Swiss_tony Posted 29 July 2013 Share Posted 29 July 2013 Well, if you'd put more effort into your research, you'd notice that out of the current squad of 31, six are recent signings by Bruce. That leaves 25 from the Pearson-Barmby-Bruce era, of which 13 were playing under Pearson still. Combined with the released players by Hull, - roughly five to ten names - more than half of all players involved with Hull over the past two to three seasons were signed or developed by Pearson. Thank you. bruce played 11 players each game plus 3 subs, not 31. look over the last 8 or so games you'll see the same names in the treamsheet. 2/3 of the first eleven were notm pearson signed players. you may as well argue that all of our pre pearson signings have contributed in some way even thought they haven't been near the first team in months. shall we count danns, beckford, gallagher et al as players who got us into the top six last season? you're not one of these people that hates sven for signing all those expensive players are you? because using your logic above you have to count them towards our successful season last year. you can't have it one way for hull to prove your nigel nobbing point, and then say the opposite about us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Prussian Posted 29 July 2013 Share Posted 29 July 2013 bruce played 11 players each game plus 3 subs, not 31. look over the last 8 or so games you'll see the same names in the treamsheet. 2/3 of the first eleven were notm pearson signed players. you may as well argue that all of our pre pearson signings have contributed in some way even thought they haven't been near the first team in months. shall we count danns, beckford, gallagher et al as players who got us into the top six last season? you're not one of these people that hates sven for signing all those expensive players are you? because using your logic above you have to count them towards our successful season last year. you can't have it one way for hull to prove your nigel nobbing point, and then say the opposite about us. So our last season was "successful" after all? Hallelujah! I wasn't talking about players used for specific games, but the amount of players in Hull's squad overall. I don't hate Eriksson, I still don't. I like the guy, but am somewhat disappointed what he and the management as well as the owners were thinking back then and what they've done that has us still reeling. I might be wrong here, but wasn't the majority of Sven's expensive signings either quickly released, returned to their parent club or sent out on loan - so not having any impact on our season and a half under Pearson at all? Besides, you can't compare that half season that it took Pearson to ship it all out to Bruce's fresh start at the beginning of the 2012/2013 season. That'd be comparing different lengths of straws and call them even. I'm not "nobbing" Pearson. I just find it somewhat amusing to what extent his haters go in order to discredit the man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry - LCFC Posted 24 August 2013 Share Posted 24 August 2013 Hi everyone Remember all that time ago? Way back at the end of pre-season when we'd just lost to Northampton? We'd had a mediocre set of 'results', if you can even call the outcome of a friendly a result, and many people were predicting a miserable start to the season with their newfound wisdom. How odd then, that it turns out we've actually started rather well. Four wins from five is hardly the tough time some people thought we'd have. Strange, that wasn't supposed to happen. So maybe those friendlies weren't so important after all? It's an interesting thought. Perhaps you'd be well advised to ignore games that are essentially just training sessions which have no real bearing on the outcome of the season. Perhaps competitive games really are the only thing you should assess the team on. Like I say, just a thought. Thanks for your time Harry PS - Sorry to take such a sarcastic tone but it really irritated me how upset some posters were getting over a bunch of meaningless games. They're training sessions, not fixtures. Please bear that in mind next time we let in more goals than we score when playing a League Two side in one such training session Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dedlock Posted 24 August 2013 Share Posted 24 August 2013 The guy is entitled to his opinion, whether you agree with it or not. Every one both pro and anti deserve that. Is that an opinion? Sounds like a cheap jibe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester_Numan Posted 24 August 2013 Share Posted 24 August 2013 Hi everyone Remember all that time ago? Way back at the end of pre-season when we'd just lost to Northampton? We'd had a mediocre set of 'results', if you can even call the outcome of a friendly a result, and many people were predicting a miserable start to the season with their newfound wisdom. How odd then, that it turns out we've actually started rather well. Four wins from five is hardly the tough time some people thought we'd have. Strange, that wasn't supposed to happen. So maybe those friendlies weren't so important after all? It's an interesting thought. Perhaps you'd be well advised to ignore games that are essentially just training sessions which have no real bearing on the outcome of the season. Perhaps competitive games really are the only thing you should assess the team on. Like I say, just a thought. Thanks for your time Harry PS - Sorry to take such a sarcastic tone but it really irritated me how upset some posters were getting over a bunch of meaningless games. They're training sessions, not fixtures. Please bear that in mind next time we let in more goals than we score when playing a League Two side in one such training session agreed, that's why the last friendly I went to was back in 1989. As much as I'd enjoy the evening out and a few beers, I've got better things to spend money on than a game that means nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry - LCFC Posted 24 August 2013 Share Posted 24 August 2013 agreed, that's why the last friendly I went to was back in 1989. As much as I'd enjoy the evening out and a few beers, I've got better things to spend money on than a game that means nothing I've got nothing against people who go to friendlies, they aren't my cup of tea but people are entitled to go of course. It's just those who want to make predictions on how the season will go by watching a few nothing games. If you see the team play that's fine by me, just want fans to realise that they aren't overly important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonaldinho Posted 24 August 2013 Share Posted 24 August 2013 Can we give it a little more than four league games please? Yes it's been a fantastic start results wise, but lets not get ahead of ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry - LCFC Posted 25 August 2013 Share Posted 25 August 2013 Can we give it a little more than four league games please? Yes it's been a fantastic start results wise, but lets not get ahead of ourselves. I'm not trying to say people shouldn't criticise, I'm just trying to point out how silly it is to be fixated with friendlies. No-one will make any reference to our pre-season if we start losing now because now they realise how friendlies do not affect our how we play in competitive fixtures. I'm hoping people will realise this next time we have a 'bad' pre-season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted 25 August 2013 Share Posted 25 August 2013 Great start to the season 3 wins and a draw. However, I'm not getting carried away yet. What makes me laugh when I read some posts on here (I don't write often) is If anyone gives an honest opinion on the game that they just watched (which may have some criticism) they are considered 'negative' or 'moaning' I watched 2 of our opening 4 games and thought we were dreadful. Having said that, so were the opposition. In the past they have been games that we may have lost, so it's been nice to come out on top as those points could prove to be vital come may. My biggest concern has been our performances (i didnt see today) Now Some might say winning ugly is the sign of a good team, but you can't get away with it all season. I would be ok winning ugly against the top sides in the division (like Cardiff did against us) but against the poor teams, we should be outplaying them. We played some fanastic football till the end of January, some of the best I've seen in years, and we were winning. Something happened, we stopped playing well and we went on a dreadful run. So theres nothing wrong with the fans wanting to see exciting winning football. Even more so with the young talent we have, the money spent and what we saw last season. I have never been pearsons biggest fan but will support him as he manages my team. If he doesn't get it right though this year, when will he? In my eyes he will have had long enough. People talk about sticking with managers, but there's no evidence to suggest that keeping with a manager is better than not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 25 August 2013 Share Posted 25 August 2013 What makes me laugh when I read some posts on here (I don't write often) is If anyone gives an honest opinion on the game that they just watched (which may have some criticism) they are considered 'negative' or 'moaning' You may well not write often but I'd pay attention to what you're reading because you'll find most of the moaning posts are considered 'moaning'. Those ones with baseless negativity. The ones with criticism (constructive or otherwise) aren't dismissed and are usually the kickers for talking points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.