TRO Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 11 minutes ago, Grasshopper said: you old launcher you Yes i am guilty too....but i do see the error of my ways. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 13 minutes ago, Grasshopper said: On trail - guilty as charged You‘re beginning to sound like LD as Eric from Monty Python once famously said “but, we don‘t want a debate about“ you old launcher you Forgive for humouring We won - I‘m in a good mood No,No GH humour is allllllwwwwwwaaaaayyyyyyssssss welcome. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grasshopper Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, TRO said: No,No GH humour is allllllwwwwwwaaaaayyyyyyssssss welcome. That‘s what I like about you Tro. You post some b*ll*x but it all comes out in the wash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 43 minutes ago, Taxahunter said: No need to swear... Whelan were being overun, didnt track back, at some point i thought Hourihane was the defensive midfielder of these two and some point in the last 15 minutes, i even saw him turn his back to a QPR player attacking up our right hand side and not even run after him. Why not take Whelan off and replace him with Jedinak, like for like? If you remove all our attacking possiblities, then in my opinion you are asking for it. De Laet isnt a natural right/midfielder, so putting him in a position where he isnt comfortable, isnt defensive minded, its just plain stupid, and bannedfromHandV, you probably doesn agree and you dont have to, from your post i can see that we just view football and how it should be played diffently. So you were happy with Bjarnarson coming on? I would have put Grealish, a player who can hold on to the ball, keep it calm and play it around. Not 2 players, De Laet and Bjarnarson, who lost the ball every time the touched it. Grealish?! Grealish doesn't hold on to the ball, he feigns to do something with it then gets pushed off and tackled, he also offers nothing defensively either from open play or set pieces - if you're protecting a one goal lead the last thing you need is Grealish christ alive man. No, you're right, De Laet is not a 'natural RM' but he's been doing a good job there over the past 4-5 weeks when he's been brought on, you wouldn't start him there but again, going into the last 10 minutes protecting a one goal lead away from home it made sense. But no, let's go for the Ozzie Ardiles approach, one goal up away from home and bring on all the attacking players, I'm starting to see now why people don't like Bruce, what we want is to win every game by 5 goals and play with 8 attackers right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Taxahunter said: If I could ask him one question, it would be "What were your reasons behind the substitutions you made?". He got the result today and Im happy about it and we played a lot better and created more chances than i have seen before this season. But the substitutions baffles me. What do Whelan have to do to get substituted? Again he just wasnt very good. Why put De Laet on the right wing? and Bjarnarson on the left, when he clearly isnt doing anything for the team at all. In my view the substitutions just made us much more defensive and aloved QPR back in the game with 15 minutes to go. Even if we won today , im still not convinced about Bruce and still want him leave our club. His subs were perfect for me. Firstly on Whelan, he had a bit of a wobble in the second half where he almost dropped a few clangers but he is essential to our midfield now. The only person who could potentially have come on for him would have been Lansbury but how fit is he? On the substitutions. I was calling for Onomah to go off around the 65 minute mark, not because he was bad, he was excellent in fact, but because I felt we needed to go with a defensive midfielder to see out the game. Bruce did exactly that but it was Snodgrass instead of Onomah. No problems with that one. De Laet on the right was again a good decision. A defensive minded player who is absolutely rapid does two things, Shores up the defence, but also gets their full backs worrying about him getting in behind. Clever substitution. Finally Bjarnasson does exactly the same on the other side. Fresh set of legs, good energy and decent ability to see out the game. I do wonder if Bruce will ever win when people hold opinions like this. As much as it pains some people to admit Bruce got everything right today except maybe going with a bit more creativity to start the game but that is me being ultra picky. Enjoy the result you miserable gits. Edited November 20, 2017 by sexbelowsound 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 Thanks for your vote of confidence? i was modelling myself on Hugh McIllvaney 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 55 minutes ago, Taxahunter said: No need to swear... Whelan were being overun, didnt track back, at some point i thought Hourihane was the defensive midfielder of these two and some point in the last 15 minutes, i even saw him turn his back to a QPR player attacking up our right hand side and not even run after him. Why not take Whelan off and replace him with Jedinak, like for like? If you remove all our attacking possiblities, then in my opinion you are asking for it. De Laet isnt a natural right/midfielder, so putting him in a position where he isnt comfortable, isnt defensive minded, its just plain stupid, and bannedfromHandV, you probably doesn agree and you dont have to, from your post i can see that we just view football and how it should be played diffently. So you were happy with Bjarnarson coming on? I would have put Grealish, a player who can hold on to the ball, keep it calm and play it around. Not 2 players, De Laet and Bjarnarson, who lost the ball every time the touched it. Didn't see this. Now i'm even more baffled. Who was Whelan getting over run by? We weren't even under any real pressure. I don't believe Whelan or Hourihane are designated 'Defensive midfielders' either, it just so happens that Hourihane is a bit of a work horse and gets about the pitch more. Seems like it's a well balanced midfield to me. Whelan and Jedinak are not like for like either so replacing them as such would not make sense. Jedinak is much more defensive minded, stronger both physically and in the air but doesn't have the energy that Whelan has. Jedinak needs to be in a three man midfield for me. I mentioned this in my previous reply but again De Laet, whilst not a natural winger, holds some of the traits of a winger. He's absolutely rapid but also knows what a full back would want in terms of coverage. We saw out the game brilliantly and comfortably. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 11 minutes ago, sexbelowsound said: His subs were perfect for me. Firstly on Whelan, he had a bit of a wobble in the second half where he almost dropped a few clangers but he is essential to our midfield now. The only person who could potentially have come on for him would have been Lansbury but how fit is he? On the substitutions. I was calling for Onomah to go off around the 65 minute mark, not because he was bad, he was excellent in fact, but because I felt we needed to go with a defensive midfielder to see out the game. Bruce did exactly that but it was Snodgrass instead of Onomah. No problems with that one. De Laet on the right was again a good decision. A defensive minded player who is absolutely rapid does two things, Shores up the defence, but also gets their full backs worrying about him getting in behind. Clever substitution. Finally Bjarnasson does exactly the same on the other side. Fresh set of legs, good energy and decent ability to see out the game. I do wonder if Bruce will ever win when people hold opinions like this. As much as it pains some people to admit Bruce got everything right today except maybe going with a bit more creativity to start the game but that is me being ultra picky. Enjoy the result you miserable gits. Just a point to add ......poch is keen to see a more defensive side to Josh's game so maybe SB is working on this with him, hence keeping him on......just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taxahunter Posted November 20, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted November 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, sexbelowsound said: His subs were perfect for me. Firstly on Whelan, he had a bit of a wobble in the second half where he almost dropped a few clangers but he is essential to our midfield now. The only person who could potentially have come on for him would have been Lansbury but how fit is he? On the substitutions. I was calling for Onomah to go off around the 65 minute mark, not because he was bad, he was excellent in fact, but because I felt we needed to go with a defensive midfielder to see out the game. Bruce did exactly that but it was Snodgrass instead of Onomah. No problems with that one. De Laet on the right was again a good decision. A defensive minded player who is absolutely rapid does two things, Shores up the defence, but also gets their full backs worrying about him getting in behind. Clever substitution. Finally Bjarnasson does exactly the same on the other side. Fresh set of legs, good energy and decent ability to see out the game. I do wonder if Bruce will ever win when people hold opinions like this. As much as it pains some people to admit Bruce got everything right today except maybe going with a bit more creativity to start the game but that is me being ultra picky. That is your opinion, that he got everything right. If you read my post, I said i was happy about the result and gave him credit for us playing a lot better, but play players out of position, in the situation we were in, I dont agree with and probably never will. Why have Lansbury on the bench if he is not fit enough to play 20-25 minutes? And Jedinak or Lansbury could have done just as much as Whelan did in the position if they had swapped. I know this is just opinions and we will never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, TRO said: Just a point to add ......poch is keen to see a more defensive side to Josh's game so maybe SB is working on this with him, hence keeping him on......just a thought. **** Poch. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted November 20, 2017 Author Share Posted November 20, 2017 (edited) 15 hours ago, TrentVilla said: I’m utterly baffled how you can call complying with FFP “pulling the rug” or how you think they are being overly cautious. I can only assume you aren’t fully aware of the FFP rules or potential punishments. He doesn’t really have a point. They backed him in January and the summer even if the outlay in the summer wasn’t high I didn’t see many other clubs bringing the types of players he signed in this league let alone on the wages they are on. I also find it impossible to believe he wasn’t fully aware of the implications for the summer window of failing to get promoted. I rather suspect he was given the choice of spend in Jan last season and try and get up or save it for the summer. I think whenever Bruce makes any kind of comment about funds, backing or lack of spending it’s poor form on his part. To be fair to bruce has shipped out a lot of deadwood and its not his fault he is stuck with rejects like McCormack, tishbola, elphick and richards that noone wants. Bruce certainly spent the money better than di matteo did Edited November 20, 2017 by Demitri_C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, Taxahunter said: That is your opinion, that he got everything right. If you read my post, I said i was happy about the result and gave him credit for us playing a lot better, but play players out of position, in the situation we were in, I dont agree with and probably never will. Why have Lansbury on the bench if he is not fit enough to play 20-25 minutes? And Jedinak or Lansbury could have done just as much as Whelan did in the position if they had swapped. I know this is just opinions and we will never know. If you think Jedinak and Lansbury can do what Whelan does then I think we have reached an impasse in this discussion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 1 hour ago, HeyAnty said: I wouldnt read to much into him saying that. Its just his nature. I've worked with a lot of people who were like this but still produced the goods everytime. I could never understand why they lacked the confidence. It finally dawned on me that it was there way of dealing with the pressure as so much was expected of them. I would see it as him getting in his excuses early so that if (when) he fails he can absolve himself of any blame. Plenty of other managers behave in a similar fashion so he's not alone in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 48 minutes ago, TrentVilla said: My point though wasn’t really about the players he has signed. It was about the backing he has had and trying to counter this suggestion the “plug was pulled” needlessly in the summer. You've got a massive hard on for the way I worded that so I'm going to retract it, if that's ok? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 29 minutes ago, Taxahunter said: That is your opinion, that he got everything right. If you read my post, I said i was happy about the result and gave him credit for us playing a lot better, but play players out of position, in the situation we were in, I dont agree with and probably never will. Why have Lansbury on the bench if he is not fit enough to play 20-25 minutes? And Jedinak or Lansbury could have done just as much as Whelan did in the position if they had swapped. I know this is just opinions and we will never know. But we do know, he made the decisions he made and we won the game. What are you wondering about, whether we could have won 'better'? You get 3 points for a win, there's no bonus for scoring more goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taxahunter Posted November 20, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted November 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: But we do know, he made the decisions he made and we won the game. What are you wondering about, whether we could have won 'better'? You get 3 points for a win, there's no bonus for scoring more goals. Would you feel he had made the right substitutions if QPR had equalised, looking at the way we had been playing up until he made the changes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omariqy Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 Tbh I thought the subs made sense. We missed so many chances that eventually we just needed the see the game out. I thought we looked really comfortable when RDL and Thor came on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 3 hours ago, TrentVilla said: You said the club had been too cautious and pulled the plug in the summer. That was the point I challenged and I think the quotes from Wyness show that wasn’t the case unless we opt to disbelieve Wyness but even Bruce’s own words seem to support what he was. It seems fairly clear to me that they spent as much as possible in the summer just as they did in January. So I think the suggestion they pulled the plug is just wrong. OK that's fine. You're entitled to take things at face value, whilst I am entitled to speculate based on past experiences. I will refer you to my earlier question - do you believe it is the case that we had to sell Nathan Baker in order to keep our head above water? I don't think that was the case. I do not believe that had we not sold Nathan Baker we would be facing FFP penalties. Following last summer I DO understand their caution, I was careful to point that out, it doesn't stop me being disappointed with the decision. I am also not asking them to go mental and spend the budget of a small independent state once again. As for Bruce 'going on about it', this is football now. It's like white noise to me and I barely pay attention to it until it is bought up in conversations like this. For all we know it a club lead PR maneuver for Bruce to reiterate that the cupboard is bare, or perhaps his tickling will nudge them towards signing that one player that tips us over the edge? Either way I've no issue with him playing the game, this is how it has always been and always will be. I am confident it will have no adverse effect to on pitch performances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, Taxahunter said: Would you feel he had made the right substitutions if QPR had equalised, looking at the way we had been playing up until he made the changes? But they didn't, so there's no need for the hypothetical. I thought his subs were spot on. They usually are IMO, it's one of his plus points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, Taxahunter said: Would you feel he had made the right substitutions if QPR had equalised, looking at the way we had been playing up until he made the changes? Haha brilliant. How would you feel if the Nazi's had won the 'Battle of Britain' and America never entered the war? Or, more aptly, what if Steve Bruce hadn't scored two goals in injury time in 1993 to turn the tide in the title race? I could go on...... If's, but's and maybe's. Fact is we won, we won a tough game comfortably (in reality) away from home and are doing okay in the league. And yet, still going round and round on Bruce remaining as Manager. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts