samptime29

What?

If Gjohnson had said: we had played shite football under Bruce with the odd good games, that's fair enough. I'm not accepting the argument that we played better football under John Carver. We were comfortable mid table when he took over and nearly got fucking relegated man. 8 fucking losses in a row. 3 wins in 20 games. THREE FUCKING WINS.

You agree with him? Better football under Carver?

Thanks Judge.

Someone posted earlier that we play with no game plan and this is bang on. We actually just seem to react to whatever the opposition do. We do not press, don't hit on the break and the overall movement of the team is non existent. When we have possession it's like give it to Saint and hope for the best. I actually think we have some good players but we play with no direction or plan. That's all down to coaching and management. I really wish we could sack Bruce with immediate effect, that's what I feel about him right now. A total fraud who appears to have LOTS of friends in the media brainwashing people. I said there was no plan, as soon as we get the ball they just pressed us to the half way line and let us kick it about in front of them, then it's sideways, backwards, sideways, back to the keeper, hoof and defend, so predictable, so easy to play against, they figured us out after 30 minutes and Bruce couldn't change it. Was talking about it last night against samptime. The plan is to stick 10 behind the ball, and hope the other team makes a mistake and get them on counter. Pure cowardice aimed at trying not to lose rather than win. Apparently this made me a moron though. I really wouldn’t pay any mind to him. He’s really just a voice in the wilderness with maybe one other poster who agrees with him. He’s decent in the games thread though :shrug: Listen up you Fanny. He said Carver played better football than Bruce because sometimes under Carver we had more than 35% possession. I provided evidence that is the last 7 games excluding City we had 45% to 62% possession. We also had 52% possession against Watford today. I am not accepting incorrect factual information. Make your argument fine but don't lie about stats to make your argument. Misinformation is snide and unacceptable. Long and the short of it is as bad as Carver was and he was dire mind, he still served up better football than we've seen this season. The stuff this year for the majority ( a few recent games aside which seem to be the whole basis of your 'facts') has been some of the poorest most consistently cowardly and embarrassing performances I've seen in 30 odd years. Plus, calling someone a fanny because they disagree with you does not make your deluded opinion more valid You literally said Carver played better football because sometimes we had more than 35% possession under him. I haven't looked back throughout the season. I looked back over our last 8 games excluding City and we had much more possession than 35% in every single game. Therefore proving your point wrong. The fucking Twilight zone here. Carver lost 8 in a row. We were pure garbage under him. LV: no hiding on this one. Do you agree that we played better football under Carver?

Someone posted earlier that we play with no game plan and this is bang on. We actually just seem to react to whatever the opposition do. We do not press, don't hit on the break and the overall movement of the team is non existent. When we have possession it's like give it to Saint and hope for the best. I actually think we have some good players but we play with no direction or plan. That's all down to coaching and management. I really wish we could sack Bruce with immediate effect, that's what I feel about him right now. A total fraud who appears to have LOTS of friends in the media brainwashing people. I said there was no plan, as soon as we get the ball they just pressed us to the half way line and let us kick it about in front of them, then it's sideways, backwards, sideways, back to the keeper, hoof and defend, so predictable, so easy to play against, they figured us out after 30 minutes and Bruce couldn't change it. Was talking about it last night against samptime. The plan is to stick 10 behind the ball, and hope the other team makes a mistake and get them on counter. Pure cowardice aimed at trying not to lose rather than win. Apparently this made me a moron though. I really wouldn’t pay any mind to him. He’s really just a voice in the wilderness with maybe one other poster who agrees with him. He’s decent in the games thread though :shrug: Listen up you Fanny. He said Carver played better football than Bruce because sometimes under Carver we had more than 35% possession. I provided evidence that is the last 7 games excluding City we had 45% to 62% possession. We also had 52% possession against Watford today. I am not accepting incorrect factual information. Make your argument fine but don't lie about stats to make your argument. Misinformation is snide and unacceptable.

First pen is soft. Second one is a pen.

Can't play in centre midfield ever again.

Second half wasn't good enough. 1-0 up at HT to a poor Watford side. Should be looking to kill the game off. We never looked like scoring. Subs too late aswell.

Villa and Bournemouth are fucked like.

Really bad 2nd half. If we come out strong in 2nd half and get a goal: the game is over. Needed earlier subs like - again first pen was soft/harsh IMO, but second one was sloppy.

We've missed Hayden like, Schar in centre midfield just doesn't work.

Muto is the Invisible man like.

Dire second half. First pen was harsh but the second one was too easy. Hands were all over him.

Been a poor 2nd half from us.

Soft and unlucky but also a penalty. Ritchie should do better, but I hate seeing Pen's like that. Just looks so soft.

Soft pen that, barely any contact.

Best football we've played in the last 3 seasons. That Almiron chance aswell, bit unlucky there.

Amateur hour. I noticed that.

Played fairly well, not amazing, but we've had a few chances. Shame ASM couldn't score that chance he had. Watford as dirty as fuck like.

Lovely corner that. Nicely worked.

Said a few times. Watford win, they stay up. They don't and it's still all to play for. Villa have to beat Palace though on Sunday.

Really hope ASM is back.

A true legend of the game. RIP.

If you look at the table and the table alone, then technically Bruce has not done a bad job. If you look at the actual football that is played then it's been a worse job than even Carver pulled off....at least a few of his attempts at managing games got above 35% possession. The only time a respectable football team should win a match like that is if it's a 2nd/3rd division team against one of the top six and it's been a massively hard fought shock. No topflight premiership team should be sitting in their own 18 yard box for 3/4 of every game regardless of opposition and expect to get any results other than through luck. Bruce has had us playing like a league 1 side, scared to death of every other team they've come up against (except for maybe Bournemouth). No modern manager should have only one plan that consists of putting 10 men behind the ball every game and hoping to score a goal on a counter attack. Fine against top half teams, but when it's against relegation candidates its pure cowardice and being more concerned with not losing than winning. This should not be considered acceptable by anyone who wants the best for their team. Loved Carver's free flowing football. Tasty on the eye and we got results. :lol: Recent games possession: Southampton away 62% Sheffield United home 46% Villa home 52% Bournemouth 45% West Ham home 57% Every game above 35%. Yes we don't usually have much of the ball, but you can't argue Carver was better, because he sometimes got above 35% possession. Use facts, use evidence in your arguments man. Not this knacker using "facts" again. We can't play against 10 men all the time you know. Two recent games. Palace away game 56% possession. Burnley home game 54% possession. Facts back up your argument. You should try it sometime. I find facts can distort the truth sometimes. I'm a good believer in using common sense and my own judgement on subjects I'm well versed in. You should try sometime it instead of acting like a robot. You believe we played better football under Carver? 15% win ratio, 8 losses in a row, and 3 total wins in 20 games, but we played better football than we do now? Do you agree with gjohnson? Try reading the post properly again you plum. Never said Carver was any good cos he wasn't, he was utter garbage, but he didn't send out a starting eleven to cower in their own half and hope the other team made a balls up and conceded You said: " If you look at the actual football that is played then it's been a worse job than even Carver pulled off....at least a few of his attempts at managing games got above 35% possession." I provided evidence that is the last 7 games (excluding City) our possession stats were 45% to 62%. Do you see why you look a moron now? Even Rod doesn't agree with you on this. Even my good friend LV wouldn't agree with you on this one. Carver was the worst manager we've had in my lifetime. Worst football, worst manager. This point isn't up for debate. And you have still completely and utterly missed the point. Quite impressive really "If you look at the actual football that is played then it's been a worse job than even Carver pulled off....at least a few of his attempts at managing games got above 35% possession."