers. nick wright and williams are not the answer. oh for dave smith and mark gavin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Payney Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 I know things are arn't going quite the way we want them to at the present time. But let's not get on the back of 'arguably' our best player over last couple of months. The lad works tirelessly in every game he plays. I would love to see some stats, but I would wage a huge sum of money that he covers more ground than anyother player, week in week out. LJ (and Scott Brown), are the only players we have who look like they can 'open-up' a defence, and goodness knows, how many goals he has prevented this season, through blocks, last ditch tackles, interceptions and alike.There are plenty of City players who I would happily berate for a lack of effort and ability, but LJ wouldn't be one of them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwile Flonker Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 Could be forgiven for the confusion really - you said "Totally at fault".Fact is that if the silly backheel had never been attempted when there was no need for it, nothing to gain from it and everything to lose by an inexperienced young lad then there'd never have been a goal.I think your confusing 'totally' with 'exclusively'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 I think your confusing 'totally' with 'exclusively'.Exclusively is implicit when you say that he is totally at fault - noone else can have any fault if he has it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwile Flonker Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 Exclusively is implicit when you say that he is totally at fault - noone else can have any fault if he has it all.When I said totally at fault I meant that the extent of his fault was total, ie. not a slight mistake but a complete error of judgement. That is not to say he was exclusively to blame for the sequence of events but rather, in his part in the sequence of events, his fault was total. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.