| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 21:27 - Jan 10 with 1251 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 19:30 - Jan 10 by bazza |
Striker definitely.. maybe a central defender to keep Wolfe and burgess on their toes, .. I’d be happy with that, I think axel will be played out on the right a bit more, Clarke can cover right or left. .. 15 downvotes is a bit harsh. |
Even if your clarification that you mean in the Premier League rather than now is true, the suggestion "our defence isn’t strong enough" isn't that - we are in the Championship (and second in it too). The 15 downvotes isn't one person being harsh. It is at least 15 different posters thinking that the main gist of the post is wrong. |  |
|  |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 21:34 - Jan 10 with 1232 views | bazza |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 21:27 - Jan 10 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Even if your clarification that you mean in the Premier League rather than now is true, the suggestion "our defence isn’t strong enough" isn't that - we are in the Championship (and second in it too). The 15 downvotes isn't one person being harsh. It is at least 15 different posters thinking that the main gist of the post is wrong. |
Sometimes downvotes are more aimed at the poster, as opposed to the post itself. Should abolish the down vote, just have the upvote. |  | | |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 21:38 - Jan 10 with 1227 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 21:34 - Jan 10 by bazza |
Sometimes downvotes are more aimed at the poster, as opposed to the post itself. Should abolish the down vote, just have the upvote. |
Whether or not sometimes they are, I see no evidence that to be the case here. Multiple people have commented their thoughts on why they disagree for multiple reasons. A couple of you have said why you support it. | |
| |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 21:46 - Jan 10 with 1210 views | bazza |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 21:38 - Jan 10 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Whether or not sometimes they are, I see no evidence that to be the case here. Multiple people have commented their thoughts on why they disagree for multiple reasons. A couple of you have said why you support it. |
I don’t support it, I don’t agree it’s not strong enough.. I just said I think it’s an area we will be looking to strengthen/add too as well as a striker. | | | |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 21:59 - Jan 10 with 1176 views | Horsham |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 21:25 - Jan 10 by Ryorry |
Have to say it's not really on to try & define the gender of someone if they've chosen a name that deliberately obscures gender ID. |
I believe recalling them disclosing it on the board. Any more or less bad than someone referring to someone as he when not a he? Happy to pulled up if wrong or inappropriate. [Post edited 10 Jan 2024 22:08]
|  | | |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 22:11 - Jan 10 with 1149 views | orfordbuoy |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 21:34 - Jan 10 by bazza |
Sometimes downvotes are more aimed at the poster, as opposed to the post itself. Should abolish the down vote, just have the upvote. |
of course you are right about the downies.
Regarding the op - the lad here has taken a beating for just giving his opinion. Everyone knows we ship goals and - whilst a Hirst replacement is absolutely paramount - defence can be brought up for discussion without receiving a tonne of down votes.
The lad appears to be upset. These downies are hardly encouraging for anyone to stray away from the party line. |  | | |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 22:20 - Jan 10 with 1127 views | Ryorry |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 21:59 - Jan 10 by Horsham |
I believe recalling them disclosing it on the board. Any more or less bad than someone referring to someone as he when not a he? Happy to pulled up if wrong or inappropriate. [Post edited 10 Jan 2024 22:08]
|
Arnie is a bloke's name, chosen by the poster, hence calling him 'he'.
I'm not aware of any disclosure by ArnieM to the board, perhaps you could link it? |  |
| |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 22:29 - Jan 10 with 1107 views | Horsham |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 22:20 - Jan 10 by Ryorry |
Arnie is a bloke's name, chosen by the poster, hence calling him 'he'.
I'm not aware of any disclosure by ArnieM to the board, perhaps you could link it? |
No I won’t be doing that. It would mean sifting through posts for hours. It’s simply something I recall reading. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 22:43 - Jan 10 with 1088 views | DropCliffsNotBombs |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 22:29 - Jan 10 by Horsham |
No I won’t be doing that. It would mean sifting through posts for hours. It’s simply something I recall reading. |
You are correct. |  | | |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 22:51 - Jan 10 with 1078 views | Horsham |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 22:43 - Jan 10 by DropCliffsNotBombs |
You are correct. |
Thank you. I’d thought so. | | | |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 23:26 - Jan 10 with 1025 views | BlueForYou |
I’d say the EADT article is pretty fair to be honest. |  | | |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 00:31 - Jan 11 with 999 views | BondiBlue |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 22:20 - Jan 10 by Ryorry |
Arnie is a bloke's name, chosen by the poster, hence calling him 'he'.
I'm not aware of any disclosure by ArnieM to the board, perhaps you could link it? |
Arnie M is also the name of one of our finest ever players. Check out the avatar. |  |
| |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 00:34 - Jan 11 with 994 views | Ryorry |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 00:31 - Jan 11 by BondiBlue |
Arnie M is also the name of one of our finest ever players. Check out the avatar. |
No, really? I'd never have known.
At least my age carries the bonus of having been able to watch him, and that great side. | |
| |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 00:35 - Jan 11 with 993 views | Ryorry |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 22:43 - Jan 10 by DropCliffsNotBombs |
You are correct. |
Thanks for the confirmation. | |
| |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 06:29 - Jan 11 with 913 views | GavTWTD |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 18:28 - Jan 10 by homer_123 |
As I say, this is a topic you have posted ad infinitum over Arnie.
I've said to you before, there are ways you can position this as a topic for discussion and ways not to. Example:
Could we be a bit more defensively sound?
as opposed to
Our defence isn't strong enough!
Can you see the difference. The first would allows you to share your views and concerns and allow discussion around them - it's likely to generate a discussion (yes, some would say no, some would say possibly, some might say yes.
But you posted the later, a statement - not only that it was along with a link to an article, that of itself, has little worth or insight. So it's little wonder you are called out over it.
In short, the defence, over the course of KMs tenure has proved itself to be strong enough. We got promoted and lie 2nd on the league. Could it be better, I doubt many would argue against it being stronger and better but that doesn't mean it isn't strong enough. Two different things...you see my point? [Post edited 10 Jan 2024 18:36]
|
What I'd like to know is, if we had to play Leeds again next week, how would we change? If we should miss out on the automatics, playing them twice wouldn't be a nice proposition. |  |
| |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 07:06 - Jan 11 with 872 views | PioneerBlue |
For me the whole thread had taken a weird turn.
I disagree with the proposition that the defense isn’t strong enough and have downvoted on this basis.
All I then see is someone explaining their rationale for why the proposition isnt correct whilst offering explanation as to why and how it might have invited better discussion. Not sure what’s happened to the poster of the OP.
For me defence is a team game and targeting individuals in this squad (of all squads we have had in recent years) isn’t the way. We won promotion as a squad, we defend and attack as a team on the pitch, we are currently second because the work the squad does in training and the how the players execute plans on the pitch as a team. It’s rare that a goal is the fault of one person so we look more closely at all areas that can be improved leading to the goal.
Focusing on defence or saying defence isnt strong enough for a team in second feels off point. It’s a valued judgement but I’m from the position that it’s how we improve as a squad and team at defending, that is a focus for any fc. It is semantics but it’s important how we come to identify with and support this great club and the players that play for it. At anytime there may be the opportunity to improve or introduce new talent that accelerates the improvement.
Finally what’s concerned me by this thread is it started with an individual taking a shot at a group of individuals for their performance but ends with the individual taking offence for having their public post debated. I’m a little lost. | |
| |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 07:23 - Jan 11 with 847 views | gosblue |
If you’re looking for factual evidence, Town have 9 clean sheets this season, only bettered by West Brom. All the negative talk in the media about us not having won for 5 games completely ignores the fact that we have lost just 3 league games all season. We have strengthened our defence by bringing in Tuanzebe who I think will be right up there with CB legends Mowbray, Hunter, Butcher et al. Edmundson was our best player as Stoke never looked like scoring despite our RB and LB playing out of position. Baggott will be back at the end of this month and Burgess by mid-February and we will be back to full strength. KMck has repeatedly said that the way we play means that we will have to defend big spaces. Up front, until we find a striker, we need to find a different way. Some of the top teams in the Prem have had to learn to play without a CF until the right one has come along. McKenna knows exactly what we need and we need to get behind him and the lads. COYB | | | |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 07:38 - Jan 11 with 821 views | homer_123 |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 06:29 - Jan 11 by GavTWTD |
What I'd like to know is, if we had to play Leeds again next week, how would we change? If we should miss out on the automatics, playing them twice wouldn't be a nice proposition. |
There's two arguments here.
If we were a touch better at converting our chances we might see a different result.
If we were a touch tighter at the back, we might see a different result.
For me, Gav, it's very much about us having a better chance to win games when we have possession and create scoring opportunities.
Also, playing Leeds in the play-offs is different - over the course of the season I don't think KM needs to change how we approach games - in short, in the average we are more than good enough. Play offs are different though, granted! |  |
| |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 08:32 - Jan 11 with 774 views | BiGDonnie |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 18:15 - Jan 10 by ArnieM |
Anything I post on here is ridiculed so I thought what the hell. I’ve given up now tbh . Happy days guys …. |
Perhaps if you weren't so miserable and negative about what is the best town side in 20 years people wouldn't pick you up on it. |  |
| |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 08:33 - Jan 11 with 769 views | FrimleyBlue |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 07:38 - Jan 11 by homer_123 |
There's two arguments here.
If we were a touch better at converting our chances we might see a different result.
If we were a touch tighter at the back, we might see a different result.
For me, Gav, it's very much about us having a better chance to win games when we have possession and create scoring opportunities.
Also, playing Leeds in the play-offs is different - over the course of the season I don't think KM needs to change how we approach games - in short, in the average we are more than good enough. Play offs are different though, granted! |
If we approached a leeds game again thinking we can just play our normal 'home' way, then we'd be brushed aside again with ease.
away, we had 2 shots, 0 on target. And they absolutely ripped us a new one all because we for some reason we tried to go all gungho.
I'd trust us to do the job a home now, but that away game still baffles me and our mentality going into that fixture. |  |
| |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 08:41 - Jan 11 with 761 views | homer_123 |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 08:33 - Jan 11 by FrimleyBlue |
If we approached a leeds game again thinking we can just play our normal 'home' way, then we'd be brushed aside again with ease.
away, we had 2 shots, 0 on target. And they absolutely ripped us a new one all because we for some reason we tried to go all gungho.
I'd trust us to do the job a home now, but that away game still baffles me and our mentality going into that fixture. |
So, as I explained.
If you take it over a season - there isn't a need to alter our approach - based on KMs tenure to date.
Play-offs are different. We know they are more like Cup finals - I wouldn't be surprised if, in those circumstances, KM did change things up.
As for Leeds away - yep, we were done. It happens sometimes - it's football. | |
| |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 10:17 - Jan 11 with 670 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 08:33 - Jan 11 by FrimleyBlue |
If we approached a leeds game again thinking we can just play our normal 'home' way, then we'd be brushed aside again with ease.
away, we had 2 shots, 0 on target. And they absolutely ripped us a new one all because we for some reason we tried to go all gungho.
I'd trust us to do the job a home now, but that away game still baffles me and our mentality going into that fixture. |
It baffles you because your premise is wrong. We didn't "go all gungho". |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 10:23 - Jan 11 with 650 views | FrimleyBlue |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 10:17 - Jan 11 by The_Flashing_Smile |
It baffles you because your premise is wrong. We didn't "go all gungho". |
Yes we did, as already covered, we played the game as we do home games, anyone who disagrees with that is solely doing so to play the poster as it was just plain and obvious, Davis high, left gaping holes which were obvious to us fans let alone the leeds players and they took advantage of our mistake. I defo can't remember an away game where our LCB was with our LWB in the opponents half trying to win a ball inside the first 15 minutes.
End of day it's done now, we can't do anything about it, but I do hope if we faced leeds again, we would go with our usual away performance which is a bit more reserved yet still lovely to watch. | |
| |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 10:32 - Jan 11 with 640 views | Sharkey |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 07:06 - Jan 11 by PioneerBlue |
For me the whole thread had taken a weird turn.
I disagree with the proposition that the defense isn’t strong enough and have downvoted on this basis.
All I then see is someone explaining their rationale for why the proposition isnt correct whilst offering explanation as to why and how it might have invited better discussion. Not sure what’s happened to the poster of the OP.
For me defence is a team game and targeting individuals in this squad (of all squads we have had in recent years) isn’t the way. We won promotion as a squad, we defend and attack as a team on the pitch, we are currently second because the work the squad does in training and the how the players execute plans on the pitch as a team. It’s rare that a goal is the fault of one person so we look more closely at all areas that can be improved leading to the goal.
Focusing on defence or saying defence isnt strong enough for a team in second feels off point. It’s a valued judgement but I’m from the position that it’s how we improve as a squad and team at defending, that is a focus for any fc. It is semantics but it’s important how we come to identify with and support this great club and the players that play for it. At anytime there may be the opportunity to improve or introduce new talent that accelerates the improvement.
Finally what’s concerned me by this thread is it started with an individual taking a shot at a group of individuals for their performance but ends with the individual taking offence for having their public post debated. I’m a little lost. |
I guess the original poster is slightly hurt or discouraged by all the down votes rather than by the debate. The downvote should be to register disapproval, not disagreement. |  | | |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 11:09 - Jan 11 with 600 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| As I’ve always suggested on here our defence isn’t strong enough on 10:23 - Jan 11 by FrimleyBlue |
Yes we did, as already covered, we played the game as we do home games, anyone who disagrees with that is solely doing so to play the poster as it was just plain and obvious, Davis high, left gaping holes which were obvious to us fans let alone the leeds players and they took advantage of our mistake. I defo can't remember an away game where our LCB was with our LWB in the opponents half trying to win a ball inside the first 15 minutes.
End of day it's done now, we can't do anything about it, but I do hope if we faced leeds again, we would go with our usual away performance which is a bit more reserved yet still lovely to watch. |
No we didn't. Leeds were just better than us.
You genuinely think McKenna instructed us to "go gungho"? Or even, "Play like we do at home"?
You don't understand football. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
