Arguably, he only failed to score five goals in open play in that period
BECAUSE DEFENDERS FOULED HIM AND GAVE AWAY PENALTIES
good point.
by brendywendy » 17 Jan 2011 16:44
Arguably, he only failed to score five goals in open play in that period
BECAUSE DEFENDERS FOULED HIM AND GAVE AWAY PENALTIES
by brendywendy » 17 Jan 2011 16:45
Personally I think that was wrong and he needed to get Long out of the firing line earlier because not only was he not scoring enough goals but his touch, workrate and general game wasn't where it should've been
by Ian Royal » 17 Jan 2011 17:30
brendywendyArguably, he only failed to score five goals in open play in that period
BECAUSE DEFENDERS FOULED HIM AND GAVE AWAY PENALTIES
good point.
by brendywendy » 17 Jan 2011 17:37
McDermott's gamble is paying off. But earlier in the season it was looking a very dubious decision, just because it's come good at the moment doesn't mean it was necessarily the best decision to have made.
by Ian Royal » 17 Jan 2011 18:02
brendywendyMcDermott's gamble is paying off. But earlier in the season it was looking a very dubious decision, just because it's come good at the moment doesn't mean it was necessarily the best decision to have made.
or vice versa, but that wouldnt have stopped a million people coming on here and slagging the boy off
by facaldaqui » 17 Jan 2011 18:10
Ian Royal
Completely, though inaction will almost always be perceived as worse than action.
Just look at Coppell, he tried the same sorts of gambles in sticking with what he had and it failed. .
by UpNorth » 17 Jan 2011 18:21
by Ian Royal » 17 Jan 2011 18:27
facaldaquiIan Royal
Completely, though inaction will almost always be perceived as worse than action.
Just look at Coppell, he tried the same sorts of gambles in sticking with what he had and it failed. .
I think it's a myth that Coppell failed by sticking to what he had. The only two times he failed--in his last two seasons--he did vary it. He brought in people like Fae, Cissé, Kébé, Matejovsky--and Kitson and Little back on loan--for example. When things went pear-shaped after his last Christmas, he did start dropping old faithfuls such as Hunt and Harper in a desperate attempt to find a formula. In the end, he tried everything he could think of--but the squad as a whole had lost the plot.
by Snowball » 18 Jan 2011 01:03
by Snowball » 18 Jan 2011 09:33
by Snowball » 30 Jan 2011 13:43
by Snowball » 31 Jan 2011 21:43
by Arch » 01 Feb 2011 00:09
Snowball Doyle wins on Premiership goals scored, but only because he's played more than six times as many minutes.
by Snowball » 01 Feb 2011 00:30
ArchSnowball Doyle wins on Premiership goals scored, but only because he's played more than six times as many minutes.
What method did you use to establish the causal connection here?
by SLAMMED » 01 Feb 2011 00:37
by Snowball » 01 Feb 2011 00:46
SLAMMED What are CCC goals?
by Arch » 01 Feb 2011 02:47
SnowballArchSnowball Doyle wins on Premiership goals scored, but only because he's played more than six times as many minutes.
What method did you use to establish the causal connection here?
Que?
by Wimb » 01 Feb 2011 06:45
by Snowball » 01 Feb 2011 07:41
ArchSnowball Doyle wins on Premiership goals scored, but only because he's played more than six times as many minutes.
How did you establish that it was because Doyle had played six times as many minutes that he had a better rate of scoring in the Premiership?
by Snowball » 01 Feb 2011 12:39
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 428 guests