Yes, I'd vote Ince for PoTY if it was guaranteed to sucker a Prem club into spending a fortune on him.

It was 30.280 Ramdini not 32,280. Still a great crowd especially after a crap run with nothing to play for. Good Barn-ze-ley support too.

I'm wondering if Baird would make a good DM. He's a better defender than either DeSart or BJ, he doesn't give the ball away and as we've seen regularly this season he has a defence splitting pass in his locker.
Christie offers more going forward at right back than Baird and when Keogh and Shackell become available he'll drop down the pecking order at centre half.
I don't want to drop him so I see this defensive midfield role as an option.

The new formation was 4-2-3-1 Spart. 2 as opposed to 3 midfielders, Ince playing in the hole. That you couldn't understand the difference is hardly surprising. All those white blurry figures in the distance running around. Highly confusing.

Don't see how De Sart is a DM, very much a similar player to Hughes. If he'd cut the Hollywood passes out and kept it simple he could be a decent player. It's time gorgeous George put an arm round him.

SPART.
Vidal describes my situation accurately. I am only a partial believer in formation except to divide the groups roughly into defence, midfield and forwards chosen because of particular playing attributes. Speed, ball control, height and strength, vision, passing ability etc.
We've not had anyone as good as Eustace for many a year. IMHO. Thorne came closest. Putting in 110% effort allied with adequate skills and team spirit are more important. Ince's biggest fault for me is the way he doesn't see team-mates in a better scoring position and he wastes an opportunity to score.

So in answer to your question (rhetorical I think) we played only 2 in midfield with 4 forwards arranged in ad lib fashion around the run of the ball.

I agree Ince has become a very committed and able player. Good control, pace and shooting skills and very active in chasing down their breakaways. He has to be my PoTY though Carson is very important at bracing our defence and making some blinding saves.

My real PoTY would be Keogh except I'm afraid of the reaction from 666.

I remember reading about people like you Vidal. The kings new clothes comes to mind. You see what they tell you, not what is there. Not a good trait for a man in your profession.

I saw Ince out on the wings quite a lot and playing in the middle but then he always did. I saw Vydra being slightly more effective than previous games but still not up to Championship level. I saw Nugent leading the line and holding up play or winning free kicks as Martin used to do. You believe any old guff, it's a very simple game but idiots like to over complicate it.

You would be hard pressed to pin point any difference between that game and 100 previous games. Please itemise them. I can give you one. We played more long balls which isn't necessarily a good thing, especially when de Sart plays them.

Was, Thanks for spotting my mistake in crowd size. I can't blame corrective text for that one.

morning all...

my head hurts,too much vodka and was nt haye disapointing ?

what i find amusing on here is everyones views of yesterdays game and how different they are,suppose thats what makes the derby 606 so good..
i agree with you ramdini for most part anyhow..like i said on the berby /barnsley thread there s no oomph,a bit lack lustre. desire.dont know if its cos i aint been to see derby live for a few years but having now seen them iam not feeling it.the atmosphere was rubbish,thought i was at a mass wake,
i find it funny how some posters take a dislike to certain players and thats there choice.for me..

carson, v good.
nugent. motm
ince v good
russell v good
vydra.. unintrested,looked like he wanted to be subbed.
hughes.. looked like he was just going through the motions.
anya.. v good when he came on..

defence has a unit.was ok...
jds...too lightweight for me,too many stray passes..

on the whole.im glad of the 3 pts but not that impressed and on the performances of late id say we are where we deserve to be..

Rameses

I think we tried Baird in DM before, but he should/could do well there when Keogh comes back.

You are able to edit it Ramdini.

Spart, I don't suppose Red Forest Bear understands how his kettle boils, if he has one, however this is not the same thing as saying that the power to make a kettle boil does not exist.

I wasn't "told" by anyone on Tuesday night that our formation changed to 4-2-3-1 when the two subs came on, in fact I think I mentioned it on here when I got back. Unbelievably (to you) I deduced this before "they" (whoever "they" are) issued any decree. I watched the game, noticed where the players positioned themselves, and I formed conclusions from my observations. I don't have any vested interest in there being one formation or another, I just find it interesting as a football observer to look at these differences. It was clear to me that there was a switch in formation. It was clear to me yesterday that we started in the same formation as we finished on Tuesday. It was similarly clear that when we scored the second goal and Hughes came on that we reverted to a 4-3-3.

It's quite endearing that the whole thing baffles you and that you simply can't see or understand it. It's similarly endearing that rather than admit that you can't understand it you have to say it doesn't actually exist in the first place.

Could you at least tell that there was one fewer midfielder on the pitch than usual? That would at least be a starting point. Let's begin with the basics.

has for mc claren,,,id rather see him on the touchline and show a bit of passion,directing,shouting..
he s either up in the stands on that silly phone or when he comes down he just stands there...
lead by example man ff s..

comment by Iwaslevel (U4836)
posted 1 minute ago
You are able to edit it Ramdini.
-----------------------------------------------------------
You are SO demanding of article creators

Vidal, I don't suppose you noticed that in the first half Ince and Vydra were more often than not playing in front of Nugent. It wouldn't compute with your Donald Trump mindset. That makes three attacking players. Russell was playing deeper with Johnson and de Sart, that makes 3 midfielders. We had 4 defenders. You do the maths (not Strett maths).

What do you mean by midfielders anyway. Was Russell a midfielder or an attacking player. Saw plenty of our players in midfield in the first half. Maybe they weren't on the team sheet like that but football is played on the pitch, not blackboards or paper. Players respond reactively to the opposition as well as proactively to the manager's instructions.

Russell playing as defensive midfielder



Spart, you are the Trumpy individual with your "alternative facts".

Some people don't understand cricket, well they understand a bit, they know that when the ball hits the wickets the player is generally out and when it sails over the boundary it means the batsman has hit a six. But there is a lot more to it than that. The subtleties of swing and spin bowling, the way the aging pitch affects the bounce of the ball, the deterioration of the ball itself, the conditions, the field placements, the variations of the bowlers, the approach of the batsman, how he might use his feet to get to the pitch of the delivery and so on. Understanding all of these aspects makes the sport much more interesting and enjoyable. Of course it's possible to deny all of these things, to say that they are all nonsense and that all that matters is whether the bowler gets the batsman out or whether the batsman makes runs. It's possible to say that if the batsman is better than the bowler then that's all that matters. And this is of course true at a very, very basic level, but it sort of misses a great deal at the same time. People who say this sort of thing say that they are cutting through the nonsense and getting to the heart of the matter but really they are just demonstrating their ignorance of the finer points that make the game what it is.

Do you understand the point I am trying to make, Spart?

comment by ViewThisistheend....... (U1581)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Iwaslevel (U4836)
posted 1 minute ago
You are able to edit it Ramdini.
-----------------------------------------------------------
You are SO demanding of article creators

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Standards have to be raised.

you know..this is not my week. the break in.my car s having to be mended now has we speak,just been told another part has gone and so another £50 00 on top of the £100 to shell out.
and NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW..........

just checked my "both to score and 1 to win bet.. for £2338.99...


derby ...tick
fulham...tick
sheff wed...tick
newcastle....tick.

west brom v palace... ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH..

BLLACKS FECKIN PALACE VVANKERSSSSSSSSSS... i give up......

That's the reason the odds are so long isn't it?

Did I say defensive midfielder? Attempting to misrepresent what opponents say is Daily Mail territory.

He was supporting the defender which is what he always did. So what was different. You can't say because there wasn't anything different. It was two teams playing football, a simple game made complicated by those who are paid enormous sums for sitting on sofas talking boIIocks. They have to invent something to say. That is OK but then idiots start to believe the rubbish they spout.

yep iwas....

so to re cap.. aston villa couple months back.lost causing me to lose £3170

weeks later aston villa lost costing me £1780...
and now cos palace didnt score cost me £2388

and they call me lucky eddie at work...

excuse me while i go and have a good weep....

Thanks 3R for the match report, Im sure Spart found it useful as he obviously attended a different game yesterday.

Great to see a new approach and glad for three points from a competent Barnsley side. Some good displays from individuals although I found the NEW formation a little strange with Ince in the middle and Vydra on the wing. Surely SM made a mistake. Round Pegs, Square holes

Thought the defence in general were solid, although how we keep concedeing from set pieces is a worry,

JDS reminds me of flouncy Bamford a bit too light weight but his passing can be great unlike BJ who Im sure is colour blind.

Good to have JR back to his industrious best and I think of all the wingers we have he links up best with Cyrus.

Just one other thing. Why did SM make the changes when he did. We were on top, we had just scored. Why did he take off the effective JR, why then did he change the winning formation. Starting to lose a bit of confidence in Mac.

But Spart, I already told you I had noticed the formation change on Tuesday at the time, not when anyone spouted anything. The fact that my observation coincided exactly with what the manager subsequently said must surely mean I was correct in my interpretation.

I get that you cannot fathom it, Spart, that's abundantly clear, not to mention comical. As Bob Dylan sang: "There's something going on here, but you don't know what it is, do you Owd Spart?"

Nor me Vidal. I don't know either. But I do know when a player puts in a superhuman effort to win a game, and others make similar efforts to save the game.

It is one of the great things about professional football. To watch Carson make his saves and Keogh to put in his tackles, cover the ground, to head the ball. And, yesterday, Nugent resisting all defensive efforts to deflect him, bursting through and ramming the ball past Davies.

I love cricket and I played it and so enjoy the infinite variety of influences that obtain in any cricket game, and the mental or psychological factors at large in a test match. But football is more about those physical challenges and battles that go on in all football games. It's why millions of fans pay a hell of a lot of money to watch it.

Thickos are out in forcer today I see. Lets play the game on a piece of paper or subuteo pitch. If I put the men there they will stand there until I flick them. That's how the game is played.

The fact that your observation coincided with what the manager said is indicative that one of the purposes of managers is to not inform anyone of anything other than what they want to hear. I see week after week teams come with different formations but they all play the same game with the same objectives. Generally (but not always) it is the team with the best players that wins, especially if those players have been playing together for a while and are motivated. There is always an element of luck in football. It is about players first, motivation secons and luck third. The rest is flannel.

We could have scored 7 or 8 in the second half instead of 2. Some good fortune for Barnsley to take the lead and resrtict the scoring.