Liked for the integration of players, but not for the rewriting of Sarr's history. Pound for pound the worst signing in the 141 year history if our club.
I’m just saying we were doing ok. No more than that. 4 wins from 12. Over a season it’s normally just about good enough to stay up. We played well vs Villa, Norwich and Everton. We had some awful games as well but after that United performance what wheels we still had came well and truly off.
Worst would be Gray and probably unfair to call him the worst signing ever. It was a player we didn’t need which makes it not great. He had a massive say in us going back up and it looks like had that not happened we would have been in deep poo
Only you and a couple of other loons would have thought we were 'ok' at that point. Admittedly, the wins against Utd and Everton gave everyone hope, but it was false hope and Sarr had absolutely **** all to do with one of them at least.
Had a 100% say in us going down first time and a big say second time. Not his fault but still, at this point the worst in our history. Even Gray wasnt the catalyst for the last 3 years.
We were ok, nothing more and I knew it wouldn’t take much to change that outlook but 13 points from 12 games was ok
Could have done .. Not certain we would have got a draw as Kabasele disallowed goal was hardly in the last minute.
The only bright spot in our recent history is our destruction of Sarr's career. I'll piss my slacks if it carries on for another year.
I must be a loon then because as @Knight GT suggests 13 points from 12 games, had it continued, would have seen us comfortably safe. I think the key that most people are choosing to miss is the 'at that point' comment.
Well, I mentioned context in my conversation with Platypus for one, but in general it's the relevant context of those points, those performances, and that position - you can't just take them in isolation and declare that we would have been fine without taking into account how and why we had got to that position, what was actually happening on the pitch both with us and our opponents, at that point - not to mention the context of what point in the season we were at, at the time.
I get where you are coming from but you could go round in circles with that for quite a while over which games we deserved, where we were lucky and when we were unlucky but that could fill a novel. I'm sure there would be disagreements on all of that as well. However, my point was 13 from 12 was an OK run rate for us at that point, we didn't maintain it, but at that point it was alright, and at that point we didn' know we wouldn't be able stay on that trajectory.
Sarr has stayed away from the Austrian trip so that he can get the HMS pisstheleague tee-shirts printed
That’s like saying a test cricket team are doing well slamming 15 runs per over, all whilst losing a wicket every over. Wider context is everything. We weren’t okay as a club at the point of the United game. Take the points we had and replicate it over the season, then fine. But the situation we were already in made that very, very unlikely and so it proved. That 4-1 win was off the back of a horrendous run of form and on our second manager of the season. Suggesting we were on course to stay up or that it fell apart because Sarr got injured is pretty ignorant of a lot of what came before that game - and a huge amount of what came after it.
Yep, and Sierralta was only marginally better than the atrocious weather. The team that looked ok in The Championship was awful in the Premier League. No Premier League team would consider survival likely with a back five of Bachmann, Femenia, WTE, Sierrralta and Masina.
I don’t think he forgot Andre Gray at all, but ‘pound for pound’ (as they stated) he had nowhere near as bad an impact on the club as Saar. For a start we still had €35m to spend on Sarr even after buying Gray.
The thing was, with both Sarr and Dennis in decent form in attack we'd shown we were capable of scoring enough goals to counteract our crap defence and nick the odd victory. Once Sarr got injured and later failed to rediscover his form we were just left with a team incapable of keeping clean sheets, combined with basically only Dennis to spearhead any attacks. It was a similar issue in our previous relegation season to when Deulofeu got in jured - with Deulofeu and Sarr both playing well we had just about enough to cause teams problems and occasionally score enough to paper over the cracks of our leaky defence. Once Del got injured then we only had Sarr as our decent attacker, he got double-marked, and we were left with a blunt attack and only our crap defence.
We conceded 77 goals, that’s over 2 goals per game. Even having Sarr and Dennis fit and firing for every game there is absolutely no way we score 3 goals in a game often enough to have survived, that’s just delusion. Sarr also never got double marked, that isn’t even a thing unless you’re Zidane, teams just pushed forward more with no Del.
Sarr was, an addition to the full-back he'd typically get a CM dedicated to sitting on top of him. It's not a question of him being Zidane, it was because teams knew he was literally our only threat whatsoever. In your second paragraph you also highlight a reason as to why your first paragraph is mistaken - with only Dennis "teams just pushed forward with no [Sarr]" - i.e. one of the factors behind why we were even more prone to conceding more goals was because teams knew they could relentlessly attack us when we didn't have the tools to counter it ourselves. They could go for lots of goals without consequence. Also, "Even having Sarr and Dennis fit and firing for every game there is absolutely no way we score 3 goals in a game often enough to have survived, that’s just delusion." .... and yet, with Sarr and Dennis "fit and firing every game" we actually did score 3 goals in a game often enough to have been on a points-per-game total which would have comfortably kept us up prior to him getting injured. In our wins before Sarr got injured we scored: 3 goals, 3 goals, 5 goals, 4 goals. Meanwhile, after Sarr got injured we never managed to score more than 2 goals in any game, and only even scored 2 on three occasions (in 26 games), which is abysmal.
You make some extremely confused arguments, in the post above you’re literally saying how our team was nowhere near good enough, yet you’re arguing with me that Sarr was enough of a difference to keep us up and regularly see us scoring 3 goals per game? Which version of your arguments do you actually believe?
