A minority opinion

I read your first sentence and stopped. Unfortunately, I do not know the point that you were about to make but I'm sure it does me no harm.

 

There's about 20 or so regulars on here whose views I read/respect and none of them are as up and down as you suggest. There's a lot more reasoned opinion - for example - in a BigLil or Jay post than any I've read of yours. That's not a dig at you. I just think you're getting lost up your own arse again.

As I say. Lost up it.

Not one reply has suggested this. You have seemingly highlighted where we're struggling. In games we've won. In games we've scored more goals than conceded. So I can't believe you weren't expecting responses such as these.

It's not about right or wrong. It's about an opinion. Yours is as valid as mine or the next mans. But they're there to be challenged.

True. And of the 20 or so posters I referred to earlier, I think most are like me in thinking getting promoted this year would be a year too soon. Most of us are happy to see small steps as progress. But I don't see the value in a thread that does nothing but pick fault with how we as a team are playing, or how poor a certain player is performing. Not when we're unbeaten in four, three of those being victories. If you offered up a few positives that you think are working etc, fine. But your post was overly negative. Your choice, that. But dunt bairn about others disagreeing with you, or try to dumb down the rest of the posters on here because you're some kind of tactical genius. Makes you look daft. And you're not. I enjoy your musings. But not when you go down that route, as you did a few times before.

With the millions required to pay for players of that ilk?

Jeeeez.

 

I think many don't say your opinion is wrong, just that theirs including mine is different.

I want us to play with possession, I have seen us score goals recently by doing so and also take the initiative back when opposition creep into the game. We aren't Spain, we don't have Xavi or Iniesta but we are now playing more and more to our own strengths. I can live
with mistakes, after all it's L1 and the off game will happen, but I'm enjoying what I see right now.

 

here was me thinking you were capable of having a discussion. you don't seem to react well to criticism of your opinion or indeed when anyone else dares to have a differing one.

il leave you be. enjoy your afternoon.

 

I have to say that the OP echoes some of my sentiments. Looked for long periods last night that Colchester had sussed out the Bansley Tikka Tikka and presssed up field leaving ramage and to a lesser extent Nyatanga isolated with the ball at their feet launching it hopefully forward usually nearer the crowd than any of our players. Playing Hemmings left midfielsd short and we were overun at times. We could do with an extra body in there or Digb being trustworthy enough to step forward without the istakes

Seems strange to me that the best we have playe in recently weeks was the only game we have lost. But positive to be playing a little under capacity but winning.

 

How mature to reply to a post by saying that someone is up their own arse.

Even if they are

 

Ball retention is just the latest in a long line of magic formulae designed to win football matches. I can go back longer than most and I remember when that magic formula was to make as few passes as possible. The logic for this formula was a study into the way goals are scored which proved that the majority of goals are scored from less than x number of passes (I forget the number). The result was that for a time every football team sought out a bean pole centre forward and centre backs who could kick the ball in the air over a long distance. The problem with all magic formulae is that they do not take enough account of the mix of the players involved. The system a team plays must be based on an analysis of the individual players' strengths and weaknesses rather than proscribing the system in use by the current best team. The current best team will be using a system that is designed to take advantage of their mix of talents, which is unlikely to be the same as that at any other team.

Your opponents will always do things you do not want them to do. They are operating to their own formula for winning the game. Colchester's formula was mark the full backs but allow the opposition centre back to have the ball. When we win the ball, break quickly with numbers. Like Barnsley, they did not employ a target man. It was not very hard for them to slow down our attacks, when we were mostly party to the process ourselves. It was not difficult for them to deny us space when our team structure was designed to use only the centre of the pitch. If you can see a winger in our starting line-up please let me know, because until the late introduction of the ineffective Jennings, I cannot see one. Instead width was provided by the two full backs, who only very rarely ventured beyond the line of the penalty box.

 

That'd be a good point if ever I made a thing about being mature. I'm not. At all.

 

so what you are saying is pick your players then put them in a formation to win a game.... not pick a formation and shoehorn players into that??

now do forgive me if im wrong but thats exactly what danny wilson has done and exactly what he had to do last night. alter his formation to 433 and not the diamond based on the players available to him. something you criticised him for above.

 

I also like to read your posts. I must read 200 posts for every posting that I make, so I read a lot more that I disagree with than agree with. However, I derive more pleasure from the discussions I have with those who I disagree with than those who simply say good post. I know that everything that I write is on the basis of my opinion and people are free to agree or disagree with my opinion, but I do like to know the reasons why they hold their opinions because it enables me to test the validity of my own. I am of course disappointed that you should believe that "I am up my own arse". Opinions eh.

 

That's fine.

I shall make the appropriate allowances when reading your posts.

 

Comparing Barnsley to Barcelona, talking about ball playing cbs, using a lot of words to say very little, it's good to see Keith Hill is alive and posting.

 

There were three players on the bench capable of playing in a 4 man midfield (Tracy, Jennings and Bree). In addition, Brad Abbott was not considered even though I was very encouraged by his performances earlier in the season. The inclusion of Abbott would have allowed Hourihane to be the point in the diamond or alternatively the wide left player in a four. There were any number of combinations that would have allowed the manager to play four in midfield. Instead, the manager elected to pick Hemmings and go for a three man midfield. The three in that area struggled to cover the space occupied by 4 opposition players and became tired by their efforts.

 

You flatter me kind sir with your comparison to King Keith of Rochdale. Many thanks.

 

or the 3 attackers were able to create space and goalscoring opportunities against the back 4 of colchester as we had an extra man up there.... glass half full and all that.you might want to pick out some positives too.

 

This.

 

Mate, read it back to yourself and then tell me it dunt sound like your up your own arse.

I've been up my own arse on many occasions, but in general I don't think I am. Neither do I think you are in general. But that remark did come across in that manner to me.

 

This is a very old argument. If you have more forwards you create more chances. Why do we limit the discussion to 3 forwards. We currently have 5 players who can play there. Why not pick all 5. What is wrong with 4-1-5.

Of course, I have taken the extreme in order to illustrate my point. Without the players to win the ball behind them, the front players have no ball to play with. There is always that balance between attack and defence. I can justify 4-3-3, and in fact I did so in the build up to the cup game, but the form of 4-3-3 that I was advocating became 4-5-1 when we were out of possession. The system that we operated last night was 4-3-3 in possession and 4-3-3 out of possession. It left us short in midfield when out of possession.

It is not a question of glasses being half full or half empty. It is about what I believe works within the game, and what I believe does not.

 

If you've read my **** over the last couple of years you'd know I'm immature just as often as I'm serious. As I said to Red Rain, I value his musings, I like to debate with him but that remark came across to me as though written by someone with their head up their arse. We've all been there. You even.

But your posts of late seem designed to stir or get a reaction. You naughty little bugger.

 

Stopped reading after you called hemmings a lump.hemmings is very good player