| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) 20:32 - Feb 3 with 1802 views | jasondozzell |
|  | | |  |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 20:38 - Feb 3 with 1772 views | GlasgowBlue |
Disagree re Edmundson. Offside or not, for the second week running he wasn’t close enough to his man and on both occasions it cost us a goal. Burgess will be straight back in the team.
Woolfy was class throughout the game today. |  |
| |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 20:46 - Feb 3 with 1727 views | jasondozzell |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 20:38 - Feb 3 by GlasgowBlue |
Disagree re Edmundson. Offside or not, for the second week running he wasn’t close enough to his man and on both occasions it cost us a goal. Burgess will be straight back in the team.
Woolfy was class throughout the game today. |
Can see why you see it that way but I thought he was tidy and just had the misfortune to be involved with both the early goals. I think he's been very good since coming back in.
Completely agree though re Woolf! Classy display. Reads the game so well. | | | |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 20:47 - Feb 3 with 1719 views | DJR |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 20:38 - Feb 3 by GlasgowBlue |
Disagree re Edmundson. Offside or not, for the second week running he wasn’t close enough to his man and on both occasions it cost us a goal. Burgess will be straight back in the team.
Woolfy was class throughout the game today. |
In my view, Woolfy has been our most consistent player all season.
I know he has had his knockers, but I struggle to think of any goals he has been responsible for all season. [Post edited 3 Feb 20:49]
|  | | |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 20:52 - Feb 3 with 1680 views | Linners |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 20:47 - Feb 3 by DJR |
In my view, Woolfy has been our most consistent player all season.
I know he has had his knockers, but I struggle to think of any goals he has been responsible for all season. [Post edited 3 Feb 20:49]
|
Swansea's second when we beat them 3-2...but that's just me being pedantic as I think he's been outstanding. [Post edited 3 Feb 20:52]
|  | | |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 20:54 - Feb 3 with 1655 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 20:38 - Feb 3 by GlasgowBlue |
Disagree re Edmundson. Offside or not, for the second week running he wasn’t close enough to his man and on both occasions it cost us a goal. Burgess will be straight back in the team.
Woolfy was class throughout the game today. |
Burgess for me too, although there’s not a lot between them. Woolfie is just a Rolls Royce of a defender. Some of his long diagonals go a bit wayward, but he seems to have 10 seconds more time than everyone else. |  |
| |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 20:57 - Feb 3 with 1638 views | WeirdFishes |
I can’t agree with Edmundson. Should have done better for the first and second goal. Burgess straight back in. |  |
| |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 21:03 - Feb 3 with 1600 views | HalifaxBlue |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 20:38 - Feb 3 by GlasgowBlue |
Disagree re Edmundson. Offside or not, for the second week running he wasn’t close enough to his man and on both occasions it cost us a goal. Burgess will be straight back in the team.
Woolfy was class throughout the game today. |
I don't understand this at all with regards to the 2nd. He played it brilliantly, it wasn't even close, the guy was so far offside. That is not his fault. |  |
| |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 21:04 - Feb 3 with 1589 views | portmanking |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 20:57 - Feb 3 by WeirdFishes |
I can’t agree with Edmundson. Should have done better for the first and second goal. Burgess straight back in. |
The fact that McKenna talks about 'blocking technique' for the first goal suggests he thinks Edmundson could've done better too... |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 21:05 - Feb 3 with 1579 views | pointofblue |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 21:04 - Feb 3 by portmanking |
The fact that McKenna talks about 'blocking technique' for the first goal suggests he thinks Edmundson could've done better too... |
If that is the case I sense Burgess will be back in next week. | |
| |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 21:05 - Feb 3 with 1570 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 21:03 - Feb 3 by HalifaxBlue |
I don't understand this at all with regards to the 2nd. He played it brilliantly, it wasn't even close, the guy was so far offside. That is not his fault. |
As I said, regardless of him being offside, there was too much distance between the Preston player and Edmundson. He needed to be tighter to his man. | |
| |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 23:11 - Feb 3 with 1362 views | Scuzzer |
Fridge was poor. End of. |  |
| |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 23:36 - Feb 3 with 1308 views | Dubtractor |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 21:05 - Feb 3 by GlasgowBlue |
As I said, regardless of him being offside, there was too much distance between the Preston player and Edmundson. He needed to be tighter to his man. |
That doesn't make any sense. To get closer would mean not making him offside! |  |
| |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 06:39 - Feb 4 with 1073 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 23:36 - Feb 3 by Dubtractor |
That doesn't make any sense. To get closer would mean not making him offside! |
Not close enough width wise. If I was a sky pundit I’d freeze the frame then drag Edmundson a couple of yards closer horizontally to their player. Edmundson would still be playing him offside because he’s higher up the pitch. But he’d have a better starting position if the linesman doesn’t flag. | |
| |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 06:46 - Feb 4 with 1062 views | PioneerBlue |
Woolfy has been stand out defender for a while. Not sure on Edmundson, his decision making for and high positions have cost goals recently not reading the game? and not dropping back to nullify counter attacks? Whatever, the goals are being conceded.
Expect Burgess to come back next week, he knows he doesn’t have the pace and probably leaves us less susceptible to these goals.
First against non league that’s stupid, then against better opposition thats negligent. That’s only first reading, KMcK was happy he was pushing up and leaving the defender in an offside position except the Lino didn’t see it.
If others see it different that’s good! I don’t want to call Edmundson out on his own really as defending is a team game and you can’t legislate for poor officials. [Post edited 4 Feb 6:57]
| |
| |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 07:51 - Feb 4 with 993 views | pennblue |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 20:38 - Feb 3 by GlasgowBlue |
Disagree re Edmundson. Offside or not, for the second week running he wasn’t close enough to his man and on both occasions it cost us a goal. Burgess will be straight back in the team.
Woolfy was class throughout the game today. |
I think central defence is still a concern for me, Axel is the only one that can play in the prem so why is he not playing? If his fitness still dodgy? | |
| |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 08:59 - Feb 4 with 914 views | Herbivore |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 07:51 - Feb 4 by pennblue |
I think central defence is still a concern for me, Axel is the only one that can play in the prem so why is he not playing? If his fitness still dodgy? |
Anyone who has seen both Tuanzebe and Woolf playing over the last few months will tell you exactly why Woolf is starting ahead of him. |  |
| |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 09:03 - Feb 4 with 894 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 08:59 - Feb 4 by Herbivore |
Anyone who has seen both Tuanzebe and Woolf playing over the last few months will tell you exactly why Woolf is starting ahead of him. |
I was in favour of Tunazebe coming in fur Woolf every so often but I was completely wrong. Woolf has been consistently stand out defender. | |
| |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 09:32 - Feb 4 with 828 views | Dubtractor |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 07:51 - Feb 4 by pennblue |
I think central defence is still a concern for me, Axel is the only one that can play in the prem so why is he not playing? If his fitness still dodgy? |
Tuanzebe hasn't looked near to the level of Woolfy when he has played. | |
| |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 09:34 - Feb 4 with 820 views | ArnieM |
OP: LOL! |  |
| |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 09:37 - Feb 4 with 804 views | DJR |
| Other positives - thought Woolfy and Edmundson were excellent (n/t) on 09:32 - Feb 4 by Dubtractor |
Tuanzebe hasn't looked near to the level of Woolfy when he has played. |
If nothing else, he seems to lack the positional sense that Woolfy has in spades. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
