Just back from St Andrews

[Slim]

For those of you banging on about Ireland making a difference - what did he actually do when he came on?

I am a big Stevie fan - but the answer to your question from where I was stood was none - but for me he was not helped by the team continuing to boot long balls without Ade or RSC on the pitch - I think a lot of it passed him by

I was going to start a thread on this but here will do. I thought Stevie touched the ball 5 times in his 30 minute cameo. 5 times.

Was he open? Was he available? Or did the defense just lob it over his head or out wide. It makes no sense to have a playmaker who doesn't receive the ball. Particularly when Leslie made a proactive change to get him on the field.

12 times.

And it was a reactive change, not a proactive change. English dazby, never to late to learn.

Thanks mr fucking pedantic. Yes, it was a proactive change. Taking off GazBaz for having a mare would have been a reactive change. But no, Leslie was chasing the game and took off the better of the two midfielders. A proactive change.

Please don't take this opportunity Slim to bore us all shitless with dictionary definitions and the like. Just call me a fucktard or whatever crap you have in your arsenal of witty repartee and be done with it. If anyone else would like to discuss Stevie's contribution I'd love to debate it with you.

You're an idiot, 5 times, 5 times in 30 minutes an idiot. Or was it 12? Know your shit or just know shit?

And you debating anything with anyone is a fucking joke, you haven't made a decent post in fucking 3 years, and I doubt YOU would have any insight into Stephen Ireland that couldn't be filed under the header of "stating the fucking obvious".

And if you wanted to avoid being told about dictionary definitions then you shouldn't try to lecture others on what you fail to grasp. Chasing the game and the midfield needed to be more attacking, took off a defensive midfielder for an attacking one. REACTIVE.

[Wonderwall]

Or maybe Hughes just REACTED PROACTIVELY

[dazby]

For those of you banging on about Ireland making a difference - what did he actually do when he came on?

I was going to start a thread on this but here will do. I thought Stevie touched the ball 5 times in his 30 minute cameo. 5 times.

Was he open? Was he available? Or did the defense just lob it over his head or out wide. It makes no sense to have a playmaker who doesn't receive the ball. Particularly when Leslie made a proactive change to get him on the field.

12 times.

And it was a reactive change, not a proactive change. English dazby, never to late to learn.

Thanks mr fucking pedantic. Yes, it was a proactive change. Taking off GazBaz for having a mare would have been a reactive change. But no, Leslie was chasing the game and took off the better of the two midfielders. A proactive change.

Please don't take this opportunity Slim to bore us all shitless with dictionary definitions and the like. Just call me a fucktard or whatever crap you have in your arsenal of witty repartee and be done with it. If anyone else would like to discuss Stevie's contribution I'd love to debate it with you.

You're an idiot, 5 times, 5 times in 30 minutes an idiot. Or was it 12? Know your shit or just know shit?

And you debating anything with anyone is a fucking joke, you haven't made a decent post in fucking 3 years, and I doubt YOU would have any insight into Stephen Ireland that couldn't be filed under the header of "stating the fucking obvious".

And if you wanted to avoid being told about dictionary definitions then you shouldn't try to lecture others on what you fail to grasp. Chasing the game and the midfield needed to be more attacking, took off a defensive midfielder for an attacking one. REACTIVE.

Attempt at being a smart arse. CHECK
Personal abuse. CHECK
Being a pedantic twat. CHECK
Failing to debate the issue. CHECK

All the hallmarks of another classic Slim post.

[Slim]

And yet still you haven't addressed how many times Stevie touched the ball.

Are you waiting till you get your avoidance up to 5 times so at least you have a use for that number?

If you want to know why Stevie was so ineffective maybe you could watch the game? You might even find out how many times he touched the ball. Seriously, what is the point with you?

[dazby]

I saw 5 meaningful touches. You pull out a stat of 12 from somewhere. Why do you think that is? Is it because we were playing wide and using Sweep as the primary outlet? That would have been a factor. Is it because we didn't respect possession enough and gave it away too quickly preventing us from building a meaningful attack? For sure. Is he still not right and was off the pace to be in the right position? He doesn't look as cat-like as he has last season.

hmmmm, what do you think? Care to reference where you got the figure of 12 from?

[Slim]

Guardian chalkboard, 9 successful passes, 3 unsuccessful, got tackled 0 times.

[mcfc1632]

For those of you banging on about Ireland making a difference - what did he actually do when he came on?

I am a big Stevie fan - but the answer to your question from where I was stood was none - but for me he was not helped by the team continuing to boot long balls without Ade or RSC on the pitch - I think a lot of it passed him by

I was going to start a thread on this but here will do. I thought Stevie touched the ball 5 times in his 30 minute cameo. 5 times.

Was he open? Was he available? Or did the defense just lob it over his head or out wide. It makes no sense to have a playmaker who doesn't receive the ball. Particularly when Leslie made a proactive change to get him on the field.

12 times.

And it was a reactive change, not a proactive change. English dazby, never to late to learn.

Slim – you are obviously a knowledgeable man in respect of English grammar – good man – I also wonder sometimes over how things are worded - but you have to give respect to people that they do not need to be advanced in English to post on an internet site – also there are different takes on the use of words – like this one of Dazby’s when perhaps comments on grammar are not necessarily appropriate.

Take this example:

People use the word reactive in respect of Hughes quite a lot – I think mainly to infer that he does not respond to requirements for changes to personnel during the game – it follows that this type of ‘charge’ comes from those poster mainly ‘anti-Hughes’ and it used to ‘run him down’. (I do not mean you)

I am not sure how the charge actually is valid generally – and particularly not in this case

A definition of Reactive is:

Tending to be responsive or to react to a stimulus

Well that is surely what we want from our manager is it not?

But if you accept the meaning of the anti-Hughes usage of the word – i.e. reacting too late – then I am still not sure it works in this case

Hughes made positive changes quite early in the 2nd half – he did not do like for like changes so he was introducing creativity / flair etc – did not work but seemed right choices to me.

Then there is the word Proactive, a definition of which is:

Serving to prepare for, intervene in, or control an expected occurrence or situation

Well in this case he would be clearly proactive through his selection of the formation to start and in particular his selection for the bench through which is preparing for a need to intervene etc (people may challenge whether the formation / personnel were the ones they would have chosen – but that is not relevant to the use of the word proactive)

You could / would also probably suggest that he has been highly proactive in the way he has built a squad with, in the main, 2 quality option in every position – that is also preparing for injuries, bans etc

I do not want to be pedantic – just want to point out that when I read Dazby’s post, I could clearly see what he intended to get across and that is surely the point.

With regard to the actual action of Stevie coming on, well this could be clearly recognised as being a double-whammy by Hughes:

Reactive – in that he saw the need to be responsive to the fact that we needed more creativity based on the evidence on the pitch and

Proactive – because he prepared the bench and prepared the squad to have such options available and was bold enough to make substitutions with plenty of time and not simply like for like.

I was just very disappointed that the other players – especially Kompany and Lescott - did not give him the ball more and that RSC did not move on from the promise he showed during the week.

[Slim]

1632, thanks for that...not quoting as it's huge.

But reactive has a negative connotation, proactive has a positive one. I think I objected more over the fact that it seemed like he was paying Hughes a compliment over tactics which after last night's travesty I think it annoyed me.

[mcfc1632]

1632, thanks for that...not quoting as it's huge.

But reactive has a negative connotation, proactive has a positive one. I think I objected more over the fact that it seemed like he was paying Hughes a compliment over tactics which after last night's travesty I think it annoyed me.

Yeah - things can be said a bit glib from people 'from both camps' - I do not think I am 'in' either.

From the anti-Hughes side there is also a tendancy to make comments / use words out of context that do not bear scrutiny - reactive is just a tame example - but the message you are giving is that it is not right to give undue credit - I agree - and for balance (from a neutral) it is not right to be equally unbalanced from the other viewpoint - if I was to make what I think is a balanced judgement - the anti guys make far more comments that would not bear scrutiny than the 'defenders'

Can I just say that I think a lot of posts I have read on here since getting back last night do fail to give any recognition to BCFC and the performance they put in. They were not a 'shite' side as I have heard said - I thought that they absolutely worked their socks off - and whilst we shouold still break teams down like that - they do deserve some credit - quite a bit in fact

[Blue Man Dan.]

For What its worth i think Given had a superb Faultless game. even his kicking was brilliant (bar one that landed in the bull ring) Bridge had a good game and was relentless all game, i think lescot is a fucking nightmare and an accident waiting to happen, Zabba was average and Kompany was effective but looked sluggish and unfit, got left standing on more than one occasion. In the midfield we were more effective down the left through the channels of bellamy but the rest of the team were slow catching up with him! Barrys passing was bartonesque to say the least and i am sure he can not handle the pressure of being given stick by opposing fans, he has been poor as of late too IMO. Nige looked ok but again didn't have the best of games, Swp i would like to know what the fuck has happened he cant seem to beat a fucking egg these days let alone an opposition player He just seems to be poor at the minute. i would rather start with petrov and Bellamy opposed to what it is at the moment. Roque looks shite But my judgement is reserved as i feel i need to see more of him, Teves isn't much better, mostly ineffective but can have moments of brilliance.

Saying all this we were VERY lucky to get a point. the squad wasn't up for it bar Shay and Bridge and in all fairness brum deserved the points Far more than we did. We missed Toure, Adebayor and even robinho one hell of a lot yesterday. we were screaming for that little bit of sublime skill and we didn't get it from anyone.

I would rate the team at...


Given - 9
Bridge - 8
Lescott - 5
Kompany - 6
Zabba - 6
Bellamy - 7
Barry - 5
Dejong - 6
Swp - 5
Santa - 4
Teves - 5

6 being Average based on the reasons above

[Slim]

You called Barry bridge, twice.

[ant london]

You called Barry bridge, twice.

with different scores

Who are you, Andy Goram??

[Blue Man Dan.]

I always fucking do that, even when talking about him!


edited accordingly.

[mr_nool]

I always fucking do that, even when talking about him!


edited accordingly.

Nice to see you posting again, Dan!
Stick around this time!

[Slim]

Barry was really fucking awful, and I have no idea why. He was our Mr Consistent and all of a sudden he has turned to absolute pot. Could it be he can't play in the same midfield as de Jong?

[Mase]

I think it's clear that yesterday's result was Micah's fault. Why the fuck didn't he run off the bench and jump up with Larson when De Jong used his hand? He would have won the header and this would have resulted in no pen being awarded. Why didn't he run off the bench and get in the box for all those crosses that SWP put in to no one? Why the hell didn't he shout "MAN ON!" to Barry when he lost the ball near the start of the match causing them to have a good chance on goal?

[mcfc1632]

I think it's clear that yesterday's result was Micah's fault. Why the fuck didn't he run off the bench and jump up with Larson when De Jong used his hand? He would have won the header and this would have resulted in no pen being awarded. Why didn't he run off the bench and get in the box for all those crosses that SWP put in to no one? Why the hell didn't he shout "MAN ON!" to Barry when he lost the ball near the start of the match causing them to have a good chance on goal?

Bit harsh - I thought it was one of his better games

[FootballPictures]

The greatest pictures from Birmingham-ManCity on www.footballpictures.eu !

[Blue Man Dan.]

Micah playing like he has done would not have improved the side yesterday. His lapses in concentration while bollocking everyone else have lead to 2 goals this season that i can think of.

[Twobob]

For What its worth i think Given had a superb Faultless game. even his kicking was brilliant (bar one that landed in the bull ring) Bridge had a good game and was relentless all game, i think lescot is a fucking nightmare and an accident waiting to happen, Zabba was average and Kompany was effective but looked sluggish and unfit, got left standing on more than one occasion. In the midfield we were more effective down the left through the channels of bellamy but the rest of the team were slow catching up with him! Barrys passing was bartonesque to say the least and i am sure he can not handle the pressure of being given stick by opposing fans, he has been poor as of late too IMO. Nige looked ok but again didn't have the best of games, Swp i would like to know what the fuck has happened he cant seem to beat a fucking egg these days let alone an opposition player He just seems to be poor at the minute. i would rather start with petrov and Bellamy opposed to what it is at the moment. Roque looks shite But my judgement is reserved as i feel i need to see more of him, Teves isn't much better, mostly ineffective but can have moments of brilliance.

Saying all this we were VERY lucky to get a point. the squad wasn't up for it bar Shay and Bridge and in all fairness brum deserved the points Far more than we did. We missed Toure, Adebayor and even robinho one hell of a lot yesterday. we were screaming for that little bit of sublime skill and we didn't get it from anyone.

I would rate the team at...


Given - 9
Bridge - 8
Lescott - 5
Kompany - 6
Zabba - 6
Bellamy - 7
Barry - 5
Dejong - 6
Swp - 5
Santa - 4
Teves - 5

6 being Average based on the reasons above

Cheers BMD - Great to finally pick out a decent post that hasn't degenerated into a slagging match!

Have to agree with Barry recently - Was screeming at the telly that we needed to bring Ireland on at half time and we re-work ourselves around that - Dejong was one of our better outfield players.

Also, not giving RSC any excuses but isnt he strongest with crosses into the box? - SWP isnt a prolific, quality crosser and Bellers is a striker playing out wide ... saying that though RSC still looked sluggish and unfit - reminded me of Samaras.