JUST FCUK OFF

[lovethesmellofnapalm]

Coyle thinks its got nothing to do with tactics and it's all about players.

really - that's beneath you. an utterly hysterical and (frankly) crassly disingenuous representation of what the article reports Coyle as saying.

if you are as right as you think you are - then you surely don't need to distort stuff/make stuff up to support you hysterically ranting campaign, do you??

According to the quotes DSB found Coyle said 'it's not about tactics it's about players...'

Pray tell me how I'm distorting anything there.

It's not about tactics it's about players.

It's not about tactics it's about players.

He said it, not me. It's not about tactics it's about players.

pedantically i'd suggest the use of the word "nothing" rather than "not" distorts somewhat.
it's clear Coyle was a trifle miffed at the interviewers line of questionning and more than a trifle pissed off with the way the players played
i,d seriously doubt he believes its "nothing" to do with tactics
but i'd also agree with him in that if the players play badly and make mistakes the tactics don't really come first

[thebish]

Coyle says - in that article:

“Yes, it (formation) has a part to play, but the biggest thing is that when the players cross the white line they go and deliver on all the talk.”

do you really not agree with that? really??

He also said, 'it's not about tactics it's about players'

Fact.

and to what does the "it" refer in the "it's not about tactics it's about players."?

[Dr.Karl]

Haha what, Coyle said we played well for 30 minutes? More like 5 tops.

I've noticed he seems to deflect a lot of the blame after defeats, its depressing not because hes partially to blame but it probably shows an unwillingness to change.

[BWFC_Insane]

Coyle says - in that article:

“Yes, it (formation) has a part to play, but the biggest thing is that when the players cross the white line they go and deliver on all the talk.”

do you really not agree with that? really??

He also said, 'it's not about tactics it's about players'

Fact.

and to what does the "it" refer in the "it's not about tactics it's about players."?

I see a hand clutching desperately and some straws floating by serenely in the breeze......

[Hoboh]

Coyle thinks its got nothing to do with tactics and it's all about players.

really - that's beneath you. an utterly hysterical and (frankly) crassly disingenuous representation of what the article reports Coyle as saying.

if you are as right as you think you are - then you surely don't need to distort stuff/make stuff up to support you hysterically ranting campaign, do you??

According to the quotes DSB found Coyle said 'it's not about tactics it's about players...'

Pray tell me how I'm distorting anything there.

It's not about tactics it's about players.

It's not about tactics it's about players.

He said it, not me. It's not about tactics it's about players.

pedantically i'd suggest the use of the word "nothing" rather than "not" distorts somewhat.
it's clear Coyle was a trifle miffed at the interviewers line of questionning and more than a trifle pissed off with the way the players played
i,d seriously doubt he believes its "nothing" to do with tactics
but i'd also agree with him in that if the players play badly and make mistakes the tactics don't really come first

Really? Who is next? the fans facing his triffle miffed because most of us also thought tacticlly he "fecked up". Shades of Megson appearing here

It was not a question of the formation being at fault, said Coyle, somewhat testily, when questioned about his decision to play 4-4-2 with Kevin Davies recalled up front alongside David Ngog.

"It's not about tactics, it's about players, and the bottom line is we can't expect to play for 30 minutes in the Premier League and expect to win games. Having said that we very nearly did because after we levelled we were the team in the ascendancy – and still playing 4-4-2, the same shape as earlier in the game.

[bedwetter2]

In summary, Coyle must fcuk off.

[thebish]

Coyle says - in that article:

“Yes, it (formation) has a part to play, but the biggest thing is that when the players cross the white line they go and deliver on all the talk.”

do you really not agree with that? really??

He also said, 'it's not about tactics it's about players'

Fact.

and to what does the "it" refer in the "it's not about tactics it's about players."?

I see a hand clutching desperately and some straws floating by serenely in the breeze......

and the answer?? (I see someone hiding away and ducking the question...)

[thebish]

it seems to me that in the context of the remarks - the "it" is the "heart of the problem"

Coyle believes that tactics and formations have their place (so do you, BWFCi) - but that unless players play to their potential, formations and tactics are secondary (which I presume you must also believe, surely??)

in other words, the heart of the problem - "it" is not tactics but players


now - that is a MILLION miles from what you are petulantly claiming Coyle has said... so - yeah - I think you do need to justify your claims...

you may differ from Coyle on the proportions of blame you would assign to tactics and players

BUT - I'd say his opinion is saner than yours in suggesting that it is not JUST one problem. You have suggested that it was nothing to do with the players at all - that they need shoulder NONE of the blame.

(yet, at the same time, YOU said the keeping was a problem - and you haven't YET explained that away by appeal to the formation... yet you also said the players had no part in the blame...)

[Worthy4England]

So when the fook is he going to get the players playing to their full potential - we've been waiting all season?

And saw some glimpses throughout January.

I guess he can't motivate them enough to keep it going. Perhaps if he didn't constantly tinker, it might help.

So is he going to sort all this out before he lands on the right formation, or afterwards?

[thebish]

So when the fook is he going to get the players playing to their full potential - we've been waiting all season?

And saw some glimpses throughout January.

I guess he can't motivate them enough to keep it going. Perhaps if he didn't constantly tinker, it might help.

So is he going to sort all this out before he lands on the right formation, or afterwards?

your guess is as good as mine - maybe even slightly better... but there's still time - and if/when he does we're still far from dead/relegated.

[Worthy4England]

So when the fook is he going to get the players playing to their full potential - we've been waiting all season?

And saw some glimpses throughout January.

I guess he can't motivate them enough to keep it going. Perhaps if he didn't constantly tinker, it might help.

So is he going to sort all this out before he lands on the right formation, or afterwards?

your guess is as good as mine - maybe even slightly better... but there's still time - and if/when he does we're still far from dead/relegated.

I ran out of hope that he was going to go in November - which is when I think he should have gone. So I've almost accepted, whatever happens it'll be with Coyle. That said, whilst we're still in touch, it wouldn't be beyond the wit of someone else either, who might manage to keep us up with a little less drama.

He's said on a number of occasions things like:

“I don’t want to pick a team and hope they are going to play well.

“You have to know they are ready for a fight. They have to realise the situation we’re in because it gets stressed to us often enough.”

Well if they don't realise they're in a fight, that lands straight on Coyle's door mat. He's the Manager FFS.

I occasionally wish, just once, I could turn around to my paymasters and say "Sorry it's not going to plan, my team just doesn't understand what's required of them and haven't delivered."

I would be out of the door before it had chance to whack me in the ass.

[thebish]

I occasionally wish, just once, I could turn around to my paymasters and say "Sorry it's not going to plan, my team just doesn't understand what's required of them and haven't delivered."

there's a job going at Wolves if you REALLY wish that...

[Worthy4England]

I occasionally wish, just once, I could turn around to my paymasters and say "Sorry it's not going to plan, my team just doesn't understand what's required of them and haven't delivered."

there's a job going at Wolves if you REALLY wish that...

Busy at the moment, but I know someone who might fit the bill.

[thebish]

I occasionally wish, just once, I could turn around to my paymasters and say "Sorry it's not going to plan, my team just doesn't understand what's required of them and haven't delivered."

there's a job going at Wolves if you REALLY wish that...

Busy at the moment, but I know someone who might fit the bill.

all wishing - no trousers!

[Worthy4England]

I occasionally wish, just once, I could turn around to my paymasters and say "Sorry it's not going to plan, my team just doesn't understand what's required of them and haven't delivered."

there's a job going at Wolves if you REALLY wish that...

Busy at the moment, but I know someone who might fit the bill.

all wishing - no trousers!

No, would happily take on the Wanderers that I do support at Chief Exec. I have some really good ideas about how we could improve stuff...

[BWFC_Insane]

it seems to me that in the context of the remarks - the "it" is the "heart of the problem"

Coyle believes that tactics and formations have their place (so do you, BWFCi) - but that unless players play to their potential, formations and tactics are secondary (which I presume you must also believe, surely??)

in other words, the heart of the problem - "it" is not tactics but players


now - that is a MILLION miles from what you are petulantly claiming Coyle has said... so - yeah - I think you do need to justify your claims...

you may differ from Coyle on the proportions of blame you would assign to tactics and players

BUT - I'd say his opinion is saner than yours in suggesting that it is not JUST one problem. You have suggested that it was nothing to do with the players at all - that they need shoulder NONE of the blame.

(yet, at the same time, YOU said the keeping was a problem - and you haven't YET explained that away by appeal to the formation... yet you also said the players had no part in the blame...)

I think you're notion that it "was just a bad day at the office" would be more plausible if we'd had a few more good days at the office this season.....

But that aside, I accept players didn't perform. But is it unreasonable to suggest that they perhaps didn't perform well, because (in some part to be determined) a) in some cases the role within the system they were asked to play didn't suit them.

b) Wigan nullified our system therefore making performances "sub-par".

c) they don't feel comfortable and at ease in that system.

Either way, whether it be players continually underperforming or the wrong tactics, or a combination of both, its still a failing on the managers part....

[thebish]

it seems to me that in the context of the remarks - the "it" is the "heart of the problem"

Coyle believes that tactics and formations have their place (so do you, BWFCi) - but that unless players play to their potential, formations and tactics are secondary (which I presume you must also believe, surely??)

in other words, the heart of the problem - "it" is not tactics but players


now - that is a MILLION miles from what you are petulantly claiming Coyle has said... so - yeah - I think you do need to justify your claims...

you may differ from Coyle on the proportions of blame you would assign to tactics and players

BUT - I'd say his opinion is saner than yours in suggesting that it is not JUST one problem. You have suggested that it was nothing to do with the players at all - that they need shoulder NONE of the blame.

(yet, at the same time, YOU said the keeping was a problem - and you haven't YET explained that away by appeal to the formation... yet you also said the players had no part in the blame...)

I think you're notion that it "was just a bad day at the office" would be more plausible if we'd had a few more good days at the office this season.....

But that aside, I accept players didn't perform.

then why spend two days INSISTING that no blame attached to the players at all??

the players performed fantastically against arsenal (though we still could easily have got dicked) - then in the same formation (before KD game on) they were shoite against Norwich - Norwich could have been 2 up at H/T easily.

so - why?? it wasn't the fecking formation - it must have been the players.

fear not - by holding the players to account you don't have to absolve Coyle - you can have both!!!

anyway - have a lovely time wallowing - I'm off to the NE for a few days and not taking the internet with me.

[The Axman]

it seems to me that in the context of the remarks - the "it" is the "heart of the problem"

Coyle believes that tactics and formations have their place (so do you, BWFCi) - but that unless players play to their potential, formations and tactics are secondary (which I presume you must also believe, surely??)

in other words, the heart of the problem - "it" is not tactics but players


now - that is a MILLION miles from what you are petulantly claiming Coyle has said... so - yeah - I think you do need to justify your claims...

you may differ from Coyle on the proportions of blame you would assign to tactics and players

BUT - I'd say his opinion is saner than yours in suggesting that it is not JUST one problem. You have suggested that it was nothing to do with the players at all - that they need shoulder NONE of the blame.

(yet, at the same time, YOU said the keeping was a problem - and you haven't YET explained that away by appeal to the formation... yet you also said the players had no part in the blame...)

I think you're notion that it "was just a bad day at the office" would be more plausible if we'd had a few more good days at the office this season.....

But that aside, I accept players didn't perform.

then why spend two days INSISTING that no blame attached to the players at all??

the players performed fantastically against arsenal (though we still could easily have got dicked) - then in the same formation (before KD game on) they were shoite against Norwich - Norwich could have been 2 up at H/T easily.

so - why?? it wasn't the fecking formation - it must have been the players.

fear not - by holding the players to account you don't have to absolve Coyle - you can have both!!!

anyway - have a lovely time wallowing - I'm off to the NE for a few days and not taking the internet with me.

Off to the Near East: don't start any wars.

[norm the jedi]

it seems to me that in the context of the remarks - the "it" is the "heart of the problem"

Coyle believes that tactics and formations have their place (so do you, BWFCi) - but that unless players play to their potential, formations and tactics are secondary (which I presume you must also believe, surely??)

in other words, the heart of the problem - "it" is not tactics but players


now - that is a MILLION miles from what you are petulantly claiming Coyle has said... so - yeah - I think you do need to justify your claims...

you may differ from Coyle on the proportions of blame you would assign to tactics and players

BUT - I'd say his opinion is saner than yours in suggesting that it is not JUST one problem. You have suggested that it was nothing to do with the players at all - that they need shoulder NONE of the blame.

(yet, at the same time, YOU said the keeping was a problem - and you haven't YET explained that away by appeal to the formation... yet you also said the players had no part in the blame...)

I think you're notion that it "was just a bad day at the office" would be more plausible if we'd had a few more good days at the office this season.....

But that aside, I accept players didn't perform.

then why spend two days INSISTING that no blame attached to the players at all??

the players performed fantastically against arsenal (though we still could easily have got dicked) - then in the same formation (before KD game on) they were shoite against Norwich - Norwich could have been 2 up at H/T easily.

so - why?? it wasn't the fecking formation - it must have been the players.

fear not - by holding the players to account you don't have to absolve Coyle - you can have both!!!

anyway - have a lovely time wallowing - I'm off to the NE for a few days and not taking the internet with me.

Off to the Near East: don't start any wars.

can't you get t'internet in Preston?

[boltonboris]

I know.. Let's play a 4-1-5 formation in a Premier League game and not expect to get overrun. Clueless bastards