Hitesh Posted 24 August 2005 Posted 24 August 2005 good for him , its defending hes shit at 162880[/snapback] ! well said!
rossporterlc Posted 25 August 2005 Posted 25 August 2005 i think i am one of the few who liked matt heath
Sparky Posted 25 August 2005 Posted 25 August 2005 i think i am one of the few who liked matt heath 163448[/snapback]
Simon Posted 25 August 2005 Posted 25 August 2005 i think i am one of the few who liked matt heath 163448[/snapback] No, I thought he was OK, especially for this level, but I much prefer who we have now...
Sparky Posted 25 August 2005 Posted 25 August 2005 i personally thought he was a poor immitation of a footballer . take his og vs ipswich , no player in the world would have done that !!! his passing was under 10 level , he had absolute no pace and didnt win enough headers for his size
Guest Posted 26 August 2005 Posted 26 August 2005 i personally thought he was a poor immitation of a footballer . take his og vs ipswich , no player in the world would have done that !!!his passing was under 10 level , he had absolute no pace and didnt win enough headers for his size 163460[/snapback] So all in all, did you rate him?
Janx Posted 26 August 2005 Posted 26 August 2005 So all in all, did you rate him? 163719[/snapback] theres just too much fence-sitting on this board!
rossporterlc Posted 26 August 2005 Posted 26 August 2005 theres just too much fence-sitting on this board! 163721[/snapback] i'm undecided about that
Thracian Posted 27 August 2005 Posted 27 August 2005 Not sure Matt should be getting slagged off on here considering the City defence ships goals like a rotten trawler sinks water. Not just that but Matt does score the odd goal which is more than our current centre-backs do. No point replacing anyone if it doesn't represent an improvement.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.