Nathan Jones

[Gnojek]

"They're a tough side to play against because they're giants. They put you under pressure but I thought we handled that really well. We lost two centre-halves and, especially against these, I picked the biggest, strongest side I could pick - apart from our groundsman, who's 6ft 4in!"

Even taking into account the element of tongue-in-cheek, I find his comments to be quite strange. Fair enough, two of our three centre backs are tall, but then aren't most other teams' too? Keiffer is a lump up front, which again is quite common (Collins for them wasn't exactly small). Other than that, I have no idea where the "giants" reference comes from (insert the obvious punchline about his height.....).

[Hilts]

Re: Nathan Jones

Id say we are the biggest side in the league and are playing to that.

Set pieces witn Flint Morrison and Moore in the box.

[Rock_Flock_of_Five]

Re: Nathan Jones

"They're a tough side to play against because they're giants. They put you under pressure but I thought we handled that really well. We lost two centre-halves and, especially against these, I picked the biggest, strongest side I could pick - apart from our groundsman, who's 6ft 4in!"

Even taking into account the element of tongue-in-cheek, I find his comments to be quite strange. Fair enough, two of our three centre backs are tall, but then aren't most other teams' too? Keiffer is a lump up front, which again is quite common (Collins for them wasn't exactly small). Other than that, I have no idea where the "giants" reference comes from (insert the obvious punchline about his height.....).

Bennett, Vaulks, NG, Murphy and Wilson, are all small - Pack and Nelson are certainly not giants.

[Hilts]

Re: Nathan Jones

Bennet Vaulks NG and Murphy arent small.

Average height.

[Trigger]

Re: Nathan Jones

I don't know how accurate it is but fotmob app has Bennett as 6ft, NG and Vaulks at 5"11, pack as 6ft2, Nelson 6ft.

Wilson and Murphy more the averageish 5ft8. Then the monsters of Morrison, Moore and Flint.

It's probably fair enough. Although a few of those heights may be a bit off I'd say they are fairly accurate from looking at the players.

[BLUETIT]

Re: Nathan Jones

I don't know how accurate it is but fotmob app has Bennett as 6ft, NG and Vaulks at 5"11, pack as 6ft2, Nelson 6ft.

Wilson and Murphy more the averageish 5ft8. Then the monsters of Morrison, Moore and Flint.

It's probably fair enough. Although a few of those heights may be a bit off I'd say they are fairly accurate from looking at the players.

Bennett must have 3inch studs

[Trigger]

Re: Nathan Jones

Bennett must have 3inch studs

Ha I wasn't sure on his.

Actually they have Flint at 6ft2, he's more 7ft2 isn't he?

[Rock_Flock_of_Five]

Re: Nathan Jones

Bennet Vaulks NG and Murphy arent small.

Average height.

Okay, they're average height; but I think we can agree they're not giants.

[Hilts]

Re: Nathan Jones

I think Flints 6 6.

[Tuerto]

Re: Nathan Jones

I think that jones is referring to the situations where height and and strength come into play a little more. Like set pieces or defending them, long balls etc, the positions where we can get the upper hand. I don't think that he's making woeful judgements on the height and aerial ability of Bacuna or Wilson

[goats]

Re: Nathan Jones

"They're a tough side to play against because they're giants. They put you under pressure but I thought we handled that really well. We lost two centre-halves and, especially against these, I picked the biggest, strongest side I could pick - apart from our groundsman, who's 6ft 4in!"

Even taking into account the element of tongue-in-cheek, I find his comments to be quite strange. Fair enough, two of our three centre backs are tall, but then aren't most other teams' too? Keiffer is a lump up front, which again is quite common (Collins for them wasn't exactly small). Other than that, I have no idea where the "giants" reference comes from (insert the obvious punchline about his height.....).

The two goals scored by the giants aswell? Only giants can score goals like that Nathan....

[MacAdder]

Re: Nathan Jones

I watched the interview from a link posted on their messageboard, it seemed like their local station.

I did think at first that he was being a bit disrespectful of us but it was for their own channel and he had to have some kind of rationale for their (fairly comfortable) beating.

I did then think that he is probably right.
The stats shown on Sky, even though sometimes loaded, do not lie and the amount of goals we get from set plays (balls into the box to our "giants") is high.

It did beg the question though, "when you were chasing the game why pump balls into their box?"
Flint was my MOTM so they obviously couldn't deal with him... at either end of the pitch.

Even if he was offside

[Rock_Flock_of_Five]

Re: Nathan Jones

I watched the interview from a link posted on their messageboard, it seemed like their local station.

I did think at first that he was being a bit disrespectful of us but it was for their own channel and he had to have some kind of rationale for their (fairly comfortable) beating.

I did then think that he is probably right.
The stats shown on Sky, even though sometimes loaded, do not lie and the amount of goals we get from set plays (balls into the box to our "giants") is high.

It did beg the question though, "when you were chasing the game why pump balls into their box?"
Flint was my MOTM so they obviously couldn't deal with him... at either end of the pitch.

Even if he was offside

I'm a bit surprised you picked Flint as your MOTM. Not that he didn't have a good game, just that Nelson stood out more.

[BlueArmy 86]

Re: Nathan Jones

He probably means we're sleeping giants. The way things are going in Catalonia, we'll be bigger than Barcelona soon!

[NYCBlue]

Re: Nathan Jones

"Look at the size of them!" We used to say in junior school.

One would like to think a professional footballer would be able to compensate for a lack of physical stature. With pace for example.