Bob's Board: Doughnut - Viewing Profile - Bob's Board

I d?!n't? th1nk$ I'm aff?cted

Bonnyman, on 16 May 2024 - 04:47 PM, said:

In terms of 3 year deal, I'm with you - I would rather it had been for 2 years.
But, it may well have been this contract length that was required to get him to sign and, based on his performance last season, so far I'd say he's been worth it.
His stats for last season speak for themselves (according to fbrev.com):
Remarkably, despite the fact his legs have gone (according to you) he made 32 starts; the 5th highest in the squad and I suspect he would have started more if not for the injury. Despite being slower than you over x yards (I forget the number) he was still able to score 25 tap-ins including 3 out of 3 tap-in penalties. It's not a bad return is it for some knackered old striker with no pace?

Like many, I don't get your constant downer on him.
Having highlighted his shortfalls, and found some new ones, you would get much more credibility if you just stated he performed better than you expected and actually praised him for what he adds as opposed to searching for an alternate reason to criticise him... or just let it go and say nothing.
As for how he fares against L2 players, well that goes for everyone else too doesn't it?
How will Coco and Dobra fare against against better defenders, Grimes against a better aerial threat with more pace, our goalkeeper against more clinical strikers etc?
I suspect Grigg won't get 25 goals next season, but while ever he's fit, he'll still score and his intelligent movement will create space for the other attacking players to exploit.

Benno Spire, on 16 May 2024 - 12:39 PM, said:

Didn't see this coming, but very happy. I always thought he showed potential in his previous stint with us.

frearsghost, on 23 April 2024 - 08:31 AM, said:

I'm a bit on the fence about this. I want VAR but I want it to be better and faster. Such a system like Hawkeye works in cricket because the very nature of the game is stop start. Not the same with football.

Rewind 10 years (!) and officials were making the wrong decisions because they cannot simultaneously watch the ball leaving the boot whilst watching the position of the striker in relation to the defender; or not sure if the player was tripped inside or outside of the box etc. The multiple TV angles provide a replay showing the goal that was given offside should have been given because a big toe, elbow (name a body part) was actually playing him onside. Cue the interviews afterwards with managers complaining these decisions can cost multiples of millions of pounds by the end of the season. Surely the technology exists to make the correct decision.

Now we have the technology we're complaining (in some instances) that forensic level investigations are resulting in the right decision being made because it was only millimetres, only a few centimetres, only his knee cap... well, then the right decision was made. Why are we complaining that the correct decision was made?

It is never going to be a perfect system because we have human involvement and there has been some absolute howlers, but I would suggest this is because of how humans are interpreting or using the technology, not the technology.

What is ruining the game is it is too slow and not always used correctly. I still believe the problems lie predominantly in the humans using the technology, not the technology. Surely, we can improve on this?!?

Johnnyspireite7, on 07 April 2024 - 11:06 AM, said:

Hi Johnny.

I understand rivalry based on geography, and whilst I don't want to open a can of worms, the whole miners' strike animosity is based on the assumptions said Mansfield fan(s); were miners; and worked in the Nottinghamshire collieries; and did not join the strike.

Roughly 40 years on how many of the current crop of Mansfield fans fit that criteria?