Conceded three again.

Mr Irrelevant · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:25 pm **Posts:** 22662

And still Wilson does nothing about our pathetic excuse for a defence.

tREE_wiTH_hAMStER · **Joined:** Sat May 19, 2007 11:00 am **Posts:** 20758

With Humphreys putting in one of teh worst performances iv ever seen then its not hard to see why we conceded 3. An utter waste of a shirt and further more embarrasment to our club by those who voted him player of the century.

Obafemi Obsession · **Posted:** Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:29 pm

Tree_With_Hamster wrote:

With Humphreys putting in one of teh worst performances iv ever seen then its not hard to see why we conceded 3. An utter waste of a shirt and further more embarrasment to our club by those who voted him player of the century.

Are you on crack?

Mr Irrelevant · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:25 pm **Posts:** 22662

Tree_With_Hamster wrote:

With Humphreys putting in one of teh worst performances iv ever seen then its not hard to see why we conceded 3. An utter waste of a shirt and further more embarrasment to our club by those who voted him player of the century.

I haven't fell of my chair with shock I have to say. Humphreys wants chasing and has done for at least 18 months.

alybaba · **Posted:** Sun Nov 16, 2008 5:03 am

Lidds will now be fresh and hopefully be in a better mind for the brighton game clappp

Mr Ripper · **Posted:** Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:33 pm

chip fireball wrote:

collins getting sent off could be a blessing in disguise, at least now wilson will have to change things around

But on Saturday Wilson merely responded to the sending off by replacing one old fogey who can't tackle or head the ball and has no positional sense by moving another one there from left back as a like for like replacement.

Obafemi Obsession · **Posted:** Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:37 pm

Mr Ripper wrote:

chip fireball wrote:

collins getting sent off could be a blessing in disguise, at least now wilson will have to change things around

But on Saturday Wilson merely responded to the sending off by replacing one old fogey who can't tackle or head the ball and has no positional sense by moving another one there from left back as a like for like replacement.

And it worked. :roll:

Gibsons Beard · **Posted:** Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:45 pm

Obafemi Obsession wrote:

Mr Ripper wrote:

chip fireball wrote:

collins getting sent off could be a blessing in disguise, at least now wilson will have to change things around

But on Saturday Wilson merely responded to the sending off by replacing one old fogey who can't tackle or head the ball and has no positional sense by moving another one there from left back as a like for like replacement.

And it worked. :roll:

Not really. The fact is that Mk Dons barely made an attempt to attack us during the second half. As soon as they did in the last few minutes they scored.

Gibsons Beard · **Posted:** Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:28 pm

MadJohn wrote:

gravedisorder wrote:

Obafemi Obsession wrote:

And it worked. :roll:

Not really. The fact is that Mk Dons barely made an attempt to attack us during the second half. As soon as they did in the last few minutes they scored.

Howay man grave, I know you like disagreeing with OO but that's just horseshit.

HOW DARE YOU!!!

:laugh:

In all seriousness though, it was not as if our defence was tested much in that second half was it!? MK Dons took their foot off the gas big style

TalbotAvenger · **Posted:** Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:36 pm

In all seriousness though, it was not as if our defence was tested much in that second half was it!? MK Dons took their foot off the gas big style[/quote]So why did there big lump of a centre forward keep telling his 'colleagues' to play the ball into the corners in the last ten minutes, or did your all seeing eye miss that??

PJ_Poolie · **Posted:** Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:40 pm

gravedisorder wrote:

In all seriousness though, it was not as if our defence was tested much in that second half was it!? MK Dons took their foot off the gas big style

Did they bollocks take their foot off the gas!!

What ever people think of Wilson, what he did tactically at half time on Saturday worked. He took a couple of flair players off and pressed them more and we were still in the game until injury time. We also went a lot more direct. You couldn't really knock the effort second half they gave it a real go, and Mk Dons knew they'd even be in real game even against 10 men. Had we equalised when we had that bit of momentum around the hour mark I think they could have folded altogether.

I also know it's in fashion to hammer Humphreys on here every game regardless of his performance but he didn't do bad playing sweeper, he like the rest of the team played with real spirit in that second half.

Gibsons Beard · **Posted:** Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:55 pm

TalbotAvenger wrote:

So why did there big lump of a centre forward keep telling his 'colleagues' to play the ball into the corners in the last ten minutes, or did your all seeing eye miss that??

erm, they played it into the corners to kill time as opposed to trying to score goals. They played like an Italian team for the second half ie they came out with the intention of defending a 2 goal lead?

I dont see what point you are trying to make here

My point is that they were not trying to score goals in the second half, proved by the point you just made so cheers!

Gibsons Beard · **Posted:** Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:59 pm

MadJohn wrote:

I always find it something of a cliche to say a side "sat back" or "took their foot off". Had we not pressed them much better in the second half they could have put the game to bed well before stoppage time. The fact that they didn't owed far more to our performance than it did to any change in attitude from MK. You don't just deliberately sit back and invite pressure against a free-scoring home team when you only have a one goal cushion.

(edit: or what PJ said)

My point is that MK Dons did not put much pressure on our defense in the second half. All I was saying was that our makeshift defense in the second half was not thoroughly tested? Surely even you guys must see that?

Would you feel comfortable having that defensive line up each match, I think not. Ritchie is a liability at left back nevermind centre half/sweeper.

PJ_Poolie · **Posted:** Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:06 pm

gravedisorder wrote:

MadJohn wrote:

I always find it something of a cliche to say a side "sat back" or "took their foot off". Had we not pressed them much better in the second half they could have put the game to bed well before stoppage time. The fact that they didn't owed far more to our performance than it did to any change in attitude from MK. You don't just deliberately sit back and invite pressure against a free-scoring home team when you only have a one goal cushion.

(edit: or what PJ said)

My point is that MK Dons did not put much pressure on our defense in the second half. All I was saying was that our makeshift defense in the second half was not thoroughly tested? Surely even you guys must see that?

Yes because we defended as team, pressing them all over the park. They didn't take the foot off the gas, they had to work harder. We lost the game in the period directly after the red card when we were playing with a three man midfield which was Brown, Jones, and Monkhouse which is clearly too lightweight and attack minded.

Which gets us back to why we lost- the fooking dog noncing cheat dressed in black :evil:

TalbotAvenger · **Posted:** Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:09 pm

gravedisorder wrote:

MadJohn wrote:

I always find it something of a cliche to say a side "sat back" or "took their foot off". Had we not pressed them much better in the second half they could have put the game to bed well before stoppage time. The fact that they didn't owed far more to our performance than it did to any change in attitude from MK. You don't just deliberately sit back and invite pressure against a free-scoring home team when you only have a one goal cushion.

(edit: or what PJ said)

My point is that MK Dons did not put much pressure on our defense in the second half. All I was saying was that our makeshift defense in the second half was not thoroughly tested? Surely even you guys must see that?

Would you feel comfortable having that defensive line up each match, I think not. Ritchie is a liability at left back nevermind centre half/sweeper.

Our 'defense' wasn't pressured because we didn't allow them to, not because they are the next Inter Milan

Poolie of Kent · **Posted:** Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:14 pm

Mr I wrote:

And still Wilson does nothing about our pathetic excuse for a defence.

I don't really think that's fair considering we had a game plan for about half an hour and then it was fooked up by the stupid referee's decision.

Wilson said himself that the scoreline flattered MK. They scored three because there was a great big gaping hole in our defence where Sam Collins should heave been, but he wasn't.

They didn't exactly lasy siege to our goal in the second half.

I just hope that decision doesn't help us get knocked out of the FA Cup tomorrow. sadx

Gibsons Beard · **Posted:** Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:17 pm

TalbotAvenger wrote:

gravedisorder wrote:

MadJohn wrote:

I always find it something of a cliche to say a side "sat back" or "took their foot off". Had we not pressed them much better in the second half they could have put the game to bed well before stoppage time. The fact that they didn't owed far more to our performance than it did to any change in attitude from MK. You don't just deliberately sit back and invite pressure against a free-scoring home team when you only have a one goal cushion.

(edit: or what PJ said)

My point is that MK Dons did not put much pressure on our defense in the second half. All I was saying was that our makeshift defense in the second half was not thoroughly tested? Surely even you guys must see that?

Would you feel comfortable having that defensive line up each match, I think not. Ritchie is a liability at left back nevermind centre half/sweeper.

Our 'defense' wasn't pressured because we didn't allow them to, not because they are the next Inter Milan

I agree with that, we pressuered them well but my point is that we cant go assuming that the new fangled defensive line up 'works'. Imagine having the defense set up like that in an away game and under greater pressure. We would concede even more goals!

Conceded three again.

Gadgies online