Ankergren?

[FalmerforAll!**]

You completely ignored it YOURSELF when you started whining like a little bitch about us keeping possession in the last 20 instead of bombing on forward like we were trying to rescue the game. And we still created opportunities in the last 20 anyway, we just didn't take them.

HOW you can find something to moan about after today is frankly inexplicable, but then I guess you were one of the utter tools urging us to "BLOODY GET IT FORWARD" when we were doing this in the home game against Bournemouth. Thankfully those shouts have pretty much been embarrassed into silence now and I guess this is just the outlet for them instead. Rather on here than at the game I suppose.

So you think the way we play shouldn't be effected at ALL by the circumstances of a match? Not even when we're playing a team that were f***ing awful, having just brought on two new players and with a three goal cushion? Also how many times must it be said until you understand - I think the time wasting is unecessary. The way we played in the first half, using Ankergren to draw an attacker out of the equation and build from the back was different to how we were using him to draw an attacker after the fourth goal. I have to wonder how you've still got it in your head that I wanted us to charge downfield as quickly and frantically as possible despite having posted in SIMPLE terms expressing how this isn't the case.

You'd be surprised but I actually sarcastically shouted that once. Your assumptions are embarrassing, not to mention your constant twisting of words in order to make it suit your point. Respect to GF, he's made an attempt to actually argue the point rather than put words into my mouth.

 

[Acker79]

If 4-1 is good enough, then there is no need to push on for a 5th. What would you have us do to not push on for a fifth without "time wasting"?

An aspect of the style we played in that last 25-30 mins that I didn't notice mentioned (I got bored and started to skim read) is the way Hartlepool's main striker, number 14 was run ragged. He had to close down Ankergren every single time he had the ball, or else they had no chance of getting anything. By forcing their players to work like that when we have the ball, saps them of energy when they do get the ball, and they had it quite a bit towards the end of the second half, but their shots and runs were quite tired because of how we played. It isn't just about making space for our attacks. I imagine it also frustrates our opponents, which affects them psychologically.

 

[ady1973]

Maybe it's an age thing.....the younger generation around me in the South stand are quite happy to see the team pass it about.

Where as it seems to be older generation yelling .."get it up the field' or 'awww dont play it back '. I suppose they were brought up on kick and rush and not the Barcelona way

 

[bristolseagull]

This thread is un f***ing believable.

I genuinely hope I don't have to sit near you c@nts at the new place..

 

[The Terminator]

Annoy is a bit strong... it was incredibly dull and I don't think we really needed to do it. But after the rest of that performance it doesn't really matter.

tbh i suppose it is a bit boring BUT i just love it at the same time .
all my life we have played near kick and run football , so i no it may be a little boring at times but just appreciate it gus isnt going to be here for ever

cracking win today boys keep up the effort and ... THE CHAMPIONSHIP BECKONS

 

[Guy Fawkes]

So you think the way we play shouldn't be effected at ALL by the circumstances of a match? Not even when we're playing a team that were f***ing awful, having just brought on two new players and with a three goal cushion? Also how many times must it be said until you understand - I think the time wasting is unecessary. The way we played in the first half, using Ankergren to draw an attacker out of the equation and build from the back was different to how we were using him to draw an attacker after the fourth goal. I have to wonder how you've still got it in your head that I wanted us to charge downfield as quickly and frantically as possible despite having posted in SIMPLE terms expressing how this isn't the case.

You'd be surprised but I actually sarcastically shouted that once. Your assumptions are embarrassing, not to mention your constant twisting of words in order to make it suit your point. Respect to GF, he's made an attempt to actually argue the point rather than put words into my mouth.

I'm guessing your quite young

In the majority of games where there a side is dominant (as we were today), the better side will usually ease right off because they know the game as a contest if effectively over, and it becomes more like a training match.

How many times do you see it when a side gets a 3 or 4 goal head start early in a match and the game finishes with the same or very similar final score. A side doesn't get extra points for scoring X number of goals and winning by 1 is enough to pick up the three points, so why put so much extra effort in to get nothing back?. Why should we be any different?

 

[OSRGull]

Well, we can't both be right, can we....so it follows that as I'm right, you're wrong.

Are you really that thick ? It's not a fact, it's an opinion on how we FEEL on Ankergrens time wasting, so therefore neither us can be right or wrong.

 

[FalmerforAll!**]

I'm guessing your quite young

In the majority of games where there a side is dominant (as we were today), the better side will usually ease right off because they know the game as a contest if effectively over, and it becomes more like a training match.

How many times do you see it when a side gets a 3 or 4 goal head start early in a match and the game finishes with the same or very similar final score. A side doesn't get extra points for scoring X number of goals and winning by 1 is enough to pick up the three points, so why put so much extra effort in to get nothing back?. Why should we be any different?

Don't get me wrong, I understand how it works. I understand that a side can't be expected to carry out a full on assault when they're goals ahead. But I put it to you that very rarely when the Albion have been in a situation where we've been on the end of a good tonking (the 5-1 at Reading springs to mind), have the other side actually started time wasting. Taking their foot off the gas yes, but actually time wasting? Definitely not. When time wasting occurs, it's usually when it's a close game and there is a genuine need to run down the clock. Home to Hartlepool and 4-1 up? I just don't get it.

That's the point I was trying to make. E10 is generally trying to insinuate that I was pissed off with a 4-1 victory, which is completely and utter bollocks, obviously I know we played and that the vast majority of our play was on a different level. Just don't see the need to time waste.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Lots of people around me seemed to be getting quite pissed off with him when he was playing it around the box when we were 4-1 up :US:. I don't know why this annoys so many people, I think it's a big part of our game... Does it annoy you?

Doesn't annoy me at all. It's quite fun in a grim kind of way, mainly cos he's not very good at it. Only a matter of time before the ball bobbles over his foot into the goal from a back-pass. Or he slips when he's taking the piss out of the forward and the forward goes on to stroke the ball into an empty net. Accident waiting to happen really.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Don't get me wrong, I understand how it works. I understand that a side can't be expected to carry out a full on assault when they're goals ahead. But I put it to you that very rarely when the Albion have been in a situation where we've been on the end of a good tonking (the 5-1 at Reading springs to mind), have the other side actually started time wasting. Taking their foot off the gas yes, but actually time wasting? Definitely not. When time wasting occurs, it's usually when it's a close game and there is a genuine need to run down the clock. Home to Hartlepool and 4-1 up? I just don't get it.

That's the point I was trying to make. E10 is generally trying to insinuate that I was pissed off with a 4-1 victory, which is completely and utter bollocks, obviously I know we played and that the vast majority of our play was on a different level. Just don't see the need to time waste.

You say time wasting, others might say controlling the game and denying the opposition a chance to make a comeback.

Which is more effective at killing off a game, running into the corners and holding the ball up or passing the ball netween your defenders and goalkeeper?

Is this desire of English fans for teams to run around and attack for 90 minutes without easing off a part of the reason England don't win international tournaments? teams that control play like Spain, Italy, Germanny etc play more controlled football and there has been many a discussion about changing the style of play in this country to make us more competitive but that if we tried, there would be a barrage of abuse and questioning from fans who didn't understand why we weren't playing the traditional style of English Hit it and hope hoofball. I would say our style is more towards the perferrable controlled and patient style as in those other countries, but there is a lot of criticism about it with numerous opposition sides and fans complaining about our time wasting - iguess its a cultural thing because its not the usual English way of playing.

 

[drew]

With just one small adjustment to your quote...yep, couldn't have put it better myself.

Personally I'm not bored with watching Anks take the mickey for the last 20mins with us 4-1 up.

The tactic is effective but it is certainly boring to watch. I'm all for playing it around the back but all too often today it ended up with Ankergren hoofing it forward and us losing possession rather than the ball being played on the ground to one of the midfielders. In that last half hour after they scored I would say we gave the ball away too easily but Hartlepool were too inept to punish us.

 

[BensGrandad]

I like it because it must be so frustrating for the forward to have to go to close him down knowing that as soon as he has got near to him he is going to kickthe ball to where I have just come from. This is a ploy that I really like as it uses up the opponents energy and conserves ours.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Are you really that thick ? It's not a fact, it's an opinion on how we FEEL on Ankergrens time wasting, so therefore neither us can be right or wrong.

It isn't time wasting when the ball is in play. It's possession football and if the opposition aren't good enough to win the ball back, then tough. I think it is entertaining and you don't. I enjoyed today.

 

[kevo]

He can take all the time he cuffing likes as far as I'm concerned. It bloody WORKS.

This!

 

[FalmerforAll!**]

It isn't time wasting when the ball is in play. It's possession football and if the opposition aren't good enough to win the ball back, then tough. I think it is entertaining and you don't. I enjoyed today.

The reference to time wasting is Ankergren's waiting for an attacker to come to him before picking it up, it's not time wasting by law because the ball is in open play but then the same could be said about getting the ball into the corner.

I'm sorry but I don't find it entertaining, I also enjoyed today however.

 

[Mellotron]

It isn't time wasting when the ball is in play. It's possession football and if the opposition aren't good enough to win the ball back, then tough. I think it is entertaining and you don't. I enjoyed today.

Best answer so far. I love it if we're 3 or 4 goals to the good and ripping the piss out of the opposition.

See my signature. We play ONE way.

 

[MrShaun15]

Maybe it's an age thing.....the younger generation around me in the South stand are quite happy to see the team pass it about.

Where as it seems to be older generation yelling .."get it up the field' or 'awww dont play it back '. I suppose they were brought up on kick and rush and not the Barcelona way

This

 

[Grassman]

Are you really that thick ? It's not a fact, it's an opinion on how we FEEL on Ankergrens time wasting, so therefore neither us can be right or wrong.

Actually I was just trying to wind you up, which clearly worked. No, I'm not thick, thanks. What I am is, though, is incredibly confused about what is wrong with killing a game off with 20mins to go, when you have more games to play than the majority of the teams in your division. I think it's time to reiterate the following: you're F*cking clueless.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Anyone who heard Gus speak at the Seagulls Over London meeting will remember him speculating that we might get Arsenal in a Cup game. The prospect of both sides completely shutting up shop for the full 90 minutes is a delightful one to ponder.

 

[Spider]

It isn't time wasting when the ball is in play. It's possession football and if the opposition aren't good enough to win the ball back, then tough. I think it is entertaining and you don't. I enjoyed today.

I'm not sure about this. I completely understand this argument. And I also understand that the last 30 mins today was a case of two stubborn managers - if Hartlepol had stuck another body up front (and why wouldn't they - they were 3 goals down!) we wouldn't have been able to muck about so much.

However, I do think people might be thinking us, and by extension themselves (for 'understanding' what we're doing), a little too clever. I personally think that insisting upon the attacker literally closing down the goalkeeper every time is particularly unsporting. There's no reason why you can't do this, but I garantee that people would become pissed off if more teams tried to do this all the time. Plus, there's really no reason for it. I don't mind playing it around the back (although when you're three goals up I've never quite understood why we can't just try and score a few more, if we were defending a 1 or 2 goal lead then fine), but I found today's "come and get it" attitude just a little distasteful. Not time wasting, we all understand the rules, just a little unsporting and a little over confident.