And I didn’t castigate you or your post at all. I castigated those that just blindly abused players.
Your post answers itself for me. They were a man short and he had so much time on the ball. That doesn’t equal different class - unless of course he came on and opened them up, created a chance or scored a goal. But he didnt.
So you castigated those that “blindly abused” but then proceeded to decry Earing’s performance as poor, and have continued to do so.
As I said previously, I stand by my opinion and I would suggest that I’m not the only one who believed Earing had an impact, a greater one than Comley was having or Kinsella could have - I say the latter despite being a Kinsella fan boy (sorry @Thanatos).
Saying you believe someone was poor and explaining constructively in detail exactly why you believe he was poor relative to the scoreline and the situation, isn’t blindly abusing someone ffs!!
Wow. Beyond all belief.
You cannot say he had a greater impact than Comley. Comley played when it was 11v11 and then competed an hour before the manager felt fresh legs and a more front foot line up would help break them down.
Those changes resulted in Comley for Earring which is arguably like for like, although I think earring has a greater passing range, Williams going up front in anticipation of more balls going into the box and Knowles going wide instead of Bennett.
Of those changes Knowles going wide had the biggest impact as he stretched the game and had the ability to run at a player at pace and force mistakes.
In my opinion Earring slowed the game down too much and resulted in it being harder and harder to break them down. Ultimately he didn’t make much of a difference on the basis that he didn’t change the speed, direction or tempo of the game in and around the box to create chances to score.
That’s not abusing anyone. I tried to be constructive by saying relatively speaking he did well. He didn’t give the ball away and he took it off the centre backs and passed it wide…all of which Comley was doing and all of which Kinsella does. But he didn’t do anything to change the scoreline or even threaten to.
Ultimately it took some individual skill to beat a man speed the game up and take a risk for us to score the winning goal.
I thought Earing did a superb job when he came on. Most of the play went through him and he played a number of excellent passes. By using him as the fulcrum for attacks, we avoided the lump-it-into-the-box tactics that rarely work. In a different game it might not work but it was just the job on Saturday.
Earing did well and looked very tidy, the goal actually came from Earing switching play out to the left hand side.
Great to have him back
You are determined to keep going with this aren’t you, your absolute belief that your opinion is right, and as such, I am wrong.
I will say it again: my opinion is that Earing had a good game and did what was asked and required of him. For what it’s worth, I also don’t think that Hutchinson was as bad as some of the comments made.
Yes but it was the easiest job on the pitch by that stage!!
That’s my point. He was under no pressure and simply fetched and carried the ball. My problem with it was he took too long to do all of that she time was of the essence and speed of play was required!
I was sat near Flynn and he constantly moaned about moving the ball quicker.
And you’re equally as determined to keep going in the belief that you are also right despite me saying several times that it was also just my opinion 
Which is exactly what I said he came on and did! In my opinion TOO SLOWLY TOO OFTEN!!
The goal actually came from eventually someone playing quickly taking a risk and using some individual skill to beat a player!!!
Show me where I have sought to say you are wrong?? I’ve expressed my opinion that is all, where you have systematically gone about trying to disprove mine and other people’s opinions.
Think your fighting a losing battle 
Ha ha - I’d prefer to see that I’m pissing in the wind!
You haven’t actually said I’m wrong just as I haven’t actually said your are!! But by continually replying to each other we are both suggesting the other is wrong 
that’s what a disagreement is ffs!!
Irrespective of the absence of context, I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry at my above comment being grouped with others as blind, scathing, outright abusive, castigation of one of our players…
FWIW, I think you make some good observations and I often read them with interest. They might be received favourably by more people if, you made them without having to belittle the value of other posters views.
Same here. I thought he had a decent game. In fact I thought it was harsh to have a go at anyone on Saturday after that performance. On another day we could easily have had a hatful. Gordon probably should have scored three himself.
OK, we played against 10 men for over an hour, but we had 24 goal attempts. Only the score line suggested that we scraped by against an in form team.
When Comley got sent off early against Sutton, we didn’t get battered like we battered Crawley on Saturday.
I’m leaving it at that - you have your opinion, I have mine.
I wish you good day.
Fair enough. Sentiments returned 
?
Absolutely! UTS!
No I agree. I think initially I was going reply to individual comments and then couldn’t be arsed….apologies…it was probably more the fact that your reply gave the original one context….