BWFC 1-1 QPR

Boggersbelief wrote:

Norpig wrote:i was at the game and i can tell you i spent all 2nd half shouting to push up and not be so deep but we just got deeper and deeper 

And you wonder why you were getting funny looks

Yeah who in their right mind expects a Parkinson team to follow Mr pigs instructions.?

Perhaps they should follow my advice, i am an expert after all 

Natasha Whittam wrote:

doffcocker wrote:Take no notice of the fat bitch Finlay.

You don't have to have been at the game to know that more or less every player in the squad is either some youngster who's nowhere near breaking into their parent clubs' side, or a freebie who nobody else in the division is poor enough to even consider taking a chance on.

But yes, this squad is well capable, it's just Parky holding us back. Trouble is, he could be left with Moss Bank Under 13s to pick from and Whittam would still find a bone to pick with him.

If you'd been at the Sheffield Wednesday game last week you'd have seen a team more than capable of doing enough to finish 4th from bottom. By pressing and playing higher up the pitch.

It makes no sense to change tactics a week later.

That you claim to have been at the Sheffield match and witnessed us playing higher up the pitch and pressing more proves nothing, but it definitely doesn't prove that Parkinson made a point of swapping one proven effective strategy for another.

And this brings me back to my earlier question. Do you honestly think Parky sat them down at half time and told them to go about the second half completely differently to how they did against Wednesday? Or are you just choosing to believe that because you want to believe that he's a silly twat?

Either way, you know you'll always have a stick to beat him with. If he changes a winning formula and we lose, he's stupid for changing it, and if he sticks with it and we lose, he's an idiot for not having a Plan B.

doffcocker wrote:Either way, you know you'll always have a stick to beat him with. If he changes a winning formula and we lose, he's stupid for changing it, and if he sticks with it and we lose, he's an idiot for not having a Plan B.

So, just to confirm, you're saying Parky instructed them to press high up the pitch but the players decided to do the opposite?

And at half-time he asked them again, but they refused?

And then with 20 minutes to go he decided to do fuck all about the deep defending because he knew the players would ignore him?

Isn't it just a lot simpler - Parky thinks defending deep is the way to get results?

sorry Doffy you are talking out of your arse on this one, Nat is right, Parky knows no other way than defending deep and it's costing us every week.

He may have got away with it last season but the standard in the Championship is miles higher and we are getting punished for sitting too deep. Every game we have 30-35% possession even at home. Parky knows no other way than hoofing it,hoping for a goal and then trying to sit on it and as proven this season it does not work.

I am seriously bothered about people defending Parkinson, it's blatantly plain to see that if KA had the cash he would have gone weeks ago, as is being shown in all leagues, managers live and die by results, there have been managers performing much better than Parkinson has and got the sack, he has been a proven failiure in this league, and unless a takeover is in the offing I can see Anderson sticking by him just to give us another chance in league one, and if a takeover is in the offing then it's the new owners cash that pays him off, either way Anderson doesn't need to dip his hand in his pocket.

Natasha Whittam wrote:
Isn't it just a lot simpler - Parky thinks defending deep is the way to get results?

Seemingly not.

Because at first you were implying that against Wednesday the strategy was to defend high and pile on the pressure, and that against QPR it was quite the opposite.

You can't have it both ways (you stupid cow), you can't slate the guy for being stuck in his (negative, defensive) ways, and slate him for reverting from one strategy to another.

I always love your posts DC!

Doffy, I get you don't ever agree with Nat, and I get you see things differently to most other fans regarding Parkinson, but one performance ( Sheff Wed ) will not convince the droves that he has turned a corner, everything went right against Wednesday but if they hadn't been so wasteful we would have 3 less points on board, simply put he is a fish out of water outside the bottom 2 leagues, and that will be forever his level.

MartinBWFC wrote:Doffy, I get you don't ever agree with Nat, and I get you see things differently to most other fans regarding Parkinson, but one performance ( Sheff Wed ) will not convince the droves that he has turned a corner, everything went right against Wednesday but if they hadn't been so wasteful we would have 3 less points on board, simply put he is a fish out of water outside the bottom 2 leagues, and that will be forever his level.

I wasn't even convinced by the  Wednesday game. We put in a hugely improved performance,but, at the end of the day,we got lucky.
We won't survive on luck.

boltonbonce wrote:

MartinBWFC wrote:Doffy, I get you don't ever agree with Nat, and I get you see things differently to most other fans regarding Parkinson, but one performance ( Sheff Wed ) will not convince the droves that he has turned a corner, everything went right against Wednesday but if they hadn't been so wasteful we would have 3 less points on board, simply put he is a fish out of water outside the bottom 2 leagues, and that will be forever his level.

I wasn't even convinced by the  Wednesday game. We put in a hugely improved performance,but, at the end of the day,we got lucky.
We won't survive on luck.

Still don't know how the QPR goal got in... that was lucky as well. We could have picked up all three points and we would all feel a heck of a lot better. Let's see how we do in the next few weeks. If we get close to the pack, we might just survive. The transfer window opens in less than 70 days (assuming someone has some money to buy)!

boltonbonce wrote:

MartinBWFC wrote:Doffy, I get you don't ever agree with Nat, and I get you see things differently to most other fans regarding Parkinson, but one performance ( Sheff Wed ) will not convince the droves that he has turned a corner, everything went right against Wednesday but if they hadn't been so wasteful we would have 3 less points on board, simply put he is a fish out of water outside the bottom 2 leagues, and that will be forever his level.

I wasn't even convinced by the  Wednesday game. We put in a hugely improved performance,but, at the end of the day,we got lucky.
We won't survive on luck.

That was my point Boncey, it's a league too much for his abilities, sods law says that you'll get some lucky breaks over a period of time, and we got huge chunks of that last season, unfortunately this high up the pyramid Parkinsons style will see us relegated with less points than under Lennon, grim thought but that's the reality.

doffcocker wrote:Seemingly not.

Because at first you were implying that against Wednesday the strategy was to defend high and pile on the pressure, and that against QPR it was quite the opposite.

You can't have it both ways (you stupid cow), you can't slate the guy for being stuck in his (negative, defensive) ways, and slate him for reverting from one strategy to another.

After winning a game at the 13th attempt by using a more attacking style, only a bellend would revert to the defensive shite that had brought 2 points from a possible 36.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

doffcocker wrote:Seemingly not.

Because at first you were implying that against Wednesday the strategy was to defend high and pile on the pressure, and that against QPR it was quite the opposite.

You can't have it both ways (you stupid cow), you can't slate the guy for being stuck in his (negative, defensive) ways, and slate him for reverting from one strategy to another.

After winning a game at the 13th attempt by using a more attacking style, only a bellend would revert to the defensive shite that had brought 2 points from a possible 36.

You have now insulted bellends! They don't want to be associated with him either!

observer wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

doffcocker wrote:Seemingly not.

Because at first you were implying that against Wednesday the strategy was to defend high and pile on the pressure, and that against QPR it was quite the opposite.

You can't have it both ways (you stupid cow), you can't slate the guy for being stuck in his (negative, defensive) ways, and slate him for reverting from one strategy to another.

After winning a game at the 13th attempt by using a more attacking style, only a bellend would revert to the defensive shite that had brought 2 points from a possible 36.

You have now insulted bellends!  They don't want to be associated with him either!

By him I hope you are referring to Parkinson and not Doffy, if the latter that's harsh Obs, if the former then crack on my friend.

No, right first time, Doffcocker is a proven bellend. Perhaps even the king of bellends.

Natasha Whittam wrote:No, right first time, Doffcocker is a proven bellend. Perhaps even the king of bellends.

That honour goes to Parkinson who gets the bellenendary award in football management

MartinBWFC wrote:

observer wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

doffcocker wrote:Seemingly not.

Because at first you were implying that against Wednesday the strategy was to defend high and pile on the pressure, and that against QPR it was quite the opposite.

You can't have it both ways (you stupid cow), you can't slate the guy for being stuck in his (negative, defensive) ways, and slate him for reverting from one strategy to another.

After winning a game at the 13th attempt by using a more attacking style, only a bellend would revert to the defensive shite that had brought 2 points from a possible 36.

You have now insulted bellends!  They don't want to be associated with him either!

By him I hope you are referring to Parkinson and not Doffy, if the latter that's harsh Obs, if the former then crack on my friend.

Parky, not Doffy!

observer wrote:

MartinBWFC wrote:

observer wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

doffcocker wrote:Seemingly not.

Because at first you were implying that against Wednesday the strategy was to defend high and pile on the pressure, and that against QPR it was quite the opposite.

You can't have it both ways (you stupid cow), you can't slate the guy for being stuck in his (negative, defensive) ways, and slate him for reverting from one strategy to another.

After winning a game at the 13th attempt by using a more attacking style, only a bellend would revert to the defensive shite that had brought 2 points from a possible 36.

You have now insulted bellends!  They don't want to be associated with him either!

By him I hope you are referring to Parkinson and not Doffy, if the latter that's harsh Obs, if the former then crack on my friend.

Parky, not Doffy!

Good man, never doubted you.