Samilktray Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 There's two thread on about the playoffs last week ! Today in live chat after we scored people were going on about how many games we need to win to reach the playoffs but the biggest moron in all of this. Is Holloway he has give our fans false hope by saying we are still going for the playoffs. If we do go down, i will never forget what he said. Ambition Oh sorry do you want to be stuck where we are ? I apologize.
Babylon Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 LEAGUE TABLES DON'T LIE YOU FOOL ! Bet you where one of them morons who was going on about the playoffs after the Palace game wasn't you ? I be happy if we can just stay up. Yeah of course I was .... Jesus you don't half look like a complete cock half the time. Use your tiny little pea brain and try dissecting my post. Once you do, you will see that it's a comment about doom merchants like you. As well as the people who think one win and we'll make the playoffs. As for the table not lying, we are effectively 5 points clear currently. What's the big deal? We have been in much worse positions and with much worse players before.
Babylon Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 There's two thread on about the playoffs last week ! Today in live chat after we scored people were going on about how many games we need to win to reach the playoffs but the biggest moron in all of this. Is Holloway he has give our fans false hope by saying we are still going for the playoffs. If we do go down, i will never forget what he said. Did I post in them... NO. So shut the fook up. What do you want him to say. I hope we stay up on goal difference??? You'd be on here moaning he has no bloody ambition then.
Father Ted Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 Basically a flowered up ''Ollie Out'' rant? I agree with the players out of position bit, but there must be reasons why Bori couldn't play? Perhaps he is unfit? Your not the manager so therefore you don't know what goes on behind the scenes!Oh and Chambers can play left back you tool. He's a versatile player, slightly better at RB though which is his best position. Just shut up for a minute. The lad's got a point. You don't see Gary Neville playing left-back or Tevez playing on the right of midfield. Even though I wasn't there, I listened on the radio and I thought Mattock did alright but why Ollie took him off I ain't got a clue.
Samilktray Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 Just shut up for a minute. The lad's got a point. You don't see Gary Neville playing left-back or Tevez playing on the right of midfield. Even though I wasn't there, I listened on the radio and I thought Mattock did alright but why Ollie took him off I ain't got a clue. Compare the strength in depth between us... and Manchester United
Lillehamring Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Ollie's changes cost us the game. Indeed, from what the radio said (which is never a good source but hey if you can do it I can), we started to dominate after IH's halftime changes. dominate? ok we had more possesion than in the first half, but i don't think anyone will come back saying we were 'dominant', and for all the improvement it didn't seem like we were peppering their goal. chasing a game it dooesn't seem like a particularly meaningful substitution to swap a left back for a right back. i think IH should be applauded for apparently shifting to 433 before we scored, considering we had 4 strikers on the pitch, it kind of made sense. i think maddog makes a very valid point, that IH had been complaining about players playing out of position, but seems to have been rather week in starting hayles after a couple of good subs performance, last week he got away with the decision (just), today i think it must have contributed to what has been documented as a rather lacklustre unconvincing performance. i just hope he picks a more BALANCED team in the next game.
Hugo Sanchez Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 Just shut up for a minute. The lad's got a point. You don't see Gary Neville playing left-back or Tevez playing on the right of midfield. Even though I wasn't there, I listened on the radio and I thought Mattock did alright but why Ollie took him off I ain't got a clue. Well said, why bring in Clapham ? Surely he would have been better to come on then Chambers but why change Mattock ? Then play Hume on the wing when he was good with Howard against Coventy. Barry Hayles with him clearly isn't working.
Babylon Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 Just shut up for a minute. The lad's got a point. You don't see Gary Neville playing left-back or Tevez playing on the right of midfield. Really? O'Shea... saw him in midfield. Giggs.... saw him upfront. Phil Neville.... saw him left back, right back and in midfield. Rooney... saw him play on the left. I listened on the radio and I thought Mattock did alright but why Ollie took him off I ain't got a clue. Probably something to do with you not being there.
Uncle Albert Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 Ah we are now out of the fantasy land of this past week! Most people are back to there usual slagging the manager and the players routine after a defeat. Thought it was to good to be true after the Palace win.
Jimmy Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 Just shut up for a minute. The lad's got a point. You don't see Gary Neville playing left-back or Tevez playing on the right of midfield. Even though I wasn't there, I listened on the radio and I thought Mattock did alright but why Ollie took him off I ain't got a clue. you don't see Neville playing at all atm, as for Tevez, he plays anywhere he wants, as does Rooney and Ronaldo, but guess what WE ARE NOT MANCHESTER UNITED, ARSENAL OR CHELSEA SO STOP fooking COMPARING US TO THEM AND USING THAT TO CRITICIZE OLLIE AS IT'S REALLY fooking ANNOYING
davieG Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 Ollie tried something different today he put round pegs in square holes he just didn't get the last shintastic goal they got a windtastic goal.
Father Ted Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 Really?O'Shea... saw him in midfield. Giggs.... saw him upfront. Phil Neville.... saw him left back, right back and in midfield. Rooney... saw him play on the left. Probably something to do with you not being there. But where are they best at playing, where they are more useful and less likely to make mistakes. ?
Lillehamring Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 jesus, i wouldn't say i normally agree with maddog, but he is entitled to make an observation, citing facts, about what he thinks of this football club, without people making personal comments... this is a perfectly valid thread, why must people feel the need to litter it with 'tools' and 'morons', either state why you disagree with him or don't post. IH IS playing people out of position, when it doesn't seem necessary - as far as we know, mattock played ok and wasn't injuried, so it does seem odd. hume (i'm pretty sure) is known to not be keen on playing right wing and FT members who attend games, as well as holloway (bizarrely) have said that hayles and howard is not a great partnership. maddog has a fair point, let him make it with out it decending into name calling and pedantry.
Babylon Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 But where are they best at playing, where they are more useful and less likely to make mistakes. ? What? They are best playing in their natural positions obviously.... but when they are the best option available for those positions then they will play there.
Father Ted Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 you don't see Neville playing at all atm, as for Tevez, he plays anywhere he wants, as does Rooney and Ronaldo, but guess what WE ARE NOT MANCHESTER UNITED, ARSENAL OR CHELSEA SO STOP fooking COMPARING US TO THEM AND USING THAT TO CRITICIZE OLLIE AS IT'S REALLY fooking ANNOYING All I am trying to do is back up the original post because I believe Maddog has a point but everyone else is slagging him off because if they slag Holloway off then some idiots will just come onto the forum ranting and raving about how can you say that about Holloway, this and that. BTW ITS A FORUM FOR A REASON, FOR FANS TO MAKE CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS, NOT TO SLAG OFF FELLOW FANS!!!
WetFlannel Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 Probably something to do with you not being there.
Babylon Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 jesus,i wouldn't say i normally agree with maddog, but he is entitled to make an observation, citing facts, about what he thinks of this football club, without people making personal comments... this is a perfectly valid thread, why must people feel the need to litter it with 'tools' and 'morons', either state why you disagree with him or don't post. IH IS playing people out of position, when it doesn't seem necessary - as far as we know, mattock played ok and wasn't injuried, so it does seem odd. hume (i'm pretty sure) is known to not be keen on playing right wing and FT members who attend games, as well as holloway (bizarrely) have said that hayles and howard is not a great partnership. maddog has a fair point, let him make it with out it decending into name calling and pedantry. fook off.
Lillehamring Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 Probably something to do with you not being there. with respect, being there would not give him any greater idea, the only person who knows why this (seemingly) uneccesary change was made is Holloway, and that's the point here... to some of us it just seems, after what IH has being, saying rather odd to put out such an unbalanced team
Father Ted Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 What? They are best playing in their natural positions obviously.... but when they are the best option available for those positions then they will play there. Finally, that's what I have been trying to say but its seems that Mattock has been subbed quite a lot recently including today, Norwich and QPR and wasn't even picked for the game at Southampton and so if at times Holloway feels that he needs to be taken off then replace him with a proven left-footed left-back.
Father Ted Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 jesus,i wouldn't say i normally agree with maddog, but he is entitled to make an observation, citing facts, about what he thinks of this football club, without people making personal comments... this is a perfectly valid thread, why must people feel the need to litter it with 'tools' and 'morons', either state why you disagree with him or don't post. IH IS playing people out of position, when it doesn't seem necessary - as far as we know, mattock played ok and wasn't injuried, so it does seem odd. hume (i'm pretty sure) is known to not be keen on playing right wing and FT members who attend games, as well as holloway (bizarrely) have said that hayles and howard is not a great partnership. maddog has a fair point, let him make it with out it decending into name calling and pedantry.
Babylon Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 All I am trying to do is back up the original post because I believe Maddog has a point but everyone else is slagging him off because if they slag Holloway off then some idiots will just come onto the forum ranting and raving about how can you say that about Holloway, this and that. BTW ITS A FORUM FOR A REASON, FOR FANS TO MAKE CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS, NOT TO SLAG OFF FELLOW FANS!!! But they do play people out of position when they have to!!! Maybe Mattock was injured. Maybe Barbers amazing insights aren't so amazing and he was getting ripped to shreds. Maybe he thinks Bori isn't quite ready. Maybe he thought Hume is more willing to track back. Maybe he thought the language barrier might effect Bori more. WE JUST DON'T KNOW!!! We started the game with ONE player out of position. It's hardly the crime of the century!!!!!!!
Father Ted Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 Probably something to do with you not being there. What so jumping around like a madman without my shirt on not even watching the game (which I would have prefered to do today) means that you know more about what happened today??
Babylon Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 with respect, being there would not give him any greater idea, the only person who knows why this (seemingly) uneccesary change was made is Holloway, and that's the point here... to some of us it just seems, after what IH has being, saying rather odd to put out such an unbalanced team Of course it bloody would. How do you know for certain that he wasn't actually getting caught out if you weren't there???
Hugo Sanchez Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 Of course it bloody would. How do you know for certain that he wasn't actually getting caught out if you weren't there??? How do know he wasn't ? Was you there ?
James. Posted 2 February 2008 Posted 2 February 2008 Of course it bloody would. How do you know for certain that he wasn't actually getting caught out if you weren't there??? Great signature Mr Babylon. Best I've seen for awhile. How do know he wasn't ? Was you there ? That's exactly his point chap.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.