We are being mugged off !

[davewebbsbrain]

I have no problem with that whatsoever but there are plenty on here that do at least provide balance. What I have a problem with is people who never say anything positive, every single time you read a post or thread of theirs they are slagging someone off (or the club as a whole). It's difficult to have any respect for these posters when all they do is moan about everything under the sun. They get called out on here a lot by many others and yet they are completely oblivious as to the reasons why. That's what annoys me about the Zone, don't get me wrong it's a fantastic way for SUFC fans to come together but there are some that are nothing but WUM's on here. I guess you can't have one without the other.....

Hopefully we can hit a long winning run soon which will get rid of the WUM's for a while, we certainly have enough about us as a squad to do that.

Amen to that. Hopefully it will all click into place. Will there be moaning on here that we are winning too much then I wonder :smile:

 

[mrsblue]

That reply sums up your posting style, someone replies with what to me looks like reasonable comment and rather than dispute it using facts you just post that.

What didnt you state?

Most of what he said is what I remember and a decent summation of your past 6 months.

You made a massive stink about Holman and we had a discussion at the time when I stated it was purely because of league level and you refused beyond logic to accept that and came up with all these reasons, like length of contract, dragging our feet etc Yet we since signed other players on 2 year deals and even paid 25k for Bolger.

From what I see you form opinions based on form and then just look for facts to fit your opinion at the time and ignore everything else.

I replied because the poster made such a public fuss of how to ignore me then proceeds to want a reply from me.

Holman I asked why he never signed for us so "hardly a massive stink"

For the record,

My only gripes on here has been lack of goals which still continues,Hodgson is a terrible manager for England,Gerrard would be rubbish at the WC,Freddy was finished,Barney won't score many,Woodrow won't score many.

Tell me which of the above I have been wrong .

 

[OldBlueLady]

True my style is not for everyone yet I cannot understand why grown men actually post "mrs blue is putting me off this site"

It's not only grown men that feel like this......:'(

 

[Jam_Man]

I replied because the poster made such a public fuss of how to ignore me then proceeds to want a reply from me.

Holman I asked why he never signed for us so "hardly a massive stink"

You make it sound like one post. You were ranting all over the place about it and making insinuations about dragging our feet, not offering reasonable contracts. All of which had no logic to it

For the record,

My only gripes on here has been lack of goals which still continues,Hodgson is a terrible manager for England,Gerrard would be rubbish at the WC,Freddy was finished,Barney won't score many,Woodrow won't score many.

Tell me which of the above I have been wrong .

See thats it in a nut shell. You say its just a lack of goals. Thats fine.

In the real world what you actually do is then start multiple threads with conspiracy theories about Barnard having some reason to say he has to play and same with Woodrow and now Shaq.

You arent open to reasonable discussion, you just want to rant.

 

[OldBlueLady]

You make it sound like one post. You were ranting all over the place about it.

Exactly. It's constant, repetitive and widely posted.

 

[mrsblue]

You make it sound like one post. You were ranting all over the place about it.

You failed to answer any of my other questions !

Once again tell me where I have been wrong on what I mentioned in my previous post.

 

[chapperzUK]

You failed to answer any of my other questions !

Once again tell me where I have been wrong on what I mentioned in my previous post.

You never made those points, just made up conspiracies because you can't face the fact that people have different opinions to you. You never rated Woodrow so the only logical explanation in your eyes was Brown was being forced to play him and not that he actually rated him as a player.

If you created a thread that actually said "Are we scoring enough?" and gave opinions without having to result to sensationalism and bashing any player who doesn't score 20+ a season or isn't a youth player who did ok in a 5 minute cameo then people will take you more seriously.

You repeat your stats and when I give you some back you ignore them and just churn out the same old stuff again and again.

 

[mrsblue]

You never made those points, just made up conspiracies because you can't face the fact that people have different opinions to you. You never rated Woodrow so the only logical explanation in your eyes was Brown was being forced to play him and not that he actually rated him as a player.

If you created a thread that actually said "Are we scoring enough?" and gave opinions without having to result to sensationalism and bashing any player who doesn't score 20+ a season or isn't a youth player who did ok in a 5 minute cameo then people will take you more seriously.

You repeat your stats and when I give you some back you ignore them and just churn out the same old stuff again and again.

Where are these stats of yours then ?,Show me them and we can debate them!
You claim conspiracies when all I offered apart from funny deals were my opinions which in the main were proved correct.

It's easy when you or jam post stuff which I can either ignore or defend.

Jam said I made a stink about the Holman saga well I just reread the entire thread and in truth it was mainly Jam and myself debating in a decent manner,I certainly IMO never caused any stink just gave my view.Youn

 

[Jam_Man]

You failed to answer any of my other questions !

Once again tell me where I have been wrong on what I mentioned in my previous post.

I did answer it.

Some of the points you make are correct, the reasons and the theories you post are not.

If you post sayinh "We need to score more goals" then Id agree totally. What you actually do is post " Phil Brown goes out to be defensive", which stats show to be wrong, or we only play Barnard,,Woodrow or Shaq because of contracts. You cant stick to the actual issue without ranting and coming up with these theories, then when people give reasonable arguments you ignore them.

The key point that sparks you to post may well have substance but your arguments and posting style rarely have any logic or reason to them and most of the time completely undermine your base opinion.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Like Jamman and I supsect others, XXXXX 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?

Agree entirely.

I had a similar problem a couple of seasons ago with some numpty that could only see negative in Blair Sturrock's play.

 

[Jam_Man]

You failed to answer any of my other questions !

Once again tell me where I have been wrong on what I mentioned in my previous post.

I did answer it.

Some of the points you make are correct, the reasons and the theories you post are not.

If you post sayinh "We need to score more goals" then Id agree totally. What you actually do is post " Phil Brown goes out to be defensive", which stats show to be wrong, or we only play Barnard,,Woodrow or Shaq because of contracts. You cant stick to the actual issue without ranting and coming up with these theories, then when people give reasonable arguments you ignore them.

The key point that sparks you to post may well have substance but your arguments and posting style rarely have any logic or reason to them and most of the time completely undermine your base opinion.

Where are these stats of yours then ?,Show me them and we can debate them!
You claim conspiracies when all I offered apart from funny deals were my opinions which in the main were proved correct.

It's easy when you or jam post stuff which I can either ignore or defend.

Jam said I made a stink about the Holman saga well I just reread the entire thread and in truth it was mainly Jam and myself debating in a decent manner,I certainly IMO never caused any stink just gave my view.Youn

What was correct ? Woodrow having to start games? No it wasnt. Woodrow having to play? No it wasnt.

As for Holman, the reason you and I had to debate it was because you kept raising the point and making more of it all over the forum in multiple threads. I actually stopped getting involved with debates with you because of it because it was so futile trying to talk sense.

 

[mrsblue]

I did answer it.

Some of the points you make are correct, the reasons and the theories you post are not.

If you post sayinh "We need to score more goals" then Id agree totally. What you actually do is post " Phil Brown goes out to be defensive", which stats show to be wrong, or we only play Barnard,,Woodrow or Shaq because of contracts. You cant stick to the actual issue without ranting and coming up with these theories, then when people give reasonable arguments you ignore them.

The key point that sparks you to post may well have substance but your arguments and posting style rarely have any logic or reason to them and most of the time completely undermine your base opinion.

Any team with a defensive record like ours is because we all get behind the ball and defend for our lives then once we regain possession our midfield/wide men and forward are all too knackered to get back up the pitch which probably explains wayward shots off target because they panic when ever they are near to goal.

We are not blessed with world class defenders so Phil's system is very hard to break down to suit his style of management as throughout his career he builds on the defence and hopes it clicks at the other end.

 

[Beefy]

Any team with a defensive record like ours is because we all get behind the ball and defend for our lives then once we regain possession our midfield/wide men and forward are all too knackered to get back up the pitch which probably explains wayward shots off target because they panic when ever they are near to goal.

We don't conceed too many goals because we are well organised and have good defenders and a good goalkeeper. I don't think that we're necessarily defensive and I don't see too many accusations of that on here. I haven't seen us this season yet for my sins but I saw us loads last season and we weren't defensive - we just weren't creating enough chances.

BUT if that is what you think then why are you fixated on blaming the strikers? If things are as you are saying then surely whoever is up front is facing a thankless task.

 

[Jam_Man]

Any team with a defensive record like ours is because we all get behind the ball and defend for our lives then once we regain possession our midfield/wide men and forward are all too knackered to get back up the pitch which probably explains wayward shots off target because they panic when ever they are near to goal.

We are not blessed with world class defenders so Phil's system is very hard to break down to suit his style of management as throughout his career he builds on the defence and hopes it clicks at the other end.

See, you are provided with a stat that shows we have more shots than our opposition, and you reinvent that stat to demonstrate its because we are so defensive to fit in with your opinion.

We don't conceed too many goals because we are well organised and have good defenders and a good goalkeeper. I don't think that we're necessarily defensive and I don't see too many accusations of that on here. I haven't seen us this season yet for my sins but I saw us loads last season and we weren't defensive - we just weren't creating enough chances.

BUT if that is what you think then why are you fixated on blaming the strikers? If things are as you are saying then surely whoever is up front is facing a thankless task.

Indeed, we havent been at all defensive in the games Ive seen, we have been going out to win games

As you say if thats the way we play why blame strikers every week.

No reasoning with him.

 

[onceknownasrab]

I have had a quick look at some of the previous seasons - The difference between going up and not appears to be very few goals in some cases. 61 goals F in 1989/90 was enough to see us up but only got us to 11th in 2012/2013 due to a mere 7 extra goals conceded.
A tight defence is a bonus, always, but it does seem the few extra goals makes it more likely to find promotion. It literally can be a handful of goals.
Our goals for in the last 2 seasons has been low and if something is not done it looks set to continue. How long is it before the season is undone?

Promoted	1971/1972	F 81	A 55	+ 26
“	1977/1978	66	39	+ 27
“	1980/1981	79	31	+ 48
“	1989/1990	61	48	+ 13
“	2004/2005	65	46	+ 43
“	2005/2006	72	43	+ 29
8th	2008/2009	58	61	- 3
Relegated	2009/2010	51	72	- 21
13th	2010/2011	62	56	+ +6
4th	2011/2012	77	48	+ 29
11[SUP]th[/SUP]	2012/2013	61	55	+ 6
5th	2012/2013	56	39	+ 17

 

[mrsblue]

See, you are provided with a stat that shows we have more shots than our opposition, and you reinvent that stat to demonstrate its because we are so defensive to fit in with your opinion.

If a player shoots from 25 out and it flies in then fantastic yet wayward shooting is the one thing this team are guilty of now they are either bad players or they are panicking,Possibly the reason for the panic is they are drilled to get behind the ball.

If our manager and his staff were all strikers in their playing career I bet we would be scoring shed loads yet they were all defensive players and guess what we don't concede many.

 

[Jam_Man]

If a player shoots from 25 out and it flies in then fantastic yet wayward shooting is the one thing this team are guilty of now they are either bad players or they are panicking,Possibly the reason for the panic is they are drilled to get behind the ball.

If our manager and his staff were all strikers in their playing career I bet we would be scoring shed loads yet they were all defensive players and guess what we don't concede many.

Again, only you can take the stat that we shoot more than the opposition and come up with a theory to show its because we are too defensive.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Any team with a defensive record like ours is because we all get behind the ball and defend for our lives then once we regain possession our midfield/wide men and forward are all too knackered to get back up the pitch which probably explains wayward shots off target because they panic when ever they are near to goal.

We are not blessed with world class defenders so Phil's system is very hard to break down to suit his style of management as throughout his career he builds on the defence and hopes it clicks at the other end.

His team isn't that different to Sturrock's, which also was well organised and pressed. The main difference was that Sturrock wanted to play in the opposition's final third and Brown wants to play from our final third. By the time we work the ball forward under Brown the opposition have men behind the ball and are organised.

If you have a look at the goals we've scored this season we've a goal from a long ball (Weston from Corr's flick), a penalty and three shots from outside the area (Leonard, Clifford, Coker).

That suggests an inability to break teams down.

I expect Worrall to start tomorrow, which may or may not help provide some better service to BBBC. Deegan may also start which should free up Leonard and Coker to be more influential. I would also like to see more emphasis with getting the ball forward quickly in the transition stages (which means more breaking with pace rather than using long ball) and getting a better balance between building from the back and utilising Corr's aerial dominance (which does mean more long balls). At the moment (and I didn't see the Carlisle or Plymouth games) we are too predictable. We need to better alternate between passing it along the back-line and knocking it long to Corr so the opposition don't know whether to press up high or defend the knock-downs deep.

We also need more flair. I know Hall and Mohsni were flawed, but they provided chances, goals and a sense of excitement that is essentially lacking in the current team which, Hurst aside, is decidedly workmanlike.

 

[chapperzUK]

I have had a quick look at some of the previous seasons - The difference between going up and not appears to be very few goals in some cases. 61 goals F in 1989/90 was enough to see us up but only got us to 11th in 2012/2013 due to a mere 7 extra goals conceded.
A tight defence is a bonus, always, but it does seem the few extra goals makes it more likely to find promotion. It literally can be a handful of goals.
Our goals for in the last 2 seasons has been low and if something is not done it looks set to continue. How long is it before the season is undone?

Promoted	1971/1972	F 81	A 55	+ 26
“	1977/1978	66	39	+ 27
“	1980/1981	79	31	+ 48
“	1989/1990	61	48	+ 13
“	2004/2005	65	46	+ 43
“	2005/2006	72	43	+ 29
8th	2008/2009	58	61	- 3
Relegated	2009/2010	51	72	- 21
13th	2010/2011	62	56	+ +6
4th	2011/2012	77	48	+ 29
11[SUP]th[/SUP]	2012/2013	61	55	+ 6
5th	2012/2013	56	39	+ 17

Personally, I'd rather be solid at the back than go gung ho. Much easier for a team to sit back and counter when you go gung ho.

Interestingly, we scored 5 fewer goals last season than the season before and finished 8 places higher.

 

[mrsblue]

His team isn't that different to Sturrock's, which also was well organised and pressed. The main difference was that Sturrock wanted to play in the opposition's final third and Brown wants to play from our final third. By the time we work the ball forward under Brown the opposition have men behind the ball and are organised.

If you have a look at the goals we've scored this season we've a goal from a long ball (Weston from Corr's flick) a penalty and three shots from outside the area (Leonard, Clifford, Coker).

That suggests an inability to break teams down.

I expect Worrall to start tomorrow, which may or may not help provide some better service to BBBC. Deegan may also start which should free up Leonard and Coker to be more influential. I would also like to see more emphasis with getting the ball forward quickly in the transition stages (which means more breaking with pace rather than using long ball) and getting a better balance between building from the back and utilising Corr's aerial dominance (which does mean more long balls). At the moment (and I didn't see the Carlisle or Plymouth games) we are too predictable. We need to better alternate between passing it along the back-line and knocking it long to Corr so the opposition don't know whether to press up high or defend the knock-downs deep.

We also need more flair. I know Hall and Mohsni were flawed, but they provided chances, goals and a sense of excitement that is essentially lacking in the current team which, Hurst aside, is decidedly workmanlike.

Excellent post and you have my agreement on it all.