Transfer rumours !

Okay, it was easier than I thought:

“We won’t be going 4-4-2 slinging balls into the box because it’s old fashioned and it’s not the way it works any more,” he said.


“The game has changed. We had possession and attacked them wide but I don’t think that was the particular answer in this game – but that doesn’t mean we wouldn’t do it.


“The answer is to get the players in the right key areas when we attack. We showed energy, we showed willingness, but I just thought the final pass or cross was what let us down.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The quotes been twisted since it happened. It's not the best wording to be fair, but I think it's pretty obvious he's saying sticking another striker on and going long ball to a target man is old fashioned, nothing to do with wingers.

he scored the majority of his goals from around the edge of the six-yard box from crosses fired in from the by-line.

“We won’t be going 4-4-2 slinging balls into the box because it’s old fashioned and it’s not the way it works any more,”

Spot the difference!!!!!!

“We won’t be going 4-4-2 slinging balls into the box because it’s old fashioned and it’s not the way it works any more,” he said.

I'm surprised you consider slinging balls into the box as being long balls to a target man. I would guess most normal people read that as wide players crossing into the box. Launching balls into the box would be long balls. You say tomato etc.

Considering he played with two pacy wingers either side of Murray at Palace I seriously doubt he thinks wingers crossing in balls is old fashioned. 

I think it's pretty obvious that my interpretation of this is accurate, particularly given the context of the quote.

I think you've both decided what you want it to mean ie make Dougie look as ridiculous as possible, I'm just giving what I think is a logical explanation given his previous style of play and common sense.

 like I said, Spot The Difference!!!!!

He never mentions anything about long balls so not sure how you got that. His quote is up to interpretation, but I think the actions of the players on the pitch were clear for everybody to see that Dougie meant exactly that about whipping balls in. Yes he played and plays with pacey wingers but they always cut inside (whether that be the player choosing or being instructed by the manager). We hammered Chungy last season as he hardly ever goes wide and whips a ball in, but then again no other winger does that either. In fact the only player we had in the squad that could cross a ball was Eagles and he had a bust up with Dougie because he wouldn't what?

The Bolton wingers are the worst I have ever seen at crossing balls into the box and at crossing dead balls from corners. Off the back of your interview posted above any reasonable supporter would see that they have been instructed not to whip the ball in and come inside just as Dougie states because "“We won’t be going 4-4-2 slinging balls into the box because it’s old fashioned and it’s not the way it works any more,”. Anyway it's a mute point because Burnley played 4-4-2 and slung loads of balls into the box for their two strikers. Please tell me that Sean Dyche was wrong and your illustrious Dougie is right!

@BwfcGoals 4m wrote:“@stacey1murray: Bolton? Where do people pluck these rumours from?” Gutted. Guess it ain't happening

 

I agree with you about our wing play being poor, neither Eagles or Lee have ever been out and out wingers who'll beat a man and whip the ball in, they're both more technical than that and don't have the pace. Feeney's a different sort if player, he showed that in his loan here so it will be interesting to see what happens with him.

The rest of your post is based on the assumption I agree with you and slinging in means playing with width and getting crosses in. I don't, I think he's clearly talking about long ball when you need a goal towards the end of the match. Believe what you want but don't start making assumptions about what I think.

I find the fact that you call it a mute point simply because Burnley played 442 absolutely laughable. You can take that logic and find a winning formation/style to justify absolutely anything in the case! Are you being serious with that or was the just a joke?

Picking the bones out of this pile of pedantry, I'd say we don't have wingers or wing backs whose expertise is getting to the byline and whipping in an inch perfect cross and it doesn't sound like Murray is coming anyway.
FWIW Burnley tended to play it on the ground and through the middle last season and their wingers like Arfield tended to cut inside at least half the time. They played 2 up front but one of them always dropped off to make a late run. Their full backs launched it long occasionally but no more than our lot and when it did come long they tried to bring it down and play as quickly as possible. Hardly any difference between Dyche and Freedman really.

Looks like the Murray story was a load of paper talk, shame as I thought he would have been a good signing

Keegan wrote:

@BwfcGoals 4m wrote:“@stacey1murray: Bolton? Where do people pluck these rumours from?” Gutted. Guess it ain't happening

 

I don't do Twatter because I'm old and don't really understand the technology, but my rudimentary knowledge of it leads me to think that "stacey1murray" may or may not be his Mrs and this begs the question, should we be hanging on her every thought for guidance in this matter?

Just because she's asking where the rumour has come from, doesn't mean there's no truth in it.

And "@BwfcGoals 4m" is presumably just another Twatterologist, so the fact that he's decided it's not happening and is "gutted" doesn't mean anything either.

It might still happen.........

You never know......

If it is his missus and he does come to us, she doesn't sound enamoured with the idea of moving "up north" does she? Or am I reading this incorrectly?

Breadman wrote:

Keegan wrote:

@BwfcGoals 4m wrote:“@stacey1murray: Bolton? Where do people pluck these rumours from?” Gutted. Guess it ain't happening

 

I don't do Twatter because I'm old and don't really understand the technology, but my rudimentary knowledge of it leads me to think that "stacey1murray" may or may not be his Mrs and this begs the question, should we be hanging on her every thought for guidance in this matter?

Just because she's asking where the rumour has come from, doesn't mean there's no truth in it.

And "@BwfcGoals 4m" is presumably just another Twatterologist, so the fact that he's decided it's not happening and is "gutted" doesn't mean anything either.

It might still happen.........

You never know......

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ? If all this techie thing is beyond us.

That's that then.
Next.....

Cheers, Carrs.

Having read that, my own spin is, Dougie would love to take him but we can't afford him, hence the "scoffing", as in "What...? Us sign him...? We can't afford him.....Don't you know we've no money? Scoff, scoff, scoff...."

Undermines any credibility Nixon has left IMO.

Did he ever have any in the first place?

Didn't he famously once say "I am not a criminal!" shortly before being exposed as one?

Or am I getting my Nixons confused?

wanderlust wrote:Undermines any credibility Nixon has left IMO.

He said we made an enquiry, from which Palace quoted a price. In fairness to him this could easily be true, his wife wouldn't have been involved in any negotiations at this point.

Breadman wrote:Did he ever have any in the first place?

Didn't he famously once say "I am not a criminal!" shortly before being exposed as one?

Or am I getting my Nixons confused?

Nixon
Peanuts we have got I know we once had a Carter
We know a monkey and DF is just an actor
The libraries are closing
Have they stopped mowing the grassy knolls

3-2-1 Where is Dusty Bin

It's a speedboat, isn't it Ted?