B.W.
New member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 13,666
Yes! Brilliant.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
What has Zamora done to upset Chris???
- Thread starter Seagulls1984
- Start date
Yes! Brilliant.
Finchley Seagull
New member
Yes, I trust that the manager does not lie to as you put it "cover up a selection error". I trust the club and management who see players in training and speak to the medical staff. If you choose to believe Chris Hughton lied when talking about Zamora, that's a sad reflection on you and your lack of trust for the club.
In terms of overstating the importance of NSC, I was replying to a post claiming that it was criticism that had inspired the team to improve, which is complete rubbish.
As for your posting, you may come on here when we're doing well but you certainly jump at the chance to criticise when things start to go less well.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Another one of your sock puppets?
B.W.
New member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 13,666
I'm not claiming a lie, I'm claiming a mistake, then a piece of BS. Lickers like you then swallow the BS like you always do. Moronic.
B.W.
New member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 13,666
Another fan with a balanced view that doesn't think the club are faultless...
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
You point the finger without any proof. I've had my fair share of moans which you choose to ignore.
Finchley Seagull
New member
I can see you have no case when you resort to pathetic comments like moronic and lickers. How anyone can imagine that they know more about a players readiness to start based on half an hour on the pitch and them "not looking tired at the end" than a manager/staff who watch them in training, speak to the medical staff and speak to the players themselves is beyond me. And then you have the temerity to call my comment moronic. You couldn't make it up.
Exactly. These players train, they are monitored, the manager his team and the players talk...... i reckon Hughton has a pretty good idea about Bobby's fitness and capabilities.
It's always laughable to see you get angry with the club and "not claiming a lie, I'm claiming a mistake, then a piece of BS" by the club (I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between lying and BS), given how you accused me of painting a very negative view of the senior management at the club when I said I couldn't say whether I would have sold Barnes as I didn't know enough about what we had offered him, what we could afford, what he wanted etc.
Yes, he did very well. But now we haven't seen him for more than three months. In previous seasons, he has managed to do well when coming on as a sub, and being used sparingly. He could have been providing more firepower and threat in games through October, November and December.
He has also been injured when used too often in previous seasons. Given that history I find it far more probable that had he not played every game through August and into late mid-September he would not have been injured, than it is that this injury would have occurred regardless.
No, I can't prove that, but then, people can't prove if we'd have started with Zamora on Tuesday night that the game would have panned out any differently. Yet you're convinced Hughton got it wrong and is now BS-ing, painting a very negative picture of our Senior management.
Yes, he did very well. But now we haven't seen him for more than three months. In previous seasons, he has managed to do well when coming on as a sub, and being used sparingly. He could have been providing more firepower and threat in games through October, November and December.
He has also been injured when used too often in previous seasons. Given that history I find it far more probable that had he not played every game through August and into late mid-September he would not have been injured, than it is that this injury would have occurred regardless.
No, I can't prove that, but then, people can't prove if we'd have started with Zamora on Tuesday night that the game would have panned out any differently. Yet you're convinced Hughton got it wrong and is now BS-ing, painting a very negative picture of our Senior management.
B.W.
New member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 13,666
Well done TB... didn't mention you, did I?
B.W.
New member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 13,666
Again, you just can't see past the club's PR BS... that, dear Sir, is moronic...
B.W.
New member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 13,666
So do I, but he can still make a mistake...
B.W.
New member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 13,666
It's just my OPINION. I believe I have made that clear (sorry if NOT). I THINK Hughton made a mistake NOT starting Bobby instead of the way, way off the boil Tomer. IMHO, we lost the initiative by offering virtually zero threat at the start of the game. IMHO, if Bobby is fit enough to come on at the end of the game, then he is fit enough to start. Saying Bobby has a 'slight injury' is, IMHO, intelligence insulting.
symyjym
Banned
The alternative argument is that Zamora can have more impact when the opposition is leggy and giving him more space.
....as he very nearly did
Your opinion is very valid and maybe Hughton did get it wrong, but as i stated on another thread, i believe that Crofts was brought in to protect Goldson on his first full game, in hindsight it was not needed, which meant effectively playing with one striker. Bobby doing a lone job from the start may have been to much if he is carrying a niggle, with Wilson not to well it was a gamble to lose another striker through injury. Bringing Bobby and Wilson on meant that Bobby could feed Wilson...it nearly came off.
Hemed had done all the donkey work by then.
I would love to see Bobby start, play 90mins, he may well do but could then be rested or injured for the next game. Hughton has gambled fairly well up til now imo.
Lifelong Supporter
Well-known member
This is how I see it. Recent sub performances by BZ gave no indication of any big impact when he played. Further and let us get this right, he did not score a goal did he. He had a good effort which hit the bar. BZ is a legend but I would not criticise not starting him against Ipswich. He is far more likely to have impact against tiring defenders.
If he starts and in the usual cat and mouse of this division he may not have the same impact.
It is a marginal decision.
symyjym
Banned
Yep. If he was starting in a 442 it would make sense, but as a lone striker up front on his own in a 433 from the start it wouldn't.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Question of why Hughton hasn't been starting with BZ fully answered today I think...
Seagulls1984
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #120
No service , like the previous 3 games