Prem Tictacs

[blade67]

The semantics are in your statement 'Billy doesn't need to score 15 goals next season'. Our top scorer does, however, because there wont be five or six other players on five, six, eight, ten goals. The semantics are 'how many goals we score'. Hulse was our top scorer in our last PL venture - our next highest scorers were Jags and Nade on half of that.

I'd say that's not fucking about with semantics. It's fact. Stating our current top striker doesn't need to hit the net in a league very much on another level to ensure our survival is fucking about with semantics.

pommpey

you need to read a dictionary to understand the meaning of words fella. Are you a bit angry, or pissed?

And just for clarity, I was replying to a post from you that stated

"To stay up we need Billy to hit between 15 and 20 and the second scorer to go over double figures."​

 

[pommpey]

you need to read a dictionary to understand the meaning of words fella. Are you a bit angry, or pissed?

And just for clarity, I was replying to a post from you that stated

"To stay up we need Billy to hit between 15 and 20 and the second scorer to go over double figures."

Which words? 'Semantics'? It's a branch of linguistics concerned with meaning. Your 'meaning' is we don't need our top striker (because Billy at the moment is our top striker) to hit the net that many times, but I maintain he does, being as there seems to be little evidence goals will come from elsewhere across the pitch. To prove that I cite our last foray into the top flight (which, I'm sure you may concede is a division way below in playing standards compared with the 2019-20 version) whereby our total goals scored was 32 with 55 scored against, a small detail (if you like) which cost us our place by one solitary goal. We didn't score enough. Our strikers didn't hit the net.

It doesn't however need semantics to state that we need strikers with pace, stamina, guile and accuracy and above all else, capability in the PL.

And hey-ho. If you're faced with a challenging argument, press the 'are you angry/pissed' button, rather than provide substance to your own argument.. It ALWAYS trumps the debate and guarantees success.

pommpey

 

[tomtheblade]

People speak about 'changing our style of play' or 'changing our tactics'

I don't think it's about fundamentally altering our approach, but rather adding more options to the ones we already have.

We already know how to play on the front foot and pressure and press teams, and we already know how to sit back and protect a lead, as we showed the back end of last season.

What we need to add is more counter attacking ability, and slipping through balls behind the defence for strikers to run onto. Both of these are something we haven't done so much of during Wilders reign due to the strengths of our strikers. We've mostly gone for by-line cut backs and pinpoint crosses.

If we can add the players to help us broaden our attacking options it will mean we can sit & hold, defend deep, press high, pass through the middle or go down the wings using our wing backs depending on the opposition and situation in-game. If I had to guess then this is what I would say Wilder is going for, rather than just:

'Areyt lads, Prem is fookin reyt hard so forget 3-5-2 overlapping wing play and just defend fer yer lives wi one up top. Sorted'

 

[SUFC Guy]

 

[A Storm of Blades]

Which words? 'Semantics'? It's a branch of linguistics concerned with meaning. Your 'meaning' is we don't need our top striker (because Billy at the moment is our top striker) to hit the net that many times, but I maintain he does, being as there seems to be little evidence goals will come from elsewhere across the pitch. To prove that I cite our last foray into the top flight (which, I'm sure you may concede is a division way below in playing standards compared with the 2019-20 version) whereby our total goals scored was 32 with 55 scored against, a small detail (if you like) which cost us our place by one solitary goal. We didn't score enough. Our strikers didn't hit the net.

It doesn't however need semantics to state that we need strikers with pace, stamina, guile and accuracy and above all else, capability in the PL.

And hey-ho. If you're faced with a challenging argument, press the 'are you angry/pissed' button, rather than provide substance to your own argument.. It ALWAYS trumps the debate and guarantees success.

pommpey

If we use Brighton as a fairly accurate yardstick for survival - they finished 17th with 36 points, 35 goals scored and 60 conceded. There 3 tops scorers were Murray with 13, Duffy with 5 and Andone with 3.

In conclusion, I would respectfully suggest that using the most recent side to narrowly avoid relegation as our control group, the following statements are false:

1. "To stay up we need Billy to hit between 15 and 20” - Brighton stayed up without such assistance.

2. “and the second scorer to go over double figures." - Brighton’s stayed up with only one player reaching double figures.

3. “we need strikers with pace, stamina, guile and accuracy and above all else, capability in the PL.” Murray arguably only has a couple of those traits, and was largely untested in the top league.

FYI - no offence meant, but it’s no surprise some might perceive your posts as a bit confrontational. Probably not meant that way though

 

[CornwallBlade]

I do think that pace is the missing factor at this point. We can press, we can pass but without someone who can skin a PL defence the quality of the teams we are about to encounter will leave them feeling pretty comfortable about the threat of any counter attack.

 

[coaxingstar71]

With regard to tactics, I'm quite sure that Chris and Alan are not naive enough to think they can just come out and play exactly the same way against all the Premier League teams as we did in the Championship. Even last season there was a definite tweak in the way we played prior to Christmas to after. Anyone that thinks Chris and Alan don't know this clearly haven't been paying attention for the last 3 years.

For me the biggest challenge defensively is how we defend against pacy players. the likes of Montero for Swansea and Hernandez for Norwich were two that we struggled with and there will be shitload more where that came from next season. However I'm quite sure that our management team will be working to negate this.

 

[Tynemouth Blade]

here's all you need to know

 

[blade67]

Which words? 'Semantics'? It's a branch of linguistics concerned with meaning. Your 'meaning' is we don't need our top striker (because Billy at the moment is our top striker) to hit the net that many times, but I maintain he does, being as there seems to be little evidence goals will come from elsewhere across the pitch. To prove that I cite our last foray into the top flight (which, I'm sure you may concede is a division way below in playing standards compared with the 2019-20 version) whereby our total goals scored was 32 with 55 scored against, a small detail (if you like) which cost us our place by one solitary goal. We didn't score enough. Our strikers didn't hit the net.

It doesn't however need semantics to state that we need strikers with pace, stamina, guile and accuracy and above all else, capability in the PL.

And hey-ho. If you're faced with a challenging argument, press the 'are you angry/pissed' button, rather than provide substance to your own argument.. It ALWAYS trumps the debate and guarantees success.

pommpey

The semantics are in your statement 'Billy doesn't need to score 15 goals next season'. Our top scorer does, however, because there wont be five or six other players on five, six, eight, ten goals. The semantics are 'how many goals we score'. Hulse was our top scorer in our last PL venture - our next highest scorers were Jags and Nade on half of that.

I'd say that's not fucking about with semantics. It's fact. Stating our current top striker doesn't need to hit the net in a league very much on another level to ensure our survival is fucking about with semantics.

pommpey

There is no debate in play about the meaning of words.

'Billy doesn't need to score 15 goals next season' is a clear statement and we both agree on what all those words mean and even the meaning of the sentence.

What is taking place here is not a debate about the meaning of the words but a disagreement about whether the statement is correct or not. ~My view is that Billy does not need to score 15 goals, in your view he does. My opinion is based on the facts that very few players score that many goals in the top division as per another fact below.

Only 8 premier league players scored more than 14 goals last season, and they all played for teams fighting for a place in Europe. Those 8 players are all experienced internationals and are some of the best players in Europe.

Even if what you really mean is that a "billy Sharp" type player needs to score 15 goals next season , the facts, as posted by myself and others still do not bear that out.​

 

[pommpey]

There is no debate in play about the meaning of words.

'Billy doesn't need to score 15 goals next season' is a clear statement and we both agree on what all those words mean and even the meaning of the sentence.

What is taking place here is not a debate about the meaning of the words but a disagreement about whether the statement is correct or not. ~My view is that Billy does not need to score 15 goals, in your view he does. My opinion is based on the facts that very few players score that many goals in the top division as per another fact below.

Only 8 premier league players scored more than 14 goals last season, and they all played for teams fighting for a place in Europe. Those 8 players are all experienced internationals and are some of the best players in Europe.

Even if what you really mean is that a "billy Sharp" type player needs to score 15 goals next season , the facts, as posted by myself and others still do not bear that out.

But - here's my point (which I fear you are missing)

- of those teams where these eight players exist, there are plenty of others scoring from midfield, out wide and even defence. Man City (for example at one extreme) finished with a GD of +72 whereas the break even point in GD was roughly ninth with Leicester at +9. All teams in that region had players scoring from all parts of the pitch, and the flexibility to rotate players through the key goalscoring areas, match by match. I'm not saying we should have six £30m+ strikers milling about the club and taking turns to warm the bench. But even Leicester, behind Vardy on 18 and Maddison on 7, have eight players knocking them in with twos and threes to contribute to the 51 goals to give them a healthy points total and keep them well away from relegation. Wolves, who managed just plus one but qualified for Europe had Jiminez (17), Jota (10) and seven other goalscorers including Doherty on 8. Last season we had Billy on 24 and Didsy on 15, much of the other goals coming from defence. Can you really see our defence having that freedom this season to add to our goals total? Forgive me, but I can't. And if Billy and Didsy (not exactly the most electrically-paced front two around and having just come from a league below) can't get even half of that this season - or one of them gets injured due to the change in strategy or the way the game is played, then what? We are back on planet Hulse.

pommpey

 

[blade67]

But - here's my point (which I fear you are missing)

- of those teams where these eight players exist, there are plenty of others scoring from midfield, out wide and even defence. Man City (for example at one extreme) finished with a GD of +72 whereas the break even point in GD was roughly ninth with Leicester at +9. All teams in that region had players scoring from all parts of the pitch, and the flexibility to rotate players through the key goalscoring areas, match by match. I'm not saying we should have six £30m+ strikers milling about the club and taking turns to warm the bench. But even Leicester, behind Vardy on 18 and Maddison on 7, have eight players knocking them in with twos and threes to contribute to the 51 goals to give them a healthy points total and keep them well away from relegation. Wolves, who managed just plus one but qualified for Europe had Jiminez (17), Jota (10) and seven other goalscorers including Doherty on 8. Last season we had Billy on 24 and Didsy on 15, much of the other goals coming from defence. Can you really see our defence having that freedom this season to add to our goals total? Forgive me, but I can't. And if Billy and Didsy (not exactly the most electrically-paced front two around and having just come from a league below) can't get even half of that this season - or one of them gets injured due to the change in strategy or the way the game is played, then what? We are back on planet Hulse.

pommpey

Ah, so what you are really saying is that we need to sign a couple of decent forwards and a couple of midfielders who can notch at the top level. On that I think we agree.

 

[SelbyBlade]

I was thinking of moving to extra strong mints as tictacs are ok for the championship but I worry they are not enough to freshen my breath for the Prem.

 

[Keen Blade]

I hope we Kick it Long Hard and High. S2 will not tolerate anything less.

Since when have you cared what the S2 Forum will tolerate ?
Just saying , like.
In fact the opposition will kick it thus , at our short arse Jagielka , should he ever play. Or will they just run past him ?
He seems a lovely bloke , mind - perfect for an "extra coach in the dressing room who never gets in the pitch , but imparts 12 years of PL wisdom".
That's what he's been brought in to do - CW has almost said it publicly.

 

[Keen Blade]

People speak about 'changing our style of play' or 'changing our tactics'

I don't think it's about fundamentally altering our approach, but rather adding more options to the ones we already have.

We already know how to play on the front foot and pressure and press teams, and we already know how to sit back and protect a lead, as we showed the back end of last season.

What we need to add is more counter attacking ability, and slipping through balls behind the defence for strikers to run onto. Both of these are something we haven't done so much of during Wilders reign due to the strengths of our strikers. We've mostly gone for by-line cut backs and pinpoint crosses.

If we can add the players to help us broaden our attacking options it will mean we can sit & hold, defend deep, press high, pass through the middle or go down the wings using our wing backs depending on the opposition and situation in-game. If I had to guess then this is what I would say Wilder is going for, rather than just:

'Areyt lads, Prem is fookin reyt hard so forget 3-5-2 overlapping wing play and just defend fer yer lives wi one up top. Sorted'

That was Colin's approach and it relegated us.

 

[Keen Blade]

But - here's my point (which I fear you are missing)

- of those teams where these eight players exist, there are plenty of others scoring from midfield, out wide and even defence. Man City (for example at one extreme) finished with a GD of +72 whereas the break even point in GD was roughly ninth with Leicester at +9. All teams in that region had players scoring from all parts of the pitch, and the flexibility to rotate players through the key goalscoring areas, match by match. I'm not saying we should have six £30m+ strikers milling about the club and taking turns to warm the bench. But even Leicester, behind Vardy on 18 and Maddison on 7, have eight players knocking them in with twos and threes to contribute to the 51 goals to give them a healthy points total and keep them well away from relegation. Wolves, who managed just plus one but qualified for Europe had Jiminez (17), Jota (10) and seven other goalscorers including Doherty on 8. Last season we had Billy on 24 and Didsy on 15, much of the other goals coming from defence. Can you really see our defence having that freedom this season to add to our goals total? Forgive me, but I can't. And if Billy and Didsy (not exactly the most electrically-paced front two around and having just come from a league below) can't get even half of that this season - or one of them gets injured due to the change in strategy or the way the game is played, then what? We are back on planet Hulse.

pommpey

There is no denying the fact that (in terms of goalscoring) Hulse's broken leg relegated us.
Other well-known factors also relegated us , but losing Hulse blew our "goals for" column.
CW knows this - it's one of a long list of reasons why his history with the Blades makes him the best man for the current challenges.
That's why he's made it public that he wants 2 strikers and he is wise enough to ignore Ravel being one of them.
Even if we get McBurnie & Maupay , we are one injury away from a goal drought.
CW has always said more goals have to come from MF.
He'll be hoping Luke Freeman can show Norwood & Fleck how it's done.
I don't think Billy will get 15 coz I'm hoping my hero will be pushed onto the bench for most of the season , by 2 new strikers who are at the developing stage of their Prem careers , unlike Sharp , for whom next season ought to be a well-earned rest from goal-responsibility , and some delightful cameos (with a few characteristic goals).