| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? 23:00 - Dec 2 with 1571 views | chrismakin |
I expect
Walton
Donacien
Toto
Edmundson
Clements
Morsy
Evans
Jackson
Chaplin
Celina
Bonne |  |
| |  |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 23:03 - Dec 2 with 1216 views | Yallop |
Aluko has to start surely. Jackson notched a couple but needs to do a bit more than a couple against a bunch of kids for me. |  | | |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 23:05 - Dec 2 with 1212 views | chrismakin |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 23:03 - Dec 2 by Yallop |
Aluko has to start surely. Jackson notched a couple but needs to do a bit more than a couple against a bunch of kids for me. |
Was caught between them for the right hand slot. Personally I'd go aluko. But think Jacksons brace and performance based on PCs words puts him in the frame and Aluko to come on if needed. | |
| |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 23:08 - Dec 2 with 1193 views | Yallop |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 23:05 - Dec 2 by chrismakin |
Was caught between them for the right hand slot. Personally I'd go aluko. But think Jacksons brace and performance based on PCs words puts him in the frame and Aluko to come on if needed. |
There has to be an eye on Charlton Tuesday. Burns/Aluko on the right is a toss of a coin at the moment. | | | |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 23:11 - Dec 2 with 1182 views | chrismakin |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 23:08 - Dec 2 by Yallop |
There has to be an eye on Charlton Tuesday. Burns/Aluko on the right is a toss of a coin at the moment. |
Is burns in the picture yet? Can't remember when he was out but PC said a fair few weeks out.. we really need him back. | |
| |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 23:14 - Dec 2 with 1173 views | Yallop |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 23:11 - Dec 2 by chrismakin |
Is burns in the picture yet? Can't remember when he was out but PC said a fair few weeks out.. we really need him back. |
That's one frustrating thing with Cook he doesn't give a lot of detail on individuals. I appreciate he doesn't want to help the opposition but we are just used to a bit more from PRP and MM. | | | |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 23:20 - Dec 2 with 1161 views | chrismakin |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 23:14 - Dec 2 by Yallop |
That's one frustrating thing with Cook he doesn't give a lot of detail on individuals. I appreciate he doesn't want to help the opposition but we are just used to a bit more from PRP and MM. |
Yeah it's quite annoying. Especially with how much data is available now. All teams will do is have instructions on potential lineups.. so even if we suddenly rocked up with burns in the squad, the manager would just tweak things their end slightly. So never really understand the need to keep quiet about it it's not going to end up a massive surprise and cause opponents a headache.. | |
| |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 23:22 - Dec 2 with 1158 views | pointofblue |
I'm intrigued now. He needs a win but Charlton carries more weight. I wouldn't be surprised if we went with a similar team to yesterday, giving the first teamers further rest before Tuesday. |  |
| |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 23:26 - Dec 2 with 1139 views | chrismakin |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 23:22 - Dec 2 by pointofblue |
I'm intrigued now. He needs a win but Charlton carries more weight. I wouldn't be surprised if we went with a similar team to yesterday, giving the first teamers further rest before Tuesday. |
Tues really hasn't helped him
He opened it up by talking about 3 wins in a week. We've started december with a loss. ( regardless of the type of gsme) he just can't run the risk of losing or even drawing Saturday can he? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 23:29 - Dec 2 with 1132 views | Yallop |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 23:22 - Dec 2 by pointofblue |
I'm intrigued now. He needs a win but Charlton carries more weight. I wouldn't be surprised if we went with a similar team to yesterday, giving the first teamers further rest before Tuesday. |
Surely that would be too risky. He needs momentum.
Appreciate I'm captain hindsight but maybe changing 5 or 6 for these cup games would have been better than the entire 11. | | | |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 08:44 - Dec 3 with 947 views | homer_123 |
I'm going for Town being a goal or two up inside 30 mins. Then letting their performance slip a little, taking their foot off the gas and letting Barrow get a foothold in the game. The second half will be a turgid end to end affair where Barrow score through a mix of us being too open and an error. We'll grab a late goal to win 3-1.
Ohhh, you mean the starting XI - clearly doesn't really matter who, the above still applies. [Post edited 3 Dec 2021 8:46]
|  |
| |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:00 - Dec 3 with 908 views | StokieBlue |
You don't think Cook will go for Burgess at LB and Penney at LW?
Why not if it was such a sensible suggestion and an "easy fix".
SB |  | | |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:35 - Dec 3 with 869 views | chrismakin |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:00 - Dec 3 by StokieBlue |
You don't think Cook will go for Burgess at LB and Penney at LW?
Why not if it was such a sensible suggestion and an "easy fix".
SB |
SB we've at this place before where you purposely target me and my posts to try and start an argument. There is no need for it, either contribute to the thread or simply move onto the next one.
I will be reporting the post as advised when I wrote to the forum overall that I just want post as freely as everyone else without the likes of yourself for some reason trying to start something that doesn't need to be. | |
| |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:38 - Dec 3 with 853 views | itfcjoe |
----------------------Walton------------------------------
JD------Woolf--------------Edmundson------Penney
-----------Morsy------------El Miz---------------------
--Aluko--------------Chaplin-------------Edwards
-------------------------Bonne------------------------ |  |
| |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:40 - Dec 3 with 836 views | StokieBlue |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:35 - Dec 3 by chrismakin |
SB we've at this place before where you purposely target me and my posts to try and start an argument. There is no need for it, either contribute to the thread or simply move onto the next one.
I will be reporting the post as advised when I wrote to the forum overall that I just want post as freely as everyone else without the likes of yourself for some reason trying to start something that doesn't need to be. |
I'm using the forum as intended.
You posted a frankly ridiculously hot take which many didn't agree with (as it usually the way) and I'm simply asking why Cook won't go with it given you spent many posts arguing it was the best option. You are deciding not to answer the question.
As for reporting for abuse - you're the only one here who has called someone a "d1ckhead" and were banned. People in glass houses and all that.
SB [Post edited 3 Dec 2021 9:42]
| | | |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:44 - Dec 3 with 810 views | chrismakin |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:40 - Dec 3 by StokieBlue |
I'm using the forum as intended.
You posted a frankly ridiculously hot take which many didn't agree with (as it usually the way) and I'm simply asking why Cook won't go with it given you spent many posts arguing it was the best option. You are deciding not to answer the question.
As for reporting for abuse - you're the only one here who has called someone a "d1ckhead" and were banned. People in glass houses and all that.
SB [Post edited 3 Dec 2021 9:42]
|
I posted a response to a poster yes. You didn't agree that's fine. Doesn't mean That post suddenly requires taking into every other post.
Do I personally think LW isnt well covered no, but the OP was what I think PC may do on Saturday.
Well aware of the past situation SB and there was a follow up to that. Hence my last reply to you. So I'm moving on and you can if you wish find someone else to target [Post edited 3 Dec 2021 9:45]
| |
| |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:48 - Dec 3 with 789 views | StokieBlue |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:44 - Dec 3 by chrismakin |
I posted a response to a poster yes. You didn't agree that's fine. Doesn't mean That post suddenly requires taking into every other post.
Do I personally think LW isnt well covered no, but the OP was what I think PC may do on Saturday.
Well aware of the past situation SB and there was a follow up to that. Hence my last reply to you. So I'm moving on and you can if you wish find someone else to target [Post edited 3 Dec 2021 9:45]
|
I don't "target" individuals, I respond to posts.
You are entirely wrong that post history and context shouldn't be used in responses to other posts. The history of ones posts are important, especially when they are inconsistent between days or even intraday.
It's naïve to think that posting history doesn't affect how posts are perceived and that previous posts won't be mentioned in separate threads.
Since you're not going to answer why you think Cook won't go with your idea I'll bid you good day.
SB [Post edited 3 Dec 2021 9:48]
| | | |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:48 - Dec 3 with 790 views | positivity |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:44 - Dec 3 by chrismakin |
I posted a response to a poster yes. You didn't agree that's fine. Doesn't mean That post suddenly requires taking into every other post.
Do I personally think LW isnt well covered no, but the OP was what I think PC may do on Saturday.
Well aware of the past situation SB and there was a follow up to that. Hence my last reply to you. So I'm moving on and you can if you wish find someone else to target [Post edited 3 Dec 2021 9:45]
|
don't be daft chris, challenging your previous posts is totally fair game, reporting it as abuse is ridiculous and a waste of phill and gav's time
if you don't want people to challenge you on something, don't post it (or at least take a while to think). if you don't get on with a poster, ignore them. | |
| |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:53 - Dec 3 with 770 views | chrismakin |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:48 - Dec 3 by positivity |
don't be daft chris, challenging your previous posts is totally fair game, reporting it as abuse is ridiculous and a waste of phill and gav's time
if you don't want people to challenge you on something, don't post it (or at least take a while to think). if you don't get on with a poster, ignore them. |
Challenge a previous post in the post itself positivity you don't drag it into something else. That's when it becomes baiting the poster. And Phil won't mind me reporting it that's what lead to the problems last time. He is in ignore now. Its crazy to think at 9 in the morning someone's thoughts are let's go after him.. but that's the world we live in. | |
| |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:56 - Dec 3 with 761 views | homer_123 |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:53 - Dec 3 by chrismakin |
Challenge a previous post in the post itself positivity you don't drag it into something else. That's when it becomes baiting the poster. And Phil won't mind me reporting it that's what lead to the problems last time. He is in ignore now. Its crazy to think at 9 in the morning someone's thoughts are let's go after him.. but that's the world we live in. |
I'd disagree Chris - you post a lot and in a lot of instances it is contradictory - you are being called out on that - there are no rules, at all, that say you cannot point back to previous posts or comments. Whilst you may feel or interpret that as baiting it isn't. [Post edited 3 Dec 2021 9:57]
| |
| |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:57 - Dec 3 with 750 views | StokieBlue |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:53 - Dec 3 by chrismakin |
Challenge a previous post in the post itself positivity you don't drag it into something else. That's when it becomes baiting the poster. And Phil won't mind me reporting it that's what lead to the problems last time. He is in ignore now. Its crazy to think at 9 in the morning someone's thoughts are let's go after him.. but that's the world we live in. |
Let's not rewrite history here and pretend your some kind of Christian saint of forum posting.
What led to the problems last time was you lying about watching the match and then trolling people who were with opinions that you made up pretending to be based on evidence. You had about 50 downvotes for your behaviour and then you got insulting.
Here I've simply asked why you don't think Cook will go with your "obvious solution". You are the one who doesn't want to engage to what I feel is a perfectly reasonable question around team selection given your previous posts.
I'll leave it there but I'm not going to allow you to rewrite history to make yourself out as some kind of victim.
SB [Post edited 3 Dec 2021 10:00]
| | | |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:58 - Dec 3 with 737 views | positivity |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:53 - Dec 3 by chrismakin |
Challenge a previous post in the post itself positivity you don't drag it into something else. That's when it becomes baiting the poster. And Phil won't mind me reporting it that's what lead to the problems last time. He is in ignore now. Its crazy to think at 9 in the morning someone's thoughts are let's go after him.. but that's the world we live in. |
no, you should either stand by your opinions or disown them.
if you've previously stated that burgess & penney would be a good option, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to ask in a question about saturday's team; defend it or row back
your posts are a permanent record, so think about what you say or be accepting that people will bring them up in the future! | |
| |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:59 - Dec 3 with 728 views | Wickets |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 23:03 - Dec 2 by Yallop |
Aluko has to start surely. Jackson notched a couple but needs to do a bit more than a couple against a bunch of kids for me. |
Love Jackson or hate him not sure how he can do that as he only starts against kids . |  | | |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:59 - Dec 3 with 728 views | itfcsuth |
Will take more than a couple v Arsenal u21 for Jackson to really be back in the fold you'd think.
Walton
Doancien - Nsiala - Edmundson - Clements
Morsy - Fraser
Aluko - Chaplin - Celina
Bonne |  | | |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 10:00 - Dec 3 with 716 views | chrismakin |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:56 - Dec 3 by homer_123 |
I'd disagree Chris - you post a lot and in a lot of instances it is contradictory - you are being called out on that - there are no rules, at all, that say you cannot point back to previous posts or comments. Whilst you may feel or interpret that as baiting it isn't. [Post edited 3 Dec 2021 9:57]
|
There's nothing to be called out for.
This OP is solely about what do people think PC will pick as the lineup. .. any response other than to the OP is nothing but a baiting attempt as its a very simple OP with no room for anything other than what do you think he will do.
SB knows what he was doing. He did it before. I'm not entertaining it. If he wishes to contribute to the OP for people to discuss with him that's cool. But I'm not being that guy again who argues for 10 pages. | |
| |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 10:01 - Dec 3 with 704 views | positivity |
| Team for Sat then. What we expecting? on 09:59 - Dec 3 by Wickets |
Love Jackson or hate him not sure how he can do that as he only starts against kids . |
agree, but i'd be happy for him to be on the bench as an option | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
