lush Posted 24 January 2006 Posted 24 January 2006 6 straight league defeats, 2 points from a possible 30, theres NO way the players have faith in things anymore. He should do the decent thing and say sorry ive done me best and it hasnt worked. He shouldnt force us to compensate him for his disaster. We have a week to change things for the better (southampton is a luxury), qpr next tuesday is a mamoth game, as will wolves the brighton then derby and so on. We cannot afford to carry on this way.
Jon the Hat Posted 24 January 2006 Posted 24 January 2006 6 straight league defeats, 2 points from a possible 30, theres NO way the players have faith in things anymore. He should do the decent thing and say sorry ive done me best and it hasnt worked. He shouldnt force us to compensate him for his disaster. We have a week to change things for the better (southampton is a luxury), qpr next tuesday is a mamoth game, as will wolves the brighton then derby and so on. We cannot afford to carry on this way. I agree. The board must act now to have ANY credibilty left. Without the fans or the players beleiving, Levein cannot do it. Nobody could. Game over. NEXT!
The Reverend Posted 24 January 2006 Posted 24 January 2006 Craig Levein has lost the dressing room. That is obvious. There was no passion in the game. Plymouth showed evertything that we didnt- steel, grit and guts. If Levein cannot get the players up for our game in hand/relegation 10 pointer, then he should walk on that fact alone
lush Posted 24 January 2006 Author Posted 24 January 2006 Craig on the OS, has moaned tonight, that we didnt have enough to break plymouth down, well, if we play rubbish players, who have lost faith, were not going to are we. We had hume, hammond and smith on the bench, these are surely better players than deep freeze, kisnorbo and hughes at the mo, to win a game with.
AyewJoking Posted 24 January 2006 Posted 24 January 2006 How much would his compensation cost? How much would relegation cost?
Neil_LCFC Posted 24 January 2006 Posted 24 January 2006 Craig on the OS, has moaned tonight, that we didnt have enough to break plymouth down, well, if we play rubbish players, who have lost faith, were not going to are we. We had hume, hammond and smith on the bench, these are surely better players than deep freeze, kisnorbo and hughes at the mo, to win a game with. That's Levein's trouble he doesn't know how to win a game of football it's obvious to all watching.
lush Posted 24 January 2006 Author Posted 24 January 2006 That's Levein's trouble he doesn't know how to win a game of football it's obvious to all watching. Absolutely, are attacking players tonight, were deep freeze (was very cold tonight ), fryatt and hughes (whos not doing well at present), thats it, 3 players. How the hell is that saying to plymouth, were coming for you, its a joke. So obviously, we played for a 0-0 draw, and it doesnt matter how good the goal was, we gave them the chance to score it, because our thinking was to defend. Eventually, plymouth were going to score. Were well capable of beating plymouth, with an attacking approach, but craigs lost the plot.
Thracian Posted 25 January 2006 Posted 25 January 2006 Craig on the OS, has moaned tonight, that we didnt have enough to break plymouth down, well, if we play rubbish players, who have lost faith, were not going to are we. We had hume, hammond and smith on the bench, these are surely better players than deep freeze, kisnorbo and hughes at the mo, to win a game with. The man comes out with more shit that an elephant after an enema.
Michael Doyle Posted 25 January 2006 Posted 25 January 2006 The man comes out with more shit that an elephant after an enema. Not agreeing with your message but had a laugh at the intent!
Guest Posted 25 January 2006 Posted 25 January 2006 Absolutely, are attacking players tonight, were deep freeze (was very cold tonight ), fryatt and hughes (whos not doing well at present), thats it, 3 players. How the hell is that saying to plymouth, were coming for you, its a joke. So obviously, we played for a 0-0 draw, and it doesnt matter how good the goal was, we gave them the chance to score it, because our thinking was to defend. Eventually, plymouth were going to score. Were well capable of beating plymouth, with an attacking approach, but craigs lost the plot. You haven't got a clue, have you. If he was playing for a draw, why start with 2 up front?
IDEA OR IKEA Posted 25 January 2006 Posted 25 January 2006 You haven't got a clue, have you. If he was playing for a draw, why start with 2 up front? Its not the formation always its the tactics, a lesson in football, Juve play defensive tactically with a 4 - 3 - 3 formation (not always as simple as put 4 up front your attacking, put 5 at the back your defensive)
lush Posted 25 January 2006 Author Posted 25 January 2006 You haven't got a clue, have you. If he was playing for a draw, why start with 2 up front? If he was playing for a win, he`d play ENOUGH attacking players....You haven't got a clue, have you
Manwell Pablo Posted 25 January 2006 Posted 25 January 2006 If he was playing for a win, he`d play ENOUGH attacking players....You haven't got a clue, have you He was quite clearly playing to nick somthing with the De Vries targetman tatic we've seen in the Wednesday and Cardiff games. Utter rubbish but if he was playing for a draw he would of had no issues with going 4-5-1
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.