Jump to content

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Blue blood said:

Not that people don't get what you are saying Chaddy, it's just that they disagree with you! 

Btw 1) if he is not playing wide that's part of the problem. He isn't stretching the defence. 

2) Call the position what you want but it doesn't stop him having a stinker there. No creativity, no final ball, very few goals, no pace. I think inside forward and winger are both an injustice as they suggest he is offering an attacking threat. Whatever it is called it is not working and Gally isn't offering anything from said position. 

1. Our full backs provide the width under Mowbray..

2. I thought he was decent against Stoke. Hes doing a job there. 

3. Would I play wide tomorrow? No I wouldn't. Would play Samuel or Rankin Costello there. Rothwell left and Travis and Downing Centre. Buckley in 10 with Armstrong up front. 

4. I expect Gallagher will play from the right. I hope he has good game and scores. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 397
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think Gallagher's goal totally vindicates the article. Wide striker, inside forward, or as it has legitimately been out and out winger, whatever “wider” position he’s held it’s been totally ineffect

Got 1 in the cup and its made no difference. Its a terrible sign as a striker if you arent even getting chances, hes not getting into the positions, not anticipating where the ball will fall. He also

I'm a paying fan. I think I have a right to expect to see our best team on the pitch. Gallagher isn't our best striker. Samuel has shown more in the last couple of games. Why not play him?

Posted Images

9 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

1. Our full backs provide the width under Mowbray..

2. I thought he was decent against Stoke. Hes doing a job there. 

3. Would I play wide tomorrow? No I wouldn't. Would play Samuel or Rankin Costello there. Rothwell left and Travis and Downing Centre. Buckley in 10 with Armstrong up front. 

4. I expect Gallagher will play from the right. I hope he has good game and scores. 

Fair play on 3 and 4. I hope he scores too. 

I've detailed in the Stoke game why I think he hinders creativity so won't again, suffice to say width aside there are a number of other ways he stifles our play playing out wide. 

As for our full backs providing width my big issue with that is that neither are that creative. I don't think Bell should be first choice full back at all for the club (although is ok back up) bit Nayambe has a great engine but not an amazing cross and isn't great offensively. I like Nayambe as he is athletic, solid defensively and his energy stretches the play but he doesn't provide many crosses or killer balls. 

The best more attacking mid playing on the right with the full back providing the width was the Bentley-Emerton combination. Bentley had the skills to drift inside with the ball, Emerton had the engine to tear up the wing outside into the space generated which gave us two options - Bentley continues inside or plays it to Emerton. It was a killer combination that always excited me. This is far from the case with Gally & Nayambe because 1) Nayambe's final ball/cross is much worse then Emerton's and 2) Gally isn't much good at dribbling and holding onto possession (or passing, or starting wide and dribbling inside to leave the space, or holding onto the ball.) Oh and 3);our tactics are to Welly it head height to Gally which invariably means the tactic wouldn't work even if Gally had the dribbling ability to do so. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Why published the piece after the Stoke City game? 

Sharpe's comment his performance in this game 

"To his credit, worked incredibly hard, often tracking back to his own corner flag, but that came at the detriment of his goalscoring chances. Seemed to drift between playing out wide and as a centre forward. Had one excellent chance which Butland denied when quick off his line"

Like I've told you before and before he isnt playing as a wide player. Why don't you just accept my point 

“Why don’t you just accept MY point ?”

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderation Lead
9 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Well I have in the past. Have you seen me post a change of view on it? 

He isnt playing wide tho. How many times do you not get? 

If you don’t think he’s playing wide, I’d only recommend an eye test for you Chaddy.

Wait until a long ball comes into the right hand side and see who heads it. 
Here’s a clue- he is tall, has long tied back hair and we first saw him under Owen Coyle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, K-Hod said:

If you don’t think he’s playing wide, I’d only recommend an eye test for you Chaddy.

Wait until a long ball comes into the right hand side and see who heads it. 
Here’s a clue- he is tall, has long tied back hair and we first saw him under Owen Coyle.

Very good with the insults aren't you? 

So patronising aren't you!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, K-Hod said:

If you don’t think he’s playing wide, I’d only recommend an eye test for you Chaddy.

Wait until a long ball comes into the right hand side and see who heads it. 
Here’s a clue- he is tall, has long tied back hair and we first saw him under Owen Coyle.

The long hair thing annoys me too. He spends far too much game time faffing with it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Very good with the insults aren't you? 

So patronising aren't you!!!

Its because you insist on defending the indefensible. We can see with our own eyes that he's playing wide but you insist he isn't.

Its one of several failings by the manager which he will not address and you will not criticise.

Its why we won't be going up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderation Lead
58 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Very good with the insults aren't you? 

So patronising aren't you!!!

I wouldn’t say so to be honest, but you seemed unwilling to acknowledge what other people were posting, so I presented it differently....

Edited by K-Hod
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hasta said:

Because a lot of people were surprised that we dropped Samuel, who had played well, to return Gallagher to a role where he isnt a goal threat. Therefore Sharpe writes an article asking if Gallaghers role is about other than goals. This has been explained.

For the fourth time, why was it not the time to write the article?

I don't think I'm getting an answer on this am I ?

 

Edited by Hasta
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

I wouldn’t say so to be honest, but you seemed unwilling to acknowledge what other people were posting, so I presented it differently....

Of course you wouldn't. 

It called different opinion. 

13 minutes ago, Hasta said:

I don't think I'm getting an answer on this am I ?

 

Well you got your answer last night. 

Why publish the article which was wrote before the Stoke game cos he wouldn't have time after the game due to publishing deadlines at the time he did? Why not publish a week ago or after Saturday game against Swansea? What make him do it on after Stoke game? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some things are a matter  of opinion , sg is good/rubbish etc  fair enough ....

and this place is for debate and opinion 

I really don’t see the value of just denying what is presented to us all as fact ?  It’s not even belligerent support of Mowbray in this instance , tm wouldn’t argue that he plays sg wide . 
 

at least address the people who take you to task on an opinion , most are ignored , literally in some cases or met with refutes that the question is answered or people are just rude . 
in some ways other people may as well not be here . 
 

perhaps have a break , I don’t know . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Of course you wouldn't. 

It called different opinion. 

Well you got your answer last night. 

Why publish the article which was wrote before the Stoke game cos he wouldn't have time after the game due to publishing deadlines at the time he did? Why not publish a week ago or after Saturday game against Swansea? What make him do it on after Stoke game? 

 

The points he made were pertinent and relevant following the stoke game  as much as ever 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel for the guy in a way , he has some real back and forths with people here but they go on . I called him out on what I felt was a lie , I think I was proved correct with an immediate ignore .... but then I realised he struggles to tell the truth to himself . The passion is unquestionable but I don’t think  this inability to be at all objective is healthy especially if reflected in real life  

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Well you got your answer last night. 

Why publish the article which was wrote before the Stoke game cos he wouldn't have time after the game due to publishing deadlines at the time he did? Why not publish a week ago or after Saturday game against Swansea? What make him do it on after Stoke game? 

 

I have given you an answer to the questions which you ask above already.

However I didn't get an answer from you last night on the question I asked

You said that the article should have been written "either when Gallagher was out injured or at the end of the season"?

I asked (now 6 times) why that article should have been written previously when he was injured or at the end of the season, but not this week. 

Edited by Hasta
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Of course you wouldn't. 

It called different opinion. 

 

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. On one hand when you disagree with KHod it is a different opinion, and that is all well and good. Freedom of speech and fine for you to hold your opinion. Your opinion can't be criticised because it is your opinion. 

HOWEVER when people have a different opinion to you - saying Gally plays out wide for example - you get frustrated and angry they won't accept others opinions. In these cases you think it is wrong to hold a different opinion to you. 

I can hear your response - where have I said people can't have different opinions? So to quote you:

"why can't you accept my opinion?"

"He isn't playing wide though. How many times do you not get it?" 

Both cases here suggest very heavily it is wrong to have opinions different to yours. Yet you also in the quoted text say it's fine for you to disagree with KHod because it is a different opinion. 

Can you see how this may come across as double standards. 

 

Also and this is key opinions are not unquestionable. They aren't all correct or right. For example I think Dack is rubbish. Is that an ok opinion to have? Is it true? The point I am making is that it can be questioned. 

In fact if opinions can't be questioned and have to be accepted as true we are in a world of trouble. Just think if someone had the opinion racism was ok? Can we leave that unchallenged? Is it true? If opinions can't be challenged there's a world of hurt. It seems however the  unquestioning of opinions remains solely for you however. 

This'll be ignored but hopefully read and seen why this thread is causing you some bother. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Blue blood said:

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. On one hand when you disagree with KHod it is a different opinion, and that is all well and good. Freedom of speech and fine for you to hold your opinion. Your opinion can't be criticised because it is your opinion. 

HOWEVER when people have a different opinion to you - saying Gally plays out wide for example - you get frustrated and angry they won't accept others opinions. In these cases you think it is wrong to hold a different opinion to you. 

I can hear your response - where have I said people can't have different opinions? So to quote you:

"why can't you accept my opinion?"

"He isn't playing wide though. How many times do you not get it?" 

Both cases here suggest very heavily it is wrong to have opinions different to yours. Yet you also in the quoted text say it's fine for you to disagree with KHod because it is a different opinion. 

Can you see how this may come across as double standards. 

 

Also and this is key opinions are not unquestionable. They aren't all correct or right. For example I think Dack is rubbish. Is that an ok opinion to have? Is it true? The point I am making is that it can be questioned. 

In fact if opinions can't be questioned and have to be accepted as true we are in a world of trouble. Just think if someone had the opinion racism was ok? Can we leave that unchallenged? Is it true? If opinions can't be challenged there's a world of hurt. It seems however the  unquestioning of opinions remains solely for you however. 

This'll be ignored but hopefully read and seen why this thread is causing you some bother. 

Good thread , the double standards frustrate . 
 

id just like to add though , is this sg plays wide thing actually a matter of opinion ? Am I going mad ? I thought we all just had a basic understanding of where a player is on a pitch ? 
 

also correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t chaddy at some point say sg was a wide player , tm was coaching him and shaking him videos to master the role. ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.