Re: Questions that need to be answered : Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:55 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

Does he defend two in from that position for the under 20's? as with McDermotts tactics, he would be if in first team.

No but neither did Delaney when McClennen played him at RIGHT centre in 2010, so doing that on the left centre wouldn't be much fun for him either.

Re: Questions that need to be answered : Tue Jun 19, 2012 4:49 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

Does he defend two in from that position for the under 20's? as with McDermotts tactics, he would be if in first team.

One would hope that the club has a set pattern of play for the U20's and the 1st team. It would make it then a smooth transition from U20's to senior squad as everyone would know what they are doing.

Re: Questions that need to be answered : Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:14 pm  

DHM wrote:

One would hope that the club has a set pattern of play for the U20's and the 1st team. It would make it then a smooth transition from U20's to senior squad as everyone would know what they are doing.

The U20s outstanding results suggest this is unlikely.

Re: Questions that need to be answered : Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:17 pm  

RoyFrancis wrote:

None of the above, just wait and see!

Soooo come on ..what do you know ?

Re: Questions that need to be answered : Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:48 pm  

nantwichexile wrote:

Another one determined to ignore the successful academy team. Not a lot of point having one really is there ?

Oh he's happy to have one, but farm them out o lower league teams, hoping they will get an Admin job (see Halifax), so they dont come back

Re: Questions that need to be answered : Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:23 am  

craigizzard wrote:

The U20s outstanding results suggest this is unlikely.

That made me laugh on the outside and cry on the inside.

Re: Questions that need to be answered : Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:44 am  

nantwichexile wrote:

Geez .. I was only trying to stimulate debate. I base my opinions on what I have seen and heard live and on TV/radio; no more. How "WORTHWHILE" that is I don't know, but nowhere have I ever professed to be the ultimate all knowing oracle ( unlike others ). There was no need for G1 to reply with a retort no doubt meant to provoke.... Can't see any other reason for the content. I chose to largely ignore it with a flippant riposte on his continued apostrophe faux pas.

Next thing I have a host of his apologists demanding I take heed of his absolutely sacrosant valid point that I am repeating myself.

I apologise for my crime ..... M c Dermott and the boys I adore you unquestioningly and I promise no more undue irreverence. You can all do no wrong. Bow bow scrape scrape..... I will attend every match too before I dare to pass adverse opinion again ...

Phooey

At no point did I suggest that you should forfeit your right to opinion. It just annoys me ever so slightly when you spout off about aspects of a match you have not witnessed, and usually one of the first to do so. I never said you had to attend every match, but watching, or listening to commentary would be a good start. Your aversion to the idea of attending games, should you be able, is your choice, albeit poorly reasoned.

Re: Questions that need to be answered : Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:39 am  

Nantwich, you're obviously entitled to your opinions, and entitled to post them. Equally, however, once you do it on a public forum, people are entitled to question how well informedthey are.

May I enquire as to how many times you've watched our successful academy team this year?

Incidentally, on the "what's the point in having the academy" question, I'd argue that providing players in the current season isn't really its core purpose at all. It is, surely, supposed to be providing FUTURE players, isn't it? I'm not saying that means academy players shouldn't play in the first team, just that if they don't that doesn't negate the whole purpose of its existence, as you appeared to suggest.

Further, at the risk of being labelled a G1 apologist, you ARE repeating yourself, and again, while you're entitled to do so, the rest of us are equally entitled to point out that we might find it boring to the point of being irritating enough that we respond to it. Which I suppose means you have succeeded in stimulating debate, it just might not be the debate you were aiming for.

Just saying.

Re: Questions that need to be answered : Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:00 pm  

El Diablo wrote:

Nantwich, you're obviously entitled to your opinions, and entitled to post them. Equally, however, once you do it on a public forum, people are entitled to question how well informedthey are.

May I enquire as to how many times you've watched our successful academy team this year?

Incidentally, on the "what's the point in having the academy" question, I'd argue that providing players in the current season isn't really its core purpose at all. It is, surely, supposed to be providing FUTURE players, isn't it? I'm not saying that means academy players shouldn't play in the first team, just that if they don't that doesn't negate the whole purpose of its existence, as you appeared to suggest.

Further, at the risk of being labelled a G1 apologist, you ARE repeating yourself, and again, while you're entitled to do so, the rest of us are equally entitled to point out that we might find it boring to the point of being irritating enough that we respond to it. Which I suppose means you have succeeded in stimulating debate, it just might not be the debate you were aiming for.

Just saying.

I guess some opinions are more qualified than others but some take them more seriously than others. If my opinions annoy anybody "ever so slightly" then I am indeed flattered that my ( oft repeated ) opinions matter to that degree that they must be responded to.

Personally I would ignore them

Just saying.

I reserve the right to not have to further explain or justify myself .... Or is that verboten ?

Re: Questions that need to be answered : Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:43 am  

nantwichexile wrote:

I guess some opinions are more qualified than others but some take them more seriously than others. If my opinions annoy anybody "ever so slightly" then I am indeed flattered that my ( oft repeated ) opinions matter to that degree that they must be responded to.

Personally I would ignore them

Just saying.

I reserve the right to not have to further explain or justify myself .... Or is that verboten ?

I wouldn't be too flattered. I find lots of people annoying who have no particular bearing on my life. It isn't that they must be responded to , per se. It's more that responding to things is what internet forums are all about.

If I ignored every lunatic opinion on here I'd have to stop posting and find sopmething else to do with my time. And I'm feeling far too short on imagination for that.

You can reserve the right to do more or less whatever you want on a web forum, so you have no obligation to explain or justify yourself.