|
Post by RAF on Oct 29, 2008 11:17:39 GMT
Well you just did exactly that. Trying to explain our loss to Man City on them merely spending shit loads of cash over the last 2 years, when that clearly isn't just the case, otherwise in theory they would steamroller all teams who had spent less than them. But then you have us drawing with Liverpool, how does that fit into the equation? Freak result? Possibly, possibly not. All I'm saying is that there is more than a 32 million quid winger to blame for us getting smacked by Man City.
H
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2008 11:19:19 GMT
The fact we lost to Man City, as I have previously stated, is that they have a lot more quality from money spent over recent years.
I hope that’s clear enough.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Oct 29, 2008 11:24:32 GMT
But they have more quality than Wigan and Newcastle and didn't beat them. I hope that's clear enough for you.
H
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2008 11:26:57 GMT
That’s exactly my point RAF, you are using individual results as points to back up your arguments and that’s ludicrous. Over the course of a whole season Man City will be a top half side.
If you want to pick one off games you can make all kind of stupid points like we are as good as Liverpool or we are better than Villa when in reality we will finish below both as we have don’t have the same quality as them.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Oct 29, 2008 11:39:18 GMT
Either you don't understand what I am trying to say, or you don't want to. I've had my say on the matter. You carry on.
H
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Oct 29, 2008 11:40:03 GMT
Oi, you lot, you're confusing the issue. Or is it just me and Daftbugger. Or, errrm, wasn't that my original point? OS.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2008 11:42:34 GMT
I understand what you are trying to say but I just don’t agree RAF.
Making arguments based on one off results is ludicrous IMO but that’s just me.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Oct 29, 2008 11:45:15 GMT
Tom, just have a cup of tea. You see things diffrently afterwards. Take no notice of H. He confuses me at times.
Oi, H, have you met up with your admirer, Miximator, yet? Have you bedded him yet? ;D
OS.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2008 11:46:46 GMT
Mick, how goes it fella? I’ll have a lager instead of tea if it’s all the same with you
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Oct 29, 2008 11:52:12 GMT
Tom, Lager dulls the mind. You won't last 5 minutes on this thread that way. Even H, the Trolly Dolly, is giving you the runaround. Tea I tells yer. M.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2008 11:52:21 GMT
[Thread Hijack Attempt Alert] ... Who are we better than? That's a damn fine question, Oh Daft One. Every week I look at the BBC write up for the match - The Preview one where it gives all the stats and the "Head to Head" comparison. So far (as far as I know) we have lost more games than we have won to every single team. Is there anyone we have a positive record against?! Our Record v Blunderland (scroll to bottom) (And Brazil doesn't count ... but I bet you we have a negative top flight record against them un'all!) Shirley we have beaten some team more often than we have lost?! ah [/Thread Hijack Attempt Alert]
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2008 11:55:36 GMT
That wouldn't go amiss at the moment Mick!!
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Oct 29, 2008 11:56:39 GMT
Oi, AH, stop confusing things. We were just settling down to some niceties with tea and bickies [FF Style] and you throw a spanner in the works. You'll have Daftbugger confused soon. OS.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 29, 2008 11:56:39 GMT
So we can conclude then that we are better than Ajax roughly the same as Udinese much worse than Brighton and better than Man Utd?
Pulis In. I think.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2008 11:59:01 GMT
That’s about right Sheikh, I think…..
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Oct 29, 2008 12:06:12 GMT
Andy
We have never lost to Tilbury! (In the FA Cup at least!)
So it's official we are better than Tilbury!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2008 12:08:29 GMT
Oi, AH, stop confusing things. We were just settling down to some niceties with tea and bickies [FF Style] and you throw a spanner in the works. Oi! I'll have you know (during my time on the FF) we never argued and always spoke with one voice (Tel's) You'll have Daftbugger confused soon. Soon?!!! (Like the girl with the Round-Board at a boxing match, I was just providing a bit of light relief!) ah
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2008 12:15:43 GMT
Andy We have never lost to Tilbury! (In the FA Cup at least!) So it's official we are better than Tilbury! It may only be Official until 08/11, Mr Burger. See .... 09-04-07 - Tilbury 2 Aveley 0 08-11-08 - Colchester v Aveley (Essex Seniors' Cup) So ... If Aveley beat Colchester, and given we've lost to Colchester, then as Tilbury have beat Aveley, we won't be better than Tilbury anymore!!! ah
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Oct 29, 2008 12:20:52 GMT
P.S. We have a decent record against Sunderland and I'll be very disappointed if we don't get at least a draw. Even though they're better than Newcastle, who are better than West Brom, who are better than Fulham, who are better than Arsenal, who are better than West Ham, who are better than Wigan who are better than Hull.......
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2008 12:21:08 GMT
We drew with Liverpool who beat Man Utd and Chelsea, however we lost to Middlesbrough and they lost to Sunderland and they beat Newcastle who beat WBA last night.
I think the answer is 7.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Oct 29, 2008 12:22:10 GMT
You clearly don't understand at all. I don't think because Wigan beat Man City that they are better than them, I also don't think that because Newcastle drew with Man City that they are equals. That is not my point at all, not once have I suggested it either, that was you. What I was actually getting at is what do you think Newcastle and Wigan did differently to us? , The shitload of money being used as an excuse for our loss didn't seem to affect them, so I'm wondering , especially for teams like these that seem to be struggling, how did they negate the 32 million pound winger that seems to be our only excuse for the loss. Basically in a round about way, I'm asking should we look a bit closer to home other than blame our loss on Robinho? H I didn't realise I had an admirer, however not being a gayer and not having Gaydar I wouldn't have picked up on it. I'm sure Winger is probably attending to the lads sexual needs, unfortuntely my missus wouldn't like to share me
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2008 12:27:34 GMT
I wasn’t blaming it solely on Robinho, although his quality was undoubtedly a factor. The quality throughout the squad was the reason they beat us on the day. We both created chances but they took theirs, that was the difference.
As for Wigan and Newcastle? I don’t know, I refer you back to the one off result point I made earlier. They managed to get results against Man City and we didn’t. Using your basis for that point, lets see if they go to Liverpool and get results.
|
|
|
Post by skip on Oct 29, 2008 12:32:02 GMT
We lost to Man City due a lack of confidence. Confidence is usually born out of positive experience to draw upon. A fair amount of our players have Premiership experience but the manager does not. Phil Brown does have experience of working in the Premiership interestingly. Also, intelligence. At this level more than any other, intelligence manifests itself as tactics and ours appear fairly easy to read.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Oct 29, 2008 12:32:57 GMT
That's your problem WD you seem to think everything I refer to is about something that you said. Let me take this opportunity to let you know that this is not the case.
But it's not my basis for fucks sake, how many times do I have to tell you? I can't make it any simpler, even for you.
H
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Oct 29, 2008 12:35:31 GMT
I think i can sum this thread up ....
Yes we are in the big league and we're competing against clubs who have bigger wallets and can attract better players. That's fine but it doesn't help when you look at West Brom and Hull. Hull have done great and they've done it by taking a few risks and pushing for the 3 points in every game. It won't last but they're half way to safety already so it probabaly won't need to. West Brom aren't pulling up any trees but they are playing prettt well and seem to be creating chances but aren't putting them away.
Now personally i like Pulis but he will always have the same problem ... he plays shit, boring, one dimensional, overly cautious football. That will always be fine with most under 1 condition ... we get results. As soon as that doesn't happen then it's shit to watch AND it doesn't work. Some people will say i'm being harsh but unhappy fans would stick with a manager in a bad run a lot longer if at least they're entertained. When our 'most' entertaining bits involve the freakishness of a long throw then i'm afraid it doesn't say much for the rest of our game. I'm as desperate as most for us to do well and preferably under Pulis as i think he works as hard as anyone and he's a character but with his style of play and lack of attacking edge he will always be only 4 or 5 bad results from a lynch mob wanting him out.
Whether you lot like it or not i'd much rather be in West Broms shoes ... struggling as we are but at least they play some cracking football along the way and i feel they are only 3 or 4 players away from doing well in the division because of the way they play. For us to do 'well' in the Prem i truly believe we'd need 8 or 9 new 1st team players and a totally different style of play which probabbly means a new manager aswell.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2008 12:37:17 GMT
RAF, you’re asking me what Castle and Wigan did differently to us in order to get results. My answer is I haven’t got a fu**ing clue. It’s difficult to explain one-off results. A team over a period of 38 games can be judged much easier and I believe Man City will be a top half team.
Castle and Wigan got results on the day much like we got a result on the day against Liverpool but I have no idea what this has to do with the Man City debate.
We lost because they’ve got more quality which is a result of their spending over recent years.
We both created chances but we failed to take ours and they managed to take theirs – it’s a difference in quality.
|
|
|
Post by crowey on Oct 29, 2008 12:38:23 GMT
You can debate this all you like. The truth of the matter is that come the last day of the season we will need a draw or (heaven forbid) a win at Arsenal and other results to fall favourably for us to stay up
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2008 12:38:55 GMT
P.S. We have a decent record against Sunderland and I'll be very disappointed if we don't get at least a draw ... At home we have a decent record: League (inc PL): Stoke 29 wins, Sunderland 18, Draws 13 Home & Away ( let me be the one that you turn to, someone you can rely on ...) - We don't: League (inc PL): Stoke 36 wins, Sunderland 56, Draws 28 So I'd go with the Wigan beating Hull theory, just to be safe ah
|
|
|
Post by apb1 on Oct 29, 2008 12:40:28 GMT
I haven't read all this thread, just the last page. I think it's fair to say that the Man City game pointed up the value of a £32m striker who is a great finisher, and a set of decent players to give him ammo. I was hoping for a point but I always want at least that. Realistically they would beat us maybe 9 times out of 10 However, that obviously doesn't mean we could NEVER have got a result there, in fact if we'd been a bit better with our finishing we could have got a point. And ah I've noticed the same thing. I guess long periods of struggling in the top flight take their toll. Look at this though: www.soccerbase.com/head2.sd?team2id=2783&team1id=2477
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Oct 29, 2008 12:42:46 GMT
So it has in no way nothing to do with playing players out of position and the wrong formation then?
You see I understand very well your argument of so called 'one off' results, I actually agree with you.
What I'd like to know is what the fuck do we have to do to pull off more than our fair share of 'one offs' to stay up and when does a 'one off' become something other than a 'one off'? Because to me a 'one off' means once.
H
|
|