Most of us were at the game last night, it just seems we were watching a different one to you. Playing with no striker is a **** idea, it's always a **** idea, even when we're playing a team as impotent as Cardiff. In fact, particularly when we're playing a team as impotent as Cardiff.
Couldn't disagree more. How do you reconcile the fact that we're so "defensive" with the fact that we're joint third highest goalscorers? I suppose you'll say every team we've played is **** to further your agenda against Bruce. How many strikers do Stoke play usually? Would you say they're "defensive"? I think we had something like 19 shots at goal.
The notion of taking off a striker for a defensive mid - let alone our ONLY striker on the field - is always going to be a defensive one.
Disagree, but that couldn't be a more English thing to say haha. We play 4-4-****ing-2 with two big lumps like Andy Carroll and Carlton Cole and shove Scholes on the left because we can't imagine any other way to play, and wonder why we're left behind at international level.
Get your eyes tested. The players were confused, the crowd were confused and it seems you were confused as well...
My eyes are fine mate I'm in the prime of my life unlike the set of miserable old bastards who seem to frequent this board. Could you genuinely not see all the chances we created after Hernandez went off? Most of the crowd weren't confused at all, there were many loud chants of 'Steve Bruce' near the end, proving most people see what you can't.
To suggest replacing the only striker on the pitch with a defensive minded midfielder isn't a defensive move, no matter how many chances are created afterwards, is insane. You had a go at someone earlier saying that should expect criticism if they have a different viewpoint, yet now you seem to be contradicting yourself. Have a rest.
Explain what makes it defensive. Is the measure of the extent by which a team attacks not the number of chances created?
Erm... the quite obvious fact you're replacing an striker, the only one on the pitch, with a defensive minded midfielder? How are you not getting that?
Alright then mate, I'm not being slightly contradictory because I haven't said people can't disagree with me. They are quite welcome to but I'm likely to ignore them as most people on here don't come across as very intelligent. Erm... because I'm obviously capable of seeing something you can't? Why not just play four defenders and six strikers if the number of strikers playing is the only important metric?
Please, tell me, can you explain how replacing the only striker with a defensive minded midfielder ISN'T a defensive move? I'd love to know how it isn't.
1. It resulted in us keeping even more possession than we already were high up in enemy territory. 2. We continued to create a number of glorious chances, Bruce doesn't tell the players to not finish them. 3. If we were so defensive, wouldn't Cardiff have had a shot on target? 4. Diamé acted as a striker, linking up with the midfield very effectively.
1. Retaining possession is not a trait exclusive to attacking football. We were already dominating the possession on all fronts at this point. 2. You can still create chances even if you have 10 defenders on the pitch. 3. They probably could and should've done, they had a few chances but none of them were on target. They were clearly not a good side nor having a good performance either. 4. Diame hardly touched the ball after Hernandez went off. You seem to have this ideal in your head that chances = attacking football. That is the same as saying the more money a film makes, the better that film is. Would you say a Tony Pulis hoofball side plays attacking football? Because they are usually known for being notoriously boring defensive sides, but they have many chances which, by your logic, would make them an attacking team.
One of the prime reasons we were relegated last season was our negative tactics, they've continued this season (to a lesser degree), despite us having a squad far better than almost all of the teams we're now competing with. Last night we were playing a completely hopeless team at home, we were two up, yet instead of trying to ramp up our goal difference, we made defensive substitutions, as is par for the course with Bruce sadly. A great many of us are disappointed with this approach, it doesn't make us 'miserable ****s', merely fans who want to see our team do well and don't want to see the team put under undue pressure. As for your rather odd question, Stoke played six strikers in their last game (Walters, Krkic, Odemwingie, Arnautovic, Joselu and Crouch), they played five in the game before that and four in the game before that and I think they're a very good team who aren't defensive at all.
How do you people saying we're defensive genuinely not experience cognitive dissonance when you're talking up teams like Burnley and Derby for playing attacking football when they have scored 1 and 0 more goals than us respectively? I think you have genuinely warped and unrealistic expectations if you're expecting us to regularly score 5 and not concede loads at the same time.
You do realise we're discussing substitutions that only effect the last twenty minutes of games, yes?
At the minute yes, and I still disagree with you on that front. It all boils down to the same thing people complain about on here every week though so why not make a larger point?
