by Victor Meldrew »
04 Jan 2016 17:48
Snowball Victor Meldrew Interesting to read that some posters felt that certain players were "excellent" with snowball in particular going so far over the top you would have assumed we had won 6-0.Perhaps they might reconsider what constitutes excellent.
Excuse Me?
Snowball136
El Habsi may make occasional blunders but he looks a far better keeper and actually commands his box
Gunter, IMO played well. . Solid 7
Cooper. Did VERY well, won more headers than anyone else ever does,
McShane Honestly can't remember much good or bad but he isn't as dominant as the early games
Taylor OK
Norwood mostly excellent but a couple of horrendous mistakes. I think various players making mistakes is coming because our shape goes ragged far too often.
Williams, I was bitching about him first half. He wastes a lot of ball. IMO Williams is a "messy" player and contributes less than it appears at first glance,
Quinn, excellent again (great little player). good as a midfielder or LW or LB. Quality pro <<<<<<
Blackman (wing) Did OK except too many passes to Gunter that should have cut out the FB instead of allowing him to block.
Blackman (striker)... a bit of old fashioned channel running or balls over the top a la Shane Long but a well-taken goal. I do NOT think the should start up front.
Vydra is total quality but just drawing a blank ATM. H
Sa, not sure. I think he is by FAR our best hold-up player but he plays like he's not happy at Reading.
McLeary was excellent when he came on, so was HRK. No complaints about Ferdinand (solid) but it's pretty clear his body is packing up
We are a very good squad of players out of luck and out of confidence.
When did "occasional blunders", "solid", "Did very well", "He isn't dominant", " mostly excellent but a couple of horrendous mistakes",
"he wastes a lot of ball and is a messy player", "too many bad passes", "still drawing a blank", and "not sure"
count as "GOING OVER THE TOP"?
YOU NEED TO COME BACK FROM WHATEVER PLANET YOU'RE ON ATM
Despite your very loud capital letters I think my point stands.
You describe the performance of 4 players as being "excellent" in a game that we won in added time at home to a club in the bottom 3 and the game described variously as dire, turgid etc..
Surely if 4 players had been excellent we would have won 5 or 6 nil?
I do feel that there was too much hype in your posting and ask you to, when posting again, possibly think of using words like "good","fair", "adequate" to give people a better idea of what actually happened rather than telling people that a player has "excelled" ("to be outstandingly good at something" according to the Collins dictionary) .
Until you bring a bit of balance I will not be able to take your postings seriously.