We are being mugged off !

[TTS]

My initial post stated it would be a good deal for us if Shaq was scoring or setting them up,He is doing neither after he has featured in the 6 games played.Shaq has had the most minutes out of all the forwards.

Would any of you be fussed if Corr had the same type of deal?.

We sign Barnard(silly signing) and don't even play him,Fagan who I thought looked very good in pre season yet we don't sign him yet the club suddenly find 25000 for a defender!,Holman comes to training and quickly signs for another club.

Every single one of us on here wants the same thing which is moderate success yet we have a manager who perseveres with his game plan which fails again and again,On the rare occasion he opted for 442 with pace we then smashed Oxford 3 0 and we looked very good.The triangle football we play look's pretty but no end product so it all because a vicious circle as Phil seems to be hoping we can pinch a goal from somewhere.

I will give up if Phil plays the same system/players in the JPT.

I am not looking to start a fight, just a couple of points.

- How many games did it take Tomlin to start scoring for us , and what happened when he did break the duck ?
- You cant ask about a Corr "deal". Corr belongs to us, Shaq is a deal from a loan market (that actually you, like I and like many others are not privvy to the contractual elements of such a deal)
- Holman joined a Club above us. PB didnt fancy him. Holman is not starting, nor scoring for a struggling Col U team
- PB has a format that means we dont conceed many goals, again I point you keep ignoring because you want us to win 3-0 every game......
- What happens if PB does keep the same team in JPT and wins ..., will you still "give up". (I actually think that he will make changes .., but lets wait and see shall we).
- Again, just as a case in point, going down to 10 men away from home, after only 15 minutes is difficult. Because managers work all week on a system and way to play in that game, when something happens so early, it is very difficult to juggle and yet try and use the same system. YES OTHER TEAMS INCLUDING US HAVE GONE ON TO WIN WHEN DOWN TO 10 MEN, HOWEVER IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES IT IS DIFFICULT (just in case you bring up again that other teams with 10 men have beaten us ....)

MrsBlue, I admire your idea of the "beautiful game" However, you have a go at people that dare to differ from your opinions. Also, I would say, maybe the titles of your threads are what get peoples backs up "We are being mugged off...." and also the "Barny Secret photo album" come to mind.

 

[mrsblue]

But there was no way of knowing how well he would do prior to him signing.

Then it becomes Russian roulette whenever any club does this sort of deal to Allegedly guarantee first team minutes to any player which when that player does not produce it will ultimately backfire on those who sanctioned such a deal.

 

[dannypav]

My initial post stated it would be a good deal for us if Shaq was scoring or setting them up,He is doing neither after he has featured in the 6 games played.Shaq has had the most minutes out of all the forwards.

Would any of you be fussed if Corr had the same type of deal?.

We sign Barnard(silly signing) and don't even play him,Fagan who I thought looked very good in pre season yet we don't sign him yet the club suddenly find 25000 for a defender!,Holman comes to training and quickly signs for another club.

Every single one of us on here wants the same thing which is moderate success yet we have a manager who perseveres with his game plan which fails again and again,On the rare occasion he opted for 442 with pace we then smashed Oxford 3 0 and we looked very good.The triangle football we play look's pretty but no end product so it all because a vicious circle as Phil seems to be hoping we can pinch a goal from somewhere.

I will give up if Phil plays the same system/players in the JPT.

Don't you go making these statements and then going back on them will you.....

 

[Parold]

Then it becomes Russian roulette whenever any club does this sort of deal to Allegedly guarantee first team minutes to any player which when that player does not produce it will ultimately backfire on those who sanctioned such a deal.

The deal you originally mentioned did not guarantee minutes, but implied we would incur a cost should he not get the required game time. What makes you so sure we wouldn't pay the fee if PB felt it would benefit the team?

 

[mrsblue]

The deal you originally mentioned did not guarantee minutes, but implied we would incur a cost should he not get the required game time. What makes you so sure we wouldn't pay the fee if PB felt it would benefit the team?

Look at the best scenario,
Shaq suddenly scores for fun we go top of the table then Spurs recall him and we are once again looking for somebody to score so in realty these loan deals only benefit the player and parent club.

Would this club pay any penalty fee I have no idea as it depends on the percentage we would forfeit .

 

[Lord Football]

I like reading threads like this one.

It reinforces the fact that I am still somewhat sane.

 

[chapperzUK]

Look at the best scenario,
Shaq suddenly scores for fun we go top of the table then Spurs recall him and we are once again looking for somebody to score so in realty these loan deals only benefit the player and parent club.

Would this club pay any penalty fee I have no idea as it depends on the percentage we would forfeit .

That is just a scenario though.

 

[Beefy]

We sign Barnard(silly signing) and don't even play him

A week ago you were complaining that Barnard plays too much and must have incriminating photos of the manager.

 

[onceknownasrab]

I am not looking to start a fight, just a couple of points.

- How many games did it take Tomlin to start scoring for us , and what happened when he did break the duck ?
- You cant ask about a Corr "deal". Corr belongs to us, Shaq is a deal from a loan market (that actually you, like I and like many others are not privvy to the contractual elements of such a deal)
- Holman joined a Club above us. PB didnt fancy him. Holman is not starting, nor scoring for a struggling Col U team
- PB has a format that means we dont conceed many goals, again I point you keep ignoring because you want us to win 3-0 every game......
- What happens if PB does keep the same team in JPT and wins ..., will you still "give up". (I actually think that he will make changes .., but lets wait and see shall we).
- Again, just as a case in point, going down to 10 men away from home, after only 15 minutes is difficult. Because managers work all week on a system and way to play in that game, when something happens so early, it is very difficult to juggle and yet try and use the same system. YES OTHER TEAMS INCLUDING US HAVE GONE ON TO WIN WHEN DOWN TO 10 MEN, HOWEVER IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES IT IS DIFFICULT (just in case you bring up again that other teams with 10 men have beaten us ....)

MrsBlue, I admire your idea of the "beautiful game" However, you have a go at people that dare to differ from your opinions. Also, I would say, maybe the titles of your threads are what get peoples backs up "We are being mugged off...." and also the "Barny Secret photo album" come to mind.

I agree and disagree.

Point 1. Yes it took Tomlin time to score but barring our first two games other players were scoring which took some of the pressure of him.

Point 2. Yes PB likes a solid defense but one look at the amount of chances we create tells you we are not a negative side. It is the volume of chances that is the issue because with so many there should be a greater return of goals.

Point 3. Of course it is difficult when you go down to 10 men but again we created 12 chances and never so much as got a consolation. Very poor.

The truth is PB has a poor record of getting our main strikers to score and an equally poor record at changing a misfiring line up. It only needs tweaking but it cant be left to continue.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

I agree and disagree.

Point 1. Yes it took Tomlin time to score but barring our first two games other players were scoring which took some of the pressure of him.

Point 2. Yes PB likes a solid defense but one look at the amount of chances we create tells you we are not a negative side. It is the volume of chances that is the issue because with so many there should be a greater return of goals.

Point 3. Of course it is difficult when you go down to 10 men but again we created 12 chances and never so much as got a consolation. Very poor.

The truth is PB has a poor record of getting our main strikers to score and an equally poor record at changing a misfiring line up. It only needs tweaking but it cant be left to continue.

This is a very good point. 12 chances with only 10 men. Although I think only 2 or 3 were on target, we are still creating chances and if we had the striker we all want, a Tubbs type player, maybe one of those chances would have been converted and Plymouth would have played a different style.

Ultimately, we haven't got the instinctive type striker who will get on the end of things and maybe would have got us a draw on Saturday rather than losing

 

[Bielzibubz]

What I find most surprising about this thread not that it's got to 91 posts but that the original poster has a Mrs in her moniker, truly astonishing :smiles:

Seriously though, and leaving aside the slightly sarky comments. PB is a professional manager of a professional football club and his one and only remit is to get the Blues out of this God awful division and build a team that can compete on a weekly basis both home and away and as such does anyone seriously think that he won't hesitate to drop ANY player, regardless of contractual penalties (if indeed there are any) if that player isn't producing the goods consistently?

If you seriously think that PB would jeopardize the success of the team and go against his better judgement and wishes to fulfil an alleged agreement between the two clubs then your quite simply deluded. No professional manager worth his salt would and to suggest otherwise is to seriously question the man's integrity. Simple as that.

 

[mrsblue]

This is a very good point. 12 chances with only 10 men. Although I think only 2 or 3 were on target, we are still creating chances and if we had the striker we all want, a Tubbs type player, maybe one of those chances would have been converted and Plymouth would have played a different style.

Ultimately, we haven't got the instinctive type striker who will get on the end of things and maybe would have got us a draw on Saturday rather than losing

Agreed,

The interesting thing which we all learnt was Prosser's Echo article where Luke explained they had been defending all week with 8 players in training now no disrespect to Plymouth they are no world beaters yet we practiced all week in keeping them out!

I take we don't practice attacking play then?

 

[Beefy]

This is a very good point. 12 chances with only 10 men. Although I think only 2 or 3 were on target, we are still creating chances and if we had the striker we all want, a Tubbs type player, maybe one of those chances would have been converted and Plymouth would have played a different style.

What type of player is this? I've watched Tubbs a few times. He's a carbon-copy of Lee Barnard.

We've a number of different types of striker here. We've a target man, a poacher, we've even got a number of pacy, hungry strikers.

Perhaps the problem isn't who is up front.

 

[onceknownasrab]

What I find most surprising about this thread not that it's got to 91 posts but that the original poster has a Mrs in her moniker, truly astonishing :smiles:

Seriously though, and leaving aside the slightly sarky comments. PB is a professional manager of a professional football club and his one and only remit is to get the Blues out of this God awful division and build a team that can compete on a weekly basis both home and away and as such does anyone seriously think that he won't hesitate to drop ANY player, regardless of contractual penalties (if indeed there are any) if that player isn't producing the goods consistently?

If you seriously think that PB would jeopardize the success of the team and go against his better judgement and wishes to fulfil an alleged agreement between the two clubs then your quite simply deluded. No professional manager worth his salt would and to suggest otherwise is to seriously question the man's integrity. Simple as that.

Believe it or not professional managers make mistakes, are capable of misjudgments and it is not about integrity. They may well believe they are right but that does not mean they are. I am sure the Col Ewe manager never intentionally messed up but he is out on his ear today. That's football.

 

[Beefy]

Believe it or not professional managers make mistakes, are capable of misjudgments and it is not about integrity. They may well believe they are right but that does not mean they are. I am sure the Col Ewe manager never intentionally messed up but he is out on his ear today. That's football.

I think that Bielzibubz's point was that Phil Brown wouldn't play any player ahead of an alternative based on a contractual agreement and thereby jeapardise what he is working towards (promotion) as opposed to suggesting that PB is infallible.

 

[Bielzibubz]

You misunderstand squire.

I not daft enough to think that managers don't make mistakes. The original poster implies that PB is making intentional selection decisions based on the alleged contents of a loan agreement. To imply that is to question the man's integrity as a professional football manager. That was my point. Not whether he makes mistakes or not.



Edit, Thank you Beefy ;)

 

[Jam_Man]

A week ago you were complaining that Barnard plays too much and must have incriminating photos of the manager.

Indeed, this is getting very very repetitive and very very boring and to be honest its putting me off actually coming on the Zone and Im meant to be moderating it.

We had comments about Barnard having a clause in his contract, obviously nonsense.

We had the same with Woodrow, he had to start games. Then he wasnt starting so 'he had to get on the pitch', then he didnt even get on, again nonsense.

So now we lose a game where Bolger stupidly get sent off now Shaq is the scapegoat and conspiracy target.

Maybe Phil thought he was the best player to put on because he was pacy? Thats all we need after all.

Personally I havent been impressed with him, but that doesnt mean Brown is being forced into playing him.

 

[Feathers]

I agree and disagree.

Point 1. Yes it took Tomlin time to score but barring our first two games other players were scoring which took some of the pressure of him.

Point 2. Yes PB likes a solid defense but one look at the amount of chances we create tells you we are not a negative side. It is the volume of chances that is the issue because with so many there should be a greater return of goals.

Point 3. Of course it is difficult when you go down to 10 men but again we created 12 chances and never so much as got a consolation. Very poor.

The truth is PB has a poor record of getting our main strikers to score and an equally poor record at changing a misfiring line up. It only needs tweaking but it cant be left to continue.

This for me is the crux of the issue. Last year we were for most of the season solid at the back but generally failed to create chances. This therefore put a high premium on converting the few chances we did make.

This season we remain solid at the back but are creating a lot more chances. Like you I agree that this does not equate to us being a negative side.

Compared to this time last season I believe we have made progress; in addition to creating more we also seem to be retaining possession a lot better. At the moment we are failing to convert so these improvements are not being translated into points.

Tweaks and improvments can always be made but I cannot see the need for wholesale changes. If we stop creating (or continue to waste chances) then that is the time to consider a greater change in personnel.

 

[mrsblue]

You misunderstand squire.

I not daft enough to think that managers don't make mistakes. The original poster implies that PB is making intentional selection decisions based on the alleged contents of a loan agreement. To imply that is to question the man's integrity as a professional football manager. That was my point. Not whether he makes mistakes or not.



Edit, Thank you Beefy ;)[/


Tell us what our untried players lack that Shaq has got?Remember Woodrow where Phil even told the media no such playing time deal was involved,Why would Phil even bother explaining if it was so ridiculous .Somebody else told me about Shaq's loan deal so I am just the messenger yet I believe this deal exists.

I suggest budget restraints are the key.

 

[Blue_Wes]

I am not looking to start a fight, just a couple of points.

- How many games did it take Tomlin to start scoring for us , and what happened when he did break the duck ?
- You cant ask about a Corr "deal". Corr belongs to us, Shaq is a deal from a loan market (that actually you, like I and like many others are not privvy to the contractual elements of such a deal)
- Holman joined a Club above us. PB didnt fancy him. Holman is not starting, nor scoring for a struggling Col U team
- PB has a format that means we dont conceed many goals, again I point you keep ignoring because you want us to win 3-0 every game......
- What happens if PB does keep the same team in JPT and wins ..., will you still "give up". (I actually think that he will make changes .., but lets wait and see shall we).
- Again, just as a case in point, going down to 10 men away from home, after only 15 minutes is difficult. Because managers work all week on a system and way to play in that game, when something happens so early, it is very difficult to juggle and yet try and use the same system. YES OTHER TEAMS INCLUDING US HAVE GONE ON TO WIN WHEN DOWN TO 10 MEN, HOWEVER IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES IT IS DIFFICULT (just in case you bring up again that other teams with 10 men have beaten us ....)

MrsBlue, I admire your idea of the "beautiful game" However, you have a go at people that dare to differ from your opinions. Also, I would say, maybe the titles of your threads are what get peoples backs up "We are being mugged off...." and also the "Barny Secret photo album" come to mind.

Like Jamman and I supsect others, MrsBlue is pretty much the sole reason I stay away from this site after a match day. I appreciate fully that people's opinions differ, and many people view the game from alternative perspective's. It's the beauty of the game, and a forum board - it's fun to argue the finer points of the game with your fellow fans. But the relentless negative flooding of the board, both here and around England drains the enjoyment from this site. The hypocrosy of the 'zzzzzzzzzzzz' posts, childish thread title's whilst getting on her high horse threatening to block people who dare to disagree with an element of humour or logic in their posts (Chapperz & ESB spring to mind) make trying to debate with her akin to banging your head against a brick wall in every thread. How can you enjoy a debate with someone that ignores any point made by posters that dare to differ whilst just repeating the same old tripe that can't be proven or has been proven false?

So it's so nice to see a post like your own that actually bring some element of sanity to these threads, well thought out, reasonable and unlike myself and a few other frustrated posters, able to do so elequantly and without **** taking.

I wasn't actually aware you could put posters on ignore until she mentioned it. Mods could someone PM me around how to do this please. It'll make my Zone experience a better place.