Search results

Yep, that’s where I’m at. Aware the players you’ve mentioned play for bigger and better teams etc who aren’t required to do as much defending, but if you are required to do more defending, you don’t have them bombing on as much, or at the very least you cover them

Totally agree that the squad is so heavily weighted to playing four at the back, simply with numbers we have in all positions. I go back to it again, it’s unfathomable for any professional football to be ‘unable’ to play a back four and be as open as we have been

I’d be more leaning towards a 5, personally as things are currently. However it’s more down to a coaching thing, rather than a player thing. A back 5 does make us abit more secure and allows semedo and ran to push on a lot more and for us not to be as stretched. Aware we still weren’t solid...

I’m dizzy. Forgot what the actual debate is? Is it solely what is better for us, 4 or 5 at the back with our current players?

Agree with first point Points 2 and 3 absolutely not. Of the top teams are easier to play against, they wouldn’t be the top teams and finish where they do..

100% not a blue print. Going forward. You treat city and a couple other teams this way. We’ll likely be on the counter against Brighton, but no where near the extent we were today , next two games absolutely not

FWIW i don’t think today shows anything about GoN future. We were always going to set up the way we did and was always going to be a grubby game. We did fairly well considering. Kick in the nuts their goal at the end ofcourse.

Did not expect this turn of events during the safety car 🙃

If we did that it would be one less thing to bent out of shape about though!

Maybe some do, but he was speaking directly to me to a point I’d made. I would much prefer we start picking up points and there isn’t even a discussion about needing to sack or change managers

FWIW I quite like gridiron as a film.

Unsure why I’d be happy for wolves to lose being a wolves fan. Maybe have some time sitting in the shade my friend

I totally agree. It’s the inconsistency. I don’t think either should’ve been disallowed

Appreciate in a game where a lot of decisions are ‘subjective’ you will get some inconsistency, but it does fuel the ‘big team bias’ narrative abit

Well, factually it is. Can only give it for an off the ball foul. Which IMV it isn’t

Can only give it as a foul, which fwiw I don’t think it is

I can see both sides. I’m not appalled by the decision. If it was the other way round I’d be wanting the goal. Onfield decision was no goal apparently sky sports are saying?

Different ‘phase of play’

That’s hearsay …

Decent > average .think it was said through very gritted teeth as well 😉