Can someone also explain to me [Brunt vs. Vincent]

[OchPie]

I went back to edit.

He explains it himself:

https://www.facebook.com/BatTheMusic...0343302101139/

[Elite_Pie]

I went back to edit.

He explains it himself:

https://www.facebook.com/BatTheMusic...0343302101139/

Still not convinced. He's obviously hiding something.

[PedroTheFisherman66]

Nice try, but:

Some people misunderstand the lyrics, claiming that the singer never identifies what "that" thing is, which he will not do. Steinman predicted this confusion during production. An early episode of the VH1program Pop-up Video made this claim at the end of the song's video: "Exactly what Meat Loaf won't do for love remains a mystery to this day." A reviewer writing for Allmusic commented that "The lyrics build suspense by portraying a romance-consumed lover who pledges to do anything in the name of love except 'that,' a mysterious thing that he will not specify." The reviewer concludes that the mystery is revealed during the closing stages of the song, incorrectly implying that all references of "that" refer to the female vocalist's predictions at the end. Others assume that "that" is a reference to a s ex act.

I'll have to pass on Brunt v Vincent.

I believe it was the Cardinal sin of back Door love ?

[jackal2]

He was decent at Southend, I think the idea why he came on the other night was to try and unlock them and he was signed as we might get injuries/covid cases, luckily it hasn’t happened yet.

I'm sure Brunt has more in his locker than he's shown us to date, so I've got nothing against him as a young loanee trying to find his feet at the club, but the fact is that Frank Vincent had to work to earn his place in the team, and when he did, he was a major catalyst behind an upturn in form. He really adds energy to the team as well as ability and an eye for goal. He reminds me a tiny bit of Alan Judge.

I don't think Brunt has done anything yet to justify stepping ahead of Vincent in the queue for a first-team place, and even if it was a 50/50 call I'd still pick the player we actually own, rather than developing someone else's player.

[BigFatPie]

I'm sure Brunt has more in his locker than he's shown us to date, so I've got nothing against him as a young loanee trying to find his feet at the club, but the fact is that Frank Vincent had to work to earn his place in the team, and when he did, he was a major catalyst behind an upturn in form. He really adds energy to the team as well as ability and an eye for goal. He reminds me a tiny bit of Alan Judge.

I’m glad you’ve said this because to me not starting with Vincent is mind blowing. In the games I’ve seen Francis brings nothing, and when we were ambling through most of the second half the other night we looked exactly like we did before Vincent got in the side.

As far as I know he’s had one dodgy half against Wealdstone and hasn’t had much of a sniff since.

[the_anticlough]

Agree with both of the last two posts.
I hope IB doesn't think that going to a back 4 means we have to have two holding mids (who will contribute about 1 goal a season between them). We need Vincent back in the mix

[DelroyFacey22]

The last 3 games we've played some of the best football in Burchnall's time here and should have scored 5 goals per game, obviously we didn't but you can't say we performed badly. This is coming after losing to Bromley, Grimsby and drawing against Wealdstone, we changed to a 4231 with Palmer and Francis as the 2 deeper midfielders and have looked brilliant. I like Vincent but I'm not sure you can complain too much as the switch to 4231 and Palmer and Francis has clearly worked.

Not sure why the argument is Brunt vs Vincent either, Francis has taken Vincent's spot and imo deserves to keep it for now, Brunt came off the bench ahead of Vincent on tuesday and I think i'd have done the opposite but Brunt was probably a safer attacking change whereas Vincent would have been more all out attack so I can understand why Burchnall went with Brunt at that point in the game.

Agree with both of the last two posts.
I hope IB doesn't think that going to a back 4 means we have to have two holding mids (who will contribute about 1 goal a season between them). We need Vincent back in the mix

With how high our fullbacks like to get you absolutely need two holding midfielders, Richardson was playing on the last man at times in the past couple of games. Then you have Roberts and Sam who aren't really known for much defensive effort, it would be a recipe for disaster asking Palmer to cover even more than he already does imo

[the_anticlough]

With how high our fullbacks like to get you absolutely need two holding midfielders, Richardson was playing on the last man at times in the past couple of games. Then you have Roberts and Sam who aren't really known for much defensive effort, it would be a recipe for disaster asking Palmer to cover even more than he already does imo

With one of those full-backs being Chicksen and the ability we have for the 3 of Brindley, Cameron and him to slide over it's not so bad...
I still say we don't need as much insurance as Palmer + Francis...
I saw us easily get 0-2 up at Halifax playing 4-2-3-1 with Palmer and O'Brien in the 2. Pity we don't have a player like that for one of those spots.

[maddogslater]

Blunt about as popular as Putin, big cheer when Vincent came on Tuesday.

[Killerkline]

The last 3 games we've played some of the best football in Burchnall's time here and should have scored 5 goals per game, obviously we didn't but you can't say we performed badly. This is coming after losing to Bromley, Grimsby and drawing against Wealdstone, we changed to a 4231 with Palmer and Francis as the 2 deeper midfielders and have looked brilliant. I like Vincent but I'm not sure you can complain too much as the switch to 4231 and Palmer and Francis has clearly worked.

Not sure why the argument is Brunt vs Vincent either, Francis has taken Vincent's spot and imo deserves to keep it for now, Brunt came off the bench ahead of Vincent on tuesday and I think i'd have done the opposite but Brunt was probably a safer attacking change whereas Vincent would have been more all out attack so I can understand why Burchnall went with Brunt at that point in the game.



With how high our fullbacks like to get you absolutely need two holding midfielders, Richardson was playing on the last man at times in the past couple of games. Then you have Roberts and Sam who aren't really known for much defensive effort, it would be a recipe for disaster asking Palmer to cover even more than he already does imo

Delroy you speak/write a lot of sense.

To add, Brunt came on to try and unlock Halifax from a deeper position. Vincent is energetic with his darting runs. However, with Halifax playing a low block there was no space for Vincent to run into.