Match Day Mega thread

I’m not worried about fake Dons. Feel bad about Forest Green, being a vegan..

 

If you can't see that Kane is a class footballer it's perhaps time you took up a different hobby.

 

You've got a future as a footballing pundit knowall mate.

Do they do humble pie at your local takeaway?

 

Absolutely, battling Barnsley back in town.

 

I kind of agree. We left the change of strategy a bit late. Great game for a neutral. Watters has been panned, but going into playoff games it is good to have an additional striker in form.

PS Mads is the key to the whole defence. We'll sell him in the summer, hopefully for £15 million, but will be an undisclosed £3 million & a bag of chips

 

Flounce-tastic.

I hope nobody chucking their toys out of the pram about travelling down and paying for tickets didn’t leave early and go to the pub.

Not that there’s much near that stadium…

Well done to the team but I reiterate, I wasn’t that arsed today. I’ve family in MK, could easily have gone down, had a bit of tea with them and come back later tonight. I didn’t bother as I suspected the game would be drab, maybe a 0-0! I couldn’t have been more wrong there but in terms of the relative attitudes of the teams I got that about right. If we’d still been fighting for top two I’d have got tickets, but I couldn’t justify the cost of them and especially the fuel for a game I suspected, correctly, we’d rest players for and maybe not fully apply ourselves.

I’ll see our Marie in July anyway, I stay with her when we go to the British GP.

 

Well done reds....tbf we probably only played well in a 15 minute spell in the second half.
Think it took us to get hurt to get us going...well done anyway.

 

43 seasons in & never a bad word for the Reds.. I probably do need my head checked?

 

At 4-1 down I had turned from disappointment to a 4 pint disgust.

I'm glad that I didn't post anything embarrassing then though, given what then happened.

I think I've got away with it......

 

Can anybody tell me what Watters' goals to minutes on the pitch ratio is. I'm guessing it isn't too shabby.

 

So which bit of it was wrong?

 

None of it. I now know that putting 80% effort affords you 4 goals away from home and a comeback from 3 goals down.

 

We won't though, unless Connell and Andersen are unavailable. In which case we'll be knackered.

 

None of it. I now know that putting 80% effort affords you 4 goals away from home and a comeback from 3 goals down.

(sorry about forgetting to quote your previous post - I have a sticky keyboard).

 

And how did we go 4-1 down in the first place? Are you honestly telling me the players gave that full effort for the majority of the match?

 

143.5 minutes per goal I think not including time added on

 

The bit today that was wrong was playing 2 midfielders, as opposed to three. With Connell rested Benson can't play in a 2. He's not a write off, but him & Kane are not combative enough, forward passing enough, or visionary enough, in terms of managing a game.

I think Benson is our weakest midfielder. Phillips gets panned for work rate, but he has goals & assists. We lost the middle of the park for 70% of the game, but were able to come back.

 

Cheers. That's pretty good.

 

Do you want to single out players who did not give more than 80%?

Kane for example? Or was it a conscious decision by them all to measure out their effort in % terms? When was this decided upon? And why? Why 80%?

Did they not care about the result? From kick off? Or do you think that they just decided to play after they went 4-1 down?

Why after 4-1? Why not 3-1 or wait till it was 6-1?

Basically it seems to me that, like many others, your 80% theory sprouted after we were 4-1 down. It wasn't mentioned when we were 1-0 up. And by the end it looked daft. Just my opinion.