|
Post by turkeybuzzard on Jan 2, 2014 12:32:52 GMT
Barkley is going to be a great player. All game, Barkley looked for the ball to feet. As soon as he received it he looked to move it on quickly, as soon as he passed it he moved into more space and wanted it back. Refreshing to see. Let's hope he is on the plane to Brazil for some big tournament experience.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 12:34:20 GMT
Besides the penalty, Mariner did make a game changing decision. He failed to give a foul against Baines when he took Pennant down from behind and which left Pennant hobbling for a while after. Pennant was furious that Mariner let it go, and every one of his actions after that came from him losing his rag about it. OS. That is spot on OS and you could say that the penalty was a direct result of Mariner's failure to award Pennant a free kick for that foul by Baines, therefore it became a game-changing decision. However there are, thankfully, no others in our team as undisciplined or unprofessional as Pennant so if it had happened to any other Stoke player it wouldn't have been a game-changer.
|
|
|
Post by shiftyfifty on Jan 2, 2014 18:38:25 GMT
Good, entertaining game until we made 2 ridiculous substitutions, sat back and tried to defend a 1-0 lead.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 2, 2014 18:45:09 GMT
Good, entertaining game until we made 2 ridiculous substitutions, sat back and tried to defend a 1-0 lead. I disagree. Walters was playing badly and needed subbing, Pennant was dreadful-it happens. The Palacios one I can see where You're coming from on that but he's done well in his cameos in recent weeks and he did well yesterday and it wasn't the reason we drew. I don't think they looked like scoring and by that I never got the feeling we'd buckle and I don't think we would have done barring a moment of madness.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 18:46:28 GMT
Good, entertaining game until we made 2 ridiculous substitutions, sat back and tried to defend a 1-0 lead. I would say we kept losing possession and kept being being pushed back. I don't think we "sat back".
|
|
|
Post by shiftyfifty on Jan 2, 2014 18:49:49 GMT
Good, entertaining game until we made 2 ridiculous substitutions, sat back and tried to defend a 1-0 lead. I disagree. Walters was playing badly and needed subbing, Pennant was dreadful-it happens. The Palacios one I can see where You're coming from on that but he's done well in his cameos in recent weeks and he did well yesterday and it wasn't the reason we drew. I don't think they looked like scoring and by that I never got the feeling we'd buckle and I don't think we would have done barring a moment of madness. Pretty much every game you say Walters was crap so, that's no surprise. You didn't see them scoring? I suggest you open your eyes for the next match.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 2, 2014 18:53:39 GMT
I disagree. Walters was playing badly and needed subbing, Pennant was dreadful-it happens. The Palacios one I can see where You're coming from on that but he's done well in his cameos in recent weeks and he did well yesterday and it wasn't the reason we drew. I don't think they looked like scoring and by that I never got the feeling we'd buckle and I don't think we would have done barring a moment of madness. Pretty much every game you say Walters was crap so, that's no surprise. You didn't see them scoring? I suggest you open your eyes for the next match. I do but I also give credit when I think it's due, the whole right handside was walked over yesterday, it was our weak link. And no I didn't, for all of their possession I don't think they had the chances they'd expect. Even when it was pinging around our box, it felt comfortable I thought and usually I'm metaphorically shitting my pants. It felt like the Villa game a bit, only a bit of Stoke stupidity was going to aid them and we duly obliged. I was seriously impressed with us.
|
|
|
Post by shiftyfifty on Jan 2, 2014 18:55:23 GMT
Good, entertaining game until we made 2 ridiculous substitutions, sat back and tried to defend a 1-0 lead. I would say we kept losing possession and kept being being pushed back. I don't think we "sat back". I would say taking off a striker (Adam), and replacing him with a defensive mid-fielder (Palacios), was tantamount to sitting back. We constantly lost possession because Crouch was on his own once Adam went off so, when he did get the ball there was no support and they came straight back at us.
|
|
|
Post by shiftyfifty on Jan 2, 2014 18:57:50 GMT
Pretty much every game you say Walters was crap so, that's no surprise. You didn't see them scoring? I suggest you open your eyes for the next match. I do but I also give credit when I think it's due, the whole right handside was walked over yesterday, it was our weak link. And no I didn't, for all of their possession I don't think they had the chances they'd expect. Even when it was pinging around our box, it felt comfortable I thought and usually I'm metaphorically shitting my pants. It felt like the Villa game a bit, only a bit of Stoke stupidity was going to aid them and we duly obliged. I was seriously impressed with us. You must have been on a ton of Diazepam or something because everyone near me was shitting it for the last 15 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Jan 2, 2014 18:59:11 GMT
I would say we kept losing possession and kept being being pushed back. I don't think we "sat back". I would say taking off a striker (Adam), and replacing him with a defensive mid-fielder (Palacios), was tantamount to sitting back. We constantly lost possession because Crouch was on his own once Adam went off so, when he did get the ball there was no support and they came straight back at us. Sorry mate but your hypocritical posts are shameful. It appears now we have a new manager we have to win every game playing entertaining free flowing attacking football, whereas under the previous incumbent, mind numbing boring hoofball was the order of the day and sitting back for 95 minutes was the done thing. Shameful.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 2, 2014 18:59:21 GMT
I would say we kept losing possession and kept being being pushed back. I don't think we "sat back". I would say taking off a striker (Adam), and replacing him with a defensive mid-fielder (Palacios), was tantamount to sitting back. We constantly lost possession because Crouch was on his own once Adam went off so, when he did get the ball there was no support and they came straight back at us. I thought we needed three subs (I forgot Butland had come on ) they were; Walters off and I would have gone with Pennant too. Adam for Ireland. KJ for Crouch. But without the latter one not available I can see why Palacios was chosen instead. He's better when he's given a bit more freedom and nothing was sticking to Crouch anyway so Ireland would have been ineffective. Adam could barely walk so he had to be subbed. I thought it made sense. I do but I also give credit when I think it's due, the whole right handside was walked over yesterday, it was our weak link. And no I didn't, for all of their possession I don't think they had the chances they'd expect. Even when it was pinging around our box, it felt comfortable I thought and usually I'm metaphorically shitting my pants. It felt like the Villa game a bit, only a bit of Stoke stupidity was going to aid them and we duly obliged. I was seriously impressed with us. You must have been on a ton of Diazepam or something because everyone near me was shitting it for the last 15 minutes. Nah, I just thought they looked a bit tame up front and we were defending like trojans.
|
|
|
Post by shiftyfifty on Jan 2, 2014 19:06:25 GMT
I would say taking off a striker (Adam), and replacing him with a defensive mid-fielder (Palacios), was tantamount to sitting back. We constantly lost possession because Crouch was on his own once Adam went off so, when he did get the ball there was no support and they came straight back at us. Sorry mate but your hypocritical posts are shameful. It appears now we have a new manager we have to win every game playing entertaining free flowing attacking football, whereas under the previous incumbent, mind numbing boring hoofball was the order of the day and sitting back for 95 minutes was the done thing. Shameful.[/quote Hypocritical? F*ck me! That's the pot calling the kettle black. Forget Pulis, he's gone, get over it. So, because Pulis sat back, that excuses any new manager we have throwing a lead away by sitting back? Brilliant. EDIT: f*ck knows what's gone on here.
|
|