Negative Nigel - Really? Some Evidence

[AlBlade]

I'm not sure why you quoted me?

Isn't the point that you don't need stats to tell you if you went home entertained or not?

There's no amount of stats that Blade too long can dig up from Spain that will convince a car load of bored supporters on the journey home from BDTBL.

UTB

I tend to agree alco, no amount of stats can make up for the fact that aside from 3 or 4 games this season, pretty much all Blades performances this season have been dull, devoid of any real quality, and disappointing. We may have had a lot of shots, but let's not kid ourselves that these were "chances", when most of them troubled the corner flag more than the opposition keeper. The "negative" label I think stems purely from the fact that we seem happy to draw or scrape a win against teams that we should be putting under sustained pressure and beating comfortably, and that the team is set up with very little real attacking intent.

Ultimately, this season has been a massive disappointment, performances and results have got worse this season than they were in the second half of last season, and this is despite Clough being given funds to bring in players. No amount of stats can contradict that this season has simply not been good enough. Trot out all the statistics you want, but you can't polish a turd - although Clough seems to think you can roll it in glitter to add a bit of sparkle!!!

 

[Bergen Blade]

Lies, damn lies and all that. We're third in the number of 'corners'. Means naff all if we can't take them. Mind, only Crewe have given fewer fouls away, so we must be doing something right. Right?

Well, third in the number of corners, but scoring very few from them - I think it's a valuable stat and tells us it's something we need to get better at. It would surprise me if we weren't one of the shortest teams in the entire league.

We are the 19th best foulers and are getting the most free kicks - suggesting that we're being bullied? Or that opposition teams are happy to give away little fouls as it ruins the flow of our game, reduces the impact of our skillful players, and they know that we're poor at set pieces, again due to our lack of height.

 

[Punk Blade]

The OP was about Clough not being negative - given that we are creating "a hatful of chances" that would seem to be something you agree with.

As stated previously you can win or lose one match for any number of reasons.

I am contesting the point that goals scored is the only statistic that counts. It's almost meaningless to generalise from one game but in terms of long term prospects it is at least arguable that it is better to play well and lose than play badly and win. You can't play well every week and lose, similarly you can't play badly every week and win.

My point was that debating the merits of labelling Nigel and his tactics as 'negative' is pointless. What is relevant is that as a style it is not entertaining and not producing the results our (collectively fans, players, staff and board) expect and demand this season.

If you want to argue that more than goals count (and give up now, it's a fact backed up by the laws of the game) you've picked a poor argument there. Playing badly and winning is how you win trophies. Playing well and losing is how you get relegated. Give me three points every time.

 

[Hodgyman]

Hang on. He said "seen those games out" how is that positive or negative?

Only looking for 1 point in home games against poor opposition is negative. We should play as if we want all 3, that's being positive.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Number of shots in a game means nothing
Number of shots on target is more significant but that will exclude any that hit the post (without intervention) as by definition they are not on target
However, the number of times the keeper is worked is highly significant
If the keeper never gets "worked" or is "worked" once or twice a game then the maximum you can score is 2. If you don't convert either of those or only one of those then you either have to keep a clean sheet to win or concede fewer than 2 to retain a point - all very basic, obviously, but that seems to be what is being forgotten when these types of meaningless stats are bandied about to disprove a perception that the team is under performing (my take on negative).

Stating that we have had x or y shots during a game proves neither a positive or a negative approach
Nor does possession stats - you can have 80% possession and be raining chances on the oppo goal or you could have that same possession percentage and have no goal mouth action to shout about - it means absolutely nothing.

It's true that if you don't shoot you don't score but if your shots are off target or of poor quality then you won't score either.
The only real measure of how attacking and how positive you are is the number of times the oppo keeper is called into action and strangely enough the more the oppo keeper is called on to make telling saves the more enjoyable the game is. This is true regardless of the result as well. Win lose or draw, if your team has put in a real effort, worked the oppo gk several times, their keeper has had a blinder or you have just been unlucky or you have been sunk by a piece of brilliance I can accept that and enjoy the spectacle as it is. But let's face it none of that happens in the vast majority of our games this season, has it?

It's a futile exercise to try to persuade everyone that this many shots and that many shots demonstrates we are an attacking and positive team - it does nothing of the sort. Most people know instinctively when they have been entertained and the majority of people feel entertained when they have got out of their seats plenty of times in a match when we are very close to scoring. I don't get out of my seat and applaud a string of sideways and backwards passes that end up with us giving possession away but if that led to a goal scoring opportunity where we either scored or the keeper pulled off a save then I would.

I'm not gullible, I'm not alarmist, I'm not hyper critical either but I have seen and played and coached enough to understand what is significant or not in a football game. Regardless of that the collective fan base feels when the wool is being pulled over their eyes and knows when the product is sub standard or not. The sad truth is that we have not been dominating teams by putting them under the cosh on a relentless and regular basis like many of our nearest competitors have, MKD, Swindon, Bristol C and Preston - and the comparison is there for all to see in the points difference and the goal difference. Yet we should have. The squad size, the resources, the quality we know is in this group of players all suggests we should have been doing just this. We have seen the quality with our own eyes and teams working at far higher levels in the league than we are have experienced it. So why not those teams lower down in this division?

Players or Clough?
Motivated or complacent?
Afraid or inspired?

What I see is this - playing a cup game against higher opposition - nothing expected, pressure off, no motivation needed as it's a relatively glamorous tie. Tactics set up to absorb pressure and counter attack - bloody good record on this count. We may not dominate possession nor do we have bundles of chances to test the oppo keeper but when we break or step it up a gear we can compete with teams operating much higher than we are.

Contrast Fleetwood, Peterborough, Preston in the FA Cup, Oldham, Walsall, Crewe, MKD, Barnsley in a slump of a run, there are so many - we don't appear to have the quality to overcome these teams - yet we know it's there - we have seen it. Now it is the players own motivation? Is it the quality of player in the squad? It could be - but players who were performing for other teams have come in and once acclimatised seem to be be drifting away again. We seem stifled and low on energy, the tempo is very low yet they persist with a variation of the passing game that is lethargic and so obviously ineffective as a result - substitutions too late in a game - like for like changes (defender for defender - defensive midfielder on for an attacking player - top scorer gets 5 mins a game IF he's lucky) - that's got nowt to do with players. The only one that has to do with a player is the one where Murphy sparkles or not. If he does we get a decent result if he doesn't then we are poor. It cannot be that simple, surely. That means we are playing to a system - a rigid system - an uncompromising system that allows little or no variation or woe betide you - and you can tell the fear is there, it's palpable. - It didn't start from the fans - the displeasure being voiced is a result of 1. no entertainment, 2. the same mistakes being repeated and 3. the obvious under performing compared to expectation.

So, don't blow smoke up my arse - I know when we are good and I can sure as hell tell when we are not performing to a decent standard.
And this season, despite still being 5th at this late stage is already a huge disappointment and looks as though it is going to get worse.

I have lost all confidence that Clough has it in his locker to succeed in this campaign, despite the heavy backing from the board, and we are all watching on feeling pretty helpless as the beard fuelled promotion train grinds to a halt in the station marked "A fifth term - are you fucking with me?"

Loads of good points, but I think the stats available are actually supporting your opinion. Over the full season we're eighth in terms of attempted shots. We are sixth in terms of attempted shots against us (i.e. the team having the least amount of shots against them are top). We're the sixth highest scorers and 8th in terms of conceding fewest. For us the stats correlates pretty well where we are in the table and how good we've been overall this season. Most will feel it's been disappointing, worse than we hoped for.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

The bottom line is, and we've been saying it all season, is that Nigel doesn't know what his best team is. We've struggled for goals all season yet Done and McNuts are on the bench. We've been crying out for a presence up front all season and now we have it, we don't play any strikers off him but rely on support from an ever changing midfield. The defence, similarly, has been ever-changing and it's no wonder we can't find any consistency.

The key to last season's run was a settled side and whilst I have sympathy for Clough with the injuries we've had, we still seem to be in pre-season mode looking for the winning formula which is not what you want at this stage. Is it nerves, negativity, lack of ability, luck, probably a mixture of everything.

Re this 'everyone's cup final' at the Lane, that may be the case but the best teams overcome this which is why the Chelseas, Barcelonas etc find a way. OK, they have world class players that can turn games but can anyone say that relatively speaking, with the players we've got man for man that we should be losing these home games ?

I'd agree with the opening paragraph and Clough is difficult to defend at times but watching England tonight I can't help but think Clough would make a good England manager.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Apologies if I'm being a bit thick but what do you actually mean by "recycling possession?"

Losing 2-1 to Crewe.

 

[Scotty P]

Poor attacking.
Poor set pieces.
Poor Defending Set pieces.
Poor Runs from midfield.
Poor final ball.

Mix that with players who cant be arsed to run into space for throw-ins and sub's that see us aiming for a fucking point against crewe.


Only positives in my opinion is that Matty Done and Mcnulty have done well in terms of been upfront on there own and converting chances into goals. (Now Mcnulty cant seem to get on the pitch)

Call him "negative" or whatever you like but either way Clough's got problems throughout the team. A teams he has assembled and spent money on.. And he's looking like he hasn't got a clue how to fix it.

A Worrying Blade.

 

[Cyprus Blade]

Hang on. He said "seen those games out" how is that positive or negative?

Firstly NC's comments that folk might take it negatively implies that he is aware that what he is about to say could be taken that way. Its really the first time I have noticed such an acknowledgement by him and an indication that the heat is being turned up on him.

What he goes on to say is nothing new - my priority is not to lose, anything else is a bonus and we protect the point we have at the expense of pushing on for 3 points ie 1 point is better than 0 points which is true, if somewhat unambitious, because 3 points is better than 1. You can suffer last gasp winners against you even if you have fallen back to defend the point as we have seen too many times this season. Indeed its arguable that by dropping back you invite them on to you and increase the risk.

To my mind there are circumstances when you do take the point - eg a draw on Saturday is much better for us than them and times when you push on and take a risk eg Crewe (and various degrees within that depending on the opposition, the way the game has gone etc). That's NC's job to determine that line. I would have hoped for at least more recognition from him that we SHOULD be beating teams like Crewe and that the aim is to WIN these matches not just to avoid defeat in them. Instead there seems this persistent focus (regardless of the opposition) on keeping the point we started with, not really changing the game plan other than to pull players back to defend, whereas a more positive manager would look to push on for the three points. I'm not sure whether this is his nature or he lacks confidence in his defence and has run out of ideas in attack.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

I think the battle over whether we should label Nigel or his tactics as negative is disguising the real issues. I see two major problems:

We are horribly wasteful in the final third. A goalscoring opportunity becomes a miss, and from a position to create a goalscoring opportunity we create a corner or have a mis-hit cross. This isn't perceived as problematic by the players (I dare say the staff may not see it this way) because they know we will have more of the ball and these opportunities will come around again, several times, in the match. What we then find is by full time we've had two dozen situations where the 'final ball', be it the pass or cross or the shot itself, isn't good enough and we have a grand total of zero goals to show for those opportunities. Scunthorpe aside, we tend to get one right per home game. In contrast, the opposition (especially when they come to BDTBL) know their chances will be few, maybe even only one. So from their handful of good situations they make the most out of it and score once or twice, which is often enough to avoid defeat because we are so wasteful.

The other problem I see addresses the negativity argument more directly. The common perceptions on this thread are that we pass it sideways and backwards (or 'recycle possession' to use modern parlance) and the opposition immediately drop all eleven behind the ball when we get it. These don't go well together for the possession team. Or at least they don't when the possession team is a third division team. I don't agree that it's relative. Ask yourself if the best defenders in the world can tackle and block better than third division defenders to the same degree that Ronaldo and Messi can dribble, pass and shoot better than Murphy and Baxter. Keeping possession and attempting to break teams down as if we are Real Madrid playing against Espanyol is downright stupid. My real point is this: we are renowned for our ability to pin a team in their own box in the last ten minutes if we are losing, or drawing against weaker opposition, when they drop off to defend with eleven behind the ball. Hang on a minute, aren't they doing that for the preceding 80 minutes? So why can't we put teams under pressure and make them crack before the last ten minutes? Because we knock it sideways and backwards instead of forwards. We only look to play forwards with purpose when we're desperate.

So the answers are fairly simple to my mind. Forget setting up based on the opposition, the players at this level aren't worthy. Spend the week working on improving that 'final ball' and get the ball forward with purpose from the beginning. Worst case scenario is we lose 2-1. Doesn't seem like we've much to lose there.

The only stat that counts is goals. If 90 minutes have been played and the stats read possession 60-40, shots 25-4 and goals 1-2, we've lost the game.

Could have saved a lot of typing Mr Punk - three up front and pass it into the box early.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

No need to apologise! You're new on here and I'm a sarky bastard. You'll learn.

Thought he wer 'ere last season?

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Firstly NC's comments that folk might take it negatively implies that he is aware that what he is about to say could be taken that way. Its really the first time I have noticed such an acknowledgement by him and an indication that the heat is being turned up on him.

What he goes on to say is nothing new - my priority is not to lose, anything else is a bonus and we protect the point we have at the expense of pushing on for 3 points ie 1 point is better than 0 points which is true, if somewhat unambitious, because 3 points is better than 1. You can suffer last gasp winners against you even if you have fallen back to defend the point as we have seen too many times this season. Indeed its arguable that by dropping back you invite them on to you and increase the risk.

To my mind there are circumstances when you do take the point - eg a draw on Saturday is much better for us than them and times when you push on and take a risk eg Crewe (and various degrees within that depending on the opposition, the way the game has gone etc). That's NC's job to determine that line. I would have hoped for at least more recognition from him that we SHOULD be beating teams like Crewe and that the aim is to WIN these matches not just to avoid defeat in them. Instead there seems this persistent focus (regardless of the opposition) on keeping the point we started with, not really changing the game plan other than to pull players back to defend, whereas a more positive manager would look to push on for the three points. I'm not sure whether this is his nature or he lacks confidence in his defence and has run out of ideas in attack.

Big thing I've got with this keep the point we've got malarkey is that winning one and losing one gives you three points whilst keeping the two points you start with gives you two?

 

[Blade56]

Excellent post Kenilworth.

To continue on the theme of 'stats mean nowt', imagine a relegation-threatened team visiting top of the league. The visitors set up to defend in numbers and break on the counter if they can. The game quickly settles into an expected pattern of the home team controlling the ball in the opposition half and creating a succession of half-chances without really testing the goalie. After about 15 minutes one misplaced pass allows the visitors so break swiftly and decisively to take an early lead. No need to panic for the favourites as the game continues as before, with a few more serious chances. The hosts begin to apply a bit more pressure as half time nears in a bid to find the equaliser, but a quick throw out following a corner allows another counter attack to end in a goal. 0-2 at half time.

The second half is played entirely in the visitor's half and all the away team can do is head and kick clear, block and tackle as best they can. They defend well, but clearly the home team will have some clear cut opportunities. The away team ride their luck and the goalie pulls off two impressive double saves. As time runs out the hosts resort to shooting on sight, some easy takes, some blasted high or wide, and some pushed behind for corners.

Full time 0-2.

Stats:

Possession 78-22
Shots 27-3
On target 12-2
Corners 14-0

These stats reflect that the away team took an early lead and had 2-0 to defend for the entirety of the second half, not that the home team was vastly superior and deserved to win.

Ah you mean Fleetwood

 

[Punk Blade]

What he goes on to say is nothing new - my priority is not to lose, anything else is a bonus and we protect the point we have at the expense of pushing on for 3 points ie 1 point is better than 0 points which is true, if somewhat unambitious, because 3 points is better than 1. You can suffer last gasp winners against you even if you have fallen back to defend the point as we have seen too many times this season. Indeed its arguable that by dropping back you invite them on to you and increase the risk.

Two wins and a defeat is better than one win and two draws.

Or 16 wins and 30 defeats is better than 46 draws.

Clough's 'protect the point' is flawed and, frankly, gutless. I still want him in charge for now because all he needs to do is tell the players to get the ball forward with more urgency, but if we fail in the playoffs (again) then he has only himself to blame for never seriously trying for automatic.

 

[Punk Blade]

Ah you mean Fleetwood

Indeed. Perfect example of stats not telling the story of a game.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

I'd agree with the opening paragraph and Clough is difficult to defend at times but watching England tonight I can't help but think Clough would make a good England manager.

I've said for years that England seem to have mirrored the Blades throughout my lifetime, flatter to deceive, under achieve, bottle it when it matters, square pegs round holes etc etc.

I was thinking the same thing last night, 1st half, very pedestrian, no movement, 2nd half change of personnel, quicker tempo, players running at them and hey presto. Interesting that the pundits, to a man, said they were delighted to see a more positive approach in the 2nd half

I need to check with WHF to see what the shot stats were for each half

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

My point was that debating the merits of labelling Nigel and his tactics as 'negative' is pointless.

Pointless or not the intent of the OP was to challenge the Nonsensical Notion of "Negative Nigel". There does seem to be some constructive debate on the manager's, and the team's, actual shortcomings.

If you want to argue that more than goals count (and give up now, it's a fact backed up by the laws of the game) you've picked a poor argument there.

Straw man. This weakens your case considerably. If I wished, similarly, to argue that the sun came out at night that would also weaken my case.

Playing badly and winning is how you win trophies. Playing well and losing is how you get relegated.

This destroys it.

Give me three points every time.

Me too. I don't see the relevance of this. There is no "every time". There's one game where you play well and lose.

In the long term it's better to play well than play badly.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

I've said for years that England seem to have mirrored the Blades throughout my lifetime, flatter to deceive, under achieve, bottle it when it matters, square pegs round holes etc etc.

I was thinking the same thing last night, 1st half, very pedestrian, no movement, 2nd half change of personnel, quicker tempo, players running at them and hey presto. Interesting that the pundits, to a man, said they were delighted to see a more positive approach in the 2nd half

I need to check with WHF to see what the shot stats were for each half

I was watching and the similarities struck me too. (FWIW I gave up watching England about 15-20 years ago but thought I'd have a look when Hodgson took over with promises to try to pass to each other and to play young players. I liked what I saw. I don't watch Division 1 and some of the subs looked, age-wise, like they'd been roped in off the playground.)

BTW going back to the OP: Were England negative - I didn't think so. They misplaced passes (esp the RB and the midfielder Foulkes Jr Sr informs me is from Villa) and to some extent played hesitantly in the first half, but they weren't negative.

I do think for United it's about movement and pace. We put together some good moves in and around the box, enough to get 14 shots on Saturday , but I do think we need to up the tempo. Then again we are Division 3 players - on a bobbly surface - so how fast are we going to play, and how consistently are we going to get it right?

Related to this is leadership, drive, and passion (not the same as effort - I think they try as hard as they can) on the field. There isn't a dominating leadership figure on the pitch rallying the players when, say, we go a goal behind.

I sometimes wonder if this is a natural consequence of playing this type of football: considered football is played by thoughtful players - or something. There are exceptions, all the way through this I've been thinking of a Viera-type player, but, again, we are Division 3.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Indeed. Perfect example of stats not telling the story of a game.

They are not the correct stats though. We had 19 shots, 6 on target. They had 5 shots, 4 on target. 61-39 to us in possession. In any case you are right that isolated stats like that doesn't tell enough of how the match was. Don't expect them too, don't use them that way. Those stats are more valuable when you look at average number of shots over a series of games, and compare them to the rest of the teams. Then you can start seeing trends that can help you identify areas that you've got to improve.

Regarding individual games I think the best way of looking at who deserves to win is counting chances. On average you need three or four real chances to score a goal. As there is an element of subjectivity when it comes to defining what's a real chance, official stats don't tend to show them.

We sometimes hear of teams "getting into good positions, but being let down by poor decision making in the final third". I think that's too vague, just shows that a team's attacking play doesn't quite work.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

I was watching and the similarities struck me too. (FWIW I gave up watching England about 15-20 years ago but thought I'd have a look when Hodgson took over with promises to try to pass to each other and to play young players. I liked what I saw. I don't watch Division 1 and some of the subs looked, age-wise, like they'd been roped in off the playground.)

BTW going back to the OP: Were England negative - I didn't think so. They misplaced passes (esp the RB and the midfielder Foulkes Jr Sr informs me is from Villa) and to some extent played hesitantly in the first half, but they weren't negative.

I do think for United it's about movement and pace. We put together some good moves in and around the box, enough to get 14 shots on Saturday , but I do think we need to up the tempo. Then again we are Division 3 players - on a bobbly surface - so how fast are we going to play, and how consistently are we going to get it right?

Related to this is leadership, drive, and passion (not the same as effort - I think they try as hard as they can) on the field. There isn't a dominating leadership figure on the pitch rallying the players when, say, we go a goal behind.

I sometimes wonder if this is a natural consequence of playing this type of football: considered football is played by thoughtful players - or something. There are exceptions, all the way through this I've been thinking of a Viera-type player, but, again, we are Division 3.

No-one can argue that England weren't more positive in the 2nd half, so, by definition, were less positive in the 1st half

You can be more positive without being necessarily negative in the 1st place and that, I think, is where most of us are coming from. When you have Flynn, Murphy, Baxter, Holt in your midfield, Freeman / Brayford, Harris at full back, there's no excuse for us not to be more forward thinking and a lot quicker in our approach than we have been at times. We sometimes start quickly then retreat if we're in front or don't get going until we've conceded and that seems to be the pattern under Clough.

Yes, a Viera, Toure type captain in midfield is what we need, as I've been saying, a better Michael Doyle. As you say, we're Division 3 though.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

No-one can argue that England weren't more positive in the 2nd half, so, by definition, were less positive in the 1st half

You can be more positive without being necessarily negative in the 1st place and that, I think, is where most of us are coming from. When you have Flynn, Murphy, Baxter, Holt in your midfield, Freeman / Brayford, Harris at full back, there's no excuse for us not to be more forward thinking and a lot quicker in our approach than we have been at times. We sometimes start quickly then retreat if we're in front or don't get going until we've conceded and that seems to be the pattern under Clough.

I get this.

 

[Blade56]

Indeed. Perfect example of stats not telling the story of a game.

The story (just like Crewe) is we lost

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

we're Division 3

That's what some fans need to get their heads round.

 

[YES Blade]

With the size of our budget the expectation for this season can have been nothing other than automatic promotion. Clough had a full pre-season and has signed a huge number of players, spending more than the vast majority of teams in this league could dream of. Anything other than automatic promotion is a failure.

Finishing with a small number of points more than last season when Weir wrecked the first few months can hardly be deemed progress.

2013/2014 - 67 points - 46 games: 1.46 points per game
2014/2015 - 61 points - 39 games: 1.56 points per game

Is anyone really happy with that "progress"?

To add to those stats:

League matches under Clough

2013/2014 - 58 Points - 33 Games: 1.76 points per game
2014/2015 - 61 Points - 39 Games: 1.56 points per game

Again shows that this season can't exactly be classed as progress.

 

[Punk Blade]

Straw man. This weakens your case considerably. If I wished, similarly, to argue that the sun came out at night that would also weaken my case.



This destroys it.

Hard to argue with that.

Me too. I don't see the relevance of this. There is no "every time". There's one game where you play well and lose.

In the long term it's better to play well than play badly.

You said better to play well and lose than play badly and win (yes, yes, in the long term). I disagree. I say it's better to win, full stop (that's me "wanting three points every time").

I'm not sure if you think we have been playing well this season, but we're way beyond the point of trying to play well for a prolonged run of matches and expect good results on average as a result. We're as inconsistent now as we were in August, it's already cost as a shot at automatic promotion and may well cost us a top six finish in a few short weeks. It has probably cost us promotion already as we don't win playoffs and I can't see us hitting any kind of form come May. Patient build up play and looking for single goal victories against poor teams hasn't worked out and has left us pretty embarrassed at times. Some may call the patient build up and looking for a single goal victory approach negative. I don't care how you label it, the only thing that matters to me is that we aren't looking like getting promoted that way and I sincerely doubt it would work out any better next season. That's why I want to see more urgency in getting the ball forward, and intent to actually go out and win a game properly (like we did with great success against Scunthorpe).

Anyway, playing 'well' is subjective. Holding into the ball to create 20 very poor shooting opportunities and failing to score is not playing 'well' in my opinion.

 

[Bladebri]

We are all missing one vital point all negatives can be turned into positives, let's hope that NC and the team do this but we have to take a part it this.

 

[Cyprus Blade]

We are all missing one vital point all negatives can be turned into positives, let's hope that NC and the team do this but we have to take a part it this.

umm- ok I'll buy it - so how do we turn a team of midgets and no centre halves into a strength?

 

[Bladebri]

Well we don't, that part has to come from NC, the negatives we have as fans can be turned into positives on match days, hopefully this will impact on the team and turn any negativity into a positive display,

 

[Lord Bos of Eckington.]

We are all missing one vital point all negatives can be turned into positives, let's hope that NC and the team do this but we have to take a part it this.

I always look at turning any negative into a positive . The positive with lessons learnt , is that we know were we have gone wrong and the season is not yet over . Lets do something about it . However does this apply to the main man , who runs the show .

UTB

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

You said better to play well and lose than play badly and win (yes, yes, in the long term). I disagree. I say it's better to win, full stop (that's me "wanting three points every time").

You dismiss the long term as if its irrelevant, then say full stop, then say every time ie in the long term.

I'll just restate that if you win one game jammily that doesn't bode well for the future no matter how many points that one game gets you.

The actual point being contested was that three points is all that counts. I don't think it is for reasons stated repeatedly. I think I'll leave it at that.

Holding into the ball to create 20 very poor shooting opportunities and failing to score is not playing 'well' in my opinion.

I know the punk ethic is DIY and all that, but I think it's taking things a bit far to keep cobbling together arguments that haven't actually been made and then knocking them down.