Wolves in for Ashley Barnes

[Seagull73]

Personally I agree with you. I like Gus' possession football, though I agree with the majority that thinks we need a better Plan B for when it's not working. My point is that being direct does not necessarily equate with hoofball-Allardyce tactics. Spreading it quickly to the wings and fast counter-attacking can be direct (rather than passing it round our back five) and doesn't require hoofing. Ferguson would be a better comparison than Allardyce.

That said, I thought one of our best performances last season was the Burnley game when because we were down to nine we had to hit it long for CMS and Buckley to chase, and it very nearly worked.

Yes and counter attack again is very different. By it's very nature, it is almost certainly going to be 2-3 passes before an attempt on goal (if you get it right). I would love to see us move the ball a LOT quicker on the counter-attack and I have no issue with saying that this is one area where we do fall down on an annoyingly consistent basis. But that doesn't equate to 'going-direct' or having more attacking players on the pitch. It also doesn't mean our system is 'not working'.

For me, it all comes back to the question of having the right players who can perform consistently week-in, week-out at this level. We are moving in the right direction, but I am still happy that our possession football will come good in the end - maybe just not yet.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Hmmm, i wonder if teams who know we might want to play CMS behind them play a deep defensive line, therefore us having to keep applying pressure and keep the ball until they charge at us at all and we slice them open. I seem to remember Ipswich were the main idiots who played the Chelsea high-line technique and had no way of keeping us out. We just needed better players to keep possession higher up the field and drag oppositions about the place a little. Crofts should enable that a little, whilst a fully-attacking pair of wing-backs, effectively, should create more space for the closed-down forwards we had last year.
Playing it over the top into the keepers arms, or onto the head of a 6ft 4 centrehalf doesn't seem too intelligent. We just need to keep the ball and attack that bit more swiftly, and that includes not having Vicente hog it for 2 minutes to await someone to make the run. Quick-thinking isn't easily trained, but players like Bridge and Bruno already have it in spades, and Crofts had more of it since his time in this division and above. Various players we had, although some of them individually classy, didn't have the wherewithall, or possibly confidence after years of being lower down, to really control a pitch and flick balls here and there when they want to. Another pre-season should have aided that, and should, i think, put together that perfect combination of flair and purpose.

Excellent post Meado.

Its been a journey - but that's you 100% back. Congrats.

 

[Meade's Ball]

Excellent post Meado.

Its been a journey - but that's you 100% back. Congrats.

I'm on some obscene medication. It's a bit like Awakenings. I'll be unconscious again in 20 minutes or so, with now only the dreams of my hatred for the smug, hairy-handed face of Dr Robin Williams to keep me company until the next quack, probably f***ing Adam Sandler this time, finds a temporary remedy to my ails. When i come around, i'm going to swing at the first person i see. Sorry mum. Hopefully, though, it'll be that Sandler.

 

[Albumen]

Hmmm, i wonder if teams who know we might want to play CMS behind them play a deep defensive line, therefore us having to keep applying pressure and keep the ball until they charge at us at all and we slice them open. I seem to remember Ipswich were the main idiots who played the Chelsea high-line technique and had no way of keeping us out. We just needed better players to keep possession higher up the field and drag oppositions about the place a little. Crofts should enable that a little, whilst a fully-attacking pair of wing-backs, effectively, should create more space for the closed-down forwards we had last year.
Playing it over the top into the keepers arms, or onto the head of a 6ft 4 centrehalf doesn't seem too intelligent. We just need to keep the ball and attack that bit more swiftly, and that includes not having Vicente hog it for 2 minutes to await someone to make the run. Quick-thinking isn't easily trained, but players like Bridge and Bruno already have it in spades, and Crofts had more of it since his time in this division and above. Various players we had, although some of them individually classy, didn't have the wherewithall, or possibly confidence after years of being lower down, to really control a pitch and flick balls here and there when they want to. Another pre-season should have aided that, and should, i think, put together that perfect combination of flair and purpose.

Attention NSC - more posts like this please (I'm including myself in that)

 

[Mr Burns]

And there it is. I did have a feeling that was coming which is why I was afraid to ask. So essentially you would prefer Sam Allardyce to Gus Poyet, which, argue the toss as much as you like, is exactly what you are saying. And this is the Sam Allardyce who couldn't get a very expensively assembled West Ham squad in the top two of the 2nd Tier.

Okay/ Then you obviously fail to understand the difference between hoofball and playing more direct. If it was a case of hoofball, why would I want to see wingers used more? But its obvious you see football in black and white, ie either pass it round and then try and break a team down, or boot it long...... there is plenty inbetween, and if that is the best you can come up with, sorry, but you don't really understand football

 

[Mr Burns]

To be fair, there is a difference between being more attacking and playing hoofball. As I understand it, Mr Burns is saying we should play more of our attacking players (presumably fielding two wingers rather than one) and provide more support to CMS in attack. If that means we concede more goals so be it, because we'll score more. None of that necessarily means hoofing it long to a target man, so not sure where you get the Sam Allardyce comparison from.

Not actually saying I agree with Mr Burns (I'm quite happy with the possession football Gus plays) but just don't think your criticism of his position is accurate.

Yayyy. Unlike the last prat, someone who actually knows football!!!

Whilst I'm happy to disagree with you about what style we play, at least you understand the argument, unlike the likes of seagull73, who sees someone dare say something negative about Lord Gus, and loses their head.

 

[B.W.]

(a) Barnes is not a similar player to the ridiculously over-priced Fletcher
(b) Would be very surprised if Wolves saw him as their main target to replace Fletcher
(c) We would want big money for Barnes
(d) Gus loves him and would not want him to leave
(e) a-d mean this won't happen!

 

[Mr Burns]

Hmmm, i wonder if teams who know we might want to play CMS behind them play a deep defensive line, therefore us having to keep applying pressure and keep the ball until they charge at us at all and we slice them open. I seem to remember Ipswich were the main idiots who played the Chelsea high-line technique and had no way of keeping us out. We just needed better players to keep possession higher up the field and drag oppositions about the place a little. Crofts should enable that a little, whilst a fully-attacking pair of wing-backs, effectively, should create more space for the closed-down forwards we had last year.
Playing it over the top into the keepers arms, or onto the head of a 6ft 4 centrehalf doesn't seem too intelligent. We just need to keep the ball and attack that bit more swiftly, and that includes not having Vicente hog it for 2 minutes to await someone to make the run. Quick-thinking isn't easily trained, but players like Bridge and Bruno already have it in spades, and Crofts had more of it since his time in this division and above. Various players we had, although some of them individually classy, didn't have the wherewithall, or possibly confidence after years of being lower down, to really control a pitch and flick balls here and there when they want to. Another pre-season should have aided that, and should, i think, put together that perfect combination of flair and purpose.

 

[Seagull73]

Okay/ Then you obviously fail to understand the difference between hoofball and playing more direct. If it was a case of hoofball, why would I want to see wingers used more? But its obvious you see football in black and white, ie either pass it round and then try and break a team down, or boot it long...... there is plenty inbetween, and if that is the best you can come up with, sorry, but you don't really understand football

*Sigh* Of course I don't see football in black and white - that's my whole point. You are the one who is saying that our current way of playing doesn't work, despite our 10th placed finish. Your answer is to go direct - hoofball as others would call it.

 

[Seagull73]

Yayyy. Unlike the last prat, someone who actually knows football!!!

Whilst I'm happy to disagree with you about what style we play, at least you understand the argument, unlike the likes of seagull73, who sees someone dare say something negative about Lord Gus, and loses their head.

Get over yourself you turd - I don't think Gus is Lord and I have never said that - you have been the one criticising our style of play, and yet you can't handle it when somebody disagrees with you - thankfully you are in the overwhelming minority, but do carry on.

 

[Mr Burns]

Get over yourself you turd - I don't think Gus is Lord and I have never said that - you have been the one criticising our style of play, and yet you can't handle it when somebody disagrees with you - thankfully you are in the overwhelming minority, but do carry on.

Again bullshit. I can easily take it when someone disagrees with me, see Waynflete post. Its just when you get a twat like you who misquotes and says things that were never said is when I'll came back at you.

 

[Mr Burns]

*Sigh* Of course I don't see football in black and white - that's my whole point. You are the one who is saying that our current way of playing doesn't work, despite our 10th placed finish. Your answer is to go direct - hoofball as others would call it.

There you go again. You even hightlight something that wasn't said now. Hoofball. I never said that twat, but you know that but nothing else to say. I said "MORE DIRECT" NOT go direct, more direct than present when we go on a shit run, like we did twice last year, and if unlike many others who seem to be able to get it, you cannot see anything inbetween Gus' style and Sam's style, then jog on mate, because you're not worth taking to, because you are either on a wind up, or don't understand what the f*** is going on

 

[Seagull73]

Again bullshit. I can easily take it when someone disagrees with me, see Waynflete post. Its just when you get a twat like you who misquotes and says things that were never said is when I'll came back at you.

Horseshit - Waynflete wasn't disagreeing with you.

But it looks like you will use 'mis-quotes' as a way of getting out of what you were saying - so let's leave it there.

 

[Seagull73]

There you go again. You even hightlight something that wasn't said now. Hoofball. I never said that twat, but you know that but nothing else to say. I said "MORE DIRECT" NOT go direct, more direct than present when we go on a shit run, like we did twice last year, and if unlike many others who seem to be able to get it, you cannot see anything inbetween Gus' style and Sam's style, then jog on mate, because you're not worth taking to, because you are either on a wind up, or don't understand what the f*** is going on

Last word - MANY others? Mmm, ok

 

[El Presidente]

Can we kiss and make up please you two, otherwise I will close the thread.

 

[Seagull73]

Can we kiss and make up please you two, otherwise I will close the thread.

Christ yes, please do, do us all a favour....

 

[Mr Burns]

Horseshit - Waynflete wasn't disagreeing with you.

But it looks like you will use 'mis-quotes' as a way of getting out of what you were saying - so let's leave it there.

Errr

Not actually saying I agree with Mr Burns (I'm quite happy with the possession football Gus plays).

You silly C U N T

 

[Mr Burns]

Christ yes, please do, do us all a favour....

Off course you want it closed. Your beat. Run along child.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Can we kiss and make up please you two, otherwise I will close the thread.

Errr



You silly C U N T

Pack it in.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Off course you want it closed. Your beat. Run along child.

You're