|
Post by Pugsley on Nov 25, 2014 22:36:08 GMT
They should be sending their thanks to Mr A. Begovic. One of them anyway. West Ham should be thanking Begovic? You've lost me. An on top form Begovic would have saved West Ham's second. He's not at his best this season for some reason - World Cup hangover?
|
|
|
Post by Sergeant Muttley on Nov 25, 2014 22:41:02 GMT
West Ham should be thanking Begovic? You've lost me. An on top form Begovic would have saved West Ham's second. He's not at his best this season for some reason - World Cup hangover? He's certainly not been at his best thats for sure and i found it interesting that in tonights Derby Evening Telegraph Paul Simpson is quoted as saying"Stoke have asked for Jack to train with them this week" so maybe Leslie is thinking of making a change?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 8:26:05 GMT
I don't think we did panic at all or more to the point, Muniesa didn't panic when pressed. Muniesa is calm and composed on the ball and isn't a panicky type player. He simply made the wrong choice. If anything he was too calm. Had he panicked he would have whacked it into touch and the danger is gone. We had no time to panic for the second goal because we never had possession of the ball. The goal came directly from a throw in just inside their own half, which incidentally, was as clear a thrown in to us as was possible for a throw in to be. Our players moved forward as if it was our thrown in and they took it quickly meaning several players, Bardsley included, were caught a little out of position. I haven't even read your conclusions and am merely commenting on the one quote that was highlighted, which for me, is wrong based purely on Saturday's game. Your conclusions are titled "Burnley conclusions" so what has happened in previous games should be irrelevant. Panicking under pressure to me, means that we don't play our usual style and get harried into aimless punts. It's what happened against Norwich last season and to a lesser degree against Villa on the opening day of the season. It never happened against Burnley. We totally dominated the game. This is the problem though. Dominating the game means fuck all. We've won away from home with a lot less of the ball then the opposition. Burnley pressing the ball earlier on is exactly what got them into a position to win the game. Getting your noses in front and then seeing it out is a very sensible away tactic that can pick you up points. It did cause us to lose the game because we didn't have a response. The fact that we dominated possession so comprehensively after 30 minutes suggests that we were not switched on enough from the kick off. I personally felt, on the day, that the goals came about from their impetus of closing down and harrying and us not being switched on enough. Mistakes happen under pressure and I think we struggled to handle their initial pressure. We proved throughout the rest of the match that this pressure could have been avoided.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Nov 26, 2014 8:26:17 GMT
They should be sending their thanks to Mr A. Begovic. One of them anyway. West Ham should be thanking Begovic? You've lost me. Your defensive lynchpin should, as he pulled his arse well and truly out of the fire and stopped us conceding a third. I did phrase it poorly though, you're correct sir. Funny how you can suddenly see the defence is an issue when you raise the telescope to your good eye isn't it Horatio? All those errors you steadfastly refused insisted were in everyone's head before, and now they involve someone else you can miraculously see them. There were shallower trenches at the Somme.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 11:28:05 GMT
West Ham should be thanking Begovic? You've lost me. Your defensive lynchpin should, as he pulled his arse well and truly out of the fire and stopped us conceding a third. I did phrase it poorly though, you're correct sir. Funny how you can suddenly see the defence is an issue when you raise the telescope to your good eye isn't it Horatio? All those errors you steadfastly refused insisted were in everyone's head before, and now they involve someone else you can miraculously see them. There were shallower trenches at the Somme. I was actually thinking the same squire. It's funny how you chose an example where Moses was absolutely atrocious and utterly unacceptable from a defensive standpoint, and use that as a stick to beat Wilson with. It's also worth pointing out that the West Ham match was against a team in the top 4 and bang in form. The one just gone was against a team rock bottom without an away win all season. The goals conceded against West Ham were a result of a dereliction of duty from Moses. The Burnley goals were all of the defences own doing. As you rightly say, some just point the telescope in the direction they see fit.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Nov 26, 2014 12:04:44 GMT
Your defensive lynchpin should, as he pulled his arse well and truly out of the fire and stopped us conceding a third. I did phrase it poorly though, you're correct sir. Funny how you can suddenly see the defence is an issue when you raise the telescope to your good eye isn't it Horatio? All those errors you steadfastly refused insisted were in everyone's head before, and now they involve someone else you can miraculously see them. There were shallower trenches at the Somme. I was actually thinking the same squire. It's funny how you chose an example where Moses was absolutely atrocious and utterly unacceptable from a defensive standpoint, and use that as a stick to beat Wilson with. It's also worth pointing out that the West Ham match was against a team in the top 4 and bang in form. The one just gone was against a team rock bottom without an away win all season. The goals conceded against West Ham were a result of a dereliction of duty from Moses. The Burnley goals were all of the defences own doing. As you rightly say, some just point the telescope in the direction they see fit. I've never denied Moses was to blame for West Ham's goals. But we looked wobbly at the back beyond those two goals and would have conceded another when Wilson totally lost Valencia and went clear. It was down to Begovic that we didn't. Surely you can see the double standard though mate? All season we have you screeching that the defence is fine and point blank refusing to apportion any responsibility because you've painted yourself into a corner over Wilson. Then he doesn't play and we concede the type of goals we've been conceding all season and you can't wait to point fingers and have a pop at the defence.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 12:18:09 GMT
I was actually thinking the same squire. It's funny how you chose an example where Moses was absolutely atrocious and utterly unacceptable from a defensive standpoint, and use that as a stick to beat Wilson with. It's also worth pointing out that the West Ham match was against a team in the top 4 and bang in form. The one just gone was against a team rock bottom without an away win all season. The goals conceded against West Ham were a result of a dereliction of duty from Moses. The Burnley goals were all of the defences own doing. As you rightly say, some just point the telescope in the direction they see fit. I've never denied Moses was to blame for West Ham's goals. But we looked wobbly at the back beyond those two goals and would have conceded another when Wilson totally lost Valencia and went clear. It was down to Begovic that we didn't. Surely you can see the double standard though mate? All season we have you screeching that the defence is fine and point blank refusing to apportion any responsibility because you've painted yourself into a corner over Wilson. Then he doesn't play and we concede the type of goals we've been conceding all season and you can't wait to point fingers and have a pop at the defence. That would all make sense, if I was blaming the person who stepped into Wilson's shoes - which I'm not. The full backs were at fault for both the Burnley goals. Muniesa shouldn't have started at LB. He should've been in the middle as he would then have had Ryan alongside him to take on the responsibility of winning the majority of aerial duels. He was isolated in that sense at left back, and Burnley preyed on that. With him in the middle that would have allowed Geoff to move to right back and give us what we were lacking down that side, an attacking outlet (which is what we require in the "winnable" home matches). Bardsley could've been shunted to left back and done a decent enough job and the whole set up would've been much better. I feel for Muniesa as he did well at Spurs when came on in the middle but based on the Burnley performance I can't see how he gets a starting role at Anfield. I'd bring Geoff back in at RB personally but he's made it clear he doesn't want to play there (which is a shame, as we all saw against West Ham what he can offer in that role) so Hughes may opt to stick with Bardsley. As for Wilson, if he's fit, I'd bring him straight back in.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Nov 26, 2014 12:23:32 GMT
I've never denied Moses was to blame for West Ham's goals. But we looked wobbly at the back beyond those two goals and would have conceded another when Wilson totally lost Valencia and went clear. It was down to Begovic that we didn't. Surely you can see the double standard though mate? All season we have you screeching that the defence is fine and point blank refusing to apportion any responsibility because you've painted yourself into a corner over Wilson. Then he doesn't play and we concede the type of goals we've been conceding all season and you can't wait to point fingers and have a pop at the defence. That would all make sense, if I was blaming the person who stepped into Wilson's shoes - which I'm not. The full backs were at fault for both the Burnley goals. Muniesa shouldn't have started at LB. He should've been in the middle as he would then have had Ryan alongside him to take on the responsibility of winning the majority of aerial duels. He was isolated in that sense at left back, and Burnley preyed on that. With him in the middle that would have allowed Geoff to move to right back and give us what we were lacking down that side, an attacking outlet (which is what we require in the "winnable" home matches). Bardsley could've been shunted to left back and done a decent enough job and the whole set up would've been much better. I feel for Muniesa as he did well at Spurs when came on in the middle but based on the Burnley performance I can't see how he gets a starting role at Anfield. I'd bring Geoff back in at RB personally but he's made it clear he doesn't want to play there (which is a shame, as we all saw against West Ham what he can offer in that role) so Hughes may opt to stick with Bardsley. As for Wilson, if he's fit, I'd bring him straight back in. It makes sense anyway, because you've told us all season the defence isn't a problem and you've suddenly decided it is. Previously when we've conceded goals every bit as cheaply as on Saturday you've castigated anyone suggesting it might be an issue. Now your personal cause isn't involved the cataracts have come off. Quite the coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 12:36:49 GMT
That would all make sense, if I was blaming the person who stepped into Wilson's shoes - which I'm not. The full backs were at fault for both the Burnley goals. Muniesa shouldn't have started at LB. He should've been in the middle as he would then have had Ryan alongside him to take on the responsibility of winning the majority of aerial duels. He was isolated in that sense at left back, and Burnley preyed on that. With him in the middle that would have allowed Geoff to move to right back and give us what we were lacking down that side, an attacking outlet (which is what we require in the "winnable" home matches). Bardsley could've been shunted to left back and done a decent enough job and the whole set up would've been much better. I feel for Muniesa as he did well at Spurs when came on in the middle but based on the Burnley performance I can't see how he gets a starting role at Anfield. I'd bring Geoff back in at RB personally but he's made it clear he doesn't want to play there (which is a shame, as we all saw against West Ham what he can offer in that role) so Hughes may opt to stick with Bardsley. As for Wilson, if he's fit, I'd bring him straight back in. It makes sense anyway, because you've told us all season the defence isn't a problem and you've suddenly decided it is. Previously when we've conceded goals every bit as cheaply as on Saturday you've castigated anyone suggesting it might be an issue. Now your personal cause isn't involved the cataracts have come off. Quite the coincidence. I haven't said the defence hasn't been a problem this Season. The point I've made is that some have unfairly targeted certain individuals and made them scapegoats, as it's easier than criticising their "favourites". Burnley was another example of this. Muniesa and Bardsley were the biggest culprits for both goals and Begovic doesn't cover himself in glory either, yet I've seen there's another Geoff Cameron thread where he is chastised. Why isn't this anger aimed at the appropriate players responsible for the goals?? "He was garbage. USE YOUR FUCKING LEFT FOOT YOU BELL END!" "Geoff is wank. Deal with it." "He was shit on Saturday" "Such a shit footballer."
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Nov 26, 2014 13:41:01 GMT
It makes sense anyway, because you've told us all season the defence isn't a problem and you've suddenly decided it is. Previously when we've conceded goals every bit as cheaply as on Saturday you've castigated anyone suggesting it might be an issue. Now your personal cause isn't involved the cataracts have come off. Quite the coincidence. I haven't said the defence hasn't been a problem this Season. The point I've made is that some have unfairly targeted certain individuals and made them scapegoats, as it's easier than criticising their "favourites". Burnley was another example of this. Muniesa and Bardsley were the biggest culprits for both goals and Begovic doesn't cover himself in glory either, yet I've seen there's another Geoff Cameron thread where he is chastised. Why isn't this anger aimed at the appropriate players responsible for the goals?? "He was garbage. USE YOUR FUCKING LEFT FOOT YOU BELL END!" "Geoff is wank. Deal with it." "He was shit on Saturday" "Such a shit footballer." I'm fairly sure you repeatedly denied it mate. Can you not remember posting pictures of blokes with their head in the sand when it was suggested we couldn't keep giving silly goals away? I thought Geoff was poor on Saturday and his positioning for the second goal was questionable. Muniesa and Bardsley were culpable though absolutely. I haven't seen anybody suggest otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 14:59:01 GMT
I haven't said the defence hasn't been a problem this Season. The point I've made is that some have unfairly targeted certain individuals and made them scapegoats, as it's easier than criticising their "favourites". Burnley was another example of this. Muniesa and Bardsley were the biggest culprits for both goals and Begovic doesn't cover himself in glory either, yet I've seen there's another Geoff Cameron thread where he is chastised. Why isn't this anger aimed at the appropriate players responsible for the goals?? "He was garbage. USE YOUR FUCKING LEFT FOOT YOU BELL END!" "Geoff is wank. Deal with it." "He was shit on Saturday" "Such a shit footballer." I'm fairly sure you repeatedly denied it mate. Can you not remember posting pictures of blokes with their head in the sand when it was suggested we couldn't keep giving silly goals away? I thought Geoff was poor on Saturday and his positioning for the second goal was questionable. Muniesa and Bardsley were culpable though absolutely. I haven't seen anybody suggest otherwise. The main point I have made is that scoring goals is a bigger issue that plagues us, and I stand by that. That's not saying the defending hasn't been an issue of course. We had over 70% possession against Burnley, won 14 corners and had 25 shots at goal. If we'd have won 3-2 then it'd have been a case of job done. It would have papered over the cracks in terms of the defensive frailties but it's a scoreline we should have achieved, such was our dominance. I just think some are too quick to jump on the defence whilst letting the misfiring attacking players off scot-free in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Nov 26, 2014 15:09:55 GMT
I'm fairly sure you repeatedly denied it mate. Can you not remember posting pictures of blokes with their head in the sand when it was suggested we couldn't keep giving silly goals away? I thought Geoff was poor on Saturday and his positioning for the second goal was questionable. Muniesa and Bardsley were culpable though absolutely. I haven't seen anybody suggest otherwise. The main point I have made is that scoring goals is a bigger issue that plagues us, and I stand by that. That's not saying the defending hasn't been an issue of course. We had over 70% possession against Burnley, won 14 corners and had 25 shots at goal. If we'd have won 3-2 then it'd have been a case of job done. It would have papered over the cracks in terms of the defensive frailties but it's a scoreline we should have achieved, such was our dominance. I just think some are too quick to jump on the defence whilst letting the misfiring attacking players off scot-free in comparison. Any attempt to suggest the defence was an issue was met with derision by you WD. When it was suggested that both were an issue you wouldn't have it because you took it as an implied criticism of Wilson.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 15:25:35 GMT
The main point I have made is that scoring goals is a bigger issue that plagues us, and I stand by that. That's not saying the defending hasn't been an issue of course. We had over 70% possession against Burnley, won 14 corners and had 25 shots at goal. If we'd have won 3-2 then it'd have been a case of job done. It would have papered over the cracks in terms of the defensive frailties but it's a scoreline we should have achieved, such was our dominance. I just think some are too quick to jump on the defence whilst letting the misfiring attacking players off scot-free in comparison. Any attempt to suggest the defence was an issue was met with derision by you WD. When it was suggested that both were an issue you wouldn't have it because you took it as an implied criticism of Wilson. "implied criticism"? The chastising of Cameron and Wilson on this board is very rarely “implied”, it’s rammed down your throats. As I mentioned above, we’ve just played a match against the side bottom of the table and both full backs made huge gaffes for both goals conceded. Despite this, if you look at the main board there is a thread dedicated to Geoff where he gets all kinds of ridiculous rebuke and not a single thread with the same kind of “implied criticism” of those actually responsible. As for Wilson, people have been slating him left, right and centre all Season but after how we performed in his absence, don’t be surprised to see him rushed straight back into the side once fit.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Nov 26, 2014 15:28:05 GMT
Any attempt to suggest the defence was an issue was met with derision by you WD. When it was suggested that both were an issue you wouldn't have it because you took it as an implied criticism of Wilson. "implied criticism"? The chastising of Cameron and Wilson on this board is very rarely “implied”, it’s rammed down your throats. As I mentioned above, we’ve just played a match against the side bottom of the table and both full backs made huge gaffes for both goals conceded. Despite this, if you look at the main board there is a thread dedicated to Geoff where he gets all kinds of ridiculous rebuke and not a single thread with the same kind of “implied criticism” of those actually responsible. As for Wilson, people have been slating him left, right and centre all Season but after how we performed in his absence, don’t be surprised to see him rushed straight back into the side once fit. I could see him being rushed back into the side. Doesn't mean it's the right decision. Just because the full backs were at fault for the goals (which I don't think many people are denying) doesn't mean Geoff played well or that he couldn't have got closer to Ings for the second.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 15:48:18 GMT
"implied criticism"? The chastising of Cameron and Wilson on this board is very rarely “implied”, it’s rammed down your throats. As I mentioned above, we’ve just played a match against the side bottom of the table and both full backs made huge gaffes for both goals conceded. Despite this, if you look at the main board there is a thread dedicated to Geoff where he gets all kinds of ridiculous rebuke and not a single thread with the same kind of “implied criticism” of those actually responsible. As for Wilson, people have been slating him left, right and centre all Season but after how we performed in his absence, don’t be surprised to see him rushed straight back into the side once fit. I could see him being rushed back into the side. Doesn't mean it's the right decision. Just because the full backs were at fault for the goals (which I don't think many people are denying) doesn't mean Geoff played well or that he couldn't have got closer to Ings for the second. I didn’t think Geoff was great either in all honesty. It still doesn’t justify some of the abuse he’s received on here though, on his own dedicated thread (again). Ultimately, he should’ve been at right back where we sorely missed his attacking dominance and prowess. We were crying out for a performance similar to that which he put in against West Ham.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Nov 26, 2014 15:54:31 GMT
I could see him being rushed back into the side. Doesn't mean it's the right decision. Just because the full backs were at fault for the goals (which I don't think many people are denying) doesn't mean Geoff played well or that he couldn't have got closer to Ings for the second. I didn’t think Geoff was great either in all honesty. It still doesn’t justify some of the abuse he’s received on here though, on his own dedicated thread (again). Ultimately, he should’ve been at right back where we sorely missed his attacking dominance and prowess. We were crying out for a performance similar to that which he put in against West Ham. I don't think there's much in it between him and Bardsley going forward really. I don't think Geoff playing right back would have made a huge difference.
|
|
|
Post by Kjones9 on Nov 26, 2014 16:36:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Nov 26, 2014 17:24:18 GMT
Conclusion is that our defensive calamities at home aren't about to become better anytime soon and especially when our captain comes out and after been asked why the sloppiness his reply was 'not switching on in the week and leading up to it in training'....
What's that all about is it saying that we take sides like the Burnleys of this world for granted by having an unprofessional attitude in the lead up to these kind of supposed easy fixtures?.
|
|