LamieRobertson
Not awoke
exactly
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Passengers on the pitch.
- Thread starter Ninja Elephant
- Start date
exactly
Ninja Elephant
Doctor Elephant
- Feb 16, 2009
- 18,855
- Thread starter
- #22
Not yet, I am not, no. But I saw a game of football today, and came on to our football forum to discuss my opinions. As you can read for yourself in this thread, I am not alone in thinking the way I do about todays game. The style of football we play is dictated by the manager, which is why I said we can't really be too critical of Barnes because he is playing in a position which doesn't suit his game. But Navarro is playing in his strongest position, and though he may be being told to stand off players like Moussi and Greening and allow them to have free reign over the centre of midfield, I don't think Gus would have told him to do nothing when in posession of the ball and not to track Majewski's runs. Considering how deep our central midfield pairing were playing, it's amazing how much space Majewski had around the edge of the box.
Vegas Seagull
New member
- Jul 10, 2009
- 7,782
If Paynter was a passenger then his plane was stationary in the middle of the tarmac for the whole of the 2nd half...I have never seen a worse performer have 3 others subbed in front of him...shameful
'Daylight Robbery on Robin Hoods men'
'Daylight Robbery on Robin Hoods men'
Ninja Elephant
Doctor Elephant
- Feb 16, 2009
- 18,855
- Thread starter
- #24
When did he do any of that? The difference between today and the Ipswich, Palace and Leeds games, when we let in 3 a piece, was that Nottingham Forest couldn't put the ball in the back of the net. That's it. The free header from the corner straight at Ankergren, Majewski skewing his shot wide in the second half, the deflected effort which just went over the bar, the long range drive in the first half only just wide... Any of those could have been nestling in the back of the net and the defence of Navarro that we've kept a clean sheet would have been null and void. Just because we did keep the clean sheet, doesn't mean that he didn't play badly today. I don't think Ankergren played well either, and if you can argue that with me with any sort of basis in fact, then you'll have done very well, but we kept a clean sheet so he must have been good.
and he used it well ... we need one of those
Ninja Elephant
Doctor Elephant
- Feb 16, 2009
- 18,855
- Thread starter
- #26
I thought Barnes was particularly hard done by when he was replaced. Paynter must have been amazed he was still there, but he does need the minutes to get himself into shape, and he did chase back constantly. His work rate isn't too bad, but he isn't very clever with it.
Ninja Elephant
Doctor Elephant
- Feb 16, 2009
- 18,855
- Thread starter
- #27
We've got one, Ryan Harley. But we play so deep, we never get him into the areas he needs to be in to make enough of an impact. I back Harley to have had a better shot off when Majewski skewed his wide in the second half.
ewe2
Well-known member
Lets face it was a very poor performance from the team that started.
Diego Napier
Well-known member
- Mar 27, 2010
- 4,416
Well, you could fool me.
You've just ripped apart 3 players who have helped us get 9 points from the last 3 games. Other players didn't play well either yet we still got a result. We'll never field a team with all 11 playing brilliantly but then they don't need to.
Were in a play off position, lighten up FFS
Dan Gleeballs
Active member
- Nov 24, 2011
- 968
For me Paynter could have contributed a whole lot more. Seemed wasted out on the edge of a front three & lacked any kind of creativity or threat for that matter. Gus sees something but I'm not overly sure what it is. Navarro played well & broke up play well but offers nothing going forward. Good to see a bit of creative spark when KLL & Buckley came on
Ninja Elephant
Doctor Elephant
- Feb 16, 2009
- 18,855
- Thread starter
- #32
Don't assume I am a negative person in light of my opinions on this game of football. I have hardly "ripped apart" any of the 3. Again, read what I wrote about Barnes. It's not his fault, he is being played in a position which doesn't begin to compliment his strengths. He should be playing where Billy Paynter is meant to be playing. We could so easily be sitting here now dissecting a very disappointing home defeat. The fact we aren't is down purely to luck and poor finishing from Forest, both of which are part of the game, but even so, you can't expect everyone to forget the first 91 minutes of the match because the 92nd gave us a well worked winner.
We deserve to be in a play off place, because we're a damn good team. But today, we had 3 passengers on the pitch in my opinion.
BRIGHT ON Q
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 9,248
Oh dear.
Ninja Elephant
Doctor Elephant
- Feb 16, 2009
- 18,855
- Thread starter
- #34
I EMPLORE you to elaborate on that. You must have examples to quote? Something to back up such a wild statement.
Bridcutt gave the ball away a fair bit and didn't make himself available for passes, where's I thought Navarro held up play quite well and played a few good balls eg to Noone in the first half. Not going to argue with you though, opinions game and all...
Soz mate but ignoring Paynter, no way Barnes and CMS should be our front two ... we need a target/hold up man ... jury's out for me on Paynter but surely we need a player of that style alongside CMS?
I agree the comments on too deep but not on RH ... we need a workhorse in there ... RH is a luxury imo ... great if we're on top of the opposition ... inconsequential if we're not ... just a view
Dan Gleeballs
Active member
- Nov 24, 2011
- 968
Didn't fancy highlighting the remainder of that sentence then
Diego Napier
Well-known member
- Mar 27, 2010
- 4,416
Blimey, you're up and down and all over this thread like you're on speed.
We've just won rather luckily, enjoy it, take a chill pill and stop being so defensively anal
BRIGHT ON Q
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 9,248
No because that bit was correct.