G STAR RAM

6 hours ago, TomTom92 said:

I’m not saying they’re good. But if you would rather a winger have to play out of position for a month then that’s your prerogative. To me that scenario makes me sick. 

So you'd rather play someone in their natural position regardless of how good they are?

8 minutes ago, Rich3478 said:

Seeing as waghorn and Washington were already injured and then John Jules got injured with days left in the window then yes I’d suggest we should be preparing for that.

Collins is 32,33. Expecting him to play 90 minutes for the rest of the season was crazy. Likewise as a team chasing promotion you’d probably want a striker to bring off the bench if chasing a game, or even fresh legs if winning to to see it out. 
warne obviously agreed as was trying to sign a striker.

We should have had three or four options at least and been able to get one over the line on deadline day. 

 

I remember in the not too distant past, Hughes andn Bryson both getting injured and MM going out and panic buying Butterfield and Johnson on deadline day.

If I recall correctly, with hindsight our fans were saying how ridiculous it was...

6 hours ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

He shouldn't have signed John Jules for a start, same with Embleton. That isn't a Captain Hindsight comment from me, you will see I had concerns about their fitness when we signed them.  They were both risks which have cost us money and backfired.

Waghorn & Washington both have a poor history when it comes to fitness.

Collins it just unlucky if it turns out he is out for the season.

But seeing as 4 of the strikers in our squad are injured more often than not, then yes, he needs to be preparing for his striking department to be depleted.

Here is a start......Don't send anyone out on loan!

Have you considered there might be a reason we are signing players recently back from injuries?

6 hours ago, TomTom92 said:

Gayle, Joao, Forestieri, Mousset, Wickham just as some suggestions.

 

And how do they fit into the wage structure of our business plan agreed with the EFL?

44 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

To quote Simon Jordan...That is absolute Poppycock.

If he does his job properly and prepares accordingly, he would have found someone to improve us within the set budget.  

There are footballers beyond the top 3 divisions in England.

So you think he should have been preparing for Waghorn, Washington, John Jules and Collins all to be injured?

Who are these freebies that will do a better job than Barkhuizen, NML or CBT up top?

4 hours ago, May Contain Nuts said:

Yawn. More divisive b******* that completely (intentionally) misrepresents people's arguments.

I thought that was what you referred to as paraphrasing?

4 hours ago, Blondest Goat said:

We had one fit striker and didn't sign any back up.  The talk was about improving the squad. Well when you're backup is Barkhiuzen bringing in any striker with experience is an improvement.  So irrespective of whatever anyone thinks about the size and strength of the squad it was an obvious error.  Wouldn't necessarily have been solely a PW decision so has no relation to hating Warne in my opinion.  

Is that the same Barkhuizen with 71 career goals from 397 appearances, mainly played on the wing? 

Just now, TomTom92 said:

To be fair people wouldn’t be questioning the signing after a hat trick. 
 
Personally I was under whelmed by our forward signings. Maybe we’ve been unlucky to lose three out of four to injury but not addressing the farce of deadline day isn’t looking a smart move. 

Why was it a farce?

Warne stated there was nobody out there that would improve us that was within our budget.

Warne Haters: 'We've got the best squad and biggest budget, we should be walking this league'

Also Warne Haters: 'We should have signed more players'

6 hours ago, CBRammette said:

Everyone going on about Jan window but the biggest error was Wags/Wash in summer - nothing against either in particular but how could anyone really be excited by their signings? 

Well I wouldn't say Washington was an exciting signing but with his record at this level he looked a decent signing.

As for Waghorn you may want to revisit what people were saying after his hat trick at Peterborough. 

2 hours ago, Mr. P said:

That's one way to increase piracy. 

Or just make the FA Cup even less popular...

26 minutes ago, TINMANTED said:

I would like to think Warne didn't feel the need to employ rumors as a tactic to beat stevenage 

I would like to think he does, it will give people something else to moan about.

1 hour ago, Archied said:

I don’t think we play dull football, certainly no more so than when we were knocking it round the back trying and failing to play keep ball , oh wait it wasn’t dull when the regular heart attack mistake let the opponent in on goal 

Scoring 3 and keeping a clean sheet is seen as dull.

Doing lots of passing and only having 2 shots on target is much more exciting apparently.

3 hours ago, Premier ram said:

Knowing Daniel , he would still be having a little sulk that we didn’t get 20 million for Max Bird

I can only assume you are on about Chris Bird?

He would expect double that for Max!

6 hours ago, IlsonDerby said:

Football matches last the best part of 100 minutes. Our goals combined took about 8 seconds to score. 
 

It isn’t weird of fans to focus on the other 99 minutes of the match otherwise why not just switch on the highlights an hour after it’s finished? 
 

It’s frankly ridiculous to suggest they were doing pointless passes.
 

They were getting it through the lines well but didn’t have the quality to do anything with it.

 

Remember the difference in the first half is Max Bird wonderfully dribbling past 4 players before pinging it in from 20 yards. They crafted a well worked opportunity for a shot from 20 yards out and it came back off the post. 
 

I enjoyed the win but to say Exeter weren’t playing good football is just disingenuous. With better players that type of performance gives us a hell of a lot of problems. Luckily for us we have better players as you’d expect with our budget. 

They passed the ball around well and kept possession well, however, its pretty pointless if it ends with you having 2 shots on target.

You may as well be lumping it forward and feeding off scraps around the area.

2 hours ago, IlsonDerby said:

Why is it so controversial to acknowledge that Exeter knock it about really well and were playing the better football?

Our higher quality showed over the 90 but imagine what it’d look like if they had our squad/budget and were coached to play football like that? 
 

We played really well on the break. 

I'm not sure at what point in time people lost focus of what the idea of the game is.

Football is about scoring at one end and not conceding at the other end.

Doing lots of pointless passes does not make you a better football team because you get absolutely nothing for doing lots of passes.

They were better at keeping the ball than us, that is all.

17 hours ago, May Contain Nuts said:

The thing that does annoy me, is that I thought we'd (somehow) be clever enough to be running two different versions of the accounts - one with our amortisation method applied and one with the 'standard' method so we knew exactly what we could ensure we did just enough to be keeping within the limits whilst fully understanding just how far we could push things, if that makes any sort of sense at all.

Why would they do that when the EFL had agreed the new method?

16 hours ago, enachops said:

Oh come on. CEO and finance officer of a club going into admin. Of course he has some responsibility. Morris is the ultimate one of course, but Pearce constantly said we weren’t in danger of FFP. He was wrong. 

Well the last time I remember him saying it was at the Nunsfield House fans forum in January 2019.

At that point in time it was true what he was saying. 

The ground sale and amortisation method had both been agreed with the EFL by this point.

I'm not sure we can hold it against Pearce that we subsequently failed FFP based on the EFL backtracking on their agreement and retrospectively changing the rules.

I can confidently say I'm not in danger of defaulting on my mortgage payments, however, if the BoE raised the interest rates up to 20% I would. 

9 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

Not sure why you are trying to bait me by quoting my comments made after about 30 minutes.

At the time Exeter were the better side, having dominated the ball and hitting the post.

My quote about the game plan was quoting word for word what Shaun Barker said on co-coms. I struggled to make sense of it given we hadn’t done anything up until that point aside from score through Bird’s individual play 🤷‍♂️

I like how you try the ‘gotcha’ moments with me. I wouldn’t say you are jealous of my superior footballing knowledge. I’m not sure what it is? 

 

I'll be honest, Ive won hundreds betting the opposite of what you say, keep up the superior knowledge!

2 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

Exeter are the better side here. They play some nice stuff.

Yeah the better side if the idea of the game was about pointless passing, which some people seem to think it is.

The better side scored 3 goals and conceded 0 as us old fashioned people still believe is the idea of the game.

1 hour ago, Bris Vegas said:

Derby’s game plan of score more than the opposition is working a treat.

Cant see that sort of plan catching on.

More crucial passes and xG is a much better plan.

10 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

Other than that, I can’t see any pattern in our play whatsoever other than get it wide and swing a hopeful ball in.

So you can see a pattern of play then, just not one that you want.

On 11/02/2024 at 16:14, MackworthRamIsGod said:

The fact we haven't yet unleashed CBT is surely a negative? Only a moron wouldn't have unleashed him yesterday.

Or a manager who sees him in training and knows if he is up to speed yet?

8 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

Sorry, I don’t get that at all. It shouldn’t be their “dream day out” they are there to do a fairly simple job for which I assume they receive some instructions. If it was a one off opportunity at somewhere like Wembley then I could understand it but not when they are there every other week at PP (I assume it’s the same kids. If I’m wrong then ignore the rest of this post and the criticism should be levelled at the club). If the kids are too young to deal with such a task then fair enough, the club should use older boys and girls, but they look old enough to me. Regarding having criticism thrown at them, I agree no one should be shouting at them and abusing them at the game (although there is nowt wrong with a bit of “come on, get a move on”) but I don’t see anything wrong with criticism them on a forum like this.

Maybe I've misunderstood, I thought ball boys were just representatives from local grass roots teams, cant say I pay much attention to them.

10 hours ago, rammieib said:

This is a chat forum isn’t it?

Yes, hence why I gave my opinion that I don't think young kids, who are probably having their dream day out, should be being put under the microscope and having criticism thrown at them.

We picked up a point and 2 better goal difference on Peterborough. 

A team that was promoted in September (Oxford) failed to win. 

And 2 teams promoted in January (Peterborough and Bolton) failed to win. 

Adams is looking like a decent addition.

Cashin will be back soon

Washington will be back soon.

We have yet to unleash CBT.