JDT and Dack bust up

[Northcote blues]

4 hours ago, simongarnerisgod said:

i can`t for the life of me understand why szmodics is ahead of dack,(dack is 5 times the player sam is),tis football though,some managers prefer certain players,dack is nailed on  move in january

This thing the manager craves. It’s called pressing and defending from the front. It’s part of modern football 👍🏼

[J*B]

It’s like I have to pick between my missus and my dog. Please find a way to get a long Jon and Bradley. I love you both. 

[rigger]

9 minutes ago, Hasta said:

Then you didn’t understand it.

I said “So what you are saying is in all the games we have lost, there is no way the result could have been different if we had elected to using Dack from the bench earlierr. Because we know for 100% certainty that by not putting him on earlier resulted in defeat.“

Think about this slowly before you reply,  but the reason we are 100% certain that not putting Dack on earlier in those  games resulted in defeat can be proven, is because we actually did lose them!!!!!

How is that utter bollocks. It’s pure fact.

 

Because there is absolutely no way of proving, that bringing Dack on earlier would have changed the outcome. We did not lose any games becauses of the length of time Dack was on the pitch.

[Hasta]

4 minutes ago, rigger said:

Because there is absolutely no way of proving, that bringing Dack on earlier would have changed the outcome. We did not lose any games becauses of the length of time Dack was on the pitch.

I never said that though did I. Bringing Dack on may or may not have resulted in us losing.

But not bringing him on earlier definitely resulted in us losing it.

Think about it 😀

Edited October 21, 2022 by Hasta

[RoverDom]

15 minutes ago, J*B said:

It’s like I have to pick between my missus and my dog. Please find a way to get a long Jon and Bradley. I love you both. 

Dog

[rigger]

4 minutes ago, Hasta said:

I never said that though did I. Bringing Dack on may or may not have resulted in us losing.

But not bringing him on earlier definitely resulted in us losing it.

Think about it 😀

I have thought about it. I don't agree with your statement. For me, that is the end of it. It is pointless repeating the same views.

[Hasta]

1 minute ago, rigger said:

I have thought about it. I don't agree with your statement. For me, that is the end of it. It is pointless repeating the same views.

FFS It’s a fact. We did lose them.  How can you not agree with that?

Im not saying that Dack getting more minutes would have made us not lose those games. We will never know that. JDT elected not to give Dack more minutes in those games.

But we absolutely know that JDT’s decisions in those games ultimately led to us losing those games. 

 

 

[Mike E]

14 minutes ago, Hasta said:

FFS It’s a fact. We did lose them.  How can you not agree with that?

Im not saying that Dack getting more minutes would have made us not lose those games. We will never know that. JDT elected not to give Dack more minutes in those games.

But we absolutely know that JDT’s decisions in those games ultimately led to us losing those games. 

We didn't lose those games just because Dack wasn't brought on. That is nonsense. It's a contributing factor, of course, but it isn't the reason by any stretch.

[Hasta]

1 minute ago, Mike E said:

We didn't lose those games just because Dack wasn't brought on. That is nonsense. It's a contributing factor, of course, but it isn't the reason by any stretch.

I. Never. Say. That. 

[Mike E]

2 minutes ago, Hasta said:

I. Never. Say. That. 

Yes. You. Do.

Because we know for 100% certainty that not putting him on earlier resulted in defeat.“

Perhaps you could clarify what you're actually saying because that's obviously how many people are interpreting it. As a qualified teacher, I've no problems with comprehension.

[Hasta]

4 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Yes. You. Do.

Because we know for 100% certainty that not putting him on earlier resulted in defeat.“

Perhaps you could clarify what you're actually saying because that's obviously how many people are interpreting it. As a qualified teacher, I've no problems with comprehension.

I requote the post you quoted.

FFS It’s a fact. We did lose them.  How can you not agree with that?

Im not saying that Dack getting more minutes would have made us not lose those games. We will never know that. JDT elected not to give Dack more minutes in those games.

But we absolutely know that JDT’s decisions in those games ultimately led to us losing those games. 

Edited October 21, 2022 by Hasta

[Mike E]

Just now, Hasta said:

I requote the post you quoted.

FFS It’s a fact. We did lose them.  How can you not agree with that?

Im not saying that Dack getting more minutes would have made us not lose those games. We will never know that. JDT elected not to give Dack more minutes in those games.

But we absolutely know that JDT’s decisions in those games ultimately led to us losing those games. 

Ok, I get that. So you also agree that a multitude of different decisions not remotely involving Dack could have changed the result in our favour?

[Hasta]

4 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Ok, I get that. So you also agree that a multitude of different decisions not remotely involving Dack could have changed the result in our favour?

Absolutely.

He could have thrown Pears up top and that could have led to us not losing. Personally I'd have tried the player we have who has the best goalscoring instinct as we had him on the bench, otherwise why is he even there.

Edited October 21, 2022 by Hasta

[chaddyrovers]

I'm not surprise by the story to be honest, and it looks like someone has leaked it for a reason. Plus coupled this with Mowbray's post-match comments about Dack's fitness and comments makes me wonder if Mowbray is dropping hints that he wants him to Join Sunderland and I don't know any other reasons why he would make those private comments between them public. 

[Mike E]

1 minute ago, Hasta said:

Absolutely 

That just makes the entire original post completely redundant though. It might as well read thusly and have the same relevance to the discussion:

I'm not saying that playing the u14s would have made us not lose those games. We will never know that. JDT elected not to give the u14s more minutes in those games.

But we absolutely know that JDT’s decisions in those games ultimately led to us losing those games.

[J*B]

12 minutes ago, Hasta said:

Absolutely.

He could have thrown Pears up top and that could have led to us not losing. Personally I'd have tried the player we have who has the best goalscoring instinct as we had him on the bench, otherwise why is he even there.

I’m not getting involved in this disagreement other than to say I totally forgot we had a footballer called “Pears” here and was totally bemused as to why he would put a mountain of fruit on the pitch to try and get a result. 

[Mattyblue]

Are some of you being purposely obtuse re Hasta’s posts?

You can have two thoughts at once. I.e yes you may think BD shouldn’t expect to start, but he’ certainly should’ve expected more minutes in those games that we were looking devoid of ideas 

Edited October 21, 2022 by Mattyblue

[Hasta]

1 hour ago, Mike E said:

That just makes the entire original post completely redundant though. It might as well read thusly and have the same relevance to the discussion:

I'm not saying that playing the u14s would have made us not lose those games. We will never know that. JDT elected not to give the u14s more minutes in those games.

But we absolutely know that JDT’s decisions in those games ultimately led to us losing those games.

Ok. So the last time we came from behind in a game to avoid defeat it was a Dack-inspired revival when he came on at half time at Coventry.

We have failed to turn around any defecite in the league this year.

My point is that in the scenario where we are a goal behind, I would rather we brought Dack on with 30 minutes to go than,say, Hirst. Or, say, the Under 14s. Dack is more of a proven goal threat.

JDT disagrees, as he hasn't done that so far when he has had Dack available on the bench. We don't know for  definite why he hasn't given Dack more time in that situation. But what we 100% know is that the decisions he made in those games when we were behind and dack was available ultimately led to us losing the games. 

I'm not sure why that's causing such a stir. 

Edited October 21, 2022 by Hasta

[Oldgregg86]

1 hour ago, J*B said:

It’s like I have to pick between my missus and my dog. Please find a way to get a long Jon and Bradley. I love you both. 

Dog all day

[tomphil]

2 hours ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Or maybe the manager and his team are working their arses off for the club, see the league table with us in a position that gets automatic promotion, and demand that every single player signs up to the way that things are being done, and don't accept those who think that their 15 mins is in some way important.

That should be a given anyway and there is nothing whatsoever to say Dack hasn't bought into that.

He's being frozen out on orders from higher up the food chain more than likely and the head coach has to do the dirty work. 

The way some of you lot turn on players without any shred of evidence it's justified is embarrassing.

[DeeCee]

51 minutes ago, Oldgregg86 said:

Dog all day

Bin, it's not the dogs fault 😇

 

[Adam C]

2 hours ago, Hasta said:

Then you didn’t understand it.

I said “So what you are saying is in all the games we have lost, there is no way the result could have been different if we had elected to using Dack from the bench earlierr. Because we know for 100% certainty that by not putting him on earlier resulted in defeat.“

Think about this slowly before you reply,  but the reason we are 100% certain that not putting Dack on earlier in those  games resulted in defeat can be proven, is because we actually did lose them!!!!!

How is that utter bollocks. It’s pure fact.

 

It’s not a fact and, as others have pointed out, it’s a statement devoid of sense and has nothing relevant to say. Might as well say 

“So what you are saying is in all the games we have lost, there is no way the result could have been different if we had elected to JDT playing up front from the bench. Because we know for 100% certainty that by not putting him on earlier resulted in defeat.“

So the above statement is true, but it is also worthless and without meaning. Many things didn’t happen but they can’t all be responsible for us losing the match. 

Defeat was not the result of the decision not to bring on Dack, although if he’d scored the winner then he could have been one of the reasons for victory. If you think about this slowly you should perceive the logic. 

[Hasta]

24 minutes ago, The Hypnotic said:

So what you are saying is in all the games we have lost, there is no way the result could have been different if we had elected to JDT playing up front from the bench. Because we know for 100% certainty that by not putting him on earlier resulted in defeat.“

I’ve reworded the point further up this page to explain what I meant (See my reply to Mike). 
 

 

Edited October 21, 2022 by Hasta

[Mike E]

1 hour ago, Hasta said:

Ok. So the last time we came from behind in a game to avoid defeat it was a Dack-inspired revival when he came on at half time at Coventry.

We have failed to turn around any defecite in the league this year.

My point is that in the scenario where we are a goal behind, I would rather we brought Dack on with 30 minutes to go than,say, Hirst. Or, say, the Under 14s. Dack is more of a proven goal threat.

JDT disagrees, as he hasn't done that so far when he has had Dack available on the bench. We don't know for  definite why he hasn't given Dack more time in that situation. But what we 100% know is that the decisions he made in those games when we were behind and dack was available ultimately let to us losing the games. 

I'm not sure why that's causing such a stir. 

Agree with all that 🤘

[Gordon Ottershaw]

Looks like it has been noted that we are in the top 2.