This thread is funny... maybe you shouldn't have backed the sacking of NB who was certainly playing some pretty football. Can't have the cake and eat it.
So on another thread Cairney was a good PL player but hasn't had a good game since, yet on this one the fact that those 3 have played in the PL makes them useful to us? Simpson refused to play in the system and he didn't deserve to play based on that and Oli is just gash. We played him, he was crap, we dropped him again.
I clearly embarrassed you, Mr Peter Saxon. Now remain a fool for the rest of your life. It was an opinion, a piss-poor one at that and your use of Scum simply shows you for what you are - an inadequate soul without the intelligence to post as you would wish to; watching you with interest, as you might surprise us all with something worthwhile, but . . . . .
You must live in some other world. I backed the owners, I wanted Nick Barmby to be sussessful. Nick Barmby was not sacked because of the football, but because of a dispute with the Allams and I support that. Just to add to the NB sacking story, I know several people who, know NB and his family. They don't have a kind word to say about him. They where involved with local football for years and it was only a couple of weeks ago that they said anything. I personally liked him when I met him and still do. I just support the owners on their action as well, now that's cake and eating it!
Mel - Been called alot worse, coast to coast! If that's his photo, then Saxon looks like he writes, so he probably is!
I'd worry about Proschwitz adapting if we went too direct early on, surely that would put a ton of pressure on the lad? Not sure if he's even scored a goal yet for us? We couldn't score last season which was our main problem, the football was OK though I would say, if the goals had gone in we would have made the play-offs. Matty only seemed to find his scoring boots when it was too late. Am worried that we will see a drop-off in standard of play with Bruce and still have goalscoring issues.
We gave him 1 game after the best part of a year out. I suppose he was meant to dominate for 90 minutes. We gave Garcia a new deal and then didnt play him until the season was effectively over.
I'd have liked to have kept Garcia on this season. Effective winger at this level, he has good delivery in the final 3rd which is something I still think we're lacking.
It's hard to say whether we miss the quality as we never did cross it Stewart would rather shoot or take someone on, and Brady always tried to do what he did when he scored against Reading. But I'm crossed between whether we should have gambled on another year for Garcia but if we can sign Elmo, I'd much rather have Elmo and Aluko as the wingers.
Garcia was very flexible in the positions he offered. OK, we all laughed (or cried) when he was used as a striker, but Australia used him as a striker. Maybe it made more sense in their team than ours, though.
For somebody who talks about intelligence I find it most amusing that you can't even get my name right. Let me guess, you are a young keyboard warrior without employment and scared to reveal his name.
Obviously, I didn't mean that everybody who doesn't use their own name are scum. Just the people that take advantage of anonymity to act brave on a forum.
It's so amusing that you can't get your own name right - is it really all one word, or does exactness not apply to you. Re-read my original post, there is nothing brave about it; just factual, as it was the daftest comment I have read on here - certainly one of the most naive! I have suggested you are a fool, you have proven it. "Let me guess, you are a young keyboard warrior without employment and scared to reveal his name"; Wrong but so what (except for the name, but that is simply a sensible thing with nutters like you around)? Do you have something against the young, the unemployed or both - if they can show themselves to be better equipped that you, in matters of debate (or most, probably), then do feel you can bully them with your silly comments of bravery that infers some intimidation on your part. Now **** off and try and be clever with someone who gives a ****.
marvellous insight! these things had never occurred to me nor i would hazard to other users of the board. bravissimo!
Hopefully direct football means sexy through balls and strikers that play off the shoulder as opposed to lumping it down the field aimlessly from centre-back. We do need to be more direct, though to be honest there were a fair few situations last season where we ended up one on one with the keeper and our man on the ball would mess it up. That would suggest the finishing to be the biggest problem. Theoretically you'll create more chances on goal if you're direct though you'll potentially be at greater risk. I'd rather be direct, create chances and risk losing the ball than keep it for minutes at a time and do nothing with it... it runs down the clock and does us no good! We need to switch to good possession like that when we're 2 goals up!
A few thunderbolt headers off pinpoint crosses following dazzling wingplay, would seem like more 'direct football' to me. And a very welcome addition to our game, I propose. We must allow ourselves the scope to mix it up a bit, don't think it means we become a Stoke City tribute team.
