• limpid

      Just visiting?   27/12/16

      Please click "Sign Up" and login to use the full functionality of the site.

terrytini

Full Members
  • Content count

    3,398
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

terrytini last won the day on May 6 2016

terrytini had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,129 Excellent

About terrytini

  • Rank
    International
  • Birthday 21/09/61

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Bewdley

Recent Profile Visitors

1,087 profile views
  1. Neil Taylor

    Okay hadn't read ANY of the thread (unusually for me) haven't read 'Twitter' or 'The Web' (never do) - haven't seen anything about it except I heard them talking about it on Sunday Supplement which I just watched. Hadn't watched the Match. So I have just watched the tackle on You Tube. THEN read some of this thread................ I have no idea what the fuss is about !! I see tackles like that every week !! It's always worth a Red Card, sometimes gets one sometimes not. It always risks causing injury, sometimes does sometimes doesn't. Its always a pretty crap way of making a challenge. But its certainly not in the least unusual or sinister. Had the guys leg not got broken nobody would be mentioning it. Sorry for the guy but my knee - and many others - got smashed up by a perfectly fair challenge, Thats just the way it goes. I dont know what Twitter etc are saying - I see someone mentioned a witchhunt - bizarre, as I say its a commonplace enough challenge. As an aside it is also far far less nasty than all sorts of intentional stuff we see like elbows and so on.
  2. Ratings & Reactions: Wigan v Villa

    Pie was rubbish, sadly. So I had another after the game, purely in the interests of research, from a different outlet. Also rubbish. So I had to get Fish and Chips from Eccleshall on the way home. The fish was rubbish. Had cheese on toast when I got in, that was nice.
  3. Mile Jedinak

    Chester played very well too but I thought first half Jedi was superb
  4. Mile Jedinak

    Yes
  5. Mile Jedinak

    I thought he was too. He made a couple of mistakes but about 40 zillion interceptions. I liked him there.
  6. Tommy Elphick

    Sadly every single time he has played, or come on as sub, he has looked shaky. I can see Bruces thinking on this one.
  7. Jordan Veretout

    Didn't seem too bad to me, I'd trust Brucies judgment either way - better the devil we/he knows /pays for ?
  8. Ratings & Reactions: Wigan v Villa

    Nearly forgot - brilliant program, Well Done Wigan, best I've seen for a long time.
  9. Steve Bruce

    I now think he will too. I am more convinced than ever he will be les and less cautious the longer he's here. I think you are spot on with what he's doing which is why there is nothing 'negative blah blah' as some say in having a view that he is OVERdoing that defensive focus. No problem if people think he ISNT overdoing it, but the insistence if some ( even you TRO !!) that's it's NOT by choice is baffling. To me he quite clearly knows what he's doing when he sets us up very defensively, and equally clearly knows what he's doing when he decides to be more positive. The only real debate is whether he has the balance right and in my view he is too cautious and it's cost us, but he's getting there.
  10. Steve Bruce

    I disagree and think it'd be far better if you debated why you don't agree rather than simply disliking what's written, but that's up to you of course. I don't see any issue at all with basically saying sometimes his choices and plans get the best from the team and other times they don't. Do you think the initial selection made as much sense as the changed one ? How about against Ipswich ? The 3 subs made by Bruce there were arguably the three that should've started, and again once they were on we were more cohesive. I can point to game after game where IMO he has been overly cautious and less effective and other games or parts of games where he has been less so and we've been better. Whilst that doesn't make my opinion correct it IS valid and has absolutely nothing to do with 'taking credit away from him'. He gets stuffvright IMO and he gets stuff wrong IMO, simple as that. And I have to say at every game I hear people saying the same thing. At half time Saturday every single conversation was ' he has to change it at half time/ how many full backs do we need on the pitch/no midfield/ are we playing 6-2-2 again etc.' Frankly I'm baffled how anybody who watches us can't have noticed it. The only question really is whether it's felt to be merited to set up so defensively or not. He was responsible for our losing run and rightly was criticised. He is responsible for 2 very good runs and is rightly praised. Neither scenario is incompatible with airing a view as to his good or bad points.
  11. Steve Bruce

    Well I say it and I've taken no credit away from him at all. Why on earth do a minority feel that any comment that isn't 100% backing the Manager should be frowned upon ? Why so sensitive ? He can take it. There is a view held by s few that because we are winning all criticism must cease. As daft as ceasing all praise when we were losing. An example of what is meant by 'letting them play ' was shown perfectly on Saturday. Of course it doesn't mean telling them to play badly, it means setting them up a particular way. So on Saturday after ten minutes it was clear as day that selection meant we were regularly winning defensive headers and tackles only for them to be collected by Wigan who found a big space in front of our (often 6) defenders. The midfield started looking clueless but it wasn't their fault, the players picked resulted in a lack of any real connection front to back. This changed. But it ONLY changed when Bruce altered personnel. THEN we played pretty well, the midfield worked well and we won. THAT is an example of what is meant by 'letting them play'. He is finding out some stuff works better than others. It seems to some of us that when he is less cautious we do better. Hardly a hanging offence to debate it.
  12. Steve Bruce

    I think when I say 'pretty' I mean a combination of possession, passing etc - Arsenal if you like, or Wigan under Martinez, or Swansea. And I definitely DONT think it IS pretty, or particularly special to watch - and I certainly see no need for us to play like it. I love grit, defensive play, being hard to beat, getting on other teams nerves etc. My comparison would be our Title winning side and Ipswich. All the so-called 'purists' liked Ipswich more. I preferred us, not just because we were us, but I liked our high energy, our fast counter attacks, our combatitive style. We've done it several times since too. All we need to do is link play from front to back more and not get sucked into/set up for a deep defensive set up........and as Ive said I'm actually quite hopeful we have deliberately bought players who will allow it. Just need Brucie to grab the bull by the horns !
  13. Steve Bruce

    Sorry mate I actually thought someone had talked about it and was agreeing with you that it was a fairly meaningless term !! I was interested because I genuinely feel the debate would be derailed if it became about arbitrary attractiveness/prettiness in itself...........I've re-read my Post and see it could've come across as sarcasm !! Wasn't meant to be !!
  14. Steve Bruce

    Well I for one have no idea. Maybe if you could show where its been used the context might make it clear ? But as a phrase on its own its gobblydegook to me !
  15. Steve Bruce

    I agree with much of your Post. I agree it's not about ' winning football is good football'... at our worst under Bruce we've been unwatchable, there is no future in that. Whilst we've had such misery I can understand those that say winning is all that matters but feel they would,in the main, change that view pretty quickly if we served up rubbish every week. Where we differ is I genuinely think in his own way he actually does / or is coming around to want to play some proper football (again as I said earlier that doesn't mean pretty, but it can be very watchable). And despite some odd selections I think the main 'proof' for me is - slowly but surely - he looks like he intends to use Lansbury and Hourihane properly. Theres no way he can do that with four full backs, or a defensive six, or a 'get ball and hoof' approach. Therefore he must be aiming to play 'better/ properly' call it what you will. Last twenty minutes yesterday a good example of where we need to be next year....First hour or so what we need to consign to the dustbin of this season.