Progress under LR

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Drew said:
Can I just clarify why I think you’re negative?

It’s not because you say things like ‘we need to be more clinical’, PLT has been saying that all season and I don’t think they are too negative.

It’s because you say things like ‘I wish Rosenior was our manager in 5/7 years time’ (forgive me if I’m paraphrasing, I can’t remember the exact quote).

It comes across as you don’t want him to be the manager now and you wish someone else more experienced was. That might not be what you mean, and I appreciate that, but the sheer number of times you’ve said it makes me think you have a downer on him.

You could say the same about Jaden, Delap, Greaves and all our young players. Yes it’s probably accurate but it LOOKS like you are wishing we had an alternative, without overly acknowledging that even if Rosenior is a little green, he’s still taking us forward in a very competitive division.

That’s the difference for me. Whether that’s what you mean when you say things like that is another matter, but the amount of times it’s been said adds up.
Click to expand...
PLT has been saying that all season and I don’t think they are too negative.

So PLT are a group? A trio? I always thought it was just one poster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Newlandcasual2, Howdentiger2 and Ric Glasgow
Drew said:
Can I just clarify why I think you’re negative?

It’s not because you say things like ‘we need to be more clinical’, PLT has been saying that all season and I don’t think they are too negative.

It’s because you say things like ‘I wish Rosenior was our manager in 5/7 years time’ (forgive me if I’m paraphrasing, I can’t remember the exact quote).

It comes across as you don’t want him to be the manager now and you wish someone else more experienced was. That might not be what you mean, and I appreciate that, but the sheer number of times you’ve said it makes me think you have a downer on him.

You could say the same about Jaden, Delap, Greaves and all our young players. Yes it’s probably accurate but it LOOKS like you are wishing we had an alternative, without overly acknowledging that even if Rosenior is a little green, he’s still taking us forward in a very competitive division.

That’s the difference for me. Whether that’s what you mean when you say things like that is another matter, but the amount of times it’s been said adds up.
Click to expand...

I said I'd prefer him to be our manager in xyz years because I think he'd be a much better, more experienced, more rounded and over all better manager and with his links to the club, his passion for the club and area. I think It would be a match made in heaven ( potentially). It's just a personal choice for me..... People I think have really read to much into it.

*Edit* again for me, I would prefer a more experienced manager in with ana this squad, again that's just my personal choice. It's absolutely nothing personal against LR ( not matter who much people try to say it is ). But LR has and is improving
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gone For A Walk
Howdentiger2 said:
I said I'd prefer him to be our manager in xyz years because I think he'd be a much better, more experienced, more rounded and over all better manager and with his links to the club, his passion for the club and area. I think It would be a match made in heaven ( potentially). It's just a personal choice for me..... People I think have really read to much into it.

*Edit* again for me, I would prefer a more experienced manager in with ana this squad, again that's just my personal choice. It's absolutely nothing personal against LR ( not matter who much people try to say it is ). But LR has and is improving
Click to expand...

Maybe so. Opinions innit. Just pointing out there’s more to it than picking apart individual matches.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim the Tiger and Howdentiger2
Drew said:
Maybe so. Opinions innit. Just pointing out there’s more to it than picking apart individual matches.
Click to expand...

Definitely is...I've no issue at all with anyone agreeing or disagreeing with me and having a different opinion etc. We've improved under him, I'm just not sure his got enough in his locker this early in his career to take us up
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gone For A Walk and Jim the Tiger
Howdentiger2 said:
Definitely is...I've no issue at all with anyone agreeing or disagreeing with me and having a different opinion etc. We've improved under him, I'm just not sure his got enough in his locker this early in his career to take us up
Click to expand...
It's an absolute stone wall certainty that we'll find out in 9 games time...

I can't see why this topic and the subsequent arguments that surround it are cropping up every day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gone For A Walk and Howdentiger2
Software predicting football matches being very loosely described as a "supercomputer" is something that bugs me a bit, and the current thing is to call everything 'AI'. From how that stats bot was described it sounds like it's just spitting out some headline stats that humans talk about anyway. Not that it's not interesting, just a bit generous to imply it's doing some sort of computational analytics based on how it was described here.

Anyway, the stats make a lot of sense. Low creation of scoring opportunities, yep. Shots from crap areas, yep definitely (this is why I think our problem isn't as simple as us not shooting often enough; we often go too far the other way and repeatedly shoot way off target from crap positions, like Tuesday night). Ineffective crossing, again yes definitely, whether it's down to the quality of the delivery or the people attacking it, it's evident that we very rarely meet the balls we put into the box.

I think it's a bit cheeky of a few posters to claim it as some kind of vindication that they've been right all along when their comments have been much more extreme than anything that bot has highlighted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quill, Off The Line, askewshair and 1 other person
PLT said:
Software predicting football matches being very loosely described as a "supercomputer" is something that bugs me a bit, and the current thing is to call everything 'AI'. From how that stats bot was described it sounds like it's just spitting out some headline stats that humans talk about anyway. Not that it's not interesting, just a bit generous to imply it's doing some sort of computational analytics based on how it was described here.

Anyway, the stats make a lot of sense. Low creation of scoring opportunities, yep. Shots from crap areas, yep definitely (this is why I think our problem isn't as simple as us not shooting often enough; we often go too far the other way and repeatedly shoot way off target from crap positions, like Tuesday night). Ineffective crossing, again yes definitely, whether it's down to the quality of the delivery or the people attacking it, it's evident that we very rarely meet the balls we put into the box.

I think it's a bit cheeky of a few posters to claim it as some kind of vindication that they've been right all along when their comments have been much more extreme than anything that bot has highlighted.
Click to expand...
I don't. Some of us have been saying pretty much what the Ai bot came out with, albeit with different words, and including the other non attacking points that you didn't include in your post and that you haven't been harking on about. Not bragging, not claiming it's vindication, but it's incorrect to claim it isn't pretty much a spot on match to what a few of us have been saying for months.
 
PLT said:
Software predicting football matches being very loosely described as a "supercomputer" is something that bugs me a bit, and the current thing is to call everything 'AI'. From how that stats bot was described it sounds like it's just spitting out some headline stats that humans talk about anyway. Not that it's not interesting, just a bit generous to imply it's doing some sort of computational analytics based on how it was described here.

Anyway, the stats make a lot of sense. Low creation of scoring opportunities, yep. Shots from crap areas, yep definitely (this is why I think our problem isn't as simple as us not shooting often enough; we often go too far the other way and repeatedly shoot way off target from crap positions, like Tuesday night). Ineffective crossing, again yes definitely, whether it's down to the quality of the delivery or the people attacking it, it's evident that we very rarely meet the balls we put into the box.

I think it's a bit cheeky of a few posters to claim it as some kind of vindication that they've been right all along when their comments have been much more extreme than anything that bot has highlighted.
Click to expand...

We were right all along though. You’re too arrogant to admit that maybe you were wrong so you’ve shifted to ‘okay, so you might be right but you’re cheeky for saying it’ <laugh>
 
Genuinely don't know what either of you two think you've been proven right about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back