| A case for the defence …. 08:55 - Jan 29 with 5552 views | ArnieM |
So, arguably, our second string defence plays against runaway free scoring, Championship, Champions elect and outstandingly keep a clean sheet. Yet this same defence over the season has been found to be a soft touch in League One ( again, arguably), gifting soft goals to often poor opposition at their first opportunity of a shot on goal of ball into our box.
So the question is, why can they do it against immeasurably more prolific and skilful PL players, but not League One lower division sides?
Was it the change to formation/ tactics alluded to by Edmundson, or simply concentration levels or even attitude towards our opponents. By that I mean we showed Burnley players respect which perhaps we don’t do to League One opponents, set by a possible subliminal thought process of
“ we’re so much better than these, we will win”…… become to casual and then cock it up with an unforced error and don’t win. My point is really. If we can achieve the standard set yesterday whereby Burnley were limited to a few shots of note, surely we should be able to apply whatever approach/ mental attitude yesterday, to the rest of this season in League One?
Thought people? …….. |  |
| |  |
| A case for the defence …. on 16:01 - Jan 29 with 1694 views | StokieBlue |
| A case for the defence …. on 15:56 - Jan 29 by FrimleyBlue |
As shown he isn't correct, hence your upvote was bizarre as pointed out, you involved yourself in many posts about Walton. So clearly you're upvoting something you actually know is incorrect.. which is bizarre for you SB.
you're the master of rewriting history SB, the best at it.
Have a good day now.
FB |
What on earth are you on about?
I don't even understand your post, perhaps some evening classes in English might help you in conveying your meaning.
All he said was that you had targeted Burns and now you've targeted Walton. You target all of our players at some point so when they have a bad game you can point to that post and say "I told you so". It's utterly pathetic and hence he got an upvote.
No idea what you are referring to with Walton, he's clearly our best keeper.
Stop calling me out in posts - if I want to interact with you then I'll respond to your posts directly.
SB [Post edited 29 Jan 2023 16:03]
|  | | |
| A case for the defence …. on 16:14 - Jan 29 with 1647 views | FrimleyBlue |
| A case for the defence …. on 16:01 - Jan 29 by StokieBlue |
What on earth are you on about?
I don't even understand your post, perhaps some evening classes in English might help you in conveying your meaning.
All he said was that you had targeted Burns and now you've targeted Walton. You target all of our players at some point so when they have a bad game you can point to that post and say "I told you so". It's utterly pathetic and hence he got an upvote.
No idea what you are referring to with Walton, he's clearly our best keeper.
Stop calling me out in posts - if I want to interact with you then I'll respond to your posts directly.
SB [Post edited 29 Jan 2023 16:03]
|
Oh so you now you're saying i've targetted all players.
so that makes it impossible to move from Burns TO walton as i've already targetted walton correct?
glad you've finally noticed your mistake.
You can't MOVE onto someone else, if you've ALREADY discussed the players lack of performance.
blimey, suprised that took you so long.
FB |  |
| |
| A case for the defence …. on 16:22 - Jan 29 with 1625 views | StokieBlue |
| A case for the defence …. on 16:14 - Jan 29 by FrimleyBlue |
Oh so you now you're saying i've targetted all players.
so that makes it impossible to move from Burns TO walton as i've already targetted walton correct?
glad you've finally noticed your mistake.
You can't MOVE onto someone else, if you've ALREADY discussed the players lack of performance.
blimey, suprised that took you so long.
FB |
You're looking for semantics whilst entirely missing the point. In my sentence you can change "You" to "You'll" if you want the meaning to be more precise. Maybe surprisingly to you but I didn't spend ages proof-reading my post. Resorting to semantics when the meaning is clear is the last resort of someone who knows they are wrong. Using capitals is also quite a childish thing to do.
The point is that you post negatively about everything you can so you can later point at it and say you were right.
Now please stop referring to me in threads where I am not involved.
SB | | | |
| A case for the defence …. on 16:32 - Jan 29 with 1598 views | FrimleyBlue |
| A case for the defence …. on 16:22 - Jan 29 by StokieBlue |
You're looking for semantics whilst entirely missing the point. In my sentence you can change "You" to "You'll" if you want the meaning to be more precise. Maybe surprisingly to you but I didn't spend ages proof-reading my post. Resorting to semantics when the meaning is clear is the last resort of someone who knows they are wrong. Using capitals is also quite a childish thing to do.
The point is that you post negatively about everything you can so you can later point at it and say you were right.
Now please stop referring to me in threads where I am not involved.
SB |
Use the arrow system, don't be surprised to be called out
"The point is that you post negatively about everything you can so you can later point at it and say you were right"
that's a view you're entitled to have, you're wrong, but you're entitled.
But that's not what was being discussed in this thread SB, it was purely and ONLY about moving FROM Burns TO Walton, which again, can't be done as i've already discussed Walton many times, to which you were part of those discussions.
So again, 5 replies later, glad I could show you how incorrect his post was, and why your up arrow was bizarre.
FB | |
| |
| A case for the defence …. on 16:40 - Jan 29 with 1589 views | StokieBlue |
| A case for the defence …. on 16:32 - Jan 29 by FrimleyBlue |
Use the arrow system, don't be surprised to be called out
"The point is that you post negatively about everything you can so you can later point at it and say you were right"
that's a view you're entitled to have, you're wrong, but you're entitled.
But that's not what was being discussed in this thread SB, it was purely and ONLY about moving FROM Burns TO Walton, which again, can't be done as i've already discussed Walton many times, to which you were part of those discussions.
So again, 5 replies later, glad I could show you how incorrect his post was, and why your up arrow was bizarre.
FB |
You're impossible.
Enjoy your evening.
SB [Post edited 29 Jan 2023 16:44]
| | | |
| A case for the defence …. on 16:59 - Jan 29 with 1567 views | Vaughan8 |
| A case for the defence …. on 10:55 - Jan 29 by Chrisd |
When the OP starts with 'So, arguably, our second string defence plays against runaway free scoring.......'
Burnley had 1 attacking player who started yesterday that also started against WBA in their last league game. There's no doubt that was a good result and I'm not taking anything away from us. As you rightly say, we made changes too, but lets not kid ourselves that was their best offensive weapons. Twine for all his ability isn't a regular starter for them in fact he's only made 4 appearances. Good players no doubt, but they they've got better options available. |
Burnkeys "replacement" players are definitely better than league one standard so your point is valid in one way, but the original point it's not. It's still a higher level. |  | | |
| A case for the defence …. on 17:30 - Jan 29 with 1529 views | Herbivore |
| A case for the defence …. on 13:17 - Jan 29 by Chrisd |
He's played 21 games for them this season, so pretty much a regular. He's not a natural goal scorer or even prolific, but a real handful for most CBs with his physical presence. I'd really like KM to give Edmundson a helping hand and instead of shoehorning him in on the left of our defence give him a run of games centrally or on his natural right side. [Post edited 29 Jan 2023 13:24]
|
He's only made 7 starts for them and he's rumoured to be leaving this month, so he'd have been as much, if not more, of a second string choice as the players they did pick. Just because Edmundson is right footed it doesn't mean he prefers to play on the right, in fact he's played most of his football as a left sided CB. I wouldn't dislodge Woolfenden for him, I think they can be very effective as a pair and have been a lot of the time they've played together. |  |
| |
| A case for the defence …. on 17:40 - Jan 29 with 1507 views | Radlett_blue |
| A case for the defence …. on 12:02 - Jan 29 by BigCommon |
Bit more "ground defending", against a side that primarily keeps the ball on the deck. As oppose to teams lumping long balls into our box, which can become a lottery, imo.. Chucking it in the mixer, might be ugly, but it's effective. Hence UTD signing Weghorst, as a plan B alternative option, for example.. Burnley probably played more to our defensive strengths, than trying to exploit our weaknesses, imo. But they are obviously confident in what they do, so probably don't feel the need to change their style.(Bit like us, in some games)... Ultimately, though. Our lads worked their socks off and kept their head's . Team effort, to keep a clean sheet. Starting from the front. With players like Jackson doing their share of graft. |
Exactly. When holding a one goal lead late in a game, we do have a tendency to sit a little deeper & invite long balls into the box. That's the problem, rather than an inability to defend such assaults. We should have the quality to defend those leads by keeping the ball, rather than becoming over cautious. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| A case for the defence …. on 17:52 - Jan 29 with 1485 views | Zapers |
| A case for the defence …. on 16:01 - Jan 29 by StokieBlue |
What on earth are you on about?
I don't even understand your post, perhaps some evening classes in English might help you in conveying your meaning.
All he said was that you had targeted Burns and now you've targeted Walton. You target all of our players at some point so when they have a bad game you can point to that post and say "I told you so". It's utterly pathetic and hence he got an upvote.
No idea what you are referring to with Walton, he's clearly our best keeper.
Stop calling me out in posts - if I want to interact with you then I'll respond to your posts directly.
SB [Post edited 29 Jan 2023 16:03]
|
You are always lurking behind Frimmers. didn't you call out Burgess a few months ago? | | | |
| A case for the defence …. on 18:16 - Jan 29 with 1465 views | StokieBlue |
| A case for the defence …. on 17:52 - Jan 29 by Zapers |
You are always lurking behind Frimmers. didn't you call out Burgess a few months ago? |
Simply not true and to be frank quite a disturbing mental image that I would kindly ask you not to post again.
SB | | | |
| A case for the defence …. on 18:40 - Jan 29 with 1442 views | FrimleyBlue |
| A case for the defence …. on 18:16 - Jan 29 by StokieBlue |
Simply not true and to be frank quite a disturbing mental image that I would kindly ask you not to post again.
SB |
A reset is urgently required by StokieBlue 22 Jan 2023 12:15A "know it all" tends to be someone you don't like because they can defend their opinions with evidence. It's a bit childish and something you should have grown out of 30 years ago. Present evidence rather than name calling and we can have a reasonable debate.
At least we agree on the back 3, that's a start.
SB
" Burgess to then think he's playing pensioners walking football."
he's a fan of Burgess lol | |
| |
| A case for the defence …. on 19:15 - Jan 29 with 1396 views | StokieBlue |
| A case for the defence …. on 18:40 - Jan 29 by FrimleyBlue |
A reset is urgently required by StokieBlue 22 Jan 2023 12:15A "know it all" tends to be someone you don't like because they can defend their opinions with evidence. It's a bit childish and something you should have grown out of 30 years ago. Present evidence rather than name calling and we can have a reasonable debate.
At least we agree on the back 3, that's a start.
SB
" Burgess to then think he's playing pensioners walking football."
he's a fan of Burgess lol |
Are you feeling ok?
You're making even less sense that usual, I honestly don't even know what point you're trying to make in these posts.
It's totally incoherent.
SB | | | |
| A case for the defence …. on 19:34 - Jan 29 with 1364 views | Stewart27 |
Edmundson is a fantastic footballer. His clean sheet record since KM joined is incredible and I doubt Burnley reserves were a bigger test for him compared to some games he’s played in so far. | | | |
| A case for the defence …. on 19:41 - Jan 29 with 1347 views | Zapers |
| A case for the defence …. on 18:40 - Jan 29 by FrimleyBlue |
A reset is urgently required by StokieBlue 22 Jan 2023 12:15A "know it all" tends to be someone you don't like because they can defend their opinions with evidence. It's a bit childish and something you should have grown out of 30 years ago. Present evidence rather than name calling and we can have a reasonable debate.
At least we agree on the back 3, that's a start.
SB
" Burgess to then think he's playing pensioners walking football."
he's a fan of Burgess lol |
Clearly he’s conveniently forgotten, I haven’t though. | | | |
| A case for the defence …. on 19:54 - Jan 29 with 1330 views | pointofblue |
| A case for the defence …. on 19:34 - Jan 29 by Stewart27 |
Edmundson is a fantastic footballer. His clean sheet record since KM joined is incredible and I doubt Burnley reserves were a bigger test for him compared to some games he’s played in so far. |
The issue is he did have a loss of form earlier in the season. Hopefully the break has done him good, and he's got back to his best. Promising signs from Morecambe (not that they were much of a challenge) and Burnley. | |
| |
| A case for the defence …. on 19:56 - Jan 29 with 1324 views | Zapers |
| A case for the defence …. on 18:16 - Jan 29 by StokieBlue |
Simply not true and to be frank quite a disturbing mental image that I would kindly ask you not to post again.
SB |
I believe hypocrite is a better turn of phrase. | | | |
| A case for the defence …. on 21:38 - Jan 29 with 1275 views | StokieBlue |
| A case for the defence …. on 19:41 - Jan 29 by Zapers |
Clearly he’s conveniently forgotten, I haven’t though. |
Can one of you two incoherent messes please spell out what I have forgotten in plain English?
I'm honestly totally lost at what point either of you are trying to make.
It's pretty embarrassing for you both really.
SB | | | |
| A case for the defence …. on 22:16 - Jan 29 with 1244 views | Zapers |
| A case for the defence …. on 21:38 - Jan 29 by StokieBlue |
Can one of you two incoherent messes please spell out what I have forgotten in plain English?
I'm honestly totally lost at what point either of you are trying to make.
It's pretty embarrassing for you both really.
SB |
Incoherent messes? Nice. | | | |
| A case for the defence …. on 22:29 - Jan 29 with 1201 views | StokieBlue |
| A case for the defence …. on 22:16 - Jan 29 by Zapers |
Incoherent messes? Nice. |
Why are you refusing to simply spell out what your point is? It's very weird and getting pretty close to trolling I would say.
It's got me in a bit of a pickle to be honest as I don't have a clue what either of you are trying to say.
SB | | | |
| A case for the defence …. on 22:17 - Jan 30 with 1050 views | StokieBlue |
| A case for the defence …. on 22:29 - Jan 29 by StokieBlue |
Why are you refusing to simply spell out what your point is? It's very weird and getting pretty close to trolling I would say.
It's got me in a bit of a pickle to be honest as I don't have a clue what either of you are trying to say.
SB |
Still waiting for an explanation.
SB [Post edited 31 Jan 2023 3:37]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
