MotM - PL: Bolton vs Arsenal | 20/12/03

[reggiepaul]

Cygan - 4/10 - I've been defending him for a long time but that performance was horrible. Constantly caught out of position.

What exactly does "caught out of position" mean? Is that code for "he wasn't standing where "I" wanted him to stand so he was out of position.

A lot of the defending (as you may have noticed Bolton had most possession so logic dictates we had to do a lot of defending) was done by three people. One of whome is a goalkeeper. Cygan and Sol is all we had most of the time.

Arsenal play from central midfield. You may have noticed how we hold position. Clichy wasn't there to defend. Take note how so many people state "ooh he was so fantastic, all those runs he made". Well the point is he should have been defending, not using the game as a personal stage for his first outing. Toure can't seem to keep still and was running up and down the field hoping the rest of the team would beat to his drum. ITS A TEAM GAME!!

If our wing backs had held position AND let our attack do some work instead of HOPING our attack would suck up to there insubstantial runs - we may have got somewhere. YES kolo and clichy made loads of runs up and down the field BUT aren't Arsenal a counter attacking side? We can't counter attack from the wings can we because that would leave us prone to being dominated in the midfield which, oh, shiver me timbers - WE WERE!!

Logic? Either of our center halves or Lehmann should be the man of the match.

N.B. Aaaw bless I see some fans have tried to suck up to Kolo as some idol.

I would too. He's great as a center half but that's because you can stick a center half in a position and HE MUST remain there because the logic of the center half will over ride Kolo's wanderings if he was elsewhere. When Ashley was around he would work his socks of back and forth in defence and further up field - this itself saved Kolo when he was a right back in previous games. Since bother our wingbacks went wandering - we were stuck.

They are all amazing players BUT it's a TEAM game. There is no I in team. There is Thierry Henry (the greatest player in the world - at ARSENAL) waiting for delivery from his midfield but can't get it because our wing backs are hogging the ball.

 

[Henry's Girl]

I was in the freezing cold to watch us lose a lead 10mins to the end,( i'm still crying). Bolton were all over us and they deserved to win but we're arsenal so they had to settle for a draw.

I STILL BLAME U :evil:

 

[slapz]

I was in the freezing cold to watch us lose a lead 10mins to the end,( i'm still crying). Bolton were all over us and they deserved to win but we're arsenal so they had to settle for a draw.

I STILL BLAME U :evil:

who are you blaming for it?

 

[thierrys_girl]

I was in the freezing cold to watch us lose a lead 10mins to the end,( i'm still crying). Bolton were all over us and they deserved to win but we're arsenal so they had to settle for a draw.

I STILL BLAME U :evil:

who are you blaming for it?

yeah, who are you blaming?

 

[lewdikris]

reggiepaul, mate, that is the most incomprehensible post i've ever read. ;D

 

[Adam]

reggiepaul, mate, that is the most incomprehensible post i've ever read. ;D

I always give him credit for the effort; but often the clarity isn't sufficient. You can read a whole page and not understand the point he has made.

 

[Henry's Girl]

I was in the freezing cold to watch us lose a lead 10mins to the end,( i'm still crying). Bolton were all over us and they deserved to win but we're arsenal so they had to settle for a draw.

I STILL BLAME U :evil:

who are you blaming for it?

yeah, who are you blaming?

dnt worry about it, i dnt want everyone to hate him too

 

[reggiepaul]

reggiepaul, mate, that is the most incomprehensible post i've ever read. ;D

Well I try not to state the obvious like some people do, mentioning no names. Try re reading it like most people would do when they don't understand the first time. Maybe you will get the point.

Sorry for not being boring but I like to look at things differently because that's what we all are, different.

I always give him credit for the effort; but often the clarity isn't sufficient. You can read a whole page and not understand the point he has made.

Well thanks for the credit oh mighty one. Maybe if you tried to understand it it would help.

Have you ever thought it may not be a lack in the writer but in the reader? You must have heard people say "i can't understand what's written in that book", so maybe this is you in this scenario.

I'm not trying to say there is nothing wrong but I know plenty of people who I email my thoughts to who actually understand easily what I write. So I see nothing wrong. If "everyone" had a problem, fine but most people usually say "I don't understand this area" rather than saying "that makes no sense". That's merely blunt, ignorant and egotistical. Sorry can't bend because you feel comfortable with your own perception as being the only one.

Anything that is written is written on the basis of being understood. Nothing is written solely for your own entertainment. If you don't understand don't see it as lesser.

 

[Adam]

Omit needless words. Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts.

 

[reggiepaul]

Omit needless words. Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts.

oh man. Everything there is needed, trust me. Why? because I wrote it.

Your idea of language isn't from any school of linguistics or grammar. What you are referring to are words like concise, unnessecary etc etc - basically juvenile criticism that has no substance.

Also your idea of concise is like saying you understood what is being said or didn't you? What exactly is the problem?

This is where criticism enters areas of impulsiveness and lacks reason.

Concise? Why? I think it's concise. Why? because I wrote it. I don't want to omit anything - maybe add more because it is, concise.

Sorry - this isn't English class.

As for the idea of the drawing - most artists work was either overworked, unfinished or under-done but still appreciated.

 

[Adam]

Yes, appreciated. Not criticism, advice. Trying to nurture talent - not destroy!

 

[reggiepaul]

Yes, appreciated. Not criticism, advice. Trying to nurture talent - not destroy!

Mate, you don't know me. I could well be an accomplished writer, award winning or a well published researcher or then again I may just be no one. Of course when I read something here, it's read and moved to one side. I'm not in a position to hand out appraisal when there is no point since this is supposed to be a place of different and diverse minds rather than a one stop ego massaging arena because you have a "community" with status.

I could be dishing out advice if I saw any point to it but I don't. In fact neither is there point and neither shoudl the thought of advice develop. It's a discussion forum where anything goes.

 

[Adam]

When users are having problems understanding posts; there is nothing wrong in adding advice in a place where we share discussion. If it's a shared experience- then write for everybody and don't get involved in your own ego writing trip.

That's enough of my advice, as it won't be taken, but i hope acknowledged.....

to an extent.

 

[reggiepaul]

I don't think I have an ego. An ego would mean I would "listen" to you advice and then write in length for "everyones" pleasure.

The fact I don't and write as me, as does everyone else, it means I have little or no ego.

Since everyone writes as they see fit then everyone is in an ego writing trip. We're all expressing our egos. Woo hoo.

Then those who criticise posts (nicely packaged as "advice" bless) would be the gods of posts and giving "divine" guidance.

Since I am dictated upon by those strange things above I'll see what I can do. For the sake of stronger necks, bolder shoulders to hold ginormous heads.

Of course - I jest. Some people are presented a status and the weak take it :wink:

 

[Adam]

Lol - thanks Reggie!

 

[reggiepaul]

Re edit :

I think caught out of position is an incorrect term. This term doesn't hold any substance. Why? It's too subjective. It means you are expecting a player to hold position.

Since we are such a versatile team you can't expect our players to hold position.

Yester our wingbacks were wandering. Maybe Pascal moved an inch too much to the left leaving certain fans sweating from brow to middle wicket. I don't know.

Looking at 19 Bolton shots at goal with Cygan and Sol as defence means we were damn good there. They scored from a damn good goal too meaning they took their chances and only an inch of Lehmann dive gave them the goal.

 

[jc8gooner]

Looking at 19 Bolton shots at goal with Cygan and Sol as defence means we were damn good there.

Surely the fact that they were allowed 19 shots on goal means that the team, as a defensive unit, was unsatisfactory?

 

[jc8gooner]

They scored from a damn good goal too meaning they took their chances

They did score an excellent, goal, but this is hardly proof that they took their chances. As you say, they had 19 shots. Scoring only one is not taking your chances.

Leicester, had one shot on target against us and scored; that is called taking your chances.

 

[reggiepaul]

Surely the fact that they were allowed 19 shots on goal means that the team, as a defensive unit, was unsatisfactory?

Yes and mainly No. The TEAM as a defensive unit was bad but that's because we had no cover for our wingback wanderers who were stuck upfield. When Bolton came back we only had Cygan and Sol.

19 shots and only one goal (from outside the box, in the rain where our keeper just barely missed it) is a damn good call for the defence who basically blocked shots.

19 shots remains 19 shots. If they had 19 goals that means bad defence. Since they had one goal it means Arsenal did SOMETHING to stop this. Since Cygan and Sol held position (other than for corners) then they should be commended.

Surely, our positioning was so good at the back we blocked shots. A good defence. One out of Nineteen is very good. Surely.

 

[reggiepaul]

They scored from a damn good goal too meaning they took their chances

They did score an excellent, goal, but this is hardly proof that they took their chances. As you say, they had 19 shots. Scoring only one is not taking your chances.

Leicester, had one shot on target against us and scored; that is called taking your chances.

They took their chances because our defence was very good. The other 18 were blocked out by our defence. They were having problems so they had to divert towards freak shooting to compensate and this worked.