Vive_La_Villa Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 The last 3 games were boys against men though. I don't think those teams will have too many easier games all season. That is a worry but it's also a relief we managed 10 points before that. I don't agree with that at all. I think they were a case of better players against lesser players. We lost based on ability, not because we weren't "men".I honestly wonder if people watch the games sometimes. If people think Man City won't have an easier game than yesterday's all season then they're just plain wrong. well I'm plain wrong then as Man City will get a fair few easier games this season than that one. No way can you convince me that that will be Man City's easiest game of the season. Who said it will be their easiest game? I said they made hard work of it. They did not play well and with a bit of quality we could have capitalised. We did miss Gabby though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted October 6, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted October 6, 2014 The last 3 games were boys against men though. I don't think those teams will have too many easier games all season. That is a worry but it's also a relief we managed 10 points before that. I don't agree with that at all. I think they were a case of better players against lesser players. We lost based on ability, not because we weren't "men".I honestly wonder if people watch the games sometimes. If people think Man City won't have an easier game than yesterday's all season then they're just plain wrong. well I'm plain wrong then as Man City will get a fair few easier games this season than that one. No way can you convince me that that will be Man City's easiest game of the season. Who said it will be their easiest game? You said it would be one of their easiest games this season. Which is simply not true, IMO. They'll have plenty easier games than that. They had to work hard to beat us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 The last 3 games were boys against men though. I don't think those teams will have too many easier games all season. That is a worry but it's also a relief we managed 10 points before that. I don't agree with that at all. I think they were a case of better players against lesser players. We lost based on ability, not because we weren't "men".I honestly wonder if people watch the games sometimes. If people think Man City won't have an easier game than yesterday's all season then they're just plain wrong. well I'm plain wrong then as Man City will get a fair few easier games this season than that one. No way can you convince me that that will be Man City's easiest game of the season.Who said it will be their easiest game?You said it would be one of their easiest games this season. Which is simply not true, IMO. They'll have plenty easier games than that. They had to work hard to beat us. I think they had to step it up a gear yes. The goal was looking inevitable though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexicon Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 They didn't score for 80 odd minutes despite many attempts - I'd say that they had to put in a shift to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 While I won't deny that we've been quite defensive in the opening games (I'm pretty sure injuries and illness have played a large part in that), I think perceptions have been skewed somewhat by our ridiculous start which has seen has face all of last season's top 4 in 7 games, not to mention Stoke away which is always a tough fixture. Accusations of us being "the new Stoke" are just rubbish though. I am sorry but the old "excuses" of injury and illness are just a weak one. even if you accept the illness one that was in one match against Arsenal. In terms of injuries, who exactly, Vlaar and Benteke - is lambert so dependent on these two players that if they are not available then its a certain loss? As said previously in this and many other threads there has been "wait unit Okore is back" , is he back now? Also you mention our "ridiculous" start - again a weak argument. You have to play all of the teams twice so that has no relevance at all. What about the loss to Orient was that due to the fact that like previous years we have played some of the top teams? Was the turgid display against Newcastle down to this, was the past two years awful football down to this, was the defeats to lower league sides down to this? ....... etc etc No we are not the new Stoke, that is because they at least had a plan that threatened the other teams goal. They also had a good chance of finishing mid table. Now we may see a massive performance increase in terms of threat and attacking ability, and let's hope we do, as we play the next few matches, but please lets not throw out frankly weak arguments if they do not. But you have your views and while I respect them, I am struggling to see their validity based on the excuses line 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 While I won't deny that we've been quite defensive in the opening games (I'm pretty sure injuries and illness have played a large part in that), I think perceptions have been skewed somewhat by our ridiculous start which has seen has face all of last season's top 4 in 7 games, not to mention Stoke away which is always a tough fixture. Accusations of us being "the new Stoke" are just rubbish though. I agree with this. I've watched Stoke a few times this season and they are capable of putting a few passes together without losing the ball. So saying we are the new Stoke is rubbish. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I really would like to see some progress and I hope it comes in our next batch of games against mainly lesser teams. However, after 7 games our -5 goal difference means we are slightly worse off than we were last season (and our fixtures have been comparable to last season). Fingers crossed that it is just a blip and not a repetition of last season and the season before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 While I won't deny that we've been quite defensive in the opening games (I'm pretty sure injuries and illness have played a large part in that), I think perceptions have been skewed somewhat by our ridiculous start which has seen has face all of last season's top 4 in 7 games, not to mention Stoke away which is always a tough fixture. Accusations of us being "the new Stoke" are just rubbish though.people will grasp any stick mantis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 6, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 6, 2014 While I won't deny that we've been quite defensive in the opening games (I'm pretty sure injuries and illness have played a large part in that), I think perceptions have been skewed somewhat by our ridiculous start which has seen has face all of last season's top 4 in 7 games, not to mention Stoke away which is always a tough fixture. Accusations of us being "the new Stoke" are just rubbish though. I agree with this. I've watched Stoke a few times this season and they are capable of putting a few passes together without losing the ball. So saying we are the new Stoke is rubbish. I think the comparison was with the "old " Stoke. Mind you, they used to win at home more often than not, so that's bobbins, too 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 While I won't deny that we've been quite defensive in the opening games (I'm pretty sure injuries and illness have played a large part in that), I think perceptions have been skewed somewhat by our ridiculous start which has seen has face all of last season's top 4 in 7 games, not to mention Stoke away which is always a tough fixture. Accusations of us being "the new Stoke" are just rubbish though. I agree with this. I've watched Stoke a few times this season and they are capable of putting a few passes together without losing the ball. So saying we are the new Stoke is rubbish. I think the comparison was with the "old " Stoke. Mind you, they used to win at home more often than not, so that's bobbins, too I know. Id actually be happy if we were the new old Stoke. Would normally mean a mid table finish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post smetrov Posted October 6, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted October 6, 2014 While I won't deny that we've been quite defensive in the opening games (I'm pretty sure injuries and illness have played a large part in that), I think perceptions have been skewed somewhat by our ridiculous start which has seen has face all of last season's top 4 in 7 games, not to mention Stoke away which is always a tough fixture. Accusations of us being "the new Stoke" are just rubbish though. I am sorry but the old "excuses" of injury and illness are just a weak one. even if you accept the illness one that was in one match against Arsenal. In terms of injuries, who exactly, Vlaar and Benteke - is lambert so dependent on these two players that if they are not available then its a certain loss? As said previously in this and many other threads there has been "wait unit Okore is back" , is he back now? Also you mention our "ridiculous" start - again a weak argument. You have to play all of the teams twice so that has no relevance at all. What about the loss to Orient was that due to the fact that like previous years we have played some of the top teams? Was the turgid display against Newcastle down to this, was the past two years awful football down to this, was the defeats to lower league sides down to this? ....... etc etc No we are not the new Stoke, that is because they at least had a plan that threatened the other teams goal. They also had a good chance of finishing mid table. Now we may see a massive performance increase in terms of threat and attacking ability, and let's hope we do, as we play the next few matches, but please lets not throw out frankly weak arguments if they do not. But you have your views and while I respect them, I am struggling to see their validity based on the excuses line Much as I like Lambert and have been supportive of him up until now - I am coming round to the viewpoint above - I don't really see much evidence of change - if there is a change we have become better at scrambling out narrow victories - we haven't actually improved as a football side. Of course we could really turn it on v Everton, QPR and I would forced to eat my words - but I don't see us winning both games - and I don't see us winning either game convincingly - Love to be wrong of course. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelboyVilla Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 While I won't deny that we've been quite defensive in the opening games (I'm pretty sure injuries and illness have played a large part in that), I think perceptions have been skewed somewhat by our ridiculous start which has seen has face all of last season's top 4 in 7 games, not to mention Stoke away which is always a tough fixture. Accusations of us being "the new Stoke" are just rubbish though. I am sorry but the old "excuses" of injury and illness are just a weak one. even if you accept the illness one that was in one match against Arsenal. In terms of injuries, who exactly, Vlaar and Benteke - is lambert so dependent on these two players that if they are not available then its a certain loss? As said previously in this and many other threads there has been "wait unit Okore is back" , is he back now? Also you mention our "ridiculous" start - again a weak argument. You have to play all of the teams twice so that has no relevance at all. What about the loss to Orient was that due to the fact that like previous years we have played some of the top teams? Was the turgid display against Newcastle down to this, was the past two years awful football down to this, was the defeats to lower league sides down to this? ....... etc etc No we are not the new Stoke, that is because they at least had a plan that threatened the other teams goal. They also had a good chance of finishing mid table. Now we may see a massive performance increase in terms of threat and attacking ability, and let's hope we do, as we play the next few matches, but please lets not throw out frankly weak arguments if they do not. But you have your views and while I respect them, I am struggling to see their validity based on the excuses line Much as I like Lambert and have been supportive of him up until now - I am coming round to the viewpoint above - I don't really see much evidence of change - if there is a change we have become better at scrambling out narrow victories - we haven't actually improved as a football side. Of course we could really turn it on v Everton, QPR and I would forced to eat my words - but I don't see us winning both games - and I don't see us winning either game convincingly - Love to be wrong of course. The only creativity yetserday came from the Zog. Delph Westwood and Cleverley were all very poor going forward. Probably becasue they were so knackered from defending? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 While I won't deny that we've been quite defensive in the opening games (I'm pretty sure injuries and illness have played a large part in that), I think perceptions have been skewed somewhat by our ridiculous start which has seen has face all of last season's top 4 in 7 games, not to mention Stoke away which is always a tough fixture. Accusations of us being "the new Stoke" are just rubbish though. I agree with this. I've watched Stoke a few times this season and they are capable of putting a few passes together without losing the ball. So saying we are the new Stoke is rubbish. I think the comparison was with the "old " Stoke. Mind you, they used to win at home more often than not, so that's bobbins, too I know. Id actually be happy if we were the new old Stoke. Would normally mean a mid table finish. Ah yes, the happy-go-lucky, possession-based attacking play of Tony Pulis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelboyVilla Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 While I won't deny that we've been quite defensive in the opening games (I'm pretty sure injuries and illness have played a large part in that), I think perceptions have been skewed somewhat by our ridiculous start which has seen has face all of last season's top 4 in 7 games, not to mention Stoke away which is always a tough fixture. Accusations of us being "the new Stoke" are just rubbish though. I agree with this. I've watched Stoke a few times this season and they are capable of putting a few passes together without losing the ball. So saying we are the new Stoke is rubbish. I think the comparison was with the "old " Stoke. Mind you, they used to win at home more often than not, so that's bobbins, too I know. Id actually be happy if we were the new old Stoke. Would normally mean a mid table finish. Ah yes, the happy-go-lucky, possession-based attacking play of Tony Pulis. You obviously didn't see Palace last year? Very un-Stoke like. What he does do is play to his sides strengths and the oppositions weaknesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I'm not knocking Pulis. If you went to the thread about him in other football, you'd see I've a lot of compliments to pay him. I just think it's ridiculous on the face of it to complain about Lambert's negativity in one breath, and then wish we were a Pulis side in another. And Palace weren't attacking last season, and they were pretty much the only team to have less possession than we did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I'm not knocking Pulis. If you went to the thread about him in other football, you'd see I've a lot of compliments to pay him. I just think it's ridiculous on the face of it to complain about Lambert's negativity in one breath, and then wish we were a Pulis side in another. And Palace weren't attacking last season, and they were pretty much the only team to have less possession than we did. Who said they wish we were a Pulis side? Somebody said comparing us to the old Stoke is rubbish and I said if have become the old Stoke it's not so bad because they generally finished mid-table and gave every team a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 While I won't deny that we've been quite defensive in the opening games (I'm pretty sure injuries and illness have played a large part in that), I think perceptions have been skewed somewhat by our ridiculous start which has seen has face all of last season's top 4 in 7 games, not to mention Stoke away which is always a tough fixture. Accusations of us being "the new Stoke" are just rubbish though. people will grasp any stick mantis And people will use any excuse to defend the manager. It works both ways mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 While I won't deny that we've been quite defensive in the opening games (I'm pretty sure injuries and illness have played a large part in that), I think perceptions have been skewed somewhat by our ridiculous start which has seen has face all of last season's top 4 in 7 games, not to mention Stoke away which is always a tough fixture. Accusations of us being "the new Stoke" are just rubbish though. I am sorry but the old "excuses" of injury and illness are just a weak one. even if you accept the illness one that was in one match against Arsenal. In terms of injuries, who exactly, Vlaar and Benteke - is lambert so dependent on these two players that if they are not available then its a certain loss? As said previously in this and many other threads there has been "wait unit Okore is back" , is he back now? Also you mention our "ridiculous" start - again a weak argument. You have to play all of the teams twice so that has no relevance at all. What about the loss to Orient was that due to the fact that like previous years we have played some of the top teams? Was the turgid display against Newcastle down to this, was the past two years awful football down to this, was the defeats to lower league sides down to this? ....... etc etc No we are not the new Stoke, that is because they at least had a plan that threatened the other teams goal. They also had a good chance of finishing mid table. Now we may see a massive performance increase in terms of threat and attacking ability, and let's hope we do, as we play the next few matches, but please lets not throw out frankly weak arguments if they do not. But you have your views and while I respect them, I am struggling to see their validity based on the excuses line Much as I like Lambert and have been supportive of him up until now - I am coming round to the viewpoint above - I don't really see much evidence of change - if there is a change we have become better at scrambling out narrow victories - we haven't actually improved as a football side. Of course we could really turn it on v Everton, QPR and I would forced to eat my words - but I don't see us winning both games - and I don't see us winning either game convincingly - Love to be wrong of course. The only creativity yetserday came from the Zog. Delph Westwood and Cleverley were all very poor going forward. Probably becasue they were so knackered from defending? Chasing the ball must be hard when you constantly give it back. Some have said we couldn't keep possession because City are so good at pressing and we lack quality. I'm not asking for killer passes and and creativity. I'm talking about basic ball retention so you're not constantly pressing for the whole game. Why are teams like Swansea and Southampton able to do this? Are they so much better than us in terms of quality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I'm not knocking Pulis. If you went to the thread about him in other football, you'd see I've a lot of compliments to pay him. I just think it's ridiculous on the face of it to complain about Lambert's negativity in one breath, and then wish we were a Pulis side in another. And Palace weren't attacking last season, and they were pretty much the only team to have less possession than we did. Who said they wish we were a Pulis side? Somebody said comparing us to the old Stoke is rubbish and I said if have become the old Stoke it's not so bad because they generally finished mid-table and gave every team a game. But you also complained, just 2 pages ago, about how counter-attack is our only style of play, yet my point is that was Pulis's style of play as well. You can't simply praise Stoke's league positions without paying any attention to how they were achieved, especially if you're criticising that exact style of play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I'm not knocking Pulis. If you went to the thread about him in other football, you'd see I've a lot of compliments to pay him. I just think it's ridiculous on the face of it to complain about Lambert's negativity in one breath, and then wish we were a Pulis side in another. And Palace weren't attacking last season, and they were pretty much the only team to have less possession than we did. Who said they wish we were a Pulis side? Somebody said comparing us to the old Stoke is rubbish and I said if have become the old Stoke it's not so bad because they generally finished mid-table and gave every team a game. But you also complained, just 2 pages ago, about how counter-attack is our only style of play, yet my point is that was Pulis's style of play as well. You can't simply praise Stoke's league positions without paying any attention to how they were achieved, especially if you're criticising that exact style of play. I asked the question of what our identity is after 2 years of Lambert in charge. If it is in fact just counter attacking and we manage to safety finish mid-table with that style that's fine. But for the past two seasons we haven't so you could argue it's just about working for us. As I'm mentioned many times my only problem is basic ball retention. I just can't get my head around why they can't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts