MB Post Wet Spam

[Cjay]

Bielsa's here - how harsh?

I think it corresponded they won the game. They created more danger than we did. They had balls with which to attack in worse situations than we did and created more danger than us.

In the second half, there were things we improved. We pressed better. We played in their half more. In the end, we should have created more chances than the ones we did. It would have been possible to prevent a lot of the chances they did.

(Translation- We deserved to lose).


Offside?

It’s a decision I prefer to accept what the referees say, not because I haven’t created an opinion, but it’s a collaboration us managers should make, should accept their decisions even if they jeopardise us. If not, we enter a terrain where we can’t offer what we want to offer, which is good football. It’s a lot of arguments to say the position I am taking is incorrect. I consider them and revise them. I add and subtract and the decision to accept their decision helps their job and the spectacle, but some conclusions on this subject that says the one who demands the least it would seem it facilitates for the referee in case of doubts, they go towards the one that complains the least. I think the argument I am offering is superior to that.

(Translation- It was offside but I never complain)


Need to protect players during the week because of injuries?

Right now, we have nine players who cannot play. To manage that situation has its difficulties. For example, we had played an alternative team, if all the under-23s had played, they would have claimed I did not respect a historic competition. When the 10 seniors are available we have played, of course, we run a lot of risks. The games are more likely to cause an injury than the work during the week. To make decisions in one way or the other.

(Translation- We have lots of injuries but I wanted to show respect to the completion, you definitely cant say my training methods are the problem though)


Bamford?

Through the situation we are going through it so happens there are always absentees in the same position. Bamford, Gelhardt, Tyler and Rodrigo all missing. All the players who can play as ST or number 10. Of course, that players are missing, nobody desires that, but that four players are missing across two roles forces us to be very careful. It’s all in the hands of the luck. In the case of the four cases we are analysing, Bamford recovered from the injury vs Brentford and he was going to play again today, the starter at CF, and in the training, during the week he suffered an injury that is not identifiable. It’s a knock underneath his hip and it’s still not clear what’s the reason behind it. The only thing for sure is it’s not muscular because his muscles are healthy. In the case of Gelhardt, a teammate fell on his ankle, and this generated an injury that will keep him out for three or four weeks. In the case of Rodrigo, he still has not been able to recover from his heel issue. Roberts: in the last game he picked up a knock to his calf.

Translation- Bamford is injured again but it's not my training methods, here is why etc etc lots of injuries


Transfers aided by injuries?

I have been answering that question for three weeks now and I have no problems answering it again. If we can bring in players better than the ones we have, and are accessible with the economics of the club, we are not going to doubt in making that position.

That decision has three aspects: the player is better than what we have, the club can afford him and he is a player who can compete quickly. That’s another aspect to bear in mind. We have to see who he comes to replace. If he’s better than the one he’s coming to replace, how long it will take for the player he is replacing to recover from injury.

Let’s think after the international break we recover the four strikers, it might be convenient to add a CF due to this reality. We all know how much strikers cost. I don’t know if it’s convenient to bring a striker in if he’s going to be one of five. It’s just how you asked me the question. The logical response would be to bring players in any way possible, but all of these aspects, we need to bear them in mind.

Translation- Nothing close.

[mentalcase]

Bielsa's here - how harsh?

I think it corresponded they won the game. They created more danger than we did. They had balls with which to attack in worse situations than we did and created more danger than us.

In the second half, there were things we improved. We pressed better. We played in their half more. In the end, we should have created more chances than the ones we did. It would have been possible to prevent a lot of the chances they did.

(Translation- We deserved to lose).


Offside?

It’s a decision I prefer to accept what the referees say, not because I haven’t created an opinion, but it’s a collaboration us managers should make, should accept their decisions even if they jeopardise us. If not, we enter a terrain where we can’t offer what we want to offer, which is good football. It’s a lot of arguments to say the position I am taking is incorrect. I consider them and revise them. I add and subtract and the decision to accept their decision helps their job and the spectacle, but some conclusions on this subject that says the one who demands the least it would seem it facilitates for the referee in case of doubts, they go towards the one that complains the least. I think the argument I am offering is superior to that.

(Translation- It was offside but I never complain)


Need to protect players during the week because of injuries?

Right now, we have nine players who cannot play. To manage that situation has its difficulties. For example, we had played an alternative team, if all the under-23s had played, they would have claimed I did not respect a historic competition. When the 10 seniors are available we have played, of course, we run a lot of risks. The games are more likely to cause an injury than the work during the week. To make decisions in one way or the other.

(Translation- We have lots of injuries but I wanted to show respect to the completion, you definitely cant say my training methods are the problem though)


Bamford?

Through the situation we are going through it so happens there are always absentees in the same position. Bamford, Gelhardt, Tyler and Rodrigo all missing. All the players who can play as ST or number 10. Of course, that players are missing, nobody desires that, but that four players are missing across two roles forces us to be very careful. It’s all in the hands of the luck. In the case of the four cases we are analysing, Bamford recovered from the injury vs Brentford and he was going to play again today, the starter at CF, and in the training, during the week he suffered an injury that is not identifiable. It’s a knock underneath his hip and it’s still not clear what’s the reason behind it. The only thing for sure is it’s not muscular because his muscles are healthy. In the case of Gelhardt, a teammate fell on his ankle, and this generated an injury that will keep him out for three or four weeks. In the case of Rodrigo, he still has not been able to recover from his heel issue. Roberts: in the last game he picked up a knock to his calf.

Translation- Bamford is injured again but it's not my training methods, here is why etc etc lots of injuries


Transfers aided by injuries?

I have been answering that question for three weeks now and I have no problems answering it again. If we can bring in players better than the ones we have, and are accessible with the economics of the club, we are not going to doubt in making that position.

That decision has three aspects: the player is better than what we have, the club can afford him and he is a player who can compete quickly. That’s another aspect to bear in mind. We have to see who he comes to replace. If he’s better than the one he’s coming to replace, how long it will take for the player he is replacing to recover from injury.

Let’s think after the international break we recover the four strikers, it might be convenient to add a CF due to this reality. We all know how much strikers cost. I don’t know if it’s convenient to bring a striker in if he’s going to be one of five. It’s just how you asked me the question. The logical response would be to bring players in any way possible, but all of these aspects, we need to bear them in mind.

Translation- Nothing close.

Utter bollocks, we never complain and never get anything for being too polite and respectful other than the 'fair-play' trophy no-one wants, we're being laughed at for not doing the dark arts like everyone else.