Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Soft..?  (Read 358 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Bribey
Hot Prospect
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74



« on: 11 December 2011, 12:43 PM »

As reported on the News section of this website, Coyle was quoted as saying that the goals against us were soft.

Im not exactly sure why he would blame Villa's two goals on softness, to me it looked like they were simply tearing apart our defense. Obviously the second goal took a lucky deflection, but the lead up to that goal had our players tripping over themselves.

So, do you think the goals were soft, or simply us being shite?
Logged
Mr Magoo
First Team
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1449



« Reply #1 on: 11 December 2011, 12:48 PM »

Doesn't matter how soft they were, They still beet us, because we are shíte.
Logged

"If you're going through hell, keep going."
Bribey
Hot Prospect
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74



« Reply #2 on: 11 December 2011, 12:52 PM »

I completely agree Mr. Magoo. But that wasnt the question...
Logged
RustyMcHayes
Reserve
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 314


« Reply #3 on: 11 December 2011, 01:41 PM »

They were going through us like a hot knife through butter. It wasn't even like Villa were that good themselves, there was no great passing football, quite often they hoofed it out from the back, but that was still enough to get through our woeful defence.

The best of the lot was when someone went through on goal from their goalkeepers big kick. Absolutely unbelievable. Shambolic. With my limited english I am running out of words to describe how bad we were!

I just wish we would have lost by a lot more then people would sit up and take notice.
Logged
Gloria Stitz
Reserve
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 294



« Reply #4 on: 11 December 2011, 01:56 PM »

I'm not sure why Villa are wasting their time with McLeish. Its clear that with a much less cautious approach, they could be a top class side, and we're lucky they didn't play to their full potential yesterday afternoon as it would have been yet another thrashing.

Everybody's looking in the wrong places for why we can't stop conceding. Sure, Robinson is appalling but defending isn't just the job of defenders. If the players in front of the defense are soft, i.e. knocked off the ball easily, not so good at keeping it when they've got it and no good at working to win it back, it means the opposition see too much of the ball, resulting in the back line being too often exposed.

If you ask me, Robinson was atrocious last season too. I'm not so sure why this year, everybody's suddenly cottoned on to this.

Thanks for reading,

Gloria.
Logged
Gloria Stitz
Reserve
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 294



« Reply #5 on: 11 December 2011, 02:41 PM »

ALSO, I'd add that you lose the right to say "Its disappointing when you look at the lack of quality in the goals we've conceded." when had it not been for poor finishing, it would have been a drubbing.

Gloria.
Logged
Natasha Whittam
Restricted
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10664



« Reply #6 on: 11 December 2011, 02:54 PM »


If the players in front of the defense are soft, i.e. knocked off the ball easily, not so good at keeping it when they've got it and no good at working to win it back, it means the opposition see too much of the ball, resulting in the back line being too often exposed.


And yet Coyle played the exact formation you picked in your "strongest fit 11" and several of your players - Tuncay, Mavies & Eagles.

I'll say now what I said then - we are way too open because Coyle is so desperate to accommodate Mavies. He needs to ditch Mavies and play a five man midfield consisting of three central defensive players.

Until we stop conceding so easily we can't hope to get out of this mess. Shore up the defence and we have half a chance.

He could then play Eagles and Petrov/Gardner on the wings and hope Klasnic (if fit) can pinch something.
Logged

Fair play to you then if you're willing to share your knickers with a willy.
Gloria Stitz
Reserve
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 294



« Reply #7 on: 11 December 2011, 03:06 PM »

Shittam, five of the players I picked in my strongest fit 11 didn't play yesterday, and one of them played in a position I wouldn't dream of playing him in. Not to mention that only one of those five was guilty of the problem I'm referring to.

Thanks,

Gloria.
Logged
Natasha Whittam
Restricted
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10664



« Reply #8 on: 11 December 2011, 03:13 PM »

Shittam, five of the players I picked in my strongest fit 11 didn't play yesterday, and one of them played in a position I wouldn't dream of playing him in. Not to mention that only one of those five was guilty of the problem I'm referring to.

Thanks,

Gloria.

You wanted 4-4-2 with a load of flair players.

Clueless.
Logged

Fair play to you then if you're willing to share your knickers with a willy.
Gloria Stitz
Reserve
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 294



« Reply #9 on: 11 December 2011, 03:37 PM »

The key difference between my side and the one selected yesterday was the inclusion of two relatively mobile strikers, capable of holding up the ball and pressing at the expense of two immobile players that give the ball away like its deadly.

The midfield I selected has more than enough clout to make the team a difficult one to play against. It isn't too different to the one that had us picking up more than a sufficient number of points at the front end of last season.

Thanks for reading,

Gloria.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC