Forest v West Brom: Match Fred sponsored by George's, meeting your battered and breaded needs | Page 17 | Vital Football

Forest v West Brom: Match Fred sponsored by George's, meeting your battered and breaded needs

I don't think Boffin actually backs up the crux of your argument at all.

Boffin doesn't say that Cash played well defensively. He simply exonerates Cash from blame for our overall frailties and the defeat.


"The full-backs also played their part - I note a few grumbles about Cash's defending, however he was no liability during this game. The youngster was beaten for West Brom's equaliser, but he was heavily overloaded with three players to contend with (see picture, right). The problem was not Cash's defending, Forest had already been picked apart before the ball arrived in his position, to such extent that an attempt on goal was highly likely."

That actually tallies rather nicely with what I said, given than I pointed out the move started with Lolley not tracking back (in exactly the area Boffin talks about).

This paragraph does not remotely say "Cash did well and will make a good right back". It says he was not to blame for defeat, which I never argued he was (I've been clear that I believe Muric's mistakes were the difference).

There is a significant gap between "this player was really good" and "this player was not a liability". Are you trying to claim those two statements are the same?

In addition, I note that he backs both fullbacks, so your assertion that Robinson was poor (didn't you give him a 5?) Isn't backed up by the article either. I also note that Boffin doesn't back up your farcical notion that Robinson was somehow to blame for Phillip's goal. As mild mannered as Boffin is, I suspect even he would laugh at that one.

You really have comprehension issues, I'm unsure if it's just for the sake of you arguing or...

So I said "defensively decent" - which means he was ok, not fantastic or really good as you've made up - which is exactly what boffin said.

So no, I'm not making that claim because as per usual you either make things up or you're not bright enough to understand relatively simple words. It's honestly a little embarrassing for you

My total score for Cash was 7, which considering he was our goal scorer and biggest threat is hardly me thinking he gave a pitch perfect performance.

No I didn't give Robinson a 5, the gap between the two was 1.5 points on the basis of Cash both scoring and being our biggest threat going forward. I will always consider both factors for a fullback because that's their role.

You then had an attention seeking hiss fit, so I simply pointed out that going forward Cash was clearly stronger and defensively they were about equal. Hence the difference in their scores.

I then pointed out that more danger came into our box through our left - more shots, more crosses and both flanks saw us concede a goal. Once more this was to demonstrate both flanks were slightly vulnerable but neither a defensive liability.

Again I didn't single Robinson out for us conceding a goal when I gave my scores. Here once more are the actual words I used "defensively solid as usual, offered little going forward as usual."

Genuinely you need to read and consider a little more, especially from people you have disagreements with before embarrassing yourself.
 
You really have comprehension issues, I'm unsure if it's just for the sake of you arguing or...

So I said "defensively decent" - which means he was ok, not fantastic or really good as you've made up - which is exactly what boffin said.

So no, I'm not making that claim because as per usual you either make things up or you're not bright enough to understand relatively simple words. It's honestly a little embarrassing for you

My total score for Cash was 7, which considering he was our goal scorer and biggest threat is hardly me thinking he gave a pitch perfect performance.

No I didn't give Robinson a 5, the gap between the two was 1.5 points on the basis of Cash both scoring and being our biggest threat going forward. I will always consider both factors for a fullback because that's their role.

You then had an attention seeking hiss fit, so I simply pointed out that going forward Cash was clearly stronger and defensively they were about equal. Hence the difference in their scores.

I then pointed out that more danger came into our box through our left - more shots, more crosses and both flanks saw us concede a goal. Once more this was to demonstrate both flanks were slightly vulnerable but neither a defensive liability.

Again I didn't single Robinson out for us conceding a goal when I gave my scores. Here once more are the actual words I used "defensively solid as usual, offered little going forward as usual."

Genuinely you need to read and consider a little more, especially from people you have disagreements with before embarrassing yourself.
You know what CP, you got your arse handed to you on a plate yesterday. I can carry this on, use actual stats to demonstrate yet again why your context less stats are meaningless and we can endlessly go over the finer meanings of what Boffin has said.

But the reality is, you are just too foul and abusive in your posts to make it worth me spending any more time debating this with you.

Nearly every post you have made since yesterday on this subject is full of personal abuse and I can't be arsed with it. I don't know what's wrong with you, and I know i'm no saint, but your behaviour is ridiculous.

This attack line about me having a hissy fit or running to undefined authority; you have said it so many times now, and it has never happened (OKD I'm sure will confirm that I am not someone who ever hits that alert button, unlike some of our posters). Maybe drop it eh?

If you want a debate, I will give you a debate. But once you get personally abusive, I'm out because I can't be arsed with it today
 
You know what CP, you got your arse handed to you on a plate yesterday. I can carry this on, use actual stats to demonstrate yet again why your context less stats are meaningless and we can endlessly go over the finer meanings of what Boffin has said.

But the reality is, you are just too foul and abusive in your posts to make it worth me spending any more time debating this with you.

Nearly every post you have made since yesterday on this subject is full of personal abuse and I can't be arsed with it. I don't know what's wrong with you, and I know i'm no saint, but your behaviour is ridiculous.

This attack line about me having a hissy fit or running to undefined authority; you have said it so many times now, and it has never happened (OKD I'm sure will confirm that I am not someone who ever hits that alert button, unlike some of our posters). Maybe drop it eh?

If you want a debate, I will give you a debate. But once you get personally abusive, I'm out because I can't be arsed with it today

Lol usual thing. Given actual quotes rather than your made up fantasy and you get all sulky and cease engaging. Fine by me chap, find someone else you can make things up for in the value hope of winning a debate.

Here's an actual quote to leave you with that started this conversation "Cash was absolutely hapless"

The very first thing you said dude but at least now you've walked it back.

Schooled I believe is the appropriate expression.
 
You know what CP, you got your arse handed to you on a plate yesterday. I can carry this on, use actual stats to demonstrate yet again why your context less stats are meaningless and we can endlessly go over the finer meanings of what Boffin has said.

But the reality is, you are just too foul and abusive in your posts to make it worth me spending any more time debating this with you.

Nearly every post you have made since yesterday on this subject is full of personal abuse and I can't be arsed with it. I don't know what's wrong with you, and I know i'm no saint, but your behaviour is ridiculous.

This attack line about me having a hissy fit or running to undefined authority; you have said it so many times now, and it has never happened (OKD I'm sure will confirm that I am not someone who ever hits that alert button, unlike some of our posters). Maybe drop it eh?

If you want a debate, I will give you a debate. But once you get personally abusive, I'm out because I can't be arsed with it today

So I said "defensively decent"

You said "absolutely hapless"

Which one does Boffin agree with you mug?
 
So I said "defensively decent"

You said "absolutely hapless"

Which one does Boffin agree with you mug?
Learn some manners and how to behave when someone disagrees with you.

Anyone can fly off the handle. You on the other hand cannot tolerate the slightest difference of opinion, seemingly taking it as a great offence

If you want a debate, behave
 
Learn some manners and how to behave when someone disagrees with you.

Anyone can fly off the handle. You on the other hand cannot tolerate the slightest difference of opinion, seemingly taking it as a great offence

If you want a debate, behave

Simple question, does Boffin agree with

"defensively decent" or "absolutely hapless"?

Just admit you spoke out of frustration and didn't mean it.
 
Simple question, does Boffin agree with

"defensively decent" or "absolutely hapless"?

Just admit you spoke out of frustration and didn't mean it.

At last! It only took three attempts for you to ask this question without abuse.

You said a bit more than 'defensively decent' and 'defensively decent' isn't the basis of what Boffin said either. Boffin said he wasn't a liability and wasn't at fault for the goal. The furthest he goes is to say both fullbacks played their part. Moreover, Boffin's defense of Cash is largely isolated to their first goal.

You claimed Cash was our biggest threat across the 90 minutes. Hmm. Maybe.

You also spend several posts comparing his defending favourably to Robinson's, on the basis of their duels with one single player. I posted the comparative stats and explained the context of those two players, you ignored that and replied with abuse.

Boffin is pretty clear that Robinson 'played his part', which you were clearly suggesting wasn't the case. You also explicitly blamed Robinson for the second goal, which is ridiculous.

Has Boffin pursuaded me that Cash did better defensively than I felt at the time? Yes he has. What he says about their goal makes sense. I accepted already that the origins of the goal came from Lolley. Boffin makes his points well, he provides genuine evidence that isn't selectively chosen and he goes where the facts take him.

He doesn't feel the need to question the intelligence of people who disagree with him, nor call them idiots. That is why he can pursuade me to change my mind when 1000 posts of yours never will.

Do I stand by 'absolutely hapless'?

Well, Boffin's excellent article has made me re-evaluate. I know what I saw. I saw a player who didn't know where he was supposed to be a lot of the time, who was drawing a lot of our defenders to right sided positions to help him. I saw a player losing the ball in midfield, not sure whether to run back. I saw a player who struggled to tackle, even though he ended up with the most to do. I saw a player who was deliberately targeted. I also saw a player who at times struggled against a winger on his fourth start.

I have no problem admitting that Boffin sees between the lines better than me. I don't think Cash is a defender, I don't think he is good enough as a defender and I don't think he should be made into a defender. Absolutely hapless? Maybe I would row back from that in light of what Boffin says about elsewhere on the pitch.

My central point, which you have never addressed, is that Cash is a strong attacking midfielder. We need him as our long term replacement for Lolley and should be cultivating him thus. His goal only underlined that IMO
 
At last! It only took three attempts for you to ask this question without abuse.

You said a bit more than 'defensively decent' and 'defensively decent' isn't the basis of what Boffin said either. Boffin said he wasn't a liability and wasn't at fault for the goal. The furthest he goes is to say both fullbacks played their part. Moreover, Boffin's defense of Cash is largely isolated to their first goal.

You claimed Cash was our biggest threat across the 90 minutes. Hmm. Maybe.

You also spend several posts comparing his defending favourably to Robinson's, on the basis of their duels with one single player. I posted the comparative stats and explained the context of those two players, you ignored that and replied with abuse.

Boffin is pretty clear that Robinson 'played his part', which you were clearly suggesting wasn't the case. You also explicitly blamed Robinson for the second goal, which is ridiculous.

Has Boffin pursuaded me that Cash did better defensively than I felt at the time? Yes he has. What he says about their goal makes sense. I accepted already that the origins of the goal came from Lolley. Boffin makes his points well, he provides genuine evidence that isn't selectively chosen and he goes where the facts take him.

He doesn't feel the need to question the intelligence of people who disagree with him, nor call them idiots. That is why he can pursuade me to change my mind when 1000 posts of yours never will.

Do I stand by 'absolutely hapless'?

Well, Boffin's excellent article has made me re-evaluate. I know what I saw. I saw a player who didn't know where he was supposed to be a lot of the time, who was drawing a lot of our defenders to right sided positions to help him. I saw a player losing the ball in midfield, not sure whether to run back. I saw a player who struggled to tackle, even though he ended up with the most to do. I saw a player who was deliberately targeted. I also saw a player who at times struggled against a winger on his fourth start.

I have no problem admitting that Boffin sees between the lines better than me. I don't think Cash is a defender, I don't think he is good enough as a defender and I don't think he should be made into a defender. Absolutely hapless? Maybe I would row back from that in light of what Boffin says about elsewhere on the pitch.

My central point, which you have never addressed, is that Cash is a strong attacking midfielder. We need him as our long term replacement for Lolley and should be cultivating him thus. His goal only underlined that IMO

Lots of waffle but in short, I'm right, you're wrong. Thank you for finally admitting it.

Your "central point" was not what this conversation was about, it was about me calling Cash defensively decent and you calling him absolutely hapless.

I don't disagree on our need to develop him but I do see some value to him learning this role. Just as a modern fullback is expected to attack, a modern attacker is expected to defend.

Again I said Robinson was defensively solid, as usual. Showing I think he's decent in that area of his role, but lacks at the offensive side. When he played on the left of a back three I was particularly complimentary because it played into his strengths and hid his weaknesses.
 
I know hindsight is a wonderful thing and it's still a bit too early to get carried away, but some of the posts after this game are totally hilarious
 
That's not good if he can't see the obvious...hopefully he is protecting the players.Personally I saw enough out there to think that the manager will turn it around starting by bringing in Samba in goal.In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see us go on a run of gaining 22 points from our next 10 games including beating Brentford for a change from the unlikely source of Watson.I remain positive chaps.Onwards and upwards chaps!
Yes Mr Cornflakes....the power of hindsight like this random post I found chap!