Medel, Wanyama, Huddlestone or Capoue?

teams down the bottom, beating a lot of them 1-0 with their sensible, well organised style of play (ring any bells?) You would think that would suit most fans, but our fans would say that's "too negative and not exciting enough, so let's throw away 5 points at home to Sunderland and West Ham instead by playing more open"

Nonsense. Hull have a balance between attacking and defending which Malky did not have. We defended all throughout the game with little to no desire to get width or men up in support of Campbell so we relied on set pieces.

Hull are organised in defence and allow their players to attack because Bruce isn't naive and thinks that you're going to draw your way to survival.

As someone mentioned we were in control of Sunderland for 70/80 minutes when we allowed players like Kim, Mutch and Noone to express themselves. Then they went into a shell and started hoofing it up the pitch and it cost us two goals.

West Ham was poor and there is no excuse for that. So pull your head out of Malky's anus, watch some games back and compare it to some of Hull's matches and you'll see that they allow players to attack and they just weren't camped outside of their box for 90 minutes trying to draw matches.

May I add this is all within them spending a fraction of what we have.

teams down the bottom, beating a lot of them 1-0 with their sensible, well organised style of play (ring any bells?) You would think that would suit most fans, but our fans would say that's "too negative and not exciting enough, so let's throw away 5 points at home to Sunderland and West Ham instead by playing more open"

Nonsense. Hull have a balance between attacking and defending which Malky did not have. We defended all throughout the game with little to no desire to get width or men up in support of Campbell so we relied on set pieces.

Hull are organised in defence and allow their players to attack because Bruce isn't naive and thinks that you're going to draw your way to survival.

As someone mentioned we were in control of Sunderland for 70/80 minutes when we allowed players like Kim, Mutch and Noone to express themselves. Then they went into a shell and started hoofing it up the pitch and it cost us two goals.

West Ham was poor and there is no excuse for that. So pull your head out of Malky's anus, watch some games back and compare it to some of Hull's matches and you'll see that they allow players to attack and they just weren't camped outside of their box for 90 minutes trying to draw matches.

May I add this is all within them spending a fraction of what we have.

Clueless.

teams down the bottom, beating a lot of them 1-0 with their sensible, well organised style of play (ring any bells?) You would think that would suit most fans, but our fans would say that's "too negative and not exciting enough, so let's throw away 5 points at home to Sunderland and West Ham instead by playing more open"

Nonsense. Hull have a balance between attacking and defending which Malky did not have. We defended all throughout the game with little to no desire to get width or men up in support of Campbell so we relied on set pieces.

Hull are organised in defence and allow their players to attack because Bruce isn't naive and thinks that you're going to draw your way to survival.

As someone mentioned we were in control of Sunderland for 70/80 minutes when we allowed players like Kim, Mutch and Noone to express themselves. Then they went into a shell and started hoofing it up the pitch and it cost us two goals.

West Ham was poor and there is no excuse for that. So pull your head out of Malky's anus, watch some games back and compare it to some of Hull's matches and you'll see that they allow players to attack and they just weren't camped outside of their box for 90 minutes trying to draw matches.

May I add this is all within them spending a fraction of what we have.

Clueless.

Put a counter argument in place then...

teams down the bottom, beating a lot of them 1-0 with their sensible, well organised style of play (ring any bells?) You would think that would suit most fans, but our fans would say that's "too negative and not exciting enough, so let's throw away 5 points at home to Sunderland and West Ham instead by playing more open"

Nonsense. Hull have a balance between attacking and defending which Malky did not have. We defended all throughout the game with little to no desire to get width or men up in support of Campbell so we relied on set pieces.

Hull are organised in defence and allow their players to attack because Bruce isn't naive and thinks that you're going to draw your way to survival.

As someone mentioned we were in control of Sunderland for 70/80 minutes when we allowed players like Kim, Mutch and Noone to express themselves. Then they went into a shell and started hoofing it up the pitch and it cost us two goals.

West Ham was poor and there is no excuse for that. So pull your head out of Malky's anus, watch some games back and compare it to some of Hull's matches and you'll see that they allow players to attack and they just weren't camped outside of their box for 90 minutes trying to draw matches.

May I add this is all within them spending a fraction of what we have.

Good post.

teams down the bottom, beating a lot of them 1-0 with their sensible, well organised style of play (ring any bells?) You would think that would suit most fans, but our fans would say that's "too negative and not exciting enough, so let's throw away 5 points at home to Sunderland and West Ham instead by playing more open"

Nonsense. Hull have a balance between attacking and defending which Malky did not have. We defended all throughout the game with little to no desire to get width or men up in support of Campbell so we relied on set pieces.

Hull are organised in defence and allow their players to attack because Bruce isn't naive and thinks that you're going to draw your way to survival.

As someone mentioned we were in control of Sunderland for 70/80 minutes when we allowed players like Kim, Mutch and Noone to express themselves. Then they went into a shell and started hoofing it up the pitch and it cost us two goals.

West Ham was poor and there is no excuse for that. So pull your head out of Malky's anus, watch some games back and compare it to some of Hull's matches and you'll see that they allow players to attack and they just weren't camped outside of their box for 90 minutes trying to draw matches.

May I add this is all within them spending a fraction of what we have.

Clueless.

Put a counter argument in place then...

I already have. Read my posts in this thread. Hull have played 4-5-1 at home to teams like Norwich, where they got a dodgy penalty and won 1-0. Hull have got many points at home against teams in the bottom half like that. Malky achieved that against the only 2 teams in the bottom half we played at home under his reign, beating Swansea and West Brom 1-0. I have no doubt under Malky we would have picked up a lot more points at home in the second half of the season, as we only have Liverpool and Chelsea left to play regarding the big teams, all our other home games are games we can get results from if at our best, especially when you consider we beat Man City at home, took a point off Man Utd and Everton etc. I don't know what more Malky could have done to be honest.

Still, Tan brainwashed the majority of this forum and we have gone from picking up 1-0 wins at home to West Brom and Swansea to throwing away 5 points at home to Sunderland and West Ham. Apart from the first game of the season, we were never in the relegation zone under Malky and I firmly believe we would have stayed up under him with our home form. Whatever anyone thinks, you have to win your home games against teams in our mini league in the bottom half. Under Malky we were doing this, after Malky we haven't. I just hope Ole can do what I believe Malky would have done in the second half of the season, get results at home to move us towards mid table.

teams down the bottom, beating a lot of them 1-0 with their sensible, well organised style of play (ring any bells?) You would think that would suit most fans, but our fans would say that's "too negative and not exciting enough, so let's throw away 5 points at home to Sunderland and West Ham instead by playing more open"

Nonsense. Hull have a balance between attacking and defending which Malky did not have. We defended all throughout the game with little to no desire to get width or men up in support of Campbell so we relied on set pieces.

Hull are organised in defence and allow their players to attack because Bruce isn't naive and thinks that you're going to draw your way to survival.

As someone mentioned we were in control of Sunderland for 70/80 minutes when we allowed players like Kim, Mutch and Noone to express themselves. Then they went into a shell and started hoofing it up the pitch and it cost us two goals.

West Ham was poor and there is no excuse for that. So pull your head out of Malky's anus, watch some games back and compare it to some of Hull's matches and you'll see that they allow players to attack and they just weren't camped outside of their box for 90 minutes trying to draw matches.

May I add this is all within them spending a fraction of what we have.

Clueless.

Put a counter argument in place then...

I already have. Read my posts in this thread. Hull have played 4-5-1 at home to teams like Norwich, where they got a dodgy penalty and won 1-0. Hull have got many points at home against teams in the bottom half like that. Malky achieved that against the only 2 teams in the bottom half we played at home under his reign, beating Swansea and West Brom 1-0. I have no doubt under Malky we would have picked up a lot more points at home in the second half of the season, as we only have Liverpool and Chelsea left to play regarding the big teams, all our other home games are games we can get results from if at our best, especially when you consider we beat Man City at home, took a point off Man Utd and Everton etc. I don't know what more Malky could have done to be honest.

Still, Tan brainwashed the majority of this forum and we have gone from picking up 1-0 wins at home to West Brom and Swansea to throwing away 5 points at home to Sunderland and West Ham. Apart from the first game of the season, we were never in the relegation zone under Malky and I firmly believe we would have stayed up under him with our home form. Whatever anyone thinks, you have to win your home games against teams in our mini league in the bottom half. Under Malky we were doing this, after Malky we haven't. I just hope Ole can do what I believe Malky would have done in the second half of the season, get results at home to move us towards mid table.

I dont disagree with you. But replying simply "rubbish" does nothing for the thread.

He made many points in his post, a lot of which werent rubbish - a counter to his points would have been far better.

But i agree, i think malky would have kept you up.

teams down the bottom, beating a lot of them 1-0 with their sensible, well organised style of play (ring any bells?) You would think that would suit most fans, but our fans would say that's "too negative and not exciting enough, so let's throw away 5 points at home to Sunderland and West Ham instead by playing more open"

Nonsense. Hull have a balance between attacking and defending which Malky did not have. We defended all throughout the game with little to no desire to get width or men up in support of Campbell so we relied on set pieces.

Hull are organised in defence and allow their players to attack because Bruce isn't naive and thinks that you're going to draw your way to survival.

As someone mentioned we were in control of Sunderland for 70/80 minutes when we allowed players like Kim, Mutch and Noone to express themselves. Then they went into a shell and started hoofing it up the pitch and it cost us two goals.

West Ham was poor and there is no excuse for that. So pull your head out of Malky's anus, watch some games back and compare it to some of Hull's matches and you'll see that they allow players to attack and they just weren't camped outside of their box for 90 minutes trying to draw matches.

May I add this is all within them spending a fraction of what we have.

Clueless.

Put a counter argument in place then...

I already have. Read my posts in this thread. Hull have played 4-5-1 at home to teams like Norwich, where they got a dodgy penalty and won 1-0. Hull have got many points at home against teams in the bottom half like that. Malky achieved that against the only 2 teams in the bottom half we played at home under his reign, beating Swansea and West Brom 1-0. I have no doubt under Malky we would have picked up a lot more points at home in the second half of the season, as we only have Liverpool and Chelsea left to play regarding the big teams, all our other home games are games we can get results from if at our best, especially when you consider we beat Man City at home, took a point off Man Utd and Everton etc. I don't know what more Malky could have done to be honest.

Still, Tan brainwashed the majority of this forum and we have gone from picking up 1-0 wins at home to West Brom and Swansea to throwing away 5 points at home to Sunderland and West Ham. Apart from the first game of the season, we were never in the relegation zone under Malky and I firmly believe we would have stayed up under him with our home form. Whatever anyone thinks, you have to win your home games against teams in our mini league in the bottom half. Under Malky we were doing this, after Malky we haven't. I just hope Ole can do what I believe Malky would have done in the second half of the season, get results at home to move us towards mid table.

I dont disagree with you. But replying simply "rubbish" does nothing for the thread.

He made many points in his post, a lot of which werent rubbish - a counter to his points would have been far better.

But i agree, i think malky would have kept you up.

To be honest when someone makes a remark like "pull your head out of Malky's anus" in his post, I didn't see the point wasting my time and effort debating with him. But you respectfully asked me to put up a counter argument so I did.