networker1884 Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 ...you said you called the "Coutt's-Brayford partnership [sic]" "Brayford". By definition you called it a partnership there. You said "earlier in the season". But anyway, wtf? You're talking about English now? Bl00dy hell man you really will do anything to win an argument won't you? Why can't we stick to the topic? First you said "everyone was slamming [brayford's] form and praising Coutts". Something which isn't true. And then you asked if I called it a partnership earlier in the season, and I said no. Because I didn't. Sorry if it displeases you but I'm only interested in discussing the actual topic so if you're not then just don't reply? Cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCFCfranco Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 You can tell we lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 You said "earlier in the season". But anyway, wtf? You're talking about English now? Bl00dy hell man you really will do anything to win an argument won't you? Why can't we stick to the topic? First you said "everyone was slamming [brayford's] form and praising Coutts". Something which isn't true. And then you asked if I called it a partnership earlier in the season, and I said no. Because I didn't. Sorry if it displeases you but I'm only interested in discussing the actual topic so if you're not then just don't reply? Cool. What English am I talking about? Where? Why are you dragging this off topic? Here you are praising Coutts' low crosses: Coutts' low crosses have ripped defences apart this season. I'm not convinced by his overall game, but that said, theres still room for improvement with every player. Hughes' defensive side has improved vastly, only player that doesn't play the (terrible) backing off tactics. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wub' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':wub:' /> Here you are referring to his partnership with Brayford: Yeah defiantly. Coutts is alright, but nothing special. I think he's got an okay partnership with Brayford, and can put in a sexy low cross but thats about the limit. If he was that good Preston wouldn't have sold him for £150k and we wouldn't have been the only club interested. ...it's not even relevant though, as you were the one trying distraction tactics by making the general form of "everyone" (by context clearly referring to the overall theme on the forum, not literally every person, seems you were the one being pedantic with English here) into a discussion about your own views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 You can tell we lost. How so, it's not as though anyone has mentioned relega... are we 'safe' ??..genuine question.. good point. what, is it 3 points in 5 games and 2 away games in the next 3? followed by Leicester at home and our home form currently crap. No we're definitely not safe. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BondJovi Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 In shifting Brayford to CB you take away all the best aspects of his game when you take him from RB. Much rather we keep him RB and put Gjokaj in. Can't be good for the lad to see Clough shift players around when he is surely worth a go. I know Brayford can do a job there, but so can whoever he sticks at RB, surely better to have one guy excelling in his job than two guys just getting by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
networker1884 Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 How so, it's not as though anyone has mentioned relega... ... We didn't mention relegation, we mentioned safety...tut tut tut...our glass is half full unlike yours! haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 In shifting Brayford to CB you take away all the best aspects of his game when you take him from RB. Much rather we keep him RB and put Gjokaj in. Can't be good for the lad to see Clough shift players around when he is surely worth a go. I know Brayford can do a job there, but so can whoever he sticks at RB, surely better to have one guy excelling in his job than two guys just getting by? Brayford is an experienced centrehalf, Ben Davies has played rightback before and is generally experienced, there was nothing wrong with that selection. The other option, as you point out, was Gjokaj. Now, think about it this way: First team appearances: Hoganson - 3 Gjokaj - 2 That would have been a great two players to have in our backline against arguably the strongest attack in the league. There's no way that could shatter the confidence of both of our best our defensive prospects and lead to even more criticism of Clough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddesdenRam Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 1. Clough could not play Buxton. Simples. 2. Clough did not want to play Gjokak alongside Hoganson because that would leave us with inexperience on the left side. 3. John Brayford has had two excellent games at CB and looked very good with Richard Keogh. 4. The coutts/brayford partnership down the right has been less influential so the opportunity cost in smaller. Playing the bray at RB has less benefit to the team than having him at CB. 5. Ben Davies had a good game at right back. Don't change it. 6. We don't know what type of cb Gjokak is, from all accounts I gather he is a bit of a nut job and is a commanding centre half. Watford have pace and ability up front so a smaller, quicker cb in Brayford may have been more suitable. That's my explanation of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 We didn't mention relegation, we mentioned safety...tut tut tut...our glass is half full unlike yours! haha Safety is a reference to relegation. There is a significant semantic difference between this kind of statement and a glass "half full" or "half empty". In the case of the glass, it has to do with the choice of words for two things of identical meaning in a physical sense, but may lead to a differing response in terms of the impression it gives. As for safety against relegation though, safety has no meaning in this case beyond not getting relegated, which is in itself a very negative thing. By bringing up safety in such a context, and questioning whether we are safe, the person in question is bringing the negativity into the discussion. This is not a choice between two terms of identical meaning, as relegated does not need to be mentioned, and "not being safe" and "being relegated" are equally negative terms for a football club. Long story short, if you're talking about us potentially not being safe, you're the one with the half empty glass here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheeponacid Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Can we experiment with buying a forward with at least some sort of half decent goal record...as for a left back its just one of them things, we just carnt seem to attract them like we can attract **** forwards...Nigels selections? well let just say I'd love to see him putting the chocolates back into a spilt selection box.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Or finally get rid of the bloke... I'll make a prediction - You'll be gone from this messageboard a damned sight sooner than Clough is booted out from DCFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
networker1884 Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 it's not even relevant though Nope, it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top 6 finish Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Always glad to hear your views Albert by the way how is life treating you on the planet Zog?looking forward to watching your first ever game of football one day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BondJovi Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Brayford is an experienced centrehalf, Ben Davies has played rightback before and is generally experienced, there was nothing wrong with that selection. The other option, as you point out, was Gjokaj. Now, think about it this way: First team appearances: Hoganson - 3 Gjokaj - 2 That would have been a great two players to have in our backline against arguably the strongest attack in the league. There's no way that could shatter the confidence of both of our best our defensive prospects and lead to even more criticism of Clough. It would have been a risk. But they have to gain experience somehow and it is not as if a huge amount hangs on these games. Just because Davies has played there before does not make him any more suitable in that role than one of the youngsters. I would rather we did all we could to keep Brayford at RB. If these players are on the bench, then Clough has to think they are good enough to play should they be needed. All except Doyle, which I will never understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
networker1884 Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Safety is a reference to relegation. There is a significant semantic difference between this kind of statement and a glass "half full" or "half empty". In the case of the glass, it has to do with the choice of words for two things of identical meaning in a physical sense, but may lead to a differing response in terms of the impression it gives. As for safety against relegation though, safety has no meaning in this case beyond not getting relegated, which is in itself a very negative thing. By bringing up safety in such a context, and questioning whether we are safe, the person in question is bringing the negativity into the discussion. This is not a choice between two terms of identical meaning, as relegated does not need to be mentioned, and "not being safe" and "being relegated" are equally negative terms for a football club. Long story short, if you're talking about us potentially not being safe, you're the one with the half empty glass here. Wow. I don't care. And rather than point out your mistakes in that post I'm going to leave you. I hope that we speak again, but next time please try to be a little more jolly. Maybe that's not what you're here for, but it wouldn't hurt once in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 hmmm - maybe we were turned down in our attempts? Everybody knows that you can pick up loan players by the bucketload at Lidl, and the permanent transfers as Asda. Oh no sorry, that's Championship Manager I'm thinking of, where you can pull up a list of thousands of players available for loan in about 2 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 It would have been a risk. But they have to gain experience somehow and it is not as if a huge amount hangs on these games. Just because Davies has played there before does not make him any more suitable in that role than one of the youngsters. I would rather we did all we could to keep Brayford at RB. If these players are on the bench, then Clough has to think they are good enough to play should they be needed. All except Doyle, which I will never understand. It is not a suitable time to give a young player a go in such a game. Away from home, with a young player along side him? Experience is one thing, but destroying the lads confidence is another. I think he deserves a go, but today was not the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
networker1884 Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 I think people need to be reminded. If Clough says we can't bring anybody in, it means we can't bring anybody from Britain in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Wow. I don't care. And rather than point out your mistakes in that post I'm going to leave you. I hope that we speak again, but next time please try to be a little more jolly. Maybe that's not what you're here for, but it wouldn't hurt once in a while. ...what? You make a false statement, I show you that you are false, and you get annoyed? You tried to derail a discussion with an irrelevant comment, then run when that comment turns out to be false in the first place? Seems a tad childish to me. Also, where was I "talking about English" as you claimed in that previous post? You still haven't answered that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 I think people need to be reminded. If Clough says we can't bring anybody in, it means we can't bring anybody from Britain in. You're right, we can't bring anyone in from outside of England actually, as the emergency loan window doesn't work that way I'm pretty sure, or are you referring to free transfers? Know any good foreign free transfers, or has your previous failure to derail the discussion led you to the ol' "Clough only likes British players" comments to get yourself back to your wummy ways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.