Agricultural Blades?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?




Has this fuckwit been taking lessons from Mills and Crooks?

I don't mind being called 'horrible to play against', I categorise Liverpool and Man City as 'horrible to play against', because you could quite easily end up on the wrong side of a 6-0.

But 'fashionable football'... fuck right off Sam and when you get there fuck off some more.
 
Having read the whole article I don’t think it is that inaccurate.
We are robust, difficult to play against and lacking silky skills at times. However he accepts that the PL is better for having diverse styles and acknowledges that Burnley and us are more successful than many.
Not a lot to object to other than the use and connotations of the word “agricultural “.
 
Tbf his southern bias and zaha bashery aside our quality of football has been exchanged for more pragmatic "long ball" (whatever that means nowadays) approach. Our attacking stats are all to see as amongst the poorest in many categories. This has been the case very much so since the turn of the year and we have to rely on our incredible defense to carry us in games as we cant attack teams to death (in our current shape IMO). the term "agricultural" is harsh but its what people that don't like us will use as long as we play this altered shape and style.
 
sitwell said:
Why dont you bugger off and enjoy your extended lockdown.
Click to expand...

It offers multiple levels of praise, and is quite correct between the comparison of Sheffield United and Burnley.

From the backgrounds of the players for both sides who are largely British and from the lower leagues.
To two managers, doing terrific jobs at less fancied and less financially able sides than others.

What do you take exception to?
Besides the term 'agricultural', by which I think he's trying to express the hard working/committed/organised aspect of both sides, what is wrong with the article?
 
georgebernardshaw said:
Today’s Daily Telegraph Sports by Sam Dean (no, me neither)..

View attachment 84252
Click to expand...
This dickhead looks like he's still at school. We are nothing like agricultural, nor do we play a similar to style Burnley. We are a high press, pass and move team, similar to say, Leicester, Wolves, a case could even be made for Citeh, but obviously not the same standard of players. We have used the long ball on occasion, usually as a tactic against certain teams but it is by no means the way we normally play, any fool can see that. does this moron think Wilder won the LMA award by hoofing it to the premier league . DICKHEAD.
 



Roker's Red & White said:
This dickhead looks like he's still at school. We are nothing like agricultural, nor do we play a similar to style Burnley. We are a high press, pass and move team, similar to say, Leicester, Wolves, a case could even be made for Citeh, but obviously not the same standard of players. We have used the long ball on occasion, usually as a tactic against certain teams but it is by no means the way we normally play, any fool can see that. does this moron think Wilder won the LMA award by hoofing it to the premier league . DICKHEAD.
Click to expand...

Those 3 teams don't even play the same style.

Man City are a possession based side, Leicester are trying to play that way with a possession based manager, Wolves, like Burnley and Sheffield United, focus much more heavily on having a sound defensive base before caring about how much of the ball they have.

I'm not sure why there is offence taken to any style of play.
I'd rather be as this guy puts it 'agricultural', than completely deluded and play so expansive like Brighton/Norwich that it mean a relegation battle.

Wilder only cares about winning.
Quite right too.
 
CentralQuay said:
Those 3 teams don't even play the same style.

Man City are a possession based side, Leicester are trying to play that way with a possession based manager, Wolves, like Burnley and Sheffield United, focus much more heavily on having a sound defensive base before caring about how much of the ball they have.

I'm not sure why there is offence taken to any style of play.
I'd rather be as this guy puts it 'agricultural', than completely deluded and play so expansive like Brighton/Norwich that it mean a relegation battle.

Wilder only cares about winning.
Quite right too.
Click to expand...

And here is another example of Sheffield United not caring about having possession and playing the percentages

 
Snowflake said:
Having read the whole article I don’t think it is that inaccurate.
We are robust, difficult to play against and lacking silky skills at times. However he accepts that the PL is better for having diverse styles and acknowledges that Burnley and us are more successful than many.
Not a lot to object to other than the use and connotations of the word “agricultural “.
Click to expand...
If all teams only played technical football, it’d be as boring as La Liga.
 
Harry's Game said:
And here is another example of Sheffield United not caring about having possession and playing the percentages

Click to expand...


Where did I say Sheffield United don't care about possession or only play the percentages?

I wonder why Wilder questions the fans a lot more than other managers?
 
Brian Deane said:
No mention of our future transfer targets either. John Deere and Massey Ferguson ......
Click to expand...

Didn't we once have a player called Paul Newholland? And that great striker Marcus Fendt... unforgettable as Bobby Ford. If only Michael Brown's middle name was David we'd have the whole set.
 
Really gets on my tits all this snobbery around this , you have to be able to vary your game that’s often been our issue when when struggled to break down a side that sits deep , do Liverpool just 5 yard passes or do they hit long passes ? They vary their game , why wouldn’t you not exploit a team like Arsenal’s defence that were struggling to deal with crosses into the box & player that can deliver an accurate long throw ?
Some people talk absolute bollocks sometimes
 
This has got the makings of an international break (remember them ?) type thread.
 
John Street West Terrace said:
Really gets on my tits all this snobbery around this , you have to be able to vary your game that’s often been our issue when when struggled to break down a side that sits deep , do Liverpool just 5 yard passes or do they hit long passes ? They vary their game , why wouldn’t you not exploit a team like Arsenal’s defence that were struggling to deal with crosses into the box & player that can deliver an accurate long throw ?
Some people talk absolute bollocks sometimes
Click to expand...

That's the point the guy is making in his article.
Not all sides can play what he calls the 'fashionable' way and maximize their strengths, and its great for the league that different sides have different styles.

He talks about how for the first 15 minutes Burnley were playing out from the back and controlling the game, but were also able to adapt and do the basics well when needing to defend and remain solid.
 
CentralQuay said:
What do you take exception to?
Besides the term 'agricultural', by which I think he's trying to express the hard working/committed/organised aspect of both sides, what is wrong with the article?
Click to expand...
Interesting interpretation of the word agricultural. In a sporting context, most dictionaries define it as "clumsy, unskilful".
 
HighfieldBlade said:
Interesting interpretation of the word agricultural. In a sporting context, most dictionaries define it as "clumsy, unskilful".
Click to expand...

This is why you have to apply context when reading, otherwise, simply using the dictionary definition for every single word would result in a lot of sentences making no sense.

"......represent the more agricultural side of the Premier League. Defensively solid, consistently robust, always horrible to play against. This can be taken as an insult, but diversity in approaches is good for the league and who can argue that their respective styles are not effective - just look at the league table."

He even says later on that any 'long ball' talk is 'harsh'.
 
CentralQuay said:
This is why you have to apply context when reading, otherwise, simply using the dictionary definition for every single word would result in a lot of sentences making no sense.

"......represent the more agricultural side of the Premier League. Defensively solid, consistently robust, always horrible to play against. This can be taken as an insult, but diversity in approaches is good for the league and who can argue that their respective styles are not effective - just look at the league table."

He even says later on that any 'long ball' talk is 'harsh'.
Click to expand...
Don't you have your own fans to play with ?
 
CentralQuay said:
This is why you have to apply context when reading, otherwise, simply using the dictionary definition for every single word would result in a lot of sentences making no sense.

"......represent the more agricultural side of the Premier League. Defensively solid, consistently robust, always horrible to play against. This can be taken as an insult, but diversity in approaches is good for the league and who can argue that their respective styles are not effective - just look at the league table."

He even says later on that any 'long ball' talk is 'harsh'.
Click to expand...
Well, if that's what he means, he shouldn't be using the word agricultural !
 



You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Relegation Day Song
Replies
2
Views
562
knowsnowt
knowsnowt
Clarkey87
Blades Numberplate
Replies
27
Views
2K
Clarkey87
Clarkey87
Steve Mackan
New Blades Data Dashboard
Replies
20
Views
2K
ReeceofBDTBL
ReeceofBDTBL
SouthportBlade
Signed Blades Shirt
Replies
3
Views
460
Blades80
Blades80
R
'Memries' Blackburn v Blades 28 February 1970
Replies
6
Views
1K
ancientblade
A

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom