Here we go again, there's always something to moan about. Before today's game we were 3rd in the form table. But for a bit of stupidity from a young player we could have won today and found ourself in Sixth and we still have our many striker injured. We are a top 6 team and if it hadn't been for some significant injuries this season that's where we'd be.
I agree, but I don’t think your points are all that far apart to be honest. There are always injuries - we know that with our best team we are top six, but if injuries hurt us we will be borderline and have to outperform as a group. That’s pretty much the story of our season and in fact much of the last couple too
Against ITFC away, we were outplayed for most of the match, but managed a draw thanks to two opportunists strikes from Rowe. Against WBA away we were again outplayed for most of the match losing by one goal, albeit down to 10 men for most of the game. All teams have injuries to key players so the injury situation has to be managed. Both teams in top 6, both dominated play. We have yet to play both ITFC and WBA at home, so the story may be different. I was not moaning, just trying to be realistic.
Excluding the 3 teams that came down last year there isn't a team in this league that could cope with level of injuries to first team players that we've had and it not effect them as much as it has us. Most if not all teams would do a lot worst than us. We have been particularly unfortunate with injuries.
Both West Brom and Ipswich are in the top 6, neither as far as I'm aware have any significant players injured. We went toe to toe with Ipswich at their ground and got a result any team in this league would be happy with. Against West Brom at there ground we were down to 10 men for 2 thirds of the game and they could still only score once against us. Neither of these games / performances suggests we're aren't a top 6 team, if anything it's the opposite. Only a couple of days ago we comfortably beat Huddersfield 2 - 0. Today they spanked Blackburn 3 - 0. A few weeks ago it was we don't play enough young players, then when we do and they make a mistake, it's doom and gloom. We have at least as much chance of finishing in the top 6 as any other team in the top half of the table. Leicester a side we have potential to finish above every other team in this league. Its about time fans started to talk the team up rather than running ourselves down.
Well we "could" also have won today despite Sainz' red card, and we "could" have kept eleven on the field and still lost. Sainz didn't cost us the game; he simply lengthened the odds of our getting anything out of it. Slicker's assessment of where we are seems pretty fair to me. That's why I think we will try to add a bit of extra quality in January.
I think you might have to clarify your post as, you say, we have missed the point. If not, we will have agree to differ.
Wasn't directed at you, Robbie took one line out of my post, used in out of context and tried to change the discussion form whether or not we are a top 6 team to whether or not the sending off of Sainz cost us the game. He does this all the time. We could of course have a discussion around whether Sainz cost us the game or not, but that discussion is really irrelevant to my point that if it wasn't for our injury issues this season we would be a top 6 team.
Why then did I quite explicitly address the question of "whether or not we are a top 6 team" by aligning myself with Slicker? And why do you think I referred to strengthening in January, if not to try to cross the threshold of the door at which we are currently, in Slicker's words, knocking?
You didn't, but that was what we were discussing. You tried to change the discussion to whether Sainz's sending off cost us the game or not. Hence my comment "Ad usual you totally miss the point." If the purpose of your post was to add to the discussion as to whether or not we were a top team, why did you only highligh the Sainz part of my post? Normally when people highlight a particular part of someone's post and comment on it, its' what they want to discuss. On whether the Sainz sending off cost us the game or not you clearly stated it didn't, which is absurd, you don't know that. None of us know what would have happened if Sainz had kept his mouth shut and not get sent off, but I think every one, maybe except you, would expect us to do better with 11 players on the field then 10. My point however was that West Brom are a top 6 team and as far as I'm aware don't have any injuries to key players, they currently sit 5th and we still managed to compete with them despite having one less player for about 2 thirds of the game, which suggests to me that if we had our strongest team on the pitch we may have done better than lose 1 nil. A win would have put us in 5th and them in 6th.
Slicker: "I think this game showed where we are in this league. Not top 6 material, but knocking on the door." Me: "Slicker's assessment of where we are seems pretty fair to me. That's why I think we will try to add a bit of extra quality in January." If I wasn't referring to the debate about whether we are a top 6 team, what was I referring refer to? And for your information, I had no intention of "changing the discussion to whether Sainz's sending off cost us the game". My intention was, firstly, to question your use of "could" in the bit of your post that I quoted, and secondly to express my agreement with Slicker regarding whether we actually are "top 6 material" or rather "knocking at the door".
Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more could verb 1."> past of can1. used to indicate possibility I believe I used the word correctly. Anyway I now as bored with this as everyone else, so I won't be discussing it further.
I just switched off ignore briefly & this thread made much more sense. Captain doom monger is on the wind up again
