MOTD

[Nascent Blues]

What pisses me off more is when our attacking play is simply put down to the poor defensive qualities of the opposition.

Against the Canaries it was a case of woeful defending on their part; the same with Tottenham, Arsenal and even Bayern (who supposedly fell asleep after 15 minutes of a 90 minute game). What’s frustrating is that it’s rarely pointed out or alluded to that the reason why so many teams fuck up defensively against us is because of the fact that we are so good going forward. I don’t just mean in single, flowing moves, but rather the accumulated pressure that must, and obviously does, take its toll on the opposition by wearing away their resistance.

Having Hanson and others like him smugly highlight individual errors in isolation is only one side of the story. What that type of ‘analysis’ doesn’t take into consideration is that the defenders’ concentration levels have been under intense strain for ‘X’ amount of minutes due to constant pressure from our attacking line up.

Defending against a team that you know only pose a certain and limited attacking threat is obviously easier than worrying about a team that can, and does, attack from any area on the pitch. City pull and stretch teams for 90 minutes, and consequently this is one of the major factors in the opposition making forced/unforced individual or collective mistakes.

It shouldn’t seem odd that teams make more defensive errors against teams like City, Barca, Real and Bayern. For pundits to point out these mistakes as just defensive aberrations detracts from the erosive qualities that out attacking play has on the opposition.

 

[our tommy]

What pisses me off more is when our attacking play is simply put down to the poor defensive qualities of the opposition.

Against the Canaries it was a case of woeful defending on their part; the same with Tottenham, Arsenal and even Bayern (who supposedly fell asleep after 15 minutes of a 90 minute game). What’s frustrating is that it’s rarely pointed out or alluded to that the reason why so many teams fuck up defensively against us is because of the fact that we are so good going forward. I don’t just mean in single, flowing moves, but rather the accumulated pressure that must, and obviously does, take its toll on the opposition by wearing away their resistance.

Having Hanson and others like him smugly highlight individual errors in isolation is only one side of the story. What that type of ‘analysis’ doesn’t take into consideration is that the defenders’ concentration levels have been under intense strain for ‘X’ amount of minutes due to constant pressure from our attacking line up.

Defending against a team that you know only pose a certain and limited attacking threat is obviously easier than worrying about a team that can, and does, attack from any area on the pitch. City pull and stretch teams for 90 minutes, and consequently this is one of the major factors in the opposition making forced/unforced individual or collective mistakes.

It shouldn’t seem odd that teams make more defensive errors against teams like City, Barca, Real and Bayern. For pundits to point out these mistakes as just defensive aberrations detracts from the erosive qualities that out attacking play has on the opposition.

Absolutely spot on.

 

[Blue Mooner]

When will people realise that you can edit a 90 minute match and edit highlights to present exactly what you want to present.

The analysis of Dimechelis was so selective in nature, to present a narrative about his defending that Hanson wanted to portray. What I found amazing is that his examples were so unbelievably puerile and led to nothing In particular by way of Fulham chances.

I really wouldn't be bothered were it not the weak minded and un independent thinking viewers who just regurgitate this nonsense and hence perpetuate the myth. These are usually people who have not watched the game in its entirety and simply choose to believe what they are told by Hanson and his ilk.

Contrast this narrative with the eulogy about the return of the rags wing play as a result of two mediocre results against two mediocre teams. If anyone can't see this different agenda/treatment of the respective clubs then you are simply denying the blindingly obvious.

 

[sir baconface]

When will people realise that you can edit a 90 minute match and edit highlights to present exactly what you want to present.

The analysis of Dimechelis was so selective in nature, to present a narrative about his defending that Hanson wanted to portray. What I found amazing is that his examples were so unbelievably puerile and led to nothing In particular by way of Fulham chances.

I really wouldn't be bothered were it not the weak minded and un independent thinking viewers who just regurgitate this nonsense and hence perpetuate the myth. These are usually people who have not watched the game in its entirety and simply choose to believe what they are told by Hanson and his ilk.

Contrast this narrative with the eulogy about the return of the rags wing play as a result of two mediocre results against two mediocre teams. If anyone can't see this different agenda/treatment of the respective clubs then you are simply denying the blindingly obvious.

Agree. He could just as easily have put together a montage of forward passes to demonstrate DM's contribution to our offensive play. While that would also have been unbalanced, it illustrates the point. When it comes to highlights it's not just what is shown but also what has been edited out.

Strange, Bluemoon opinion seems to be unusually divided on whether DM had a good or a poor match.

 

[trotsky]

Agree. He could just as easily have put together a montage of forward passes to demonstrate DM's contribution to our offensive play. While that would also have been unbalanced, it illustrates the point. When it comes to highlights it's not just what is shown but also what has been edited out.

Strange, Bluemoon opinion seems to be unusually divided on whether DM had a good or a poor match.[/quote]
Probably divided into those who went and those who didn't. I was there and we looked balanced, but the jumping in needs to be confined to only when in essential areas i.e. not in their half leaving big gaps to exploit behind.
Definitely not deserving of Hansen's hatchet job.

 

[The Pink Panther]

When will people realise that you can edit a 90 minute match and edit highlights to present exactly what you want to present.

The analysis of Dimechelis was so selective in nature, to present a narrative about his defending that Hanson wanted to portray. What I found amazing is that his examples were so unbelievably puerile and led to nothing In particular by way of Fulham chances.

I really wouldn't be bothered were it not the weak minded and un independent thinking viewers who just regurgitate this nonsense and hence perpetuate the myth. These are usually people who have not watched the game in its entirety and simply choose to believe what they are told by Hanson and his ilk.

Contrast this narrative with the eulogy about the return of the rags wing play as a result of two mediocre results against two mediocre teams. If anyone can't see this different agenda/treatment of the respective clubs then you are simply denying the blindingly obvious.

One Hansen drew attention to was Demichelis divng in on the half way line, he missed the ball and it led to Fulham's first goal
Hansen does have a point that Demichelis is on his arse too much, but as the majority have said, Hansen should have balanced it with the good aspects of our play, especially as we won by scoring four goals

 

[deano ou812]

When will people realise that you can edit a 90 minute match and edit highlights to present exactly what you want to present.

The analysis of Dimechelis was so selective in nature, to present a narrative about his defending that Hanson wanted to portray. What I found amazing is that his examples were so unbelievably puerile and led to nothing In particular by way of Fulham chances.

I really wouldn't be bothered were it not the weak minded and un independent thinking viewers who just regurgitate this nonsense and hence perpetuate the myth. These are usually people who have not watched the game in its entirety and simply choose to believe what they are told by Hanson and his ilk.

Contrast this narrative with the eulogy about the return of the rags wing play as a result of two mediocre results against two mediocre teams. If anyone can't see this different agenda/treatment of the respective clubs then you are simply denying the blindingly obvious.

One Hansen drew attention to was Demichelis divng in on the half way line, he missed the ball and it led to Fulham's first goal
Hansen does have a point that Demichelis is on his arse too much, but as the majority have said, Hansen should have balanced it with the good aspects of our play, especially as we won by scoring four goals

Did we win by scoring four goals or where they what hansen hoped for four og's like the one in a million vinnie og,my friend who is a utd fan was in my house watching the highlights,and even he said hansen was talking out of his arse regarding our match....

 

[jimharri]

Just heard Martin Keown saying that Everton are the best team he's seen this season. Some mistake, shirley? I thought the rags were the best team in the PL?

 

[Chippy_boy]

That fuckwit Keown just saying Everton have been playing the best of any team in the league. What a berk.

Edit: you beat me to it.

 

[Ronnie the Rep]

That fuckwit Keown just saying Everton have been playing the best of any team in the league. What a berk.

He also blamed the draw on the nine days of the arse just had. They can't have it both ways can they?