AFC Bournemouth at home match day thread

[pillred]

2 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Yep, our home form is rubbish, but why do people add on three months when we didn’t actually play any games?!

Would it have made any difference? go on tell me Considering everything we know now.

Edited October 16, 2021 by pillred
punctuation

[BS4 on Tour...]

5 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

He was out for nine months with an ACL injury ...

 

5 hours ago, JonDolman said:

Yes I know

So, you wanted Andi Weimann to “play like he did last season” when you ‘knew’ he was out for last season with a serious injury - is this an attempt at comedy or have I missed something?! 

[BS4 on Tour...]

8 minutes ago, pillred said:

Would it have made any difference? go on tell me Considering everything we know now.

I just think it was very disingenuous of you to say we hadn’t won at home in ‘over 9 months’ when we didn’t play any home games for the last three weeks of May, the whole of June and July and the first week of August - yet you included that time period for dramatic effect because you wanted our terrible home form to appear worse than it actually is ... that seems to be quite typical of critics who don’t actually go to any games ...

[BS4 on Tour...]

4 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

I guess you're not aware Weimann started the first 7 league games of last season. He picked up his injury in the 2nd half of the Swansea game.

Of course I was aware of that - just thought it was weird of you to call on Weimann to replicate form this season based on six and a half games he contributed last season ... although looking at how many posts you place during games, it’s clear that you don’t actually attend any ...

[t_b]

3 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Yep, our home form is rubbish, but why do people add on three months when we didn’t actually play any games?!

Because that is how to explain a period of time. Using predefined and understandable denominators. 
 

By your logic of excluding passages of time where we aren’t actively playing home games, we have only gone 16 days without a home win. Which is nice. What is everyone complaining about?

[Wanderingred]

7 hours ago, Super said:

Not this nonsense again.

Even if it is nonsense, at least I’m contributing more than just score updates and posts with one sentence. 

[Super]

6 hours ago, Wanderingred said:

Even if it is nonsense, at least I’m contributing more than just score updates and posts with one sentence. 

Maybe you shouldn't...

[BS4 on Tour...]

10 hours ago, tommy_b said:

Because that is how to explain a period of time. Using predefined and understandable denominators. 
 

By your logic of excluding passages of time where we aren’t actively playing home games, we have only gone 16 days without a home win. Which is nice. What is everyone complaining about?

I’d have had said 16 games not 16 days - much less dramatic than including whole calendar months when we didn’t play a game ...

[BTRFTG]

13 hours ago, nickolas said:

Exactly my point re parachutes. Most ridiculous rule that exists. They couldnt afford this without them so why should they be allowed such an advantage for the failure of relegation from the PL?! The championship just isnt a level playing field but the money from PL is exactly why we have to try and find our way there somehow!

So you'll be demanding City decline the Premier payments they receive, won't you?

I thought not......

[BTRFTG]

That Bomo were taller, more athletic, more talented and pacy goes without saying. That they are head and shoulders one of the best sides seen at AG in years, ditto. That we only got beat two when five or more would have been the deserved result says everything about our defence and nothing about our creative midfield (sic) and strikers (sic). Bomo were a joy to behold but enough of them.

Against blistering pace and  visionary passing I thought our backline did ok, particularly the two youngsters at full back. To those who criticise them, Tanner backing off for their second, for example, you signally fail to read the game. Both were constantly between a rock and a hard place yesterday having always to pick up both wide man and rampaging full back. They were two on one all game, given their so-called 'colleagues' in front  gave them sod all support. Screwed if they went to cover one, screwed if they tried to hedge their bets. 

Pearson's tried to instill some steel in the midfield so it was sad to see Williams injured (again) so early and King looked like he was carrying a knock long before he eventually departed, which beggars why the substitutions were made when they were? Until Dasilva appeared James looked the only City player cognizant of the fact football is a contact sport. And therein lies the problem, whilst those 3 are great at holding, disrupting and breaking-up play, creators they are not (not we've anybody to exploit creativity should we acquire it.)

So it's Groundhog Day (again) in knives out for the usual suspects. That we created four gilt edged chances not one of which made their keeper break sweat sums us up. Two to Wells who when he plays serves only to remind he IS, pound for pound,  the biggest waste money ever at AG. It isn't, 'he's in the wrong position', or 'we don't play his game'. He's crap, period. When he is in the right position and is given gilt ball he squanders it, over and over and over. His lack of control best summed up by another farcical moment on the touchline just in front of the Dolman, he halfway in his own half trying to relieve pressure, bloke up tight closing down. Sunday morning hungover player simply knocks it off the opponent's shins for the throw-in, consolidate, go again. Not Wells. Such is his lack of control it's a ball knocked straight into touch. Shocking at any level, though to his credit this time he didn't fall over feigning injury, though with the image of those laughing in his face still fresh probably not altogether unsurprising.

Like paleontologists who find remains of dinosaurs yet can't fathom how they fit together or what purpose their hosts served, we live Jurassic Park 9 through Martin. So he's no movement, pace or touch. Can't hold the ball up, rarely threatens his marker, leaves not a trace he's ever been on the park. Genus 'Izegoodenufftoscorus'? On the evidence of his woeful header late on - NO.

Flappy produced one of his finest ever flappy and pointy performances. He might as well not have bothered.  "He runs and runs and runs and covers loads of ground," say his acolytes. I remind, too, so do headless chickens. The point with Flappy it's all to no avail. He never gets there, never closes his opponent down. For him marking must obey social distancing rules. His touch is poor. And perchance he does get the odd chance, again yesterday, break out the chorus of 'how high or wide do you want the goal'? Those who say we played with 10 men when King went off, we didn't. Make that 10 from the start as Weimann contributed zip again yesterday.

At least the Mock Mick did threaten a few spin turns of note, but such scant gold leaf cannot disguise the turgid mass that lies beneath. He hung Pring out to dry first half whilst delivering little. I said at the time he should never have been offered a new contract. I hate having been proved right every game since.

To those who say it's unfair to pick out those 4, it isn't. Here's why. They are players who should be good enough to occasionally hold the ball up, knock it around, relieve the pressure from the defence. But they aren't and don't. 1-0 down, minute or so to half time and we've a throw-in half way into their half. We've been on the rack. How difficult to take it, keep it,  force them to concede short throws? See the half out. Re-group. Go again. But City contrive to do what they do best, throw-in, one touch, lost possession, cede 70 yards uncontested, allow 2 on 1 against Tanner, ship another. Game over. Their second is down to our front line, not the defence. And in that Pearson and the coaching staff must take criticism. Under WeeLee ceding possession within one touch of a dead ball play was mandatory. It pretty much still is and Pearson's been here long enough to have ensured, even with the rubbish at his disposal, that it shouldn't be.

 

[italian dave]

50 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

That Bomo were taller, more athletic, more talented and pacy goes without saying. That they are head and shoulders one of the best sides seen at AG in years, ditto. That we only got beat two when five or more would have been the deserved result says everything about our defence and nothing about our creative midfield (sic) and strikers (sic). Bomo were a joy to behold but enough of them.

Against blistering pace and  visionary passing I thought our backline did ok, particularly the two youngsters at full back. To those who criticise them, Tanner backing off for their second, for example, you signally fail to read the game. Both were constantly between a rock and a hard place yesterday having always to pick up both wide man and rampaging full back. They were two on one all game, given their so-called 'colleagues' in front  gave them sod all support. Screwed if they went to cover one, screwed if they tried to hedge their bets. 

Pearson's tried to instill some steel in the midfield so it was sad to see Williams injured (again) so early and King looked like he was carrying a knock long before he eventually departed, which beggars why the substitutions were made when they were? Until Dasilva appeared James looked the only City player cognizant of the fact football is a contact sport. And therein lies the problem, whilst those 3 are great at holding, disrupting and breaking-up play, creators they are not (not we've anybody to exploit creativity should we acquire it.)

So it's Groundhog Day (again) in knives out for the usual suspects. That we created four gilt edged chances not one of which made their keeper break sweat sums us up. Two to Wells who when he plays serves only to remind he IS, pound for pound,  the biggest waste money ever at AG. It isn't, 'he's in the wrong position', or 'we don't play his game'. He's crap, period. When he is in the right position and is given gilt ball he squanders it, over and over and over. His lack of control best summed up by another farcical moment on the touchline just in front of the Dolman, he halfway in his own half trying to relieve pressure, bloke up tight closing down. Sunday morning hungover player simply knocks it off the opponent's shins for the throw-in, consolidate, go again. Not Wells. Such is his lack of control it's a ball knocked straight into touch. Shocking at any level, though to his credit this time he didn't fall over feigning injury, though with the image of those laughing in his face still fresh probably not altogether unsurprising.

Like paleontologists who find remains of dinosaurs yet can't fathom how they fit together or what purpose their hosts served, we live Jurassic Park 9 through Martin. So he's no movement, pace or touch. Can't hold the ball up, rarely threatens his marker, leaves not a trace he's ever been on the park. Genus 'Izegoodenufftoscorus'? On the evidence of his woeful header late on - NO.

Flappy produced one of his finest ever flappy and pointy performances. He might as well not have bothered.  "He runs and runs and runs and covers loads of ground," say his acolytes. I remind, too, so do headless chickens. The point with Flappy it's all to no avail. He never gets there, never closes his opponent down. For him marking must obey social distancing rules. His touch is poor. And perchance he does get the odd chance, again yesterday, break out the chorus of 'how high or wide do you want the goal'? Those who say we played with 10 men when King went off, we didn't. Make that 10 from the start as Weimann contributed zip again yesterday.

At least the Mock Mick did threaten a few spin turns of note, but such scant gold leaf cannot disguise the turgid mass that lies beneath. He hung Pring out to dry first half whilst delivering little. I said at the time he should never have been offered a new contract. I hate having been proved right every game since.

To those who say it's unfair to pick out those 4, it isn't. Here's why. They are players who should be good enough to occasionally hold the ball up, knock it around, relieve the pressure from the defence. But they aren't and don't. 1-0 down, minute or so to half time and we've a throw-in half way into their half. We've been on the rack. How difficult to take it, keep it,  force them to concede short throws? See the half out. Re-group. Go again. But City contrive to do what they do best, throw-in, one touch, lost possession, cede 70 yards uncontested, allow 2 on 1 against Tanner, ship another. Game over. Their second is down to our front line, not the defence. And in that Pearson and the coaching staff must take criticism. Under WeeLee ceding possession within one touch of a dead ball play was mandatory. It pretty much still is and Pearson's been here long enough to have ensured, even with the rubbish at his disposal, that it shouldn't be.

 

On the assumption that I’ve figured out correctly who the f** you’re talking about half the time, I’d agree with pretty much all of that! (And what has Pearson done to not deserve a little term of endearment ).

Seriously, yes, I think you’ve summed up yesterday. Normally you’d at least try to give their overlapping players something to worry about in their own half from time to time too, as another means of protecting your defence. We signally failed to do that; they barely had to retreat into their own half at all. For the most part, anytime we played the ball across the halfway line it was so aimless that their centre backs were easily able to deal with it.

What was even more frustrating about the throw in leading to goal was that whilst we routinely cede possession from our own throw ins, we happily allow them all the space in the world when they have one. Not long before the goal, they’d had a throw in 20 yards from our line and we failed to pick up the recipient who was allowed to run unchallenged to our line inside our penalty box.

The only comfort I take is that it all seems to be a style and a strategy that works better away from home. The crowd reaction at the end of the game yesterday was pretty much one of complete resignation to the fact that we never win at home. So, watch out West Midlands..here we come

[BTRFTG]

55 minutes ago, italian dave said:

And what has Pearson done to not deserve a little term of endearment

Frankly, he's gone so far under the radar as it's difficult to know whether or not he's around half the time. He's also one of those individuals as to be difficult to work out an epithet for. He used to be objectionable, though appears to have mellowed of late. He talks sense, but therein no epithet. In truth and from a personal perspective, I find him anonymously bland.

I'm struggling, but if you've any suggestions I'm happy to adopt.

[mozo]

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

That Bomo were taller, more athletic, more talented and pacy goes without saying. That they are head and shoulders one of the best sides seen at AG in years, ditto. That we only got beat two when five or more would have been the deserved result says everything about our defence and nothing about our creative midfield (sic) and strikers (sic). Bomo were a joy to behold but enough of them.

Against blistering pace and  visionary passing I thought our backline did ok, particularly the two youngsters at full back. To those who criticise them, Tanner backing off for their second, for example, you signally fail to read the game. Both were constantly between a rock and a hard place yesterday having always to pick up both wide man and rampaging full back. They were two on one all game, given their so-called 'colleagues' in front  gave them sod all support. Screwed if they went to cover one, screwed if they tried to hedge their bets. 

Pearson's tried to instill some steel in the midfield so it was sad to see Williams injured (again) so early and King looked like he was carrying a knock long before he eventually departed, which beggars why the substitutions were made when they were? Until Dasilva appeared James looked the only City player cognizant of the fact football is a contact sport. And therein lies the problem, whilst those 3 are great at holding, disrupting and breaking-up play, creators they are not (not we've anybody to exploit creativity should we acquire it.)

So it's Groundhog Day (again) in knives out for the usual suspects. That we created four gilt edged chances not one of which made their keeper break sweat sums us up. Two to Wells who when he plays serves only to remind he IS, pound for pound,  the biggest waste money ever at AG. It isn't, 'he's in the wrong position', or 'we don't play his game'. He's crap, period. When he is in the right position and is given gilt ball he squanders it, over and over and over. His lack of control best summed up by another farcical moment on the touchline just in front of the Dolman, he halfway in his own half trying to relieve pressure, bloke up tight closing down. Sunday morning hungover player simply knocks it off the opponent's shins for the throw-in, consolidate, go again. Not Wells. Such is his lack of control it's a ball knocked straight into touch. Shocking at any level, though to his credit this time he didn't fall over feigning injury, though with the image of those laughing in his face still fresh probably not altogether unsurprising.

Like paleontologists who find remains of dinosaurs yet can't fathom how they fit together or what purpose their hosts served, we live Jurassic Park 9 through Martin. So he's no movement, pace or touch. Can't hold the ball up, rarely threatens his marker, leaves not a trace he's ever been on the park. Genus 'Izegoodenufftoscorus'? On the evidence of his woeful header late on - NO.

Flappy produced one of his finest ever flappy and pointy performances. He might as well not have bothered.  "He runs and runs and runs and covers loads of ground," say his acolytes. I remind, too, so do headless chickens. The point with Flappy it's all to no avail. He never gets there, never closes his opponent down. For him marking must obey social distancing rules. His touch is poor. And perchance he does get the odd chance, again yesterday, break out the chorus of 'how high or wide do you want the goal'? Those who say we played with 10 men when King went off, we didn't. Make that 10 from the start as Weimann contributed zip again yesterday.

At least the Mock Mick did threaten a few spin turns of note, but such scant gold leaf cannot disguise the turgid mass that lies beneath. He hung Pring out to dry first half whilst delivering little. I said at the time he should never have been offered a new contract. I hate having been proved right every game since.

To those who say it's unfair to pick out those 4, it isn't. Here's why. They are players who should be good enough to occasionally hold the ball up, knock it around, relieve the pressure from the defence. But they aren't and don't. 1-0 down, minute or so to half time and we've a throw-in half way into their half. We've been on the rack. How difficult to take it, keep it,  force them to concede short throws? See the half out. Re-group. Go again. But City contrive to do what they do best, throw-in, one touch, lost possession, cede 70 yards uncontested, allow 2 on 1 against Tanner, ship another. Game over. Their second is down to our front line, not the defence. And in that Pearson and the coaching staff must take criticism. Under WeeLee ceding possession within one touch of a dead ball play was mandatory. It pretty much still is and Pearson's been here long enough to have ensured, even with the rubbish at his disposal, that it shouldn't be.

 

@BigTone condensed version?!!

[BTRFTG]

To those moaning yesterday was the end of days..., worst performance in years..., an absolute shocker - it wasn't. You've overlooked some positives, albeit mostly at the back.

But ask yourselves this. At half time, as many were doing in the stands, what would YOU have done to shake things up? Look at who's performing on the park, look at what's on the bench or in the wider squad and ask, what would YOU have done to change things around? The funny thing? In the stands the common concensus was, ' I really don't know, there aren't any options, are there?'

A fish rots from the head down. Anybody tagged as a striker or frontman in the present squad is, from a playing perspective, rotten. Has been for ages, stinks to high heaven and will only decay further. Ditto anybody supposedly creative in midfield. Those selected aren't any good but they're the best of a bad bunch.

Given their lucrative contracts getting rid is more problematic and takes longer than getting the bins emptied on Brighton Seafront. We know that. Pearson sure as hell knows that, so until the stench starts to dissipate and he's allowed to buy an air freshener or two we'll have to endure days like yesterday. It takes time for compost to rot as well as this, it's a 'seasons in the making' pile. Yet once buried in the soil it's amazing what later flourishes.

 

[Davefevs]

18 hours ago, nickolas said:

So, King went off injured with 15 mins left and we played with ten men?! How did i miss that, i dunno Jeff! 
 

seriously, did anyone see him go off?! The game was that poor, as was King, that i had no idea we had ten men!

Yes, I saw it, he made a recovery run as Bournemouth looked to get inside the gap between LCB and LB, and poked the ball back to Bents.  He then got the ball back a few moments later and kicked it out for a throw-in….and hobbled straight down the tunnel.

[BigTone]

2 hours ago, mozo said:

@BigTone condensed version?!!

Condensed Version 

We lost

[nickolas]

6 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Yes, I saw it, he made a recovery run as Bournemouth looked to get inside the gap between LCB and LB, and poked the ball back to Bents.  He then got the ball back a few moments later and kicked it out for a throw-in….and hobbled straight down the tunnel.

I think i may have lost some interest around this time. Maybe sooner. Maybe by h/t. Maybe even by the 2nd goal.

[nickolas]

10 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

So you'll be demanding City decline the Premier payments they receive, won't you?

I thought not......

They’ll be a thing of the past by the time we ever get to it. 
Regardless of whether we should get them, its a dreadful rule. 

[BTRFTG]

10 minutes ago, nickolas said:

They’ll be a thing of the past by the time we ever get to it. 
Regardless of whether we should get them, its a dreadful rule. 

Er, we take and have been taking Premier 'solidarity' payments for years. We rely on them. As a Championship outfit we take the lion's share. Is that fair to L 1 & 2? Doubtless they'll use your argument to say we cheat the system.

[Super]

Why are half time scores never read out anymore? Can't get any internet access can't they just put them on the screens?

[22A]

How their fans saw the day:

 

[Kodjias Wrist]

Funny watching that they comment that our 3 out of 10 for home fan loudness is pretty much replicated every ground they go to. No mention of course that we havent won any of the seven games at home. Personally from my 40 odd away games i been to i would say Wolves and Reading fans at times made a decent racket obviously because they were winning but still.