Hemed and Wells make Washington look prolific !

Serious QPR topics only. Posted images may be deleted. Off-topic or thread hijacking posts will be moved/removed and posters disallowed access to this forum. NO TICKET RELATED POSTS. ALL TICKET RELATED POSTS WILL BE DELETED. NO EXCEPTIONS. Please put ticket related posts in the right place only.

Moderators: nige101uk, willesdenr, qprdotorgadmin, ZENITH R, Virginia_R

Post Reply
User avatar
Esox Lucius
dot.org vip
dot.org vip
Posts: 20460
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:17 pm
Location: Banbury, Oxon.

Re: Hemed and Wells make Washington look prolific !

Post by Esox Lucius » Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:28 pm

Satch wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:05 pm
White Duck wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:09 am
It's never a surprise to see the usual few tell everyone how they should think on here and how everyone else is wrong.
It's sad that some spend a lot of time writing to put other posters down.
But you seem equally happy to tell people how to think or in fact it's just an exchange of opinions. As i mentioned in the other thread being able get out of a poor run and also keep some cleans sheets have been positives that there appears to have been no credit given for.

Likewise whilst the current formation doesn't appear great on paper it was also the one that got us 10 points out of 12. Now for a variety of reasons it might be time to change it but let's not pretend it's been a failure entirely. I think it would be a brave manager leaving one of Wells, Eze and Freeman on the bench so it's easy to berate SMC when there is no clear comparison point. Incidentally, if we were to drop Eze, that would potentially be one less young player being given game time if Wszolek proves to be the most useful replacement. If we're going to insist on comparing SMC to IH then the latter was equally guilty of questionable formations and players out of position.

Imo SMC does need to be willing to make changes sooner in games and to bring Smith on for Eze against Swansea did seem to be a change for change's sake.

Personally, i have no confidence that either Ainsworth or the Cowley brothers (do they come as a pair or can we pencil in our next 3 managers if we split them up?) would do a better job. Bear in mind there doesn't appear to have been a huge rush to try and sign them from any of the number of clubs in a similar position to us. I wouldn't have been against their appointments in principle but picking whichever manager is doing well at a lower league club (or has a link to QPR) isn't any more concrete a strategy than picking managers who've managed at higher levels who are now out of favour. Even if the former has more appeal to it.

I'm sure Gareth Ainsworth will be our manager soon enough and i expect we'll be having this conversation again, when you'll be calling for his sacking after 7 games and most of the posters who were reticent about his appointment will then be the ones counseling against his sacking.
nailonhead
It's not the despair that will kill you, it's the hope.

User avatar
White Duck
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 2312
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:24 pm
Location: Bournemouth

Re: Hemed and Wells make Washington look prolific !ic

Post by White Duck » Tue Oct 02, 2018 5:29 pm

Satch wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:05 pm
White Duck wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:09 am
It's never a surprise to see the usual few tell everyone how they should think on here and how everyone else is wrong.
It's sad that some spend a lot of time writing to put other posters down.
But you seem equally happy to tell people how to think or in fact it's just an exchange of opinions. As i mentioned in the other thread being able get out of a poor run and also keep some cleans sheets have been positives that there appears to have been no credit given for.

Likewise whilst the current formation doesn't appear great on paper it was also the one that got us 10 points out of 12. Now for a variety of reasons it might be time to change it but let's not pretend it's been a failure entirely. I think it would be a brave manager leaving one of Wells, Eze and Freeman on the bench so it's easy to berate SMC when there is no clear comparison point. Incidentally, if we were to drop Eze, that would potentially be one less young player being given game time if Wszolek proves to be the most useful replacement. If we're going to insist on comparing SMC to IH then the latter was equally guilty of questionable formations and players out of position.

Imo SMC does need to be willing to make changes sooner in games and to bring Smith on for Eze against Swansea did seem to be a change for change's sake.

Personally, i have no confidence that either Ainsworth or the Cowley brothers (do they come as a pair or can we pencil in our next 3 managers if we split them up?) would do a better job. Bear in mind there doesn't appear to have been a huge rush to try and sign them from any of the number of clubs in a similar position to us. I wouldn't have been against their appointments in principle but picking whichever manager is doing well at a lower league club (or has a link to QPR) isn't any more concrete a strategy than picking managers who've managed at higher levels who are now out of favour. Even if the former has more appeal to it.

I'm sure Gareth Ainsworth will be our manager soon enough and i expect we'll be having this conversation again, when you'll be calling for his sacking after 7 games and most of the posters who were reticent about his appointment will then be the ones counseling against his sacking.
It's lovely that you, Esox and 'Ux' spring to each other's defence so readily: bless.

3 out of the 10 points and our best performance of the season was when SMc couldn't choose his favourite formation so get your facts right.

And yeah you're probably right: lets just blindly stick with what we've got and shout down any negativity rather than consider the alternatives. :roll:
Lex Talionis........

User avatar
Esox Lucius
dot.org vip
dot.org vip
Posts: 20460
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:17 pm
Location: Banbury, Oxon.

Re: Hemed and Wells make Washington look prolific !

Post by Esox Lucius » Tue Oct 02, 2018 5:32 pm

A persecution complex? Uxy and I have had some right old set to's and neither of us need anyone to spring to our defence. We are however, broadly aligned on being QPR supporters rather than QPR detractors.
It's not the despair that will kill you, it's the hope.

Satch
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 3503
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:34 am
Location: New York City

Re: Hemed and Wells make Washington look prolific !

Post by Satch » Tue Oct 02, 2018 5:58 pm

Agreed, i've disagreed with both although i'll be the first to admit that i find myself agreeing with them more often than not. I'd rather keep that company than you and Stainrod looking for every opportunity to find fault.

Duck,
You're right, the Millwall game did have a different formation, however, it still doesn't change the fact that this formation was the one that got us out of the initial slump. You seem incapable of seeing any positives in what SMC does. Concerns about his aptitude are more than fair, you're constant mocking, fictional scenarios, and refusal to accept any positives all indicate a complete lack of objectivity - yet you take offense when people question your motives. Fairly or not you seem have more engaged with this club when things are going poorly than you do when they're going well, especially now with the incentive of revising Holloway's entire tenure into an overwhelming success.

User avatar
White Duck
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 2312
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:24 pm
Location: Bournemouth

Re: Hemed and Wells make Washington look prolific !

Post by White Duck » Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:27 pm

Satch wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 5:58 pm
Agreed, i've disagreed with both although i'll be the first to admit that i find myself agreeing with them more often than not. I'd rather keep that company than you and Stainrod looking for every opportunity to find fault.

Duck,
You're right, the Millwall game did have a different formation, however, it still doesn't change the fact that this formation was the one that got us out of the initial slump. You seem incapable of seeing any positives in what SMC does. Concerns about his aptitude are more than fair, you're constant mocking, fictional scenarios, and refusal to accept any positives all indicate a complete lack of objectivity - yet you take offense when people question your motives. Fairly or not you seem have more engaged with this club when things are going poorly than you do when they're going well, especially now with the incentive of revising Holloway's entire tenure into an overwhelming success.
Your self appointed triumvirate (plus your new friend krama) DON'T speak for the majority of supporters you know: have a good look at the other forums to get an overall view of the current feelings. And your constant shouting down of posters who do not hold your views on here is tiresome And boring.

I will continue to post what I want on here.
Lex Talionis........

stainesranger
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 1256
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:05 am

Re: Hemed and Wells make Washington look prolific !

Post by stainesranger » Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:41 pm

White Duck wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:27 pm
Satch wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 5:58 pm
Agreed, i've disagreed with both although i'll be the first to admit that i find myself agreeing with them more often than not. I'd rather keep that company than you and Stainrod looking for every opportunity to find fault.

Duck,
You're right, the Millwall game did have a different formation, however, it still doesn't change the fact that this formation was the one that got us out of the initial slump. You seem incapable of seeing any positives in what SMC does. Concerns about his aptitude are more than fair, you're constant mocking, fictional scenarios, and refusal to accept any positives all indicate a complete lack of objectivity - yet you take offense when people question your motives. Fairly or not you seem have more engaged with this club when things are going poorly than you do when they're going well, especially now with the incentive of revising Holloway's entire tenure into an overwhelming success.
Your self appointed triumvirate (plus your new friend krama) DON'T speak for the majority of supporters you know: have a good look at the other forums to get an overall view of the current feelings. And your constant shouting down of posters who do not hold your views on here is tiresome And boring.

I will continue to post what I want on here.
I appreciate the range of opinions expressed on here. I think valid points are made across the board, even if they’re diametrically opposed. No one is right or wrong, there is no objective truth in these things.

I’d never have sacked Ollie, though! It still doesn’t make any sense to me. But now he’s gone we can’t just sack McLaren too, particularly as the results haven’t been all bad. We should at least see how it pans out. At this stage it could go either way.

I think Cousins looks bad pretty much every time I’ve seen him play for us, but I wonder whether we’re more solid with him in the side?

Satch
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 3503
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:34 am
Location: New York City

Re: Hemed and Wells make Washington look prolific !

Post by Satch » Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:42 pm

White Duck wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:27 pm
Satch wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 5:58 pm
Agreed, i've disagreed with both although i'll be the first to admit that i find myself agreeing with them more often than not. I'd rather keep that company than you and Stainrod looking for every opportunity to find fault.

Duck,
You're right, the Millwall game did have a different formation, however, it still doesn't change the fact that this formation was the one that got us out of the initial slump. You seem incapable of seeing any positives in what SMC does. Concerns about his aptitude are more than fair, you're constant mocking, fictional scenarios, and refusal to accept any positives all indicate a complete lack of objectivity - yet you take offense when people question your motives. Fairly or not you seem have more engaged with this club when things are going poorly than you do when they're going well, especially now with the incentive of revising Holloway's entire tenure into an overwhelming success.
Your self appointed triumvirate (plus your new friend krama) DON'T speak for the majority of supporters you know: have a good look at the other forums to get an overall view of the current feelings. And your constant shouting down of posters who do not hold your views on here is tiresome And boring.

I will continue to post what I want on here.
No one is trying to stop you posting, where have you got this victimization complex from? The irony is, you seem to have a large issue with anyone who questions it or has the temerity to contradict you. We're not a self appointed anything - i don't care if other qpr fans disagree with me or agree with me. Any thoughts on today's win?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 39 guests