• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Emerson Royal

metalgear said:
The first goal ben davies departed from marking salah, ran to the near post to


You see this as Royal's fault? I've posted more pics on the OMT https://www.glory-glory.co.uk/commu...tspur-vs-liverpool.11539/page-40#post-1624865 for discussion
View attachment 14726
Click to expand...

Three against two in the middle there behind Dier. Even with a three against three there we'd be in a lot of trouble. Can't really put that on Davies or Lenglet.

Strange for us to lose our shape like that. Don't know what happened in the buildup to that.
 
braineclipse said:
Three against two in the middle there behind Dier. Even with a three against three there we'd be in a lot of trouble. Can't really put that on Davies or Lenglet.

Strange for us to lose our shape like that. Don't know what happened in the buildup to that.
Click to expand...

lost the ball cheaply high whilst pushing up
 
Baleforce said:
lost the ball cheaply high whilst pushing up
Click to expand...

Can't quite remember the build up but if that's the case people should pay attention. I'd like us to be more attacking but there is a risk associated with that that people don't acknowledge. All you hear is "we have to be braver and get forward more", "we need to start on the front foot", "we're so much better when we're pushing forward". It's as if it's a no-brainer decision that would solve all our problems.

The first goal at Bournemouth came because Davies pushed so high up the pitch and got done with a one-two. Sounds like the same thing happened yesterday. I was looking for a bogeyman/spacegoat for that goal but looking at it, you can see what everyone is thinking so I wouldn't hold anyone too responsible for it.
 
Feel sorry for him. He has his limitations, but he's not deserving of being booed, he always works hard, tries his best. Has improved too. And has been playing a difficult role with Kulusevski missing and inconsistency at RCB behind/inside him.

He's one I would like to see us upgrade on, I don't think he's good enough when attacking. But he's by no means a bad footballer.
 
Seen articles in the Atlantic questioning Conte for picking him every week. So it’s not just know nothing fans who are asking questions. I maintain we would be no worse off defensively with Doc and we’d be exponentially better going forward. Kane doesn’t even bother passing to him I’ve noticed and the opposition give him all the space he wants as they know he won’t deliver a telling cross more often than not. I don’t condone booing him but I also don’t see Conte getting the message any other way that fans are unhappy with Royal.
 
The treatment of Royal was disgusting and cringeworthy…..
A loudmouth behind me (I'm in row 5 of the South Stand) was chanting something like
"Emerson Royal at right back, he can't defend, he can't attack".
The guy is a fudgewit, he was also chanting "Murderers murderers" a lot, not sure if that is a Heysel reference but it's so tiresome after a while. Eventually I gave him a look and he ceased the "murderers" one at least
 
Bedfordspurs said:
View attachment 14730
Well….
They gave royal more room and he hit it out of play
View attachment 14729
Click to expand...
Yes. That was a terrible cross. Bentancur also hit an (uncharacteristically for him) bad cross that went out of play. I don't for one moment think that Royale's delivery is good enough. I was just saying that there is nothing really wrong in him not being tight to the Liverpool player in the other still.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Yes. That was a terrible cross. Bentancur also hit an (uncharacteristically for him) bad cross that went out of play. I don't for one moment think that Royale's delivery is good enough. I was just saying that there is nothing really wrong in him not being tight to the Liverpool player in the other still.
Click to expand...
Should be closer IMO
Try to make the initial ball harder
Bentacurs was bad but he is much better than that
Royal does this as it’s his game
 
Jurgen the German said:
Seen articles in the Atlantic questioning Conte for picking him every week. So it’s not just know nothing fans who are asking questions. I maintain we would be no worse off defensively with Doc and we’d be exponentially better going forward. Kane doesn’t even bother passing to him I’ve noticed and the opposition give him all the space he wants as they know he won’t deliver a telling cross more often than not. I don’t condone booing him but I also don’t see Conte getting the message any other way that fans are unhappy with Royal.
Click to expand...

yep, know nothing journalists too
 
Last edited:
Finney Is Back said:
Looking at that picture what and who is Dier defending there? An overload behind him that he has no idea at all about. He is playing no part in our defending in that position.
Click to expand...

Being closer to Royal than the nearest Liverpool player will usually be good there. Be in a position to cover if Royal gets done by Robertson, preventing an easy pass inside.

Could be a yard or two closer to the Liverpool player, but it's not a big mistake.

Counting Dier we're three against three in there with Robertson having room to pick a cross. That's often going to result in a very bad time for us and small positional errors look really bad. The centre backs shouldn't be dealing with that alone though.
 
Baleforce said:
yep, know nothing journalists too
Click to expand...

I can’t believe you’re genuinely happy with his output in games. It’s not like he is the only RWB we have on our books. You’ll most likely come back with the “Conte is happy with him” line but managers do get things wrong, even the best managers in the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back