Of course we should bring Aneke and CBT on but if we did at half time and they got injured....
So we don't play them for the rest of the season because you can say that every week.
Er, no. We play Aneke for 20-30 mins a game. It's not ideal but if you have not learnt by now that is all he can do then there is little point engaging with you. Aneke is not the issue, it is our complete lack of other options.
CBT less sure as he can manage full games but I don't know how fit he is today.
Well my view is to at least start with a striker who looks like he can score & then take him off after 60/70 mins. Because I know the odds on us winning if we don't score first.
But that's ANOTHER striker which everyone knows we need.
Paying up Chuks contract wouldn't magic up extra money. That's why no one takes your moaning seriously because your so keen to hammer home a point, which 99% off people actually agree with, you end up spouting nonsense.
For a FA you come across financially illiterate.
My point is that we start with Chuks. Why wait until we are losing before bringing him on.....because ( we all know the rest).
Start him for one game and then lose him for six weeks, or have him on the bench playing 30 minutes and have him consistently available.
There's also a weird assumption that we are always guaranteed to concede first when Aneke doesn't play...
Of course we should bring Aneke and CBT on but if we did at half time and they got injured....
So we don't play them for the rest of the season because you can say that every week.
Er, no. We play Aneke for 20-30 mins a game. It's not ideal but if you have not learnt by now that is all he can do then there is little point engaging with you. Aneke is not the issue, it is our complete lack of other options.
CBT less sure as he can manage full games but I don't know how fit he is today.
Well my view is to at least start with a striker who looks like he can score & then take him off after 60/70 mins. Because I know the odds on us winning if we don't score first.
But that's ANOTHER striker which everyone knows we need.
Paying up Chuks contract wouldn't magic up extra money. That's why no one takes your moaning seriously because your so keen to hammer home a point, which 99% off people actually agree with, you end up spouting nonsense.
For a FA you come across financially illiterate.
My point is that we start with Chuks. Why wait until we are losing before bringing him on.....because ( we all know the rest).
I think I agree with your intention but you, I and everyone else knows that the owner doesn't share that intention and before you say 'he should' he simply doesn't.
Of course we should bring Aneke and CBT on but if we did at half time and they got injured....
So we don't play them for the rest of the season because you can say that every week.
Er, no. We play Aneke for 20-30 mins a game. It's not ideal but if you have not learnt by now that is all he can do then there is little point engaging with you. Aneke is not the issue, it is our complete lack of other options.
CBT less sure as he can manage full games but I don't know how fit he is today.
Well my view is to at least start with a striker who looks like he can score & then take him off after 60/70 mins. Because I know the odds on us winning if we don't score first.
But that's ANOTHER striker which everyone knows we need.
Paying up Chuks contract wouldn't magic up extra money. That's why no one takes your moaning seriously because your so keen to hammer home a point, which 99% off people actually agree with, you end up spouting nonsense.
For a FA you come across financially illiterate.
My point is that we start with Chuks. Why wait until we are losing before bringing him on.....because ( we all know the rest).
So it’s not a point then is it!
Adding “...because (we all know the rest)” means you actually do understand why he’s played this way. Yet you still type the same thing every freakin’ game 🤷🏻♂️
Of course we should bring Aneke and CBT on but if we did at half time and they got injured....
So we don't play them for the rest of the season because you can say that every week.
Er, no. We play Aneke for 20-30 mins a game. It's not ideal but if you have not learnt by now that is all he can do then there is little point engaging with you. Aneke is not the issue, it is our complete lack of other options.
CBT less sure as he can manage full games but I don't know how fit he is today.
Well my view is to at least start with a striker who looks like he can score & then take him off after 60/70 mins. Because I know the odds on us winning if we don't score first.
But that's ANOTHER striker which everyone knows we need.
Paying up Chuks contract wouldn't magic up extra money. That's why no one takes your moaning seriously because your so keen to hammer home a point, which 99% off people actually agree with, you end up spouting nonsense.
For a FA you come across financially illiterate.
My point is that we start with Chuks. Why wait until we are losing before bringing him on.....because ( we all know the rest).
When was the last time Chuks impacted a game, like he does from the bench, when he starts?
Anyway enjoy sky I look foward to you saying exactly the same thing 10 on the post match thread, then 5 times on the Burton preview, 10 tines on that match thread and any other thread you can find...
Comments
It's the highlight of this thread.
There's also a weird assumption that we are always guaranteed to concede first when Aneke doesn't play...
Adding “...because (we all know the rest)” means you actually do understand why he’s played this way. Yet you still type the same thing every freakin’ game 🤷🏻♂️
We were never going to roll them over tonight
#NeedToWindupForeverAddickted
Like the weather at the moment, doesnt want to stop fucking pouring for us if so
That's harsh sorry.
Anyway enjoy sky I look foward to you saying exactly the same thing 10 on the post match thread, then 5 times on the Burton preview, 10 tines on that match thread and any other thread you can find...