When will Gus learn?

[Napper]

Poyet been a Twat about this and not learnt from last year . Surely we should of gone for it today and progressed . He can't moan on the one hand about funds on one hand then finish today with the reserves on the other . Poyet mixed up , surely if 4 th round gives us a winnable game then play best team at wrexham . He has weird logic like last year cup exploits

 

[clapham_gull]

Wasn't there today - but I completely agree with the thread starter.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that "resting players" in the FA Cup has a positive effort on the performance in the league. In fact the evidence points to the opposite.

So great - a midweek game we could do without.

 

[Barnham Seagull]

Hindsight post.

If Toby & Bergkamp had started and been out-experienced by Wrexham, Gus would have got slammed for his selection of strikers.

Let's not get carried away. Wrexham weren't destroyers, and in control of the game. They gave their all to match us in parts only, and took light years to run the clock down (except when 1-0 down).

Just commenting on what I saw, and yes playing one up front at home against Wrexham does send out the wrong signals. Their centre backs had one of the easiest games they could have asked for.

Oh and many of our league games have been similar this season.

Gus got it wrong today and his attitude about the game transmits to the players.

Anyway back to the league next week lets hope we continue where we left off and that the players rested etc will benifit which will partly IMHO vindicate today.

 

[Mutts Nuts]

Mr Poyet always states that the League has priority over the FA Cup, and he fields weakened teams against non-league opposition. But this backfired twice last season against FCUM and Woking, because those first-teamers who had to play in the replays were risking injury/cards/fatigue which could compromise the League push. Now it has happened a third time, so I was wondering what it would take to make him see sense.

He realy is a shit manager isnt he, do you think we should bring in the umbrella man to show him how things are done.You realy are a first rate cock

 

[Nottseagull]

...and took light years to run the clock down

A light year is a measure of distance, not time.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I'm thinking that taking a commanding lead early on would demoralise the non-leaguers to an extent that they would be less likely to inflict injury or become aggressive etc. Making it a stroll in the park wouldn't really be risky.

Our most concerning injury came form a 1st teamer that did it without an opposition player touching him.

Now we could be without LuaLua for a while. Was it really worth it in the end?

 

[Weststander]

A light year is a measure of distance, not time.

Takes everything said literally.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

No, we won it while SCC still had 5 games left. 5! Our boys then went on holiday and the points difference dropped to 3 in the end, but we'd already won it, at a canter.

We won it with 95 points which is a record for the Albion. Yes, Poyet really doesn't know what he's doing does he? He's training the development squad to step up like some of them did against Southampton last week. He's giving them a chance in a cup game when many higher teams get knocked out by lower teams. Yes, it's gone to a replay but we're not out of the cup. It's also another game for the suspended players to clock up so that Greer will now be available for the Posh game.

 

[Nottseagull]

We won it with 95 points which is a record for the Albion.

I've already acknowledged in #28 that Acker79 was not incorrect to say that the title was won at a canter.

It's also another game for the suspended players to clock up so that Greer will now be available for the Posh game.

Now that really is an excellent point!
It's a pity Mutts Nutts doesn't have the intelligence to argue like that instead of just calling someone a cock for disagreeing with him.

 

[brightn'ove]

Do you?
I thought we won it by three points, with an inferior goal difference.

...the table means nothing, we secured the championship with what? 5 games to play i think it was? the table makes it look much closer than it actually was.

 

[empire]

you havent read gus poyets comments on the web then??

 

[smiler]

Finished the game with kids pinging it around the pitch, was great to see. When will fans learn that GET IT FORWARD is going to fall on deaf ears of a good passing football team. Exciting future ahead.

Good passing football team not getting the ball in the box or creating a chance

 

[Sloe Joe]

Injuries/suspensions maybe

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Good passing football team not getting the ball in the box or creating a chance

I will say it again, today we had 8 shots on target and 9 off target. I wonder what game some of you were watching.

 

[Nottseagull]

You are making an assumption regarding what Gus's motivation in team selection was and then judging him against this assumed motivation.

Yes I am. Well done Ackers, you're starting to comprehend the thread.

.... and the fact your initial post at least appeared to claim the cup run cost us last season

Whoops, a relapse! It didn't say that. Anybody who reads it can see it didn't say that. WTF is wrong with you? I've even explained it for you twice at #28 and #37 but you still can't grasp it. But that's not my problem; what is my problem is that I have somebody saying I said something when I didn't.

 

[Acker79]

Whoops, a relapse! It didn't say that. Anybody who reads it can see it didn't say that. WTF is wrong with you? I've even explained it for you but you still can't grasp it. But that's not my problem; what is my problem is that I have somebody saying I said something that I didn't.

Read that again. I said 'at least appeared to claim'. And when I argued against this apparent claim your initial response was not to correct me for misreading your post but to accept my interpretation and try to defend it, which I quite reasonably took as a tacit confirmation of my reading of it.

That point you were apparently making in your first post (though eventually clarified) was one of the reasons you were getting shit.
You were also getting shit for the point you were actually making because it was an assumption you made and then criticised gus for regardless of any evidence your assumption was true.

 

[Nottseagull]

Read that again. I said 'at least appeared to claim'. And when I argued against this apparent claim your initial response was not to correct me for misreading your post but to accept my interpretation and try to defend it

Perhaps you would like to tell me the post no(s) in which you state (incorrectly, again) that I accepted your interpretation and tried to defend it.

 

[Acker79]

Perhaps you would like to tell me the post no(s) in which you state (incorrectly, again) that I accepted your interpretation and tried to defend it.

Post number nine.

I highlighted that the tactics did not backfire last season because we won the league title at a canter. Rather than right there saying "no, I meant it backfired because the games went to a replay when (I assume) Gus didn't want them to" you instead challenged my view that we won the league at a canter and there was no backfiring, thus making it seem as if I had correctly read your initial post.

 

[Nottseagull]

I highlighted that the tactics did not backfire last season because we won the league title at a canter. Rather than right there saying "no, I meant it backfired because the games went to a replay when (I assume) Gus didn't want them to" you instead challenged my view that we won the league at a canter and there was no backfiring, thus making it seem as if I had correctly read your initial post.

You were just one of a dozen adverse respondents who appeared within the first 20 minutes of the thread. I didn't have time to reply to every point in every post promptly, however I think I covered yours within that period by my reply to Phoenix Arrow (#25), so why I had to repeat it to you (twice) is beyond me. In future, you should not assume that because another member fails to dispute something you say within your own imposed timescale then that means they must agree with you. To someone who makes 300 posts a month (from someone who used to), I would say that most people on this board are just not geared up for the level of response that you (appear to!) demand.

 

[Acker79]

You were just one of a dozen adverse respondents who appeared within the first 20 minutes of the thread. I didn't have time to reply to every point in every post promptly, however I think I covered yours within that period by my reply to Phoenix Arrow (#25), so why I had to repeat it to you (twice) is beyond me. In future, you should not assume that because another member fails to dispute something you say within your own imposed timescale then that means they must agree with you. To someone who makes 300 posts a month (from someone who used to), I would say that most people on this board are just not geared up for the level of response that you (appear to!) demand.

Time scales of reply didn't really enter into it. I follow the path of the conversation, which from my view has been this:

You Post 1: an apparent claim that the replays cost us in the league
Me Post 4: highlighting the ease of our league title win, questioning how it cost us
You Post 9: questioning the ease of the title win
Me Post 20: Explaining how easy it was, asking for clarification for how it backfired
You post 25: Denying you claimed it cost us in the league and that you were just just disputing my ease of league win claims
You post 28: Claiming gus didn't know his team selection would backfire back in december (which would reinforce the idea of league success being related to the backfiring of the cup team selection), and clarifying your position as it could have backfired. And then contradicted this with the comment that by backfire you meant got a replay when he wanted to avoid it, which he would have known had backfired back in december since that's when the replay happened.
Me Post 34: Explaining how I read post 28 which seemed contradictory and confusing
You Post 37: clarifying your position. Opining that you were getting shit.
Me Post 40: Pointing out that you are criticising gus for an assumption you have made and the unclear nature of your first post
You Post 55: Acknowledging that the point is finally clear (while seemingly ignoring the fact that you are criticising gus for an assumption you have made). Then misunderstanding the point of the second part of my paragraph
Me post 56: Clarifying my post.
You post 57: Asking for evidence
Me post 59: providing evidence
You post 60: Defending posing habits, passive aggressively suggesting I have an unusually high standard/expectation of conversation/debate
Me post 61: Explaining this entire conversation from my perspective, and hopefully showing why our conversation has gone this way.