| What has Monk & Co done to us??? 16:59 - Feb 1 with 22329 views | UplandsJack |
At game today and oh my god we are SHIT!!!
We are simply unrecognisable to the team of recent times...
We are playing with a back 3 (as Taylor is cooking useless)
And a front 2 of Gomis & Shelvey... Dyer might as well be at
Home the use he is... We are just kicking the ball upfield and
Giving away possession for them to attack again and again...
14% possession is an all time low for us while in PL...
The only suprise so far is that we are still in in ( of sorts) as its 0-0...
Let's hope the 2nd half offers us travelling Jacks a lot more!!!
  |  | | |  |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 15:08 - Feb 4 with 2287 views | acejack3065 |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 14:53 - Feb 4 by Parlay |
1) if we hit the bar from a goal kick. Would that constitute a clear chance? You cannot call an effort from 30 yards as a clear chance, im sorry but you just cant.
2) where have i berated Lisa?
3) where have i argued semantics?
You remind me of that kid in the schoolyard who cries foul at every opportunity. By all means back up your claims. And also explain how a pot shot from 30 yards constitutes a good chance carved out. |
1) a clear chance? You're arguing semantics now. If you hit the bar you hit the bar. By virtue of hitting the bar you nearly scored. Scoring a goal is the point of football.
2) in the "what has monk and co done for us" thread
3) see point one
Why are you trying to define everything around what constitutes a "good chance"? I think I know. It's so you can bog them down in a pointless arguement until they get bored. |  | | |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 15:14 - Feb 4 with 2263 views | Parlay |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 15:08 - Feb 4 by acejack3065 |
1) a clear chance? You're arguing semantics now. If you hit the bar you hit the bar. By virtue of hitting the bar you nearly scored. Scoring a goal is the point of football.
2) in the "what has monk and co done for us" thread
3) see point one
Why are you trying to define everything around what constitutes a "good chance"? I think I know. It's so you can bog them down in a pointless arguement until they get bored. |
1) yes you keep saying semantics yet providing no proof of any semantics other than it being the opposite to what you are saying. The answer someone without an agenda would state is "no hitting the bar from a goal kick wouldnt constitute a clear chance".
You are assuming because we went close it was a good chance. Shelvey would not score from that range overwhelmingly more often than not. So by definition it is not a good chance. It is a low % chance that came off. That isnt semantics. That is making the observation that we didnt create any clear chances at all.
2) that is this thread. Ive asked for where specifically. I can say you were racist towards me, but unless i can show you exactly then its pretty worthless. So i ask again...
3) i did. That is not semantics. There is a huge difference between a clear goalscoring chance created and a shot from 30 yards. A clear goalscoring chance would be expected to score more often than not and a 30 yard effort isnt expected to go in at all.
Well that is an easy answer. The aim of football is to score goals. Statistically the more clear cut chances you create the more chance you have of scoring. This can largely determine performance. So having no clear cut chances is a massive difference to having a few shots from 30 yards regardless of outcome.
If you cant understand that then i question the objectivity you claim in the other thread. You aren't a stupid man im sure so i fail to believe you cannot see the massive difference between the two. [Post edited 4 Feb 2015 15:15]
|  |
| |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 15:38 - Feb 4 with 2238 views | perchrockjack |
Well ace, that s back handed complement from the master, "not a stupid man" ..
You ve spent your lunch on here instead of going out into the lovely winter sunshine which the Lord has blessed us with.
I d leave dave parlay alone ,as I ve said he is here on PS for one reason alone as he always has been.
Its failed but he s certainly resilient or stupid if he sactually got a business or two for sale as we speak.. Think about it, a financial wizard earning thousands per month with a lifestyle to kill for and he s easting his time with trash like me |  |
| |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 15:39 - Feb 4 with 2249 views | acejack3065 |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 15:14 - Feb 4 by Parlay |
1) yes you keep saying semantics yet providing no proof of any semantics other than it being the opposite to what you are saying. The answer someone without an agenda would state is "no hitting the bar from a goal kick wouldnt constitute a clear chance".
You are assuming because we went close it was a good chance. Shelvey would not score from that range overwhelmingly more often than not. So by definition it is not a good chance. It is a low % chance that came off. That isnt semantics. That is making the observation that we didnt create any clear chances at all.
2) that is this thread. Ive asked for where specifically. I can say you were racist towards me, but unless i can show you exactly then its pretty worthless. So i ask again...
3) i did. That is not semantics. There is a huge difference between a clear goalscoring chance created and a shot from 30 yards. A clear goalscoring chance would be expected to score more often than not and a 30 yard effort isnt expected to go in at all.
Well that is an easy answer. The aim of football is to score goals. Statistically the more clear cut chances you create the more chance you have of scoring. This can largely determine performance. So having no clear cut chances is a massive difference to having a few shots from 30 yards regardless of outcome.
If you cant understand that then i question the objectivity you claim in the other thread. You aren't a stupid man im sure so i fail to believe you cannot see the massive difference between the two. [Post edited 4 Feb 2015 15:15]
|
You're haggling over what you think constitutes a chance. I'm saying its a semantic argument because surely it's more important to have a look at the chances in the game and the impact they had. For example, if you hit the post it doesn't count as a shot on target but if you trickle the ball through and the keeper gathers it confortably it counts as a shot on target.
Anyway I need to get back to work. We can pick this up later if you fancy. | | | |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 15:42 - Feb 4 with 2227 views | perchrockjack |
yes you do ace and get your head down is it.
I ve done a rather lovely casserole (stew for commoners ),done the washing, ironing so my beautiful missus can put her feet up and await my return from the gym and sauna.
dickperch | |
| |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 15:49 - Feb 4 with 2212 views | Parlay |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 15:39 - Feb 4 by acejack3065 |
You're haggling over what you think constitutes a chance. I'm saying its a semantic argument because surely it's more important to have a look at the chances in the game and the impact they had. For example, if you hit the post it doesn't count as a shot on target but if you trickle the ball through and the keeper gathers it confortably it counts as a shot on target.
Anyway I need to get back to work. We can pick this up later if you fancy. |
Haggling? You do understand it is of vital importance to the discussion at hand right?
Im not talking about shots on or off target i am not sure why you are bringing that up. Im talking about good chances, there is a major difference. (Although on that subject there is far more chance of scoring a trickling effort than a shot that hits the post.)
If we are to discuss a game plan and indeed its merits then we need to discuss what impact it had in an attacking sense as of course we should look to win every game and you can only win by those attacks.
So if we look at the face of it and say "we won, we scored and hit the post". Then that sounds great and indeed will implement that game plan in the next game, sounds like its a good un.
Yet if you look deeper. We scored from an effort from 30 yards out and also the post hitting incident was a similar low % chance as in a 30 yard pot shot. If we go into games with the game plan which restricts our attacking options to chances we will not score more often than not (overwhelmingly) - then by definition that is not a good game plan.
I cant put it more simply than that. If you think its semantics then you just simply cannot understand what is being said. | |
| |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 15:43 - Feb 5 with 2112 views | bluenile |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 15:49 - Feb 4 by Parlay |
Haggling? You do understand it is of vital importance to the discussion at hand right?
Im not talking about shots on or off target i am not sure why you are bringing that up. Im talking about good chances, there is a major difference. (Although on that subject there is far more chance of scoring a trickling effort than a shot that hits the post.)
If we are to discuss a game plan and indeed its merits then we need to discuss what impact it had in an attacking sense as of course we should look to win every game and you can only win by those attacks.
So if we look at the face of it and say "we won, we scored and hit the post". Then that sounds great and indeed will implement that game plan in the next game, sounds like its a good un.
Yet if you look deeper. We scored from an effort from 30 yards out and also the post hitting incident was a similar low % chance as in a 30 yard pot shot. If we go into games with the game plan which restricts our attacking options to chances we will not score more often than not (overwhelmingly) - then by definition that is not a good game plan.
I cant put it more simply than that. If you think its semantics then you just simply cannot understand what is being said. |
You've gone around in circles so much you've literally argued against yourself, you point out the more shots on target that they had compared to ours and yet you say we should discount those that are, say, 30 yards out. So going by that method you must discount quite a few of Southampton's as they were long shots easily picked up by our goalkeeper, thereby leveling things up as ours were closer and harder, one being the ultimate, as we scored from it. |  |
| Open the ipod bay doors Hal |
| |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 16:39 - Feb 5 with 2079 views | Parlay |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 15:43 - Feb 5 by bluenile |
You've gone around in circles so much you've literally argued against yourself, you point out the more shots on target that they had compared to ours and yet you say we should discount those that are, say, 30 yards out. So going by that method you must discount quite a few of Southampton's as they were long shots easily picked up by our goalkeeper, thereby leveling things up as ours were closer and harder, one being the ultimate, as we scored from it. |
Ive done nothing of the sort, i assume you have just misunderstood as usual.
I dont think i have ever based my opinion on "shots on target" have I? In fact i did quite the opposite and clearly stated that shots on target dont matter, but clear chances created of which we created none.
Go back and have another read i suggest and wipe that agenda from your eyes, this is getting to be a regular thing isnt it? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 16:43 - Feb 5 with 2084 views | bluenile |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 16:39 - Feb 5 by Parlay |
Ive done nothing of the sort, i assume you have just misunderstood as usual.
I dont think i have ever based my opinion on "shots on target" have I? In fact i did quite the opposite and clearly stated that shots on target dont matter, but clear chances created of which we created none.
Go back and have another read i suggest and wipe that agenda from your eyes, this is getting to be a regular thing isnt it? |
Why do you always accuse people of having an agenda when they disagree with you?..................... | |
| Open the ipod bay doors Hal |
| |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 16:54 - Feb 5 with 2067 views | Parlay |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 16:43 - Feb 5 by bluenile |
Why do you always accuse people of having an agenda when they disagree with you?..................... |
I don't, just the people who make things up in order to take the opposite stance. That is not normal behaviour and a pattern you have taken up more and more over the last few days. Therefor i can only assume it is an agenda.
Feel free to tell me where i based my opinion in shots in target and we can go from there. | |
| |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 23:03 - Feb 5 with 2004 views | bluenile |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 16:54 - Feb 5 by Parlay |
I don't, just the people who make things up in order to take the opposite stance. That is not normal behaviour and a pattern you have taken up more and more over the last few days. Therefor i can only assume it is an agenda.
Feel free to tell me where i based my opinion in shots in target and we can go from there. |
I would have, but I had an actual life to lead...................... | |
| Open the ipod bay doors Hal |
| |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 23:14 - Feb 5 with 1990 views | Parlay |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 23:03 - Feb 5 by bluenile |
I would have, but I had an actual life to lead...................... |
.................Apology............. accepted............... | |
| |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 08:49 - Feb 6 with 1933 views | Jackanapes |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 16:43 - Feb 5 by bluenile |
Why do you always accuse people of having an agenda when they disagree with you?..................... |
Because HE has an agenda maybe? |  |
|
“The stupidest thing she knew was for people to act like they knew all about the things they knew absolutely nothing about.†|
| |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 13:40 - Feb 6 with 1880 views | Parlay |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 08:49 - Feb 6 by Jackanapes |
Because HE has an agenda maybe? |
Aye, the agenda of making obvious statements. How terrible.
You are another with a strange chip on your shoulder. | |
| |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 08:35 - Feb 7 with 1832 views | bathgatejack |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 13:40 - Feb 6 by Parlay |
Aye, the agenda of making obvious statements. How terrible.
You are another with a strange chip on your shoulder. |
Monk's a year in now and we've scored 77in all competitions not that bad actually.stick with him I say. | | | |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 09:27 - Feb 7 with 1803 views | VetchitBack |
BBC Football ate quoting the "impressive" 51 points from 37. For how much longer can we put it down to luck?
And if he was such a yes man I doubt he'd have changed our style of play. |  |
| The orthodox are always orthodox, regardless of the orthodoxy.
|
| |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 10:27 - Feb 7 with 1762 views | Parlay |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 09:27 - Feb 7 by VetchitBack |
BBC Football ate quoting the "impressive" 51 points from 37. For how much longer can we put it down to luck?
And if he was such a yes man I doubt he'd have changed our style of play. |
It not luck, he has done incredibly well, but Laudrup had a similar record in his first 6-7 months then we started to go backwards fast and it was never addressed with people refusing to see it until he was eventually sacked. There have been similar concerning signs over the past 6-8 weeks and a similar pattern of people refusing to acknowledge it.
Maybe the win can boost us psychologically and we can get back to our former standards. | |
| |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 11:41 - Feb 7 with 1718 views | sixpenses |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 08:35 - Feb 7 by bathgatejack |
Monk's a year in now and we've scored 77in all competitions not that bad actually.stick with him I say. |
Not bad at all I don't think that is the point at issue | | | |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 12:28 - Feb 7 with 1689 views | VetchitBack |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 10:27 - Feb 7 by Parlay |
It not luck, he has done incredibly well, but Laudrup had a similar record in his first 6-7 months then we started to go backwards fast and it was never addressed with people refusing to see it until he was eventually sacked. There have been similar concerning signs over the past 6-8 weeks and a similar pattern of people refusing to acknowledge it.
Maybe the win can boost us psychologically and we can get back to our former standards. |
Our set-up off the ball is a bit later-Laudrup. I preferred pressing both as an attacking and defensive force.
Two backs of four refusing possession (or seeming to) away at a top-four team is not whet we're used to but is more concerning after going one up at home against bottom three teams.
But the "concerning signs" are coinciding with us picking up points. | |
| The orthodox are always orthodox, regardless of the orthodoxy.
|
| |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 14:00 - Feb 7 with 1648 views | NeiltheTaylor |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 15:42 - Feb 4 by perchrockjack |
yes you do ace and get your head down is it.
I ve done a rather lovely casserole (stew for commoners ),done the washing, ironing so my beautiful missus can put her feet up and await my return from the gym and sauna.
dickperch |
Fascinating! | |
| Joe_bradshaw -I thought the cryochamber was the new name for Cardiff's stadium.
|
| |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 15:47 - Feb 7 with 1617 views | Parlay |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 12:28 - Feb 7 by VetchitBack |
Our set-up off the ball is a bit later-Laudrup. I preferred pressing both as an attacking and defensive force.
Two backs of four refusing possession (or seeming to) away at a top-four team is not whet we're used to but is more concerning after going one up at home against bottom three teams.
But the "concerning signs" are coinciding with us picking up points. |
Do you think the concerning signs are coinciding with us picking up points? I think its been a marked down-turn in points being picked up which coincides with the concerns being raised since december.
Which again is consistent to what happened in the latter part of Laudrups reign to which you correctly state these tactics crept in for him too.
Its just bizarre why we stick with it when history and the present tells us we are better served to revert to a pressing game.
Edit* and it bites us on the behind again as Defoe was allowed as much time as he wanted and a good attacking display undone by some stupid defensive tactics yet again. Frustrating to watch. [Post edited 7 Feb 2015 16:01]
| |
| |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 17:29 - Feb 7 with 1567 views | morningstar |
Back to our best today then! 60% possession, 16 shots, 7 on target. Much better than last week eh! Let's carry on doing what we do best!  |  |
| |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 19:46 - Feb 7 with 1501 views | Parlay |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 17:29 - Feb 7 by morningstar |
Back to our best today then! 60% possession, 16 shots, 7 on target. Much better than last week eh! Let's carry on doing what we do best! |
Back to our best?! I hope that is tongue in cheek but i cant really work out a reason for it.
Much better than last week but I'm afraid it is the same stupid defensive sit off tactics that costs us most weeks since we started doing it. To give Defoe that much room deserves to be punished, stupid tactics and frustrating to watch.
Id also add the lack of pressing is taking the urgency out of our game so when we do get the ball the opposition are already in their shape which makes attacking much harder. Very pedestrian as a result with limited options ahead of the ball, as everybody is marked. | |
| |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 20:54 - Feb 7 with 1475 views | azjack |
Maybe this IS his global business - bumping up the hit count for PS. If he receives ten bucks a post then he's certainly not wasting his time.
Hey Phil, what's the going rate for a twenty page yah-boo thread between a couple of top ten posters?
Think about it, a financial wizard earning thousands per month with a lifestyle to kill for and he s easting his time with trash like me | | | |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 23:30 - Feb 7 with 1423 views | Parlay |
| What has Monk & Co done to us??? on 20:54 - Feb 7 by azjack |
Maybe this IS his global business - bumping up the hit count for PS. If he receives ten bucks a post then he's certainly not wasting his time.
Hey Phil, what's the going rate for a twenty page yah-boo thread between a couple of top ten posters?
Think about it, a financial wizard earning thousands per month with a lifestyle to kill for and he s easting his time with trash like me |
I dont discriminate you are more than welcome to converse with me, all i ask is you make sense. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
