Another Good Performance....

wanderlust wrote:You want me to explain how I get my matchday info yet again? 

Has anyone actually got a comment on the subject which (in case you were distracted by the petty bullshit) is the disparity between the media output and the outcome of our performances as reflected in our results and league position?

Or do you all think it's OK to describe every loss as a good performance?

Or do the little Hitlers not allow you to say what you think?

I'm in a car park in, say, Leeds and I'm peering through a car window watching two fatties having sex. I text you to tell you the man is bald and the woman is a munter.

You text me back from your armchair in Norfolk that the man has flowing locks like Andy Carroll and the woman is the spitting image of Megan Fox.

Which version is more trustworthy? Mine from the dogging arena or yours from your armchair?

In fairness Lust's original post is something that Nat could have written under Dougie and be followed up by comments like 

'   FFS he's deluded, we fuckin lost!'

I didn't agree with that view then and I don't now, there are clearly positives to take from the game like our first half performance. 

But I don't think Lennon's above questioning, Prince, Mavies and Clayton all on the bench? Starting with our slowest center back pairing in Dervite and Wheater up against Gray? Yes it looked to be working before Spearing got injured but for me his selection was wrong we have options at the back now, we know Dervite in particular is a liability and we know that Gray has pace.

That all rather depends on whether or not the rendezvous in question was streamed live on Dogging.net, received extensive coverage in the local press (including rating scores for the participants), had its highlights shown on Channel Five on Saturday night and was the subject of fervent discussion on various sites like this one.

Surely, if Lusty (or anybody else) bases their appraisal of events on information gathered from these sources, they are just as likely to come up with as informed an opinion as some oddball who spends their time hanging round car parks wearing a dirty anorak and masturbating themselves into a state of voyeuristic delirium?

Hello, I'm back.

  Welcome back Breadders.

Hope you had a jolly good time!

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:You want me to explain how I get my matchday info yet again? 

Has anyone actually got a comment on the subject which (in case you were distracted by the petty bullshit) is the disparity between the media output and the outcome of our performances as reflected in our results and league position?

Or do you all think it's OK to describe every loss as a good performance?

Or do the little Hitlers not allow you to say what you think?

I'm in a car park in, say, Leeds and I'm peering through a car window watching two fatties having sex. I text you to tell you the man is bald and the woman is a munter.

You text me back from your armchair in Norfolk that the man has flowing locks like Andy Carroll and the woman is the spitting image of Megan Fox.

Which version is more trustworthy? Mine from the dogging arena or yours from your armchair?

So you're saying you haven't got an opinion on the subject then?

Wrong analogy anyway.

If it was comparable, the fatties in question would have failed to actually get in on (perhaps because thousands of people were watching) and then released a statement to the press saying that the sex was the best any two humans have ever experienced, regardless of what the voyeurs saw.

What you are questioning is whether or not you have to be a voyeur to question the press release, when in fact their failure and the press release are both in the public domain so anyone, anywhere can question the disparity - without having to go to the trouble of watching two fatties rolling around in a barrel.

Typical of you and the other one - no original opinion, inability to follow logic and a tired agenda.

Another press release today in which Lennon vows to turn the situation around.

That seems to scotch any idea that he's planning to leave before the job's done - more like the response of a man who thinks his job is under threat, although of course we'll never know if it's a holding story or not.

Thankfully there was precious little mention of "good performances".
Maybe it's got to the point where Neil is ready to get tough with the players - which is a trait one would expect from a man with his brooding public persona. 
But hopefully he'll be able to open his mind to ensure that the entire squad has a chance of a starting place if they work for it rather than just the usual suspects and that the system he plays will suit the players who earn places rather than trying to fit everybody into the system that hasn't delivered so far. Hopefully he has the ability to give us a fresh start.

he doesn't strike me as the kind of man who would run away from a challenge so i expect him to stick at it. He does need to be more attacking tomorrow night as 2 back to back home wins would give him some breathing space. I would definitely start with Mavies and Clayton but i suspect Clayton may be on the bench again.

Norpig wrote:he doesn't strike me as the kind of man who would run away from a challenge 

His public persona suggests that he's a bit of a hard man, who won't take any crap, is a stickler/is stubborn and has a bit of nous about the game and player management.

But that's an image for public consumption and may bear no resemblance to the reality whatsoever.

However it's been mentioned in other threads that he's p***** off with the situation and is ready to walk, so hopefully there is some truth in this latest press release - and that he has the characteristics his public persona suggests. We'll see.

If he walked now he'd just look like a ponce.

Natasha Whittam wrote:If he walked now he'd just look like a ponce.

Dunno. He could just claim that Gartside has no ambition and wouldn't give him the money he needs, then write a book about what a great manager he's been and how stupid Bayern and Real are for not employing him. Worked for the last manager we had who chickened out when the going got tough.

He also says in not so many words how pissed off he is becoming with the fact the board won't back him with a little extra cash, talking about how he's halved the wage bill and some of that should be made available to him. He also says he didn't anticipate quite how difficult his job would turn out when he signed on the dotted line. He can't jump ship because he won't want his second job in management to end with him leaving us rock bottom. There's no point sacking him because any other manager would be in the same boat, shit team and no money. Neil needs to sort his shit out and turn this round. His selection sometimes makes you wonder what he's thinking. If he doesn't turn it around quickly we will be cut adrift and once that happens, even though it's early days, it becomes very difficult to pull back.

Bwfc1958 wrote:He also says in not so many words how pissed off he is becoming with the fact the board won't back him with a little extra cash, talking about how he's halved the wage bill and some of that should be made available to him. 

Dead right 58 but I think it's been complicated by the fact that he's been chasing a loanee striker and affordable ones who would actually want to play for us are as rare as rocking horse poo. And I get the feeling that some of the clubs have been making it awkward for us e.g. Charlton dissuading their bench warmer.

Seeing as strikers tend to cost a premium, maybe Neil will now look to strengthen elsewhere?

Not so long ago though, as recently as last month I think, Neil was talking about how this cash he'd freed up was burning a hole in his pocket. Did he assume it would be enough to sign one of his targets or have the board had a change of heart and said he can't have that much after all? I would give anything to be a fly on the wall in that boardroom.

Bwfc1958 wrote:Not so long ago though, as recently as last month I think, Neil was talking about how this cash he'd freed up was burning a hole in his pocket. Did he assume it would be enough to sign one of his targets or have the board had a change of heart and said he can't have that much after all? I would give anything to be a fly on the wall in that boardroom.

I suspect it's not being able to find anyone rather than further sanction as the financial plan would have been in place before he started trying to ship out the likes of Trotter.