Why do you think that it would be necessary for me to repeatedly put my criticism of Crowley into the context of the modern game. It is only relevant to do so when we are discussing and contrasting the modern game to the game that I grew up watching that it is necessary to compare and contrast the players of the past with the players of today. My lengthy posts would be even longer if I were to put my comments about players into every context that I could think of. In the context of the way that the modern game works, Crowley is a throw back. If he is to succeed in the modern game, he will have to change the way that he plays. He is here to learn. He is not the finished article. There is no doubt that Crowley can beat his man. There is also no doubt that he passes up many opportunities to pass the ball to a colleague, that he tries to beat one man too many and takes every opportunity to run into blind alleys. The opposition do not know what he going to do next, because most of the time, he does not know what he is going to do next, which is fine. What is not fine is that his team mates do not know what he is going to do next either, and if they cannot read him, how can they make the right runs or time their runs along the offside line properly for the anticipated pass. He is criticised by his manager, quite rightly in my opinion, because he does not work hard enough to get back into our defensive formation, and because of this, not only is there more space that our opponents can exploit, but also, his team mates have to do much more running in order to cover the holes that he leaves. If his education goes well, he will learn the necessary skills. If it goes badly he will end up like Paddy McCourt, a frustrated figure who should have made more of himself. This thread was not aimed at Barnsley FC. The thread was aimed at football in general. I used the examples of Barnsley and England only to illustrate the points that I was making. If the game is judged on the time the ball spends in the penalty areas, because those are the areas of the field that excite and entertain the watching fans, then the modern game is far less entertaining than the game of my youth. It is not that it was a golden age, it is not that I am seeing too much football (I only watch Match of the Day), it is literally how it is. You only have to look at the criticism of tippy-tappy football on here, (not by me by the way), to know that many do not enjoy the way the modern game is being played. In the seventies, the Italians regularly won the European Cup, but English fans pronounced themselves satisfied with the British way, even if it meant that we failed to win things. Forty years later, and the game is played in the Italian way. Physical contact, a quality the British valued in the game, has almost disappeared, and the game has opted for safety first and deep defence. This is not ground that I intended to cover, but I will cover it anyway. The game that we invented now has a Latin heart to it, and I for one am happy to stand up and say that I preferred the game when it was British, through and through. The question is not whether the game is less exciting or less entertaining. The question is how you go about putting the game right. Nuclear weapons cannot be un-invented and because of this the only way to control them is to make sure they never fall into the hands of those who are willing to use them. Similarly, the knowledge of how to play the modern game cannot be forgotten, and if like me, you would like to see a more entertaining and exciting game, the only way to get it is to make a major change to the laws.
Starting with the last paragraph first, cos I can see it as I type, you make a presumption that the game needs to be put right. If you aren't bothered about asking the question as to whether the game is less exciting or less entertaining, then it isn't obvious what it is you are seeking to put right. It is no less entertaining in general now at Oakwell than it has been before over the years. Bad and worse, with magical interludes if you get to live long enough. For someone who only watches Match of The Day and Barnsley at home you seem to be a specialist in the modern day business of football tactics and formations. There is a lot you will be missing on TV. Most on here I imagine will watch more football than you. Crowley. He is not the new Messiah. He tries to express himself, create and use a unique skill. Obviously he is young naive and apprentice like. Why criticise him? Because he does not do the same robotic coach drilled things that you complain of in all the other teams from Brazil to Barnsley - the things that you believe are ruining the game such that we have to change the rules. That is my point. Do you want Crowleys or not? If you do then leave him be.
This thread is not about Crowley. I know because I started it. He is merely an example that I used to illustrate a point. I have never said that I know a lot about football, its tactics and its formations. I leave others to make up their own minds on that score, based upon the evidence of what I write on here. It is quite possible that my only skill is that I write persuasively. Your view is clearly that I know very little, and you are perfectly entitled to your view. I think the game lacks excitement and entertainment. I have given reasons in support of that view and I have offered a solution. Obviously, if you do not agree with my original hypothesis, then you do not think that there is a need a solution. I do not have a problem with that. I have enjoyed our debate, but I wish that you would add a bit more meat in support of your arguments, otherwise it looks like you are arguing rather than debating. In addition, it makes it very difficult for me to judge whether there is any substance to your logic and therefore that my own logic may be flawed. I was quite willing to leave Crowley be, but you keep bringing him up. My opinion on Crowley is just my opinion. I do not have any power or influence over his future career, or whether he gets picked to play for Barnsley every week, so why do you think that my opinion of Crowley key to the resolution of this discussion. If you do not understand my point about the context of the modern game being important as to whether you judge him a success or failure, then I see little point in labouring it any further, other than to add that he would be judged a success if he had played in the seventies, and less so now.
If I take issue with something posted on what is, after all, a forum, then it does not follow that I think the poster knows very little. But when the poster tells me what I do think, I think it's time to move on.