• Current Donation Goals

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

Hi Michael. I respectfully disagree calling someone a liar is an insult.

Dave, with all due respect in return -  of course it's an insult. You're calling someone a liar - you can't get more insulting. It's his opinion, ffs, and this is a forum of opinions - that's why it's here!

Quote

But you're the admin so I'll have to try and take what you say onboard - which I will. 

 Excellent. Let's move on then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Michael Tucker said:

Dave, with all due respect in reurn -  of course it's an insult. You;re calling someone a liar - you can't get more insulting. It's his opinion, ffs, and this is a forum of opinions - that's why it's here!

How about doing it because you know that I'm right

Maybe it's a British vs. Nordic thing. I'm not used to cotton things down and say "I'm not sure that's entirely true" when faced with a blatant lie. Then we say it's a lie. 

Also, I'm not sure I know you are right, but I will accept what you're saying and change my behaviour accordingly because you're the referee and I don't want a red card. It doesn't matter if I agree with how you judge the game or not. If I want to play I have to play by your rules. Also, if statements like "blinkered cult member", "village idiot", "idiot" are passable comments I think I may be a little bit excused for thinking "liar" wouldn't be too harsh a word to use. But now I know:) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, PeteRobbo said:

A lot of posters here have always taken the view that taking the game to the opposition and playing an attacking game is adopted because it's more entertaining. In fact it's very often, perhaps always, the better option tactically for reasons which have been stated on here for a long time now. It puts the opposition on the back foot and keeps them occupied with dealing with our threat, whereas adopting a cautious and cagey approach invites them on to us and increases the chance of them scoring whilst, at the same time, limiting the extent of the threat we offer and reducing the number of chances for us to score.

It's not about playing an entertaining style, it's about which is the more effective way of playing for us and which plays to our strengths and increases our chances of winning. Too many believe that a more defensively focussed approach must aways be deemed superior, but it ain't necessarily so.

  I call this lawyers opinion, can you show me a successful team that played an unentertaining style and it increased their chances of winning as an example?

  I know football tactics can be a philosophy debate, but isn't that kind of defensive tactics meant to increases the chances of not losing?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Droy was my hero said:

Much of the misunderstanding of this season goes straight back to a misunderstanding of last season where a great manager and a great set of star players failed simply because there were too few players. 

I knew you'd get there eventually - and I'll give you credit for effort, that's for sure. It's nonsense of course, but there you are..........:).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
3 hours ago, Droy was my hero said:

Read the very words you quote.  
Much of the misunderstanding of this season goes straight back to a misunderstanding of last season where a great manager and a great set of star players failed simply because there were too few players.  Those who blame the players and those who blame the manager struggle to understand this season.

What does having too few players have to do with a comparable number of games played? IF at the end of two seasons a similar size squad had to have played 60 games in one and 45 games in another then I'll concede that the argument of too few players would have some weight.

However, at the time Christmas rolled around in both seasons a very similar number of games had been played but the results are shockingly different. Too few players (the same too few players) cannot be judged differently by themselves, a wider picture has to be looked at surely? What is that bigger picture, what are those other facets? How many other mitigating factors would you have to look at before you get to the single biggest denominator between the two seasons? 

I have no misunderstanding of this or last season thanks Droy. Others most certainly do but I am not one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   

Of course, put it a different way.......would Arsenal fans trade a bit of "pretty football" or "attacking football" for a league title?

I'm sure the enjoyed 2004 but if the price to pay was 13 years without a subsequent title, I think they may have had a rethink. Much in the way our 3-0 thrashing at The Emirates shaped our season this season in a positive way, I do wonder if the unbeaten season they had has actually had a longer term negative affect on Arsenal.  Discuss. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sciatika   
7 hours ago, kev61 said:

By the way we never played "free flowing football" under Mourhino,we won titles with his now outdated mind numbing football that other teams has cotton on to.

Can I recommend viewing the 6-0 victory against Arsenal, the 4-1 against West Ham and most of the games between 2004 and 2006. You seem to have missed them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
14 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

Can I recommend viewing the 6-0 victory against Arsenal, the 4-1 against West Ham and most of the games between 2004 and 2006. You seem to have missed them.

I agree with this and we did play some scintillating stuff early on. But that was 10 years ago now and JM isn't that kind of manager any more - indeed he hasn't been that sort of manager since he left us the first time. His stuff is functional football and very one-dimensional. Kev is right to a degree, other teams have cottoned onto how his teams play. Much the same as Guardiola has been found wanting with his "I have no Plan B" football, JM is the same. It's not like he hasn't had an absolute plethora of attacking talent to field - it's easily been as much (and most probably more) than he had at Chelsea in your 2004 to 2006 bracket but hasn't recreated that brand since. 

So with that in mind then, was JM really the factor behind the 2004-2006 brand of football we played or was it more that the players played instinctively and freely when put together with the "money no object" manner of transfers? There can be little argument that the football wasn't as good towards the end of his first or second stints here so it could be argued that once he gets his feet under the table at a club then given a bit more time his influence is a negative on the aesthetics.

Edited by Hugh Jars 99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hugh Jars 99 said:

What does having too few players have to do with a comparable number of games played? IF at the end of two seasons a similar size squad had to have played 60 games in one and 45 games in another then I'll concede that the argument of too few players would have some weight.

So this season we have many more choices to start PL games than we did last season when we had 19 over 21 year old players including GK2, GK3, Djilobodji, Falcao & Remy.  (Cue some people with no fingers who argue we had more choice - but just ignore them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.