Minority Report v QPR

Well said

 

No mate you've got to read it, it's comedy gold.

 

I just think it's really off that anyone who calls them self a Barnsley supporter can come on a forum and try and tear that performances to pieces.

One most of it is fantasy and two there's just no need to do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Thank you for your very long and very detailed reply.

Taking your points one by one.

1. I knew that what I posted in my opening post would be strongly disagreed with by many posters, and on here that inevitably leads to personal abuse. I love to talk football and that is the basis of my analysis, but I do not love the fact that many posters cannot criticise the ideas in a post without criticism of the poster or without questioning the motives of the poster. I do not reply to personal criticism, but equally, I dislike it and feel that it is a wasted opportunity.

2. You are quite right to point out the long run by White and the multi-phase passing move across the face of the QPR defence. The fact that I do not refer to individual moments of excellence does not mean that I have not seen them. The points that I make about the first half refer to the general pattern of play, a pattern of play that I also noticed when we played Derby. I stand by my analysis of both matches. In my opinion, we are very negative when we are protecting a narrow advantage.

4. I tend to arrive early for most games. I saw the back four lined up whilst one of the coaches threw balls towards each player in turn, who headed the ball as far as he could back up the park. Your point is that I do not notice what you notice. I could equally well make the same remark. I can only tell you that I turned to my friend on several occasions in that first half to remark upon what I was seeing. My friend is not someone who automatically agrees with me and our half time discussions are always about us sharing our different impressions of the game. You say that I have missed things that you have seen, and there is no doubt that that is true, but I comment upon what I have seen, and how I interpret what I have seen. My comments are my own and they are my honest reflections on the game. I enjoy being challenged and I enjoy the process of defending my assertions. It is talking football and specifically, it is talking about my team. Your points allow me to do that, and I am pleased to enter a debate with you and I am pleased that I can defend my ideas, but just like all the debates about football, no-one's arm is raised in victory at the end of these debates, because after all, none of us on here is a professional and there none of us knows exactly what we are on about. And that is what we need to remember about the game, especially when we are disappointed or frustrated. All of us know very little about the game and most of us know very little about the inner working of the club. I am convinced that part of the problem with these reports is that I am not getting swept up in the general fervour and excitement of the team's success, and because of that other posters see me as a bad fan. Equally, I do not get swept up in the anger and frustration of a team doing badly and caught up in calls for the sacking of a manager. I am accused of trolling, when all I am really doing is being independent from the mob, retaining my own opinions and sharing them on here. I am independent and I intend to keep it that way. People can make their own minds up whether they read my stuff.

5. Perhaps I used the wrong words about Bradshaw. I don't know, I have not gone back and reread exactly what I said in my original comments. My feelings about Bradshaw are that he is not the right centre forward if we wish to persist with a long ball, back to front game. He is not an O'Grady type of player who can thrive on that sort of ball.

6. QPR played their no10 (Chery) behind the front man. He was trying to find space in the gap between our back four and our midfield. Back in our Premiership days, I saw Zola destroy us in that role in our 6-0 home defeat to Chelsea. One way that you can stop a no10 from being effective in that role is to deny him space, and that is what we did by playing our central midfield so deep. I understand very well the reason why our central midfield players played that way, but I also note that it limits their effectiveness going forward. I pointed out the contrast in Scowen's play late on in the game after D 'Almeida was brought on, when he made a couple of contributions to the game that he could never have made when he was tightly restricted in what he was allowed to do through his defensive duties, the second resulting in our late winner. For me, it pointed towards what we had been missing in the first half.

8. My comments about our mid-field alignment mainly referred to the first half, when we were defending a narrow lead, as I think I pointed out in my original post. The best thing for the game as a spectacle was the QPR goal at the start of the second half as it meant that we had to change tactics a little. The changes were subtle, but the central midfield pairing get to play higher up the park when the teams are level. They do not go together of course. One of the two will sit if the other advances, but they team shape is not as defensive as it is when defending a lead.

11. We do not play a high pressing game when we are defending a lead. I am sorry to disagree so firmly, but we do not.

12. D' Almeida is a defensive midfield player. He came on and sat in front of the back four to close down the space, just as he did against Derby. He is our insurance against conceding late on, our player to put the game to bed. His appearance signifies that our coach is happy with what he has and wants to hold on to it. 4-5-1 puts more players in midfield, cuts down the space in that area and gives us a greater share of possession. I know that we scored after his introduction, but he was not brought on with that in mind. He was bought on as a game closer.

I have enjoyed responding to all of your points, but you really should not take my comments so seriously. It is only football, and they are only opinions. Shankly was joking when he said, it's not life or death, it's more important than that.

 

What do you not understand about the title my series of posts. The title is Minority Report. It means that I know that I am in a minority. It means that you should not read it if you do not want to read a minority opinion. If the title was not warning enough, my opening paragraph warned readers that they might not like reading what follows. How many warnings did you want about the content of the post.

For sake of clarity, if you read my posts, you are not getting a majority opinion and you are going to have your assumptions and your beliefs challenged. If you are not man enough to defend your beliefs and ideas, without resorting to personal abuse, then you are not much of a man.

 

Unless you are able to read Hecky's mind, which I very much doubt, that is your opinion, yet it is stated as fact. You've commented a number of times that you don't like it when people express their opinion as fact. I don't know whether Hecky intended to close out the game or if he saw the new formation as a better chance of nicking a goal. What I do know is that Scowen was pushed further forward to support Payne. I also know that Payne hooked the ball back for Scowen to score. It is highly unlikely Scowen would have been in such a position had we continued with the same formation and personnel. What appears to be, on the surface, a defensive substitution or change in formation is not always the case. On Wednesday evening, instead of two forwards stood on the toes of the opposition's centre backs as was the case for much of the match, we suddenly had a player running from deep, he was not picked up and he scored the winner.

 

Re: Scowen and Hourihane

Dunt want to be a pedant but, two of your details are wrong, I agree with your sentiment.

 

This thread has convinced me that Mr rain has decided that his narrative that last year was too soon for us to be promoted has to be reinforced at all costs - to the extent that 2 victories against what can be generally accepted to be top 6 Championship sides have to be undermined. This isn't analysis of a football match, it's selectively choosing incidents/passages of play to make it look like we are a weak side competing above our level.
If every game was like Derby where we won through sheer effort then maybe but we beat QPR at football. That is absolutely no guarantee of success this season (whatever your definition of success for us is this year) but imho any credibility RR had is shot. I'm still convinced it will be a slog this season, and we'll be on the end of some bad results, but at the very least, credit must be given where it's due. I think we'll struggle (not due to a lack of ability or effort but simply due to money) but I'm more than happy to be proved wrong. RR it seems cannot countenance his ideas being disproven.

 

You seem to be deliberately contrary. It's as if you've decided that in order for it to be a "minority report" you have to go against the common feeling, whatever the situation. I can't wait for your report on how tactically sound we were after we get ars3holed by someone like Norwich away.

And it gets people's backs up when you do the condescending "well my view is different because I'm analytical and you lot are just swept up in the emotion and too blind to see it."

If you get more enjoyment out of tactical elements and have little emotional connection to watching barnsley you should watch competitive chess.

 

Red Rain, we have had this discussion before but if you genuinely are just wanting to talk about football and have debates then consider dropping the condescending tone which is what get people's backs up far more than your opinions. I believe you do not realise that you are doing it and are honestly wanting a chat which is why you become agitated when people accuse you (wrongly, I think) of trolling. You often refer to you understanding things and/or other people misunderstanding which seems to be an attempt to elevate your own opinions and serves to shutdown other people's, whether that is your intention or not. I have had a very quick flick back through your comments and quoted a few examples of what I mean.

So long as we all understand that... then I have been successful in delivering my message.

I'm sorry, but you are missing the point.

If posters still do not understand, then I have done my best.

What do you not understand...

There are those on here who claim that... They are wrong...

I have no trouble at all in understanding how our current system is working.

I often turn to my friend and tell him that I think x should be substituted by y in order to remedy a problem that I have noticed, and sure enough most managers react within minutes.

As I keep pointing out...

Have people actually noticed his normal position, because it looks like you are all arguing for the sake of it.

For example, if we lose, many fans would not have enjoyed the game, but if I have understood, or think that I have understood why, then I can take some sort of enjoyment from it.

 

I think you're in a minority of 1 here RR, which in my mind speaks volumes with regards the points you make in your post, but as you state that's why you call it a minority report, I know you like to stir a debate which you've managed to but on this occasion I think you are so wide of the mark its untrue, obviously that's only my opinion.

 

I get complaints about the length of my posts. If I precede every remark with the phrase "in my opinion" my posts will be even longer. Nevertheless, everything that I say in my comments on this board is my opinion, just as every other remark in every other post is the opinion of the individual poster.

 

Try dropping the word 'understand' (and all other synonyms) and that should make it much shorter

 

And change "minority report" to "I am right you lot are wrong" :-D

 

I honestly do not think that my style is condescending, and it is certainly not as confrontational as many on here. But in case of doubt, these are my opinions and mine alone. I do not intend to be condescending, even if my posts are read that way. I do not think that I am superior to any other poster, but then again, I do not think that any of us know that much about the game.

Unfortunately, I am 65 years of age and my style comes from writing too many management reports. It is not possible for me to change it now, and dementia is rapidly approaching. Please spread the message that there really is no harm in me and that the best way to deal with me is to humour me and bring me the occasional Horlicks, which I will leave untouched.

 

I haven't had any Horlicks in ages....tho I'm guessing you haven't RR if you keep leaving it :-D

 

I'm not saying for one second that you do think like that but it is certainly how you come across.

There's always time to change, especially if that is not the impression you want to give and it stifles the debate that you are seeking. Before hitting post just quickly read it back and omit anything that implies that your understanding is greater than anyone elses. I know personally I have a problem with passive-aggression and although I know for a fact that I haven't eliminated it entirely (or anywhere close) I write and delete far more posts of that nature than I hit send on, both on here and elsewhere. I figure even a small change is better than none.

 

I think you're a bit like a footballing Jehovah's Witness - and I don't mean that in a disrespectful way. Anyway, if your aim is to spark a debate, I think you've royally succeeded here - 5 pages and counting!

What about a drop of whiskey in the horlicks?

 

RR
To be honest i like reading your posts, i dont always agree with your points of view, but i respect the fact every one should be entitled to speak with out the fear of vebal aggresive replies, and the abuse it attracts...that said may i offer a little advice....

On point one below you say

1. I knew that what I posted in my opening post would be strongly disagreed with by many posters, and on here that inevitably leads to personal abuse. I love to talk football and that is the basis of my analysis, but I do not love the fact that many posters cannot criticise the ideas in a post without criticism of the poster or without questioning the motives of the poster. I do not reply to personal criticism, but equally, I dislike it and feel that it is a wasted opportunity.


This is not an excuse...but if you set your stall up like you do you cant complain when it comes accross like it does and at times belittles other folks opinions. You may not be aware but at times you give the impression with your words that most are not worthy and that you are very aloof and every one else doesnt have a clue......this winds folk up, hence the abusive replies


2. You are quite right to point out the long run by White and the multi-phase passing move across the face of the QPR defence. The fact that I do not refer to individual moments of excellence does not mean that I have not seen them. The points that I make about the first half refer to the general pattern of play, a pattern of play that I also noticed when we played Derby. I stand by my analysis of both matches. In my opinion, we are very negative when we are protecting a narrow advantage

In my honest opinion i think on too many occasions you overlook the many positives that take place and therefore the negative is highlighted.and your reports become disjointed and unfortunately one sided...its like when you go on holiday the weather on the morning you set of is bad your taxi is late the girl on the check out desk cant get you two seats together on the plane its delayed your transfers to the hotel is poor.....by the time you get to that 5☆ hotel ....youve had enough but you are now ready to complain about every single detail...the cockroach that ran over your foot before you get in reception as just made you think ...tthe hotel is the pits....negativity breeds negativity.

That said you are entitled to your views...but please dont complain about your replies ....you do set yourself up to fall

And thats from one who enjoys reading your posts

 

The bit I don't get is that surely, surely EVERY game report you make wouldn't be at odds with the majority of posters, Surely, if you have a balanced and honest view of the game there just might be occasions, even the 1, just a minority of the time, you might have a view that most people agree with. A lot of posters have a change in view or warm to players they previously discarded as poor as people learn more and see more. Its human nature. This is why I stopped reading, the title leads the story and as such there is little interest in the content to me anymore.

I don't regarding you as a bad person and wouldn't be so presumptuous to offer any personal view on you as a person that I don't know. I read management reports and if I ever had someone in my team offering unbalanced views, with little evidence and lack of conclusions I would assign them to 'Minority Report Forum Duty'