Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Part of me wants to phone in as a parody then the callers parody themselves
Every transfer window
I always think thatPart of me wants to phone in as a parody then the callers parody themselves
I always think that
Or to go on and deliberately talk about playing Sheffield United and refer to Mark Bobbins and his decision to delay getting Carlton Ohare and Mark Godden on in the second half. Also thought Phil Babb at the back had a good gamePart of me wants to make a list of all of Clive’s errors then phone in and refer to them seriously
Impact injury Robins said. Took a bang to the knee in training.One question what happened to Jobello?
This kind of straw man argument is what really annoys me about this place sometimes. Nobody was delighted at us shipping goals people just disagreed on what the reasons were. And part will be that our run of games after the break was considerably gentler than the one before it. Part will be our defence adapting to the level and making fewer glaring errors, and our handling of set pieces is also much improved.
Which if you read some of the posts from that time, is what people felt we had to work on the most to cut the goals out. We beat a flying Reading playing the ‘reckless’ way and lost the two after that because of daft penalty giveaways and soft set piece goals. When we tear up Rotherham playing like that and basically win 3-0 the ‘clueless negative’ brigade go to pretending their car was broken
With respect BSB, it's not a straw man argument and you're also guilty of it. You've criticised the style of play and some of the results mentioned above on a number of occasions since the Birmingham fixture, and waxed lyrical about the previous style and set up for weeks, believing it's a viable option to be used week in, week out and a miracle tonic that will deliver results. So, you're not alone in finding posts annoying.
Granted, the opponents have been of a lesser quality. But, inferring that our chances of winning would be far greater if we used our system week in week out has been both non-sensical and entirely speculative. As I've reiterated on numerous occasions, styles and formations should be adapted accordingly to the opposition when you're the weaker side, and I believe Robins has made more of a point to do this recently. I think this is also has been a contributing factor to the upturn in results.
The style used currently is different to that which was utilised against Reading/QPR in my opinion. Defenders and midfielders have been spending less time on the ball in our own half and release it quicker. Whilst constantly knocking it up to Walker is frustrating to watch, it's clear that this has also been a direct instruction to Robins, who has quite clearly tweaked the original system to keep things tighter at the back and reduce unnecessary time spent on the ball in our own half. This style change was highlighted in the commentary, as well as by O'Hare in his post-match interview on Wednesday.
I can't comment on other what other people post. But I've never said the wing back system doesn't work as it quite obviously gives us a greater attacking potency. But rather, I've pointed out should be deployed against the correct opposition - something Robins is finally starting to grasp. I'll admit Derby was the one game I believe Robins should've taken by the scuff of the neck and started on the front foot. But, I'm not still moaning about it weeks after the fixture. I'm happy with the point.
I would welcome you pointing out where I have called for the same set up to be used every game regardless of opposition. Just this week I defended the approach he took to it. My point has been on most occasions where we try to get it more direct to Walker on his own versus with a partner, the latter is more effective because Walker just can’t lead the line as a lone striker in that way.
Shape has been conflated with playing style by quite a few posters I think.
Do you genuinely think there are any easy games? Other than Rotherham and Wycombe? Or any really great teams other than Norwich Watford and Bournemouth?
Let’s see
The only two strikers that could start on Saturday would be Baka and Walker. Would you?
I personally feel you've never offered an alternative that has strayed away from the 5-4-1/5-4-2 and defended it to the hilt at times despite its obvious drawbacks. So, what other inference should myself or others draw from that? Equally, when posters have attempted to counter your arguments in the past you dismiss them as believing that if Robins utilised another system relegation would be an inevitability - such as that used against Birmingham, Derby, Cardiff. This is one of the issues I have with your arguments/counter arguments on this topic. They often rest on the assumption that Robins will use just the one system, style or formation week in week out which thankfully (now he's seen sense) I don't think he will. As I've said in the past the key to staying in this division is being adaptable and knowing when and when not to play/set-up in a certain way. Yes, the formation used against the aforementioned teams was negative, but we didn't ship goals. Regardless of your opinion on the matter you surely must accept that a drastic change was required. So, to revert back to my original point, I just don't understand why people seem insistent on taking positives/negatives from - what are in my opinion - the wrong things.
Fine, and I agree - it's something we didn't utilise before. But, that still doesn't solve the defensive issues that were prevalent prior to the Birmingham game. Regardless of the positives you wish to draw pre-Birmingham, the old style whereby we played out from the back, were happy to move the ball freely in our own half and were reluctant to hit it long didn't work against better opposition. Nor did the wing backs at times - notable mention to the Bournemouth game. It'll be interesting to see in February (hopefully when legs are less tired) whether the newly styled 5-4-1/5-4-2 will work better against higher quality opposition or whether Robins will opt to revert back to the 4-2-3-1, or whatever formation was played against Birmingham, Derby, Cardiff.
We may be at the moment with all the players out. We are very much playing don’t lose rather than winYeah I would because I think one up hands the advantage to the other team and effectively takes one of our players out of the game. Worth it against a much better side or a team like Huddersfield who would’ve passed through us without the extra man in the middle. But not so much against low scoring sides devoid of confidence.
The argument seems to be we should try and win four games all season and the other 42 just sit behind the ball and hope for the best because the entire Championship is a mix of 1970s Brazil and last years Liverpool squad.
We aren’t that poor.
Actually you are Pete from Styvechale but you are not Pete from Styvechale.Just for clarity I am pete and live in styvechale but I’m not pete from styvechale
I personally feel you've never offered an alternative that has strayed away from the 5-4-1/5-4-2 and defended it to the hilt at times despite its obvious drawbacks. So, what other inference should myself or others draw from that? Equally, when posters have attempted to counter your arguments in the past you dismiss them as believing that if Robins utilised another system relegation would be an inevitability - such as that used against Birmingham, Derby, Cardiff. This is one of the issues I have with your arguments/counter arguments on this topic. They often rest on the assumption that Robins will use just the one system, style or formation week in week out which thankfully (now he's seen sense) I don't think he will. As I've said in the past the key to staying in this division is being adaptable and knowing when and when not to play/set-up in a certain way. Yes, the formation used against the aforementioned teams was negative, but we didn't ship goals. Regardless of your opinion on the matter you surely must accept that a drastic change was required. So, to revert back to my original point, I just don't understand why people seem insistent on taking positives/negatives from - what are in my opinion - the wrong things.
Fine, and I agree - it's something we didn't utilise before. But, that still doesn't solve the defensive issues that were prevalent prior to the Birmingham game. Regardless of the positives you wish to draw pre-Birmingham, the old style whereby we played out from the back, were happy to move the ball freely in our own half and were reluctant to hit it long didn't work against better opposition. Nor did the wing backs at times - notable mention to the Bournemouth game. It'll be interesting to see in February (hopefully when legs are less tired) whether the newly styled 5-4-1/5-4-2 will work better against higher quality opposition or whether Robins will opt to revert back to the 4-2-3-1, or whatever formation was played against Birmingham, Derby, Cardiff.
I like it5-4-2 would be something of a gamble I feel.
If the press was successful then perhaps, just perhaps, two up top would work.5-4-2 would be something of a gamble I feel.
Were Macclesfield docked points for that?
I personally feel you've never offered an alternative that has strayed away from the 5-4-1/5-4-2 and defended it to the hilt at times despite its obvious drawbacks. So, what other inference should myself or others draw from that? Equally, when posters have attempted to counter your arguments in the past you dismiss them as believing that if Robins utilised another system relegation would be an inevitability - such as that used against Birmingham, Derby, Cardiff. This is one of the issues I have with your arguments/counter arguments on this topic. They often rest on the assumption that Robins will use just the one system, style or formation week in week out which thankfully (now he's seen sense) I don't think he will. As I've said in the past the key to staying in this division is being adaptable and knowing when and when not to play/set-up in a certain way. Yes, the formation used against the aforementioned teams was negative, but we didn't ship goals. Regardless of your opinion on the matter you surely must accept that a drastic change was required. So, to revert back to my original point, I just don't understand why people seem insistent on taking positives/negatives from - what are in my opinion - the wrong things.
Fine, and I agree - it's something we didn't utilise before. But, that still doesn't solve the defensive issues that were prevalent prior to the Birmingham game. Regardless of the positives you wish to draw pre-Birmingham, the old style whereby we played out from the back, were happy to move the ball freely in our own half and were reluctant to hit it long didn't work against better opposition. Nor did the wing backs at times - notable mention to the Bournemouth game. It'll be interesting to see in February (hopefully when legs are less tired) whether the newly styled 5-4-1/5-4-2 will work better against higher quality opposition or whether Robins will opt to revert back to the 4-2-3-1, or whatever formation was played against Birmingham, Derby, Cardiff.
Not sure tbh. Think it was something similar.
They got it for a combination of not fulfilling fixtures and not paying wages. Could happen here but not betting on it
I personally feel you've never offered an alternative that has strayed away from the 5-4-1/5-4-2 and defended it to the hilt at times despite its obvious drawbacks. So, what other inference should myself or others draw from that? Equally, when posters have attempted to counter your arguments in the past you dismiss them as believing that if Robins utilised another system relegation would be an inevitability - such as that used against Birmingham, Derby, Cardiff. This is one of the issues I have with your arguments/counter arguments on this topic. They often rest on the assumption that Robins will use just the one system, style or formation week in week out which thankfully (now he's seen sense) I don't think he will. As I've said in the past the key to staying in this division is being adaptable and knowing when and when not to play/set-up in a certain way. Yes, the formation used against the aforementioned teams was negative, but we didn't ship goals. Regardless of your opinion on the matter you surely must accept that a drastic change was required. So, to revert back to my original point, I just don't understand why people seem insistent on taking positives/negatives from - what are in my opinion - the wrong things.
Fine, and I agree - it's something we didn't utilise before. But, that still doesn't solve the defensive issues that were prevalent prior to the Birmingham game. Regardless of the positives you wish to draw pre-Birmingham, the old style whereby we played out from the back, were happy to move the ball freely in our own half and were reluctant to hit it long didn't work against better opposition. Nor did the wing backs at times - notable mention to the Bournemouth game. It'll be interesting to see in February (hopefully when legs are less tired) whether the newly styled 5-4-1/5-4-2 will work better against higher quality opposition or whether Robins will opt to revert back to the 4-2-3-1, or whatever formation was played against Birmingham, Derby, Cardiff.
Do you think the league will allow ‘rush goalie’ if we go 542? Simple but fiendishly clever.I personally feel you've never offered an alternative that has strayed away from the 5-4-1/5-4-2 and defended it to the hilt at times despite its obvious drawbacks. So, what other inference should myself or others draw from that? Equally, when posters have attempted to counter your arguments in the past you dismiss them as believing that if Robins utilised another system relegation would be an inevitability - such as that used against Birmingham, Derby, Cardiff. This is one of the issues I have with your arguments/counter arguments on this topic. They often rest on the assumption that Robins will use just the one system, style or formation week in week out which thankfully (now he's seen sense) I don't think he will. As I've said in the past the key to staying in this division is being adaptable and knowing when and when not to play/set-up in a certain way. Yes, the formation used against the aforementioned teams was negative, but we didn't ship goals. Regardless of your opinion on the matter you surely must accept that a drastic change was required. So, to revert back to my original point, I just don't understand why people seem insistent on taking positives/negatives from - what are in my opinion - the wrong things.
Fine, and I agree - it's something we didn't utilise before. But, that still doesn't solve the defensive issues that were prevalent prior to the Birmingham game. Regardless of the positives you wish to draw pre-Birmingham, the old style whereby we played out from the back, were happy to move the ball freely in our own half and were reluctant to hit it long didn't work against better opposition. Nor did the wing backs at times - notable mention to the Bournemouth game. It'll be interesting to see in February (hopefully when legs are less tired) whether the newly styled 5-4-1/5-4-2 will work better against higher quality opposition or whether Robins will opt to revert back to the 4-2-3-1, or whatever formation was played against Birmingham, Derby, Cardiff.
Wow, a lot to unpick there.
1. Assuming you mean 5-box-1 or 5-3-2, I did dabble with the idea of diamonds or 4-3-3 around the Middlesbrough game as ways I could see 4 at the back working. I came to the conclusion though that we haven't recruited for that way of playing and it would particularly stifle the full backs. When combined with one up front, we become very reliant on someone scoring a screamer or a defensive mistake. It didn't actually cut out the errors at the back in the games that you mentioned and on a different day we still concede and must chase the game anyway.
2. What I have found funny is that initially people were ripping up 5 at the back as the reason for our defensive woes. Then when we start keeping clean sheets and only conceding from penalties with that, it's because we've 'dropped the possession based football'. Which isn't really true, we still play out of the back but when we have two up front there's the alternative of going longer when under pressure. With one up front, if we play it long it'll come right back at us because Walker in particular struggles to lead the line. He's a poacher who does best with someone making the chances.
3. Bournemouth, Watford and Norwich are sitting in the top 3 right now. We played 5 at the back against all of them and got played off the park once in one of the first games of the season. We lost at Watford, because of set piece defending and some madness from O'Hare. Walker's goal that game came from nice link up play between him and Max. I have never said that we must continue trying to pass teams off the park. Derby couldn't hit a barn door when we played them and were bottom of the league. We spent a good chunk of the game watching the ball come back at us and then straight into our box.
If we're going to play with one up front it actually makes more sense to try and keep it on the deck. Just my thoughts though and again particularly with our thick wedge of fixtures recently I think I've been pretty understanding of the selections.
Keep up with the program. We’ve already seen Thursday and FridaysHave you seen Wednesday's injury list?
No Hamer, no cry.
We did ship goals!! Derby averaged less than a goal a game before us and we shipped more than the average goals against them. Despite completely nullifying out attacking threat to do it.
Every game is winnableNo one believes we're the worst team in the league. That's a complete exaggeration. They simply have an alternative view to yours.
The issue I have with your opinion is that you believe there are far more winnable games than there actually are - and the tone and language of your posts suggests you believe some games at this level are easy. Yet, the fact remains that the majority of teams within the Championship either have better, or far more experienced players than we do. Even if you look at Sheffield Wednesday's side - as depleted as it is - still contains players who have a recent history of being lethal at this level. I still fully expect it to be a difficult game. Yes, we should be looking to win it given the lack of confidence and toxicity that surrounds them at present, but it's by no means going to be an easy game. So, you're more than entitled to be upset by results such as that against Derby, but I fail to see why if after a drab draw you're up in arms. You've done it numerous times against Birmingham, Derby and Luton, yet when we were shipping over 2 goals a game during the first quarter of the season you were elated by the performances. The logic just doesn't register with me. Personally, I'd rather play poorly and pick up points rather than play well and come away with nothing.
If you genuinely don't believe that we're exceeding expectations this season then that's your prerogative. But, given this is our first season in the Championship for 8 years, and our squad is relatively young and with little to no experience at this level prior to this season with exception to a few, expectations should be adapted accordingly in my opinion.
You can be re PeteJust for clarity I am pete and live in styvechale but I’m not pete from styvechale
My name is John and I’m an alcoholicWe knew that, just like we know Nick isn’t a Brummie who thinks we are 3 players away from the play offs
My name is John and I’m an alcoholic
Robins echoing the thoughts of the more sensible posters on here...
View attachment 17949
What’s your point?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?