SMX11 Posted 7 November 2009 Posted 7 November 2009 Still, chanting 'Eng-er-land' when we're remembering the dead is a bit much isn't it? I was in the east stand (where everyone was singing this) I guess they didn't hear the instructions, fortunately I did.
Ashley Posted 7 November 2009 Posted 7 November 2009 They were singing it because they're idiotic dickheads who have somehow managed to grow up not knowing that a minutes silence is how we respect the fallen in armed conflict. Since when has singing England been a sign of respect to the armed forces? The armed forces who are made up of people from Britain and the commonwealth. I heard the instructions after the last post that there would be a minutes silence however how many minute silence normally start like that at football and yes I do know the armed forces are made up from Britian.
Karljohn Posted 7 November 2009 Posted 7 November 2009 Oakley went off with groin strain but is banned now after 5th yellow. Andy King I heard had broken his arm? Wellens was awful today and I think he has been slowly in decline in the last 4-5 weeks. Still no goals from midfield, still need a defensive midfielder, and I cant believe the amount of times that twat Carson caught us out with the goal kicks, one led to them hitting the bar.
fleckneymike Posted 7 November 2009 Posted 7 November 2009 I heard the instructions after the last post that there would be a minutes silence however how many minute silence normally start like that at football and yes I do know the armed forces are made up from Britian. The last post is played at commemoration services for the Armed Forces, just like it was today, just like it has been since the 17th fooking century. Stop trying to find excuses for ignorance.
Bert Posted 7 November 2009 Posted 7 November 2009 McGiven was well good when he came on, some lovely balls into the box. Shame he can't really defend. Waggy was our best player today, closely followed by Brown.
Ashley Posted 7 November 2009 Posted 7 November 2009 The last post is played at commemoration services for the Armed Forces, just like it was today, just like it has been since the 17th fooking century. Stop trying to find excuses for ignorance. I'm not trying to find excuses for ignorance, I really doubt they were out to disrespect our war dead today.
fleckneymike Posted 7 November 2009 Posted 7 November 2009 I'm not trying to find excuses for ignorance, I really doubt they were out to disrespect our war dead today. I doubt they were but they did.
PAULCFC Posted 7 November 2009 Posted 7 November 2009 It was simply another shit home performance.We made it far too easy for West Brom, giving them way too much space and time, they weren't exactly fantastic. Stupid free kick rolled along the floor past everyone shocking. Then stupid backing away allowed a cracking shot, why we don't shoot in those positions when we get the chance il never know. 2nd half we created a lot of chances and had a lot of corners, our luck was 0 today. Had Gallagher scored that tap in we would have probably got a draw, or possibly won. No luck today. We were beet by a better team,thats all!
PAULCFC Posted 7 November 2009 Posted 7 November 2009 I assume this is some sort of ironic post. His crossing was piss poor. he's a bit poor to me.
J.Lisemore Posted 7 November 2009 Posted 7 November 2009 Robbie Neilson was the shittest player on the pitch today.
maddog Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 Robbie Neilson was the shittest player on the pitch today. He certainly doesn't help himself. He can't help being slow so when he's up against speedy attackers he's got 2 choices, back off, back off, or kick them from behind. If he goes tight he will end up missing it and they will just run past him into the space, if he attacks on the right wing he will give the ball away and they will pile down the right side. Once again it's the problem with not having a right winger, the right back should never really be in front of the right winger when attacking, but as theres no right winger (Oakley is never there) Neilson has to do 2 jobs. I wouldn't mind Oakley being out for the next few games, frankly i've had enough of his continued shit this season, giving the ball away and wasting corners and free kicks. As captain he's never going to get dropped, so the only way he's out is if he's injured. I don't see the benefit of him playing. Give Brown the captains armband and get Oakley out. Then play N'guessan on the right and Dyer on the left simpels.
C-man Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 McGiven was well good when he came on, some lovely balls into the box. What?! Every single cross of his was overhit. He didn't show enough enthusiasm for getting forward at 2-0 down, there were several times when Wayne or Wellens were bringing the ball forward and looking to play the ball inside Brunt but couldn't because McGivern was simply too lazy to bust a gut to get in behind. He'll improve, and have a decent career but currently he's out of his depth.
shen Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 I wouldn't mind Oakley being out for the next few games, frankly i've had enough of his continued shit this season, giving the ball away and wasting corners and free kicks.As captain he's never going to get dropped, so the only way he's out is if he's injured. I don't see the benefit of him playing. Give Brown the captains armband and get Oakley out. Or if he's suspended, which is the case now
C-man Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 Two things. 1. I cannot understand for the life of me why Dyer isn't on the bench. Is he injured? Surely he offers something different and I thought before his substitution against Palace he was in a bit of form. 2. Why on earth is there a gap between the main wall and a floating player who neither charges down or blocks a route to goal? I noticed that the ball went straight through that gap for Clingan's free-kick against Coventry and the same happened today with Dorrans' goal except that was along the floor and in the opposite corner. Can't remember the exact players involved but surely that's something that needs addressing and pretty sharpish before we start giving cheap free-kicks away just outside the box.
Budweiser Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 McGiven was well good when he came on, some lovely balls into the box. I thought he was quite good aswell. Though im not sure if your taking the piss
lildave3 Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 I've read none of this thread. Not too disappointed, but they only really had a 5/10 minute spell in which they scored their goals and it destroyed us. Losing 2 midfielders was a blow, hope they dont miss much. Errrrrrm, we could have got something, possibly, but like I said i'm not too disappointed. They'll be up there at the end of the season.
Tommeh Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 Oakley went off with groin strain but is banned now after 5th yellow. Andy King I heard had broken his arm? Wellens was awful today and I think he has been slowly in decline in the last 4-5 weeks. Still no goals from midfield, still need a defensive midfielder, and I cant believe the amount of times that twat Carson caught us out with the goal kicks, one led to them hitting the bar. Awful today is a ridiculous comment, below par yes but as Leicester fans we should know what constitutes a awful central midfield performance (Andy Johnson anyone?) Also at QPR Wellens turned out probably the best individual performance of a city player in the last 5 years. He was unreal.
Fox92 Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 Weale should have saved both goals. We didn't close down enough. Gallagher should have scored. Oakley is not a right winger ffs. We didn't really have a midfield. Wellens was probably the best player out of the lot.
davieG Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 Weale should have saved both goals.We didn't close down enough. Gallagher should have scored. Oakley is not a right winger ffs. We didn't really have a midfield. Wellens was probably the best player out of the lot. Why pick on Weale the feeble attempts to block, the free kick first by Wellens I think and the total lack of closing down for the 2nd were much more to blame. Wellens had a poor game, miss placed passes, slow on the ball, frequently robbed of the ball whilst dithering. Waghorn & Brown were far superior. Agree with the others but Wellens was as much to blame as anyone about a lack of midfield considering he was the 'senior' member of it for a considerable section of the game.
skinnydipper Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 the right back should never really be in front of the right winger when attacking, Overlap ?
marbelladave Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 Couldn't be arsed to post when I got in, just very disappointed. The game split evenly into 3 half hour sections. First thirty minutes was pretty awful. We set up just as I feared, we took all the good things from the QPR game and tossed them away, reverting to type and playing a wretched, pedestrian 4-4-2. Oakley was pushed wide and was ineffective, N'Guessan was playing much deeper than at QPR with greater emphasis on his defensive duties and lost all his forward threat. Neither of them offered anything, either in midfield or in attack. The two periods of 15 minutes either side of half time were absolute chaos, we let in 2 soft goals, lost 2 midfield players who had to be replaced with a full back and a centre forward because we did not have a single midfielder on the bench! WTF. Both goals should have been stopped but WBA had opportunities to score several others. Had Gallagher scored early in the second half it might well have made a difference but a goal for City at that time would have been an injustice. Without ever looking particularly good, WBA were well in control. During the last period Pearson sent on Howard and we played largely without a midfield, a sort of 4-2-0-4 formation with the long ball just pumped forward. Surprisingly we managed to generate a bit of a goal threat though this was largely a function of our effort and energy than any semblance of decent football. With the game this open WBA hit us on the counter time and time again and we were lucky not to go further behind, WBA were wasteful, perhaps overconfident but some credit to Weale and Brown for some stout defending. Berner's late goal was largely an irrelevance and made the game look closer than it really was. All in all a poor performance, WBA showed touches of class but were really not that good, we were so poor that they beat us with some ease. I know some will say that WBA were too good for us and that we played quite well in difficult circumstances but I really cannot agree, we showed some heart and put in some effort but that was about it. No structure or game plan, no pace or adventure, we were beaten in the first 30 minutes, before they even scored.
skinnydipper Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 Thought Weale had a decent game . Made a number of good saves , was unsighted for the first which should never have got through anyway and beaten by a good strike for the second which is going to happen from time to time. Berner was decent in the circumstances. Mcgivern , improvement on Reading but still not good enough
Fox92 Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 Why pick on Weale the feeble attempts to block, the free kick first by Wellens I think and the total lack of closing down for the 2nd were much more to blame. Wellens had a poor game, miss placed passes, slow on the ball, frequently robbed of the ball whilst dithering. Waghorn & Brown were far superior. Agree with the others but Wellens was as much to blame as anyone about a lack of midfield considering he was the 'senior' member of it for a considerable section of the game. The first goal was hit as soft as anything that Weale could have put his cap on it. The second goal, I agree with nobody closing him down, but a goalkeeper at this level should be saving a shot like that. It didin't swerve that much, it wasn't a thunderbolt, he could have just got his body behind it.
Guest Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 The first goal was hit as soft as anything that Weale could have put his cap on it. The second goal, I agree with nobody closing him down, but a goalkeeper at this level should be saving a shot like that. It didin't swerve that much, it wasn't a thunderbolt, he could have just got his body behind it. I'm with davieG on this one, there were plenty at fault for not even attempting to block that. It was painful to watch it go in, almost like time had slowed down and nobody around me could quite believe it had made it through that many people and rolled into the net.
davieG Posted 8 November 2009 Posted 8 November 2009 The first goal was hit as soft as anything that Weale could have put his cap on it. The second goal, I agree with nobody closing him down, but a goalkeeper at this level should be saving a shot like that. It didin't swerve that much, it wasn't a thunderbolt, he could have just got his body behind it. Whether Weale could have stopped it wasn't my point it was you putting the blame on him with out mentioning the pathetic attempts by the players to stop it. If it was so soft there was absolutely no excuse for it to have even reached Weale, at least he can claim he was totally surprised to see it come through, the defence have no excuse. Watch the replay and see Wellens ( I think ) pathetic attempt, reminiscent of a 5 year old to stop it.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.