Chris being too clever again?

[Barney]

Oh I’m sure that the young lad in the army would be able to go on the 90 minute run, doesn’t mean he’s going to be breaking his personal best though.

The same can be said about footballers. They’d be able to go out and play 3 games in a week, does mean they’re going to be at their very best or most effective for all 3 games. I’m sure this is what Wilder was thinking about when he decided to put some fresh legs in.

I see your point, but where we differ is on recovery times. How long would you say it takes for a 20 year old lad, in the prime of his life, to fully recover from 90 minutes of exercise? I'm no doctor or sports scientist, but taking a guess, I'd say anywhere from a day to 2 days maximum. Being a professional athlete on top of that should shorten it down further. Obviously you disagree and we can agree to disagree I have no problem with that.

 

[LJBlade]

I see your point, but where we differ is on recovery times. How long would you say it takes for a 20 year old lad, in the prime of his life, to fully recover from 90 minutes of exercise? I'm no doctor or sports scientist, but taking a guess, I'd say anywhere from a day to 2 days maximum. Being a professional athlete on top of that should shorten it down further. Obviously you disagree and we can agree to disagree I have no problem with that.

Back when I was a 20 year old it probably took me a couple of days to recover but then I wasn’t playing at the same intensity that Brooks has done for the past week. There’s also the fact that he won’t be used to playing to that intensity week in week out. Like you say you aren’t a sport scientist and neither am I but Wilder has those types of people around him. Do you think he dropped Brooks without having what he thought was a good reason to do so?

 

[pommpey]

Okay. Here's summat for your pipe.

In #12 I say

Wouldn't worry about it.

Bit pissed off we appear to have rested Brooksy for Wales. Fuck Wales. If he's knackered for that, no concern of ours. He won't play a full game for them anyway, if at all.

But Wilder will sort it. Its a loss. Teams lose at football now and again.

I'll trade where we are for where I thought we'd be at this stage of the season.

Now I'm sure even if you have been drinking, you'll agree with me that that is hardly negative. Note the term 'appear to have', not 'have'. Note also the final sentence which is hardly grudge-stuff. I know you have a bit of a 'grudge' against me, but we'll overlook that. You're getting nowhere. Note also, beyond your 'pommpey-sighted-vision' others are criticising Wilder both in and out of the thread. Note, you're not up their arses.

Note in #21

People are suggesting three games in six days is too much for Brooksy and he's been selected for Wales, in our two week break. I couldn't give a fat fuck about Wales, and of his selection. Good luck to him, but maybe we should have had him starting and running at what is an intrinsically shit Forest defence today. He won't get a full 90 for Wales anyway, if at all.

Unfortunate loss. But not the end of the world.

Again, hardly 'negative', is it, petal? But hang on, in #40 you say:

I’m saying that Wilder thought he needed a rest and that had nothing to do with Wales.

So, you say with overarching qualification something of 'fact'. This isn't 'logic'. It's something you say you know, rather than something you have worked out from 'logic'. So I challenge you to come up with WYHDB? You can't. So now your even more crosser. Grrr, etc. And so it continues. You trying to fifteen two me and me saying 'show me your hand'.

Neither of us know the truth, its plain to see. But you're still mad as hell because pommpey appears to be moaning and this is your big chance to one-nil him. Fail on both accounts.

As said, if you have any inside track on Wilder's big plan (which failed) today based on 'fact' rather than your opinion (which you say is 'logic') then sing up. Otherwise, you're wasting your time and are fast disappearing up your own arsehole.

Bored now. If you can't understand that, then I can't help you any more.

pommpey

 

[Kev Gee]

Im guessing he will know more than us after seeing the players in training.

Weve lost a match. No big deal.

 

[LJBlade]

Okay. Here's summat for your pipe.

In #12 I say



Now I'm sure even if you have been drinking, you'll agree with me that that is hardly negative. Note the term 'appear to have', not 'have'. Note also the final sentence which is hardly grudge-stuff. I know you have a bit of a 'grudge' against me, but we'll overlook that. You're getting nowhere. Note also, beyond your 'pommpey-sighted-vision' others are criticising Wilder both in and out of the thread. Note, you're not up their arses.

Note in #21



Again, hardly 'negative', is it, petal? But hang on, in #40 you say:



So, you say with overarching qualification something of 'fact'. This isn't 'logic'. It's something you say you know, rather than something you have worked out from 'logic'. So I challenge you to come up with WYHDB? You can't. So now your even more crosser. Grrr, etc. And so it continues. You trying to fifteen two me and me saying 'show me your hand'.

Neither of us know the truth, its plain to see. But you're still mad as hell because pommpey appears to be moaning and this is your big chance to one-nil him. Fail on both accounts.

As said, if you have any inside track on Wilder's big plan (which failed) today based on 'fact' rather than your opinion (which you say is 'logic') then sing up. Otherwise, you're wasting your time and are fast disappearing up your own arsehole.

pommpey

I’m assuming you meant to reply to me there so I’ll go ahead and answer. I haven’t really read through the whole post because I assume that yet again you haven’t answered the question. I don’t have a grudge against you exactly, I have a grudge against anyone who talks bollocks about my team and doesn’t back it up.

You’re putting a lot of effort into your replies so save yourself some time and just answer the question. Brooks was on the bench. How does that make it appear that we were resting him for Wales?

 

[Ginger Gnome]

Although the initial post was maybe a bit too critical, the way some people act like Wilder can't ever make a mistake and is above even the faintest criticism is ridiculous. He could probably have made changes in midweek to counter the tiredness factor so he didn't have to make so many changes today, plus there's an international break coming up so plenty of time for a rest for most.

Clarke may have had injury concerns, but Donaldson didn't look fit either and lacked the sharpness that might have got us a goal or two. By the time Clarke did come on Forest were camped in their box and we could have done with a poacher like Sharp on the pitch.
Brooks certainly didn't look tired when he came on, so with Clarke out, maybe starting Brooks and taking him off later would have worked out better.
Duffy isn't quite as effective a bit further forward as he is in his usual role.
Lundstram was decent, but doesn't have the same workrate as Duffy or Basham in the middle 3.
Leaving Wright out made us a defensive shambles and Baldock seemed very exposed as Basham was tucking in more than usual.

In the end though, a few changes in midweek might have led to a draw and a couple of different selections today might still only have got us a point, which would have left us worse off than a win and a hard-fought loss have. Even with a side that a lot of people were surprised by, we ran rings around Forest for a lot of the game, so if that's Wilder trying to be too clever, he's still not too far wrong.

 

[Harry's Game]

He had a similar blip last year with a changed team. Agree? Disagree? Discuss.

Delete your account.

 

[Isaw Joeshaw]

fwiw, I'd put Jake Wright and Paul Coutts onto the team sheet, photocopy x remaining games and then fill it in from there each week. They're the lynchpins of the whole system for me.

(then I'd buy a bottle of tipex only to be used in case of suspension or injury)

I'd go along with that.

I'm always a bit anxious when Wright's name is not on the team sheet. For me, he is the glue which binds the defence together and without him we always look a bit fragmented.

As an example, in all the euphoria following our win at the sty, it seems to have been overlooked that within minutes of him being taken off they came down and scored. Was that a coincidence ? - I don't think so.

Ok, the guy who replaced him scored a wonder goal a few minutes later ( which will give me great joy for a very long time ) but that might not have been necessary had he stayed on the pitch.

 

[Barney]

Back when I was a 20 year old it probably took me a couple of days to recover but then I wasn’t playing at the same intensity that Brooks has done for the past week. There’s also the fact that he won’t be used to playing to that intensity week in week out. Like you say you aren’t a sport scientist and neither am I but Wilder has those types of people around him. Do you think he dropped Brooks without having what he thought was a good reason to do so?

No, he obviously dropped him having what he thought was a good reason to, but what that reason is nobody knows. There's many possible reasons he dropped him, he might have just fancied a change, or maybe thought Brooks wasn't suited to this game.

I could be wrong but I highly doubt a sports scientist has directly consulted Wilder suggesting Brooks be dropped because he needs a rest. If he was dropped due to tiredness it was probably Wilder's decision, and all I'm doing is saying that if that was indeed the case, then I think it's slightly too safe from the gaffer as the young lad would've more than likely been as good as new out there today.

But anyway, Wilder's got about 100 million more things in the "spot on" column as of now, so I don't think this minor little thing matters all that much.

 

[pommpey]

I’m assuming you meant to reply to me there so I’ll go ahead and answer. I haven’t really read through the whole post because I assume that yet again you haven’t answered the question. I don’t have a grudge against you exactly, I have a grudge against anyone who talks bollocks about my team and doesn’t back it up.

Okay. So you won't read through it. Fair enough. It's kinda par for the course and spells out a lot about your line on things. And you have a grudge against people who talk bollocks about your team and won't back it up. Yet when I ask you to back it up, you are mysteriously evasive and forward your 'opinions' and 'assumptions' as 'logic'. You just don't know the truth, do you? The crux of this argument isn't Brooks, or Wales, or Wilder, is it? It's 'pommpey'. You seem also to be monitoring my posts too, which is a bit creepy. If it pisses you off enough, why not just ignore? All I did (see post #12) was say 'it appears', not 'it is'. Dry your eyes.

You’re putting a lot of effort into your replies so save yourself some time and just answer the question. Brooks was on the bench. How does that make it appear that we were resting him for Wales?

Because (in my opinion) Brooks is on the bench and (in my opinion) people have suggested the international break will be another match for him, so he won't benefit from it. Follow the track here ... if that is the case (and nobody is actually saying it is) then fuck Wales.

Now. Time for bed for you. Off you go.

pommpey

 

[pommpey]

No, he obviously dropped him having what he thought was a good reason to, but what that reason is nobody knows. There's many possible reasons he dropped him, he might have just fancied a change, or maybe thought Brooks wasn't suited to this game.

I could be wrong but I highly doubt a sports scientist has directly consulted Wilder suggesting Brooks be dropped because he needs a rest. If he was dropped due to tiredness it was probably Wilder's decision, and all I'm doing is saying that if that was indeed the case, then I think it's slightly too safe from the gaffer as the young lad would've more than likely been as good as new out there today.

But anyway, Wilder's got about 100 million more things in the "spot on" column as of now, so I don't think this minor little thing matters all that much.

Don't moan Barney. You might get shouted at.

pommpey

 

[Harry's Game]

Wilder out.

Nigel Adkins is available.

Nigel Clough has taken Burton as far as he can could be tempted to come here.

What's Danny Wilson doing these days.?



For Fucks Sake

 

[sitwell]

Anybody ever considered mental tiredness? Our manager does see these guys everyday ,Brooks has played only 10 games ,and twice this week in front of over 50k people in 2 massive games. He has also had the press and fans saying hes the new messiah not just a naughty boy ,had an international call up and become the best known young footballer in Sheffield.
But then again Wilder was just being clever apparently according to some idiots

 

[LJBlade]

No, he obviously dropped him having what he thought was a good reason to, but what that reason is nobody knows. There's many possible reasons he dropped him, he might have just fancied a change, or maybe thought Brooks wasn't suited to this game.

I could be wrong but I highly doubt a sports scientist has directly consulted Wilder suggesting Brooks be dropped because he needs a rest. If he was dropped due to tiredness it was probably Wilder's decision, and all I'm doing is saying that if that was indeed the case, then I think it's slightly too safe from the gaffer as the young lad would've more than likely been as good as new out there today.

But anyway, Wilder's got about 100 million more things in the "spot on" column as of now, so I don't think this minor little thing matters all that much.

You don’t think Wilder asks the opinion of sports scientists? I’d be surprised if he doesn’t.

I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying as I agree with everything you’ve said.

As you say he’s got a lot more right than wrong, nobody is perfect

 

[Barney]

Don't moan Barney. You might get shouted at.

pommpey

The two go hand in hand on here.

 

[LJBlade]

Okay. So you won't read through it. Fair enough. It's kinda par for the course and spells out a lot about your line on things. And you have a grudge against people who talk bollocks about your team and won't back it up. Yet when I ask you to back it up, you are mysteriously evasive and forward your 'opinions' and 'assumptions' as 'logic'. You just don't know the truth, do you? The crux of this argument isn't Brooks, or Wales, or Wilder, is it? It's 'pommpey'. You seem also to be monitoring my posts too, which is a bit creepy. If it pisses you off enough, why not just ignore? All I did (see post #12) was say 'it appears', not 'it is'. Dry your eyes.



Because (in my opinion) Brooks is on the bench and (in my opinion) people have suggested the international break will be another match for him, so he won't benefit from it. Follow the track here ... if that is the case (and nobody is actually saying it is) then fuck Wales.

Now. Time for bed for you. Off you go.

pommpey

I seem to be monitoring your posts? Do I? I believe this is the first time we’ve ever discussed things.

I’ve not been evasive. I’ve answered every question you’ve asked. Let’s see if you can do the same. How did it appear that we had dropped Brooks for Wales? If that’s too difficult for you just say so.

 

[oldblade]

Do 20 year olds not get tired? Especially those who aren’t used to playing 3 games in a week?

Nope, you said that it ‘appeared’ that we were resting Brooks for Wales. You never said you assumed we had rested him for Wales.

I’ll try again, how did it appear that we had rested him for Wales?

Again, what did Wilder stand to gain from appeasing Wales?

The difference between your assumptions and mine is that mine are based on logic. i.e a good manager wouldn’t care about another team (as you’ve agreed). I think Wilder is a good manager so he won’t have rested Brooks for the reason you suggest. Your argument is that there couldn’t possibly be any other reason for Brooks being on the bench other than to make Wales happy. If you can’t see the idiocy behind this then I can’t help you.

Do you ever wonder why your initial reaction is to be as negative as possible? It’s quite strange

Point of order. It was actually three games in less than a week (which probably reinforces your point!).

 

[Ricky]

Brooks will only be on the bench for Wales so that will have nothing to do with it.

Having played 84 minutes in a game like Sunday's and then 90 against Wolves, he could have been a bit fatigued. He's never played at that intensity twice within 4 days before.

It's not only about Brooks though, it's about Duffy too. He was only left out for tactical reasons against Wednesday and did well off the bench against them and Wolves. So maybe Wilder felt it was time to start him again.

Duffy could have started with Brooks though, and instead of Lundstram, with a different midfield shape. But I think Wilder felt it was time to start Lundstram too - his selection didn't surprise me too much.

 

[oldblade]

The two go hand in hand on here.

Moaning and shouting go hand in hand. Sounds like we could have the makings of a 1960s pop song lyric............or am I wishin' and hopin'.

 

[pommpey]

I seem to be monitoring your posts? Do I? I believe this is the first time we’ve ever discussed things.

Blimey. You're possibly a bit slow. You have mentioned I 'have a grudge against the club'. Spells out to me you've been holding all of this bitterness in for some time and now its all come out is a right old stampy-foot paddy, hasn't it? Let me clarify. I don't have any grudge against this club. I hope this helps. Again.

I’ve not been evasive. I’ve answered every question you’ve asked.

No you haven't. If you'd read the above detail,I have shown where you haven't answered. But you won't read it. So it's like discussing with a brick.

Let’s see if you can do the same. How did it appear that we had dropped Brooks for Wales? If that’s too difficult for you just say so.

Again, (and pay attention love, eh?) because people suggested, when I asked for example why Wilder didn't start Brooks today and we have an international break is that he needs resting. Resting for what, exactly? Because he is not benefitting from the break because of his Wales call up? Hence 'appear'. See the context, try to understand.

Now, if you can't run your finger under the words on the screen and even with your lips mouthing them, fundamentally comprehend that, then as before, piss off. I'm bored of being trolled by you. You add nowt to the debate and don't answer questions.

Cheerio

pommpey

 

[Barney]

Moaning and shouting go hand in hand. Sounds like we could have the makings of a 1960s pop song lyric............or am I wishin' and hopin'.

I wouldn't know. 1960's? Old blade, you're not kidding...

 

[LJBlade]

Blimey. You're possibly a bit slow. You have mentioned I 'have a grudge against the club'. Spells out to me you've been holding all of this bitterness in for some time and now its all come out is a right old stampy-foot paddy, hasn't it? Let me clarify. I don't have any grudge against this club. I hope this helps. Again.



No you haven't. If you'd read the above detail,I have shown where you haven't answered. But you won't read it. So it's like discussing with a brick.



Again, (and pay attention love, eh?) because people suggested, when I asked for example why Wilder didn't start Brooks today and we have an international break is that he needs resting. Resting for what, exactly? Because he is not benefitting from the break because of his Wales call up? Hence 'appear'. See the context, try to understand.

Now, if you can't run your finger under the words on the screen and even with your lips mouthing them, fundamentally comprehend that, then as before, piss off. I'm bored of being trolled by you. You add nowt to the debate and don't answer questions.

Cheerio

pommpey

Nope, no bitterness towards yourself personally though if you jump to that conclusion maybe that says more about you than me. As far as I know we’ve never ‘discussed’ things on here before.

Like I said I’ve answered all of you questions. You tried your hardest to turn things around on me and I admitted that I don’t know the reason why Brooks was dropped today though. I assumed it was because he needed resting, which makes more sense than Wilder wanted to save him for Wales . If there’s anything else I’ve missed let me know.

Anyway, could you answe the question. How did it appear that we had rested him for Wales?

You can tell me to piss off all you like. I’m sorry I’ve asked such difficult questions of you but it would be nice if you can answer them for once. If you don’t like being ‘trolled’ the don’t talk bollocks.

 

[FinchleyBlade]

I swear some United fans have never seen us lose a game before. At least the reaction when we lose would make you think so.

We deserved to win, or a draw at the very least. That first half performance was outstanding, some of the football we played incredible, yet we went in losing.

It happens. That is football.

Brooks is a young lad who has never played this level of football before and has done two games in a week, that is likely why he was on the bench.

 

[Bellypork]

Three games in a six-day period takes some doing, and I thought Clarke wasn't 100% anyway?

 

[Fanny magnet]

Dropping the front two was fair enough
Duffy was outstanding and wilder wasn't to know Donaldson would e so ineffective he scored two on his last outing after all

The worry is that the defence were all over the place as a unit without Wright in the middle and am starting to think there's too much inexperience maybe drop blacky for Moore as he's a talker and an organiser and although Blackman not done much wrong he is very quiet

Stearman might be back next game and hopefully we won't defend as poorly as that again ,it wasn't just two mistakes we were all over the shop every time they countered which resulted in Coutts booking as he stopped one dangerous attack as well as the two sloppy goals

 

[Martino]

I did not see the game due to work. However I followed it via the Internet and twitter etc. Two years ago if when it went to 2-1 I would have not bothered to listen anymore knowing we would not get anything and loose. Yesterday I followed it intently right to the last kick because I KNEW that whatever team Chris had chosen they would battle to the end and maybe get a result. It's a long time since I felt like that and having that belief.

 

[Pollingtonblade]

We were a inch away from a goal at the end which would have won us a point. So he hasn’t been ‘clever again’ whatever that means.

Wright needs to start every game going forward IMO we just seem more organised.

If anyone can be arsed can they get the stats since Oxford at home last year how we’ve gone on the game after a loss?

 

[Bladesman]

Silly to rest Brooks. I can understand resting Clarke though.

It’s a gamble changing a winning team and I think it backfired yesterday. Losing Baldock didn’t help either.

 

[DaveBassettsgoneonholiday]

For me Wilder and Knill have enough credit in the bank to change things now and again as they see fit.
They know our squad and what's going on behind the scenes player wise better than we do.
Let's be honest, we're all disappointed at the result because we want to hold a position no one in their wildest dreams expected us to have at this point.

 

[Blade59]

Don't think the changes affected our game. Thought we played well but a couple of defensive lapses of concentration cost us two goals (bit like last week). Deserved at the very least a draw and probably a win and on another day a few things would have dropped better for us. Sounds odd but perhaps one of the most enjoyable defeats I have seen albeit frustrating.