Edwards vs Reality

[William Henry Foulkes]

The game as played and the game described by Keith Edwards are different things.

Plenty went wrong yesterday, obviously, but I'd really question the way Edwards sees the game.

There seem to be a lot of posts in all threads based on the way the game has been described rather than the way (I'd say) it was played.

He clearly knows a lot about the game, but it seems to be he sees it in a particular way, and much of the time I disagree with it - to the extent that I can't listen to away games.

Whatever went wrong yesterday I'd much rather listen to the opinion of those who were there bc too much of the time I don't trust what Edwards says.

I'm presuming Edwards was the pundit on RS...

 

[Grappler]

The game as played and the game described by Keith Edwards are different things.

Plenty went wrong yesterday, obviously, but I'd really question the way Edwards sees the game.

There seem to be a lot of posts in all threads based on the way the game has been described rather than the way (I'd say) it was played.

He clearly knows a lot about the game, but it seems to be he sees it in a particular way, and much of the time I disagree with it - to the extent that I can't listen to away games.

Whatever went wrong yesterday I'd much rather listen to the opinion of those who were there bc too much of the time I don't trust what Edwards says.

I'm presuming Edwards was the pundit on RS...

Yes he was mate, and he said that the entire back four, plus the keeper, needed moving on. He said McEveley was not good enough last season and should never have been in the starting line up this season. He blasted Collins for trying to pin the blame on George Long for everything. He blasted the back four standing like statues when set pieces led to goals.

To be honest, if you think any of the above was wrong, I'd love to hear it. I wasn't at the match but everything I have read on here today, from people who attended, seems to back up what Edwards said.

 

[breeny]

The only thing I'd say about Edwards yesterday was that he got so angry that his views may have lost some clarity. He perhaps needed to remain more objective.

 

[Northyorksblade]

He was zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I literally had to stop listening by 4.30 and not just because of the performance He's a one trick pony as far as I'm concerned. Tuesday night I will be listening to the away commentary, I've literally had enough of him.
There is too much punditry and not enough commentating in my opinion. I'm almost suicidal by the end of games. Even when we win he is, usually, so critical. I know last season we weren't good, but going back several seasons, he is always the same. When he is on holiday I quite enjoy the commentaries from his replacement, because that's what he does, commentates!

 

[SandyMcBlade]

Ever argued with the guy next to you watching the same match as you ? every body see's things differently and to base your opinion on some one else opinion can be very dodgy.
And if you don't believe me just listen to F/H and hear someone who has only listened to the commentary spouting about a match you've been to.. .

 

[robbiez666]

I always take his views with a large pinch of salt.

 

[Grappler]

Ever argued with the guy next to you watching the same match as you ? every body see's things differently and to base your opinion on some one else opinion can be very dodgy.
And if you don't believe me just listen to F/H and hear someone who has only listened to the commentary spouting about a match you've been to.. .

I agree that where you sit in the ground dictates who you think played well or poorly, but I think everyone to a man, who attended, would not disagree with anything Keith Edwards said yesterday.

I know that no team has a divine right to expect anything, in any league, but come on, shipping four goals is shocking, we couldn't even get shots on target, never mind score.

 

[Foxy]

I always find it interesting when people praise or particularly slate a radio commentary, as unless you are listening while at the match, you have no idea whether or not the comments are right or would tally with your own thoughts. Unless of course, it's a criticism of a tendency to ignore the match and talk about other things.

For this reason, I find it difficult to give an opinion on his work, other than to say from chats with him and previous experience of hearing his summaries post match... I'd take what he says on air with a large pinch of salt.

 

[Worksop II]

Its just his opinion, he wants to see the Blades do well ...... which is why yesterday he lost some objectivity

Legend, and always will be

You could really piss on his chips and go to the away games ...............

 

[Grappler]

I always find it interesting when people praise or particularly slate a radio commentary, as unless you are listening while at the match, you have no idea whether or not the comments are right or would tally with your own thoughts. Unless of course, it's a criticism of a tendency to ignore the match and talk about other things.

For this reason, I find it difficult to give an opinion on his work, other than to say from chats with him and previous experience of hearing his summaries post match... I'd take what he says on air with a large pinch of salt.

Foxy, his main beef yesterday was with the back four, and to an extent George Long. From what I have read on here, he isn't far wrong? He said our players were knocked off balls too easily.

He does do too much reminiscing I agree, too much about the old days and how Billy Whitehurst would have run straight through their players, etc.

 

[Foxy]

Foxy, his main beef yesterday was with the back four, and to an extent George Long. From what I have read on here, he isn't far wrong? He said our players were knocked off balls too easily.

I'd say he was being too kind to the rest of them

Re: the back five, to be fair to Freeman, he was the best of a bad bunch at the back and at least kept going and tried to make something happen.

 

[Grappler]

I'd say he was being too kind to the rest of them

Re: the back five, to be fair to Freeman, he was the best of a bad bunch at the back and at least kept going and tried to make something happen.

I like the lad, would it make more sense to stick Woolford in the back four and let Freeman take on the winger role. I think so, but have not seen enough of Woolford, although he does have the height.

Oh and Edwards did say good things about Freeman later on.

 

[SandyMcBlade]

I always find it interesting when people praise or particularly slate a radio commentary, as unless you are listening while at the match, you have no idea whether or not the comments are right or would tally with your own thoughts. Unless of course, it's a criticism of a tendency to ignore the match and talk about other things.

For this reason, I find it difficult to give an opinion on his work, other than to say from chats with him and previous experience of hearing his summaries post match... I'd take what he says on air with a large pinch of salt.

You obviously don't have Blades player then.....

 

[Northyorksblade]

I always take his views with a large pinch of salt.

I think a block of salt is needed

 

[Northyorksblade]

Its just his opinion, he wants to see the Blades do well ...... which is why yesterday he lost some objectivity

Legend, and always will be

You could really piss on his chips and go to the away games ...............

I go to plenty of away games, but if I don't a listen to the commentary.

 

[coaxingstar71]

I can't listen to us on the radio with or without Keith. I don't think you can get a sense of the game at all. When I've tried in the past, I've noticed that it seems nothing is happening and then they'll go... GOAL! and I'll be like "Who to?".

Keith's a bladey blade legend, he says it how he sees it - if you don't agree, fine - or don't listen.

 

[Cyprus Blade]

I think a block of salt is needed

Can I recommend here

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Foxy, his main beef yesterday was with the back four, and to an extent George Long. From what I have read on here, he isn't far wrong?

But this is my point. I don't know for sure but when I read the posts I feel like I can tell who was at the game and who was listening on the radio, so the ones agreeing with Edwards are often the ones listening to Edwards on the radio without anyone there challenging what he's saying.

Eg McFadzean, had an absolute nightmare defending, out of position, muscled off the ball when he was in position, couldn't control or pass (almost always a sign of loss of confidence) but this doesn't make him a crap player, it just means that he's either not ready or clearly out of position or both.

Flynn at RB worked. McFadzean at LB didn't.

Ok. What's the alternative? Suggest something positive (I mean Edwards suggest something positive) and try that.

Constructive criticism.

On the plus side for McFadzean, he did put a good ball into the box in the last 5 minutes, which is what I expect he was in the team for.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

I'd say he was being too kind to the rest of them

Re: the back five, to be fair to Freeman, he was the best of a bad bunch at the back and at least kept going and tried to make something happen.

Yes.

We were slow all over the pitch (not everyone - if that makes sense), apart from the start of the second half - but even then even if we'd scored I figured it was only a matter of time before we conceded from another cross.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

I'd say he was being too kind to the rest of them

Re: the back five, to be fair to Freeman, he was the best of a bad bunch at the back and at least kept going and tried to make something happen.

I'd say Freeman looked dangerous going forwards a lot (ok some) of the time, but by about 60 or 70 minutes in he looked knackered, and I don't think he should have.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

I agree that where you sit in the ground dictates who you think played well or poorly, but I think everyone to a man, who attended, would not disagree with anything Keith Edwards said yesterday.

I would, and apparently several others would too.

He doesn't get everything wrong - but he sees a different game from me.

Also maybe it's the destructive negativity. I can't listen to away games, and others have said the same.

 

[crucialkneeligaman]

Unfortunately Keith hasn't had much to favourably comment on in relation to our performances, and much as it hurts he tells it how it is, unpalatable though it may be to some of us.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

he tells it how it is, unpalatable though it may be to some of us.

He tells it how he sees it. I see it very differently. Others do too.

 

[longinthe toothblade]

God only knows why Edwards is attracting so much bile. I was at the game and reading between the lines he doesn't [Edwards] appear to be far wrong.

Not sure about the back four but certainly McE and Long were very poor yesterday - Collins was slightly better [but that's a bit like polishing shit, so to speak]. Didn't function well as a unit which was the main problem.

Midfield were non existent and 'third' to the ball. By and large still too small / lightweight and all too easily knocked off the ball.

Biggest disappointment for me yesterday was up front. We were hapless, clueless and bland.

Still it was the first game and there's clearly room for improvement!

UTB

 

[Thaddeus]

Tuesday night I will be listening to the away commentary

Is there an app for my iPhone that would allow me to do this? I don't go to enough games to know how "right" or "wrong" Edwards is but I'd be very happy to try a different perspective

 

[Pittsburg Blade]

God only knows why Edwards is attracting so much bile. I was at the game and reading between the lines he doesn't [Edwards] appear to be far wrong.

Not sure about the back four but certainly McE and Long were very poor yesterday - Collins was slightly better [but that's a bit like polishing shit, so to speak]. Didn't function well as a unit which was the main problem.

Midfield were non existent and 'third' to the ball. By and large still too small / lightweight and all too easily knocked off the ball.

Biggest disappointment for me yesterday was up front. We were hapless, clueless and bland.

Still it was the first game and there's clearly room for improvement!

UTB

Long wasn't just poor yesterday, he was a disaster. His confidence was completely shot and he should have been replaced at half time.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

God only knows why Edwards is attracting so much bile. I was at the game and reading between the lines he doesn't [Edwards] appear to be far wrong.

Not sure about the back four but certainly McE and Long were very poor yesterday - Collins was slightly better [but that's a bit like polishing shit, so to speak]. Didn't function well as a unit which was the main problem.

Midfield were non existent and 'third' to the ball. By and large still too small / lightweight and all too easily knocked off the ball.

Biggest disappointment for me yesterday was up front. We were hapless, clueless and bland.

Still it was the first game and there's clearly room for improvement!

UTB

Even if you hadn't said so I could've told you were at the game. Foxy too.

I reckon those listening to Edwards without another opinion were focused on the defence but it was much more than that.

Also overall Collins played well (and I bet no-one listening would think that) but as has been talked about elsewhere his attitude was destructive. Oh, and he hammered the ball into his own net.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Long wasn't just poor yesterday, he was a disaster. His confidence was completely shot and he should have been replaced at half time.

Agreed. I did wonder at the time if Adkins would do that. Was it a bad call not to? (Genuine Question.) Was Long to blame for the third, just his indecisiveness spreads to the defence? Not to blame for the fourth though.

 

[ilovesufc]

I don't really get all this - when I listen on the radio to away games, Edwards views seem to largely back up what people who've been to the game say about it. But of course I don't hear what he says when I've been so can't comment on that. Yesterday he didn't just focus on the defence, he also commented about midfield being ineffective and the supply to the front players being useless. Also. I totally agree with him that McFadzean is not good enough (in any position) and should've been moved on ages ago.

 

[Pittsburg Blade]

Agreed. I did wonder at the time if Adkins would do that. Was it a bad call not to? (Genuine Question.) Was Long to blame for the third, just his indecisiveness spreads to the defence? Not to blame for the fourth though.

Yes it was a bad call. But I'll forgive Adkins as it was his first game for us. Probably wouldn't have affected the result anyway. The whole team was badly selected and prepared.