That's very kind of you.
How any exponent of serious discussion could read 'it was pleasing that we hoofed a bit' in any way other than its plain terms is a mystery I cannot fathom. You asked for examples. There were plenty. You wriggle.
That post was actually made after my initial reply to you, but in any case it does not prove your imaginary point. You've taken the first part of the sentence and conveniently ignored that last part.
The full sentence was "But in essence it was pleasing that we hoofed a bit but we're also better than them on the ground."
Does that show that the poster is (to use your terms) an exponent of hoof? Really? So the fact that he was pleased that we hoofed
a bit, (not all game or even the majority of the game, but just a bit) and states we were better than them on the ground shows he loves hoof. That is quite a stretch. We obviously aren't allowed to be pleased that we mixed up our approach a bit and tried a bit of variation.
Now, lets have a look at the other 'evidence' that you have quoted:
less faffing about with short passes
#1
This was in the context of us having crossed quicker and thereby created more chances, rather than playing one or two passes too many and the chance(s) disappearing. Again, quite a stretch to conclude that this shows the poster to be a 'hoof' worshipper.
I don't care if we have 70% of the ball or 30% of the ball as long as we still create chances.
#12
Please explain how this equates to 'hoof'.
Leicester City won the premier league only a couple of years ago and in many of their matches they had significantly less possession than the sides they beat. How many games did they lose that season? They often played a counter attacking style and a notable side to their play was how quickly and efficiently they moved the ball forwards.
I can only conclude that you must hate the fact that we beat Brentford because, after all, we only had 34% possession, created numerous chances and scored 3 goals away from home.
When I played Sunday pub league yonks ago we did this, it can be very effective.
#16
Now lets look at the full post from which this very short and selective extract has been taken :
"We saw it last night for the 3rd goal and could do it more often instead of all this less successful over playing and floated ball to nowhere stuff. Make progress down the channels, early ball in hard, fast and on the deck to a player running in around the penalty spot.
If its delivered well our player can hit it first time and just has to choose which side to put it, keeper can't come for it and does well to save it if on target and hit firmly.
Doesn't need Messi levels of skill and its not hoof its intelligent low/moderate skill football.
When I played Sunday pub league yonks ago we did this, it can be very effective."
Really proves your point doesn't it...………….or perhaps not.
Taking a chance on an earlier ball rather than trying to get the perfect pass.
#26
He was agreeing with the original poster when he noted that against Brentford we seemed to get our crosses in a bit earlier and had a degree of success in doing so.
This equates to hoof?? Explanation please.
Yes, I have asked for examples. You have provided none. I think it is you who wriggles.
