2023/24 Nathan Patterson

[davek]

We literally used them yesterday after half-time???

*sigh*

 

[Nymzee]

*sigh*

Did we not?

 

[davek]

Did we not?

No we did not.

We used five defenders.

 

[Nymzee]

No we did not.

We used five defenders.

So wing-backs then.

 

[davek]

So wing-backs then.

Ha Ha.

Yeah, every time you have 5 defenders on the pitch there's wing backs.

 

[Nymzee]

Ha Ha.

Yeah, every time you have 5 defenders on the pitch there's wing backs.

Well yeh, that’s their name.

 

[davek]

Well yeh, that’s their name.

View attachment 232405

And did you see much wing back play second half...

 

[Nymzee]

And did you see much wing back play second half...

I mean we were down to 10 men, we don’t attack even with 11, nevertheless we used wing-backs yesterday second half. Patterson was brought on to do this. Harrison was sacrificed.

But suddenly, next game, given the same options Dyche will do the exact opposite?

Why do you even bother, Dave. You haven’t been right about anything since the day you were born.

 

[SJB]

Yeah those two flying wingbacks were up and down the flanks all second half, they definitely weren't fullbacks

 

[davek]

I mean we were down to 10 men, we don’t attack even with 11, nevertheless we used wing-backs yesterday second half. Patterson was brought on to do this. Harrison was sacrificed.

But suddenly, next game, given the same options Dyche will do the exact opposite?

Why do you even bother, Dave. You haven’t been right about anything since the day you were born.

We had two players in McNeill and Harrison who can do a WB job...why would he need to change to Patterson and Mykolenko who have proven they can't be WBs...

This is obvious horse manure.

Look, we put on two defenders to go 5 at the back. 531 not 351.

Just look at the game second half.

You're getting bogged down with some abstract BS about what should happen rather than what did.

 

[Nymzee]

We had two players in McNeill and Harrison who can do a WB job...why would he need to change to Patterson and Mykolenko who have proven they can't be WBs...

This is obvious horse manure.

Look, we put on two defenders to go 5 at the back. 531 not 351.

Just look at the game second half.

You're getting bogged down with some abstract BS about what should happen rather than what did.

Not at all. I’m merely clarifying footballing positions and using yesterday’s example of why he will just start Patterson vs West Ham. When he does, come back here and repent to me.

 

[Eggs]

Not at all. I’m merely clarifying footballing positions and using yesterday’s example of why he will just start Patterson vs West Ham. When he does, come back here and repent to me.

….i expect it’ll be another opportunity for Patterson but he does need to finally grasp one, although I suppose Garner could play RB with Gueye coming in.

 

[Nymzee]

….i expect it’ll be another opportunity for Patterson but he does need to finally grasp one, although I suppose Garner could play RB with Gueye coming in.

Why would we ever want to shove Garner at RB

 

[Eggs]

Why would we ever want to shove Garner at RB

….I’m not sure he trusts Patterson. it’s an option, unlikely but a possibility.

 

[Nymzee]

….I’m not sure he trusts Patterson. it’s an option, unlikely but a possibility.

Doesn’t trust him, yet brings him on in a derby when he didn’t need to. Hmm.