The Warnock post match moan thread

239 posts
User avatar
Royal Rother
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 21843
Joined: 13 Apr 2004 23:22
Location: The handsome bald fella with the blue eyes

by Royal Rother » 21 Jan 2007 12:05

Warnock once again does his old trick of trying to deflect attention away from his own players' shortcomings or misdemeanours by trying to blame the whole incident on Sidwell's challenge, which was dealt with correctly by Halsey at the time.


More bollocks. He made no bones about it, Gillespie was a fool, let his teammates and club down and deserved to be sent off.

Referring to Sidwell's challenge is a red herring - Warnock was not blaming the Gillespie incident on Sidwell's challenge at all - he was trying to point out to Halsey that he should have sent off Sidwell, which was of course a nonsense.

User avatar
Royal Lady
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 13760
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 10:17
Location: Don't mess with "my sort". Cheers then.

by Royal Lady » 21 Jan 2007 12:10

I've just watched the incident again on Sky Sports and I have to say, the reporting on the match was inflammatory to say the least - showing a clip of Hunt and saying he was the main protagonist!! Do what??? It's disgusting.

DelBoyRodders
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 294
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 14:15
Location: There's none so blind as them that won't listen.

by DelBoyRodders » 21 Jan 2007 12:11

blade 1
three instances where a manager has been accused of telling his players to injure the opposition: Today, Warnock V WBA and Warnock V Leeds


and yesterday he was talking about a tackle on our player (proved by motd)


MOTD didn't prove anything.

It's quite possible that Colin was talking about Sidwell's tackle, but the TV didn't actually prove that.

Watching it again on Sky this morning, the 4th official is standing right next to Colin when he does it the first time. Now if Warnock did tell his players to break legs, or was referring to Sidwell's tackle, then that fourth official will have heard that and will mention it in his report along with the referee when it eventually goes to a FA hearing.

Only then will anything get proved.

blade 1
Member
Posts: 175
Joined: 01 Jan 2006 13:48

by blade 1 » 21 Jan 2007 12:14

you couls see he was pointing across the pitch and mounthing something abiut a tackle.

For once he isn't to blaim for something spilling over

User avatar
Royal Lady
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 13760
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 10:17
Location: Don't mess with "my sort". Cheers then.

by Royal Lady » 21 Jan 2007 12:16

blade 1 you couls see he was pointing across the pitch and mounthing something abiut a tackle.

For once he isn't to blaim for something spilling over
but you just said he wasn't to blame for the other times either - make your mind up. I don't know why you're sticking up for him to be honest. He's spent all that money - you've got 11 strikers in your squad and you're still shite. Warnock Out.


DelBoyRodders
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 294
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 14:15
Location: There's none so blind as them that won't listen.

by DelBoyRodders » 21 Jan 2007 12:18

blade 1 you couls see he was pointing across the pitch and mounthing something abiut a tackle.

For once he isn't to blaim for something spilling over


Sorry, but he could be waving his arms about for any reason.

Those close to him may have heard what he actually said and if so and it is reported correctly, then I will accept what is decided/ reported.

Until then we can only guess (or hope).

User avatar
Royal Lady
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 13760
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 10:17
Location: Don't mess with "my sort". Cheers then.

by Royal Lady » 21 Jan 2007 12:19

I'll ask Spacey to do a quick lip-read tomorrow - that'll sort it out!

Royalee
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6470
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 12:58
Location: Reading, hazar

by Royalee » 21 Jan 2007 12:22

blade 1 you couls see he was pointing across the pitch and mounthing something abiut a tackle.

For once he isn't to blaim for something spilling over


Applauding the player who's just been elbowed in the face isn't inflammatory though, is it? :wink: Reminds me of Bramall Lane last season when he applauded Convey when he was taken out in the box late on. You really do have to wonder why he views being fouled as such an achievement!

User avatar
Royal Rother
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 21843
Joined: 13 Apr 2004 23:22
Location: The handsome bald fella with the blue eyes

by Royal Rother » 21 Jan 2007 12:34

Now what did piss me off about Warnock's comments (just remembered) was the snide reference to Hunt having a bit of a record for leaving himself in late (when referring to the tackle that left stud marks on -----------'s upper leg) and that he was a bit clever at that sort of thing.

This was obviously a veiled reference to the Cech incident and was totally uncalled for.


DelBoyRodders
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 294
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 14:15
Location: There's none so blind as them that won't listen.

by DelBoyRodders » 21 Jan 2007 12:36

Royal Rother
This was obviously a veiled reference to the Cech incident and was totally uncalled for.


..and also unjustifed.

DelBoyRodders
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 294
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 14:15
Location: There's none so blind as them that won't listen.

by DelBoyRodders » 21 Jan 2007 13:16

The more I watch this on TV this morning the more I am convinced that Warnock gestured to go out and injure one of the Reading players.

He had the best part of the 2nd half after his own sending off to think up an alternative story and this was it.

His first thought was that Hunt got Gillespie sent off - hence his mock hand clapping, but having seen it later on TV he couldn't possibly argue that fact.

Warnock did his stramping gesture TWICE, the first time just a second after his mock hand clapping towards Hunt. At no time did he point across the field and say, "What about that tackle over their (Sidwell's foul and booking)."

With plenty of time to sit up in the stand and reflect on what had happened , he invented the stamping things as being a reference to Sidwell's tackle.

That is pure coincidence and a perfect get-out for him.

Unfortunately unless anyone actually heard and reports what he really said when he did the stamping gestures, then it will be enough to get him off a serious charge.

With everyone else aware of previous incidents with Warnock doing the same thing in the past, then it's no surprise that Wally Downs acted like he did - albeit also an action that warrants some sort of FA charge and punishment.

Warnock claims he was shouting at the ref when he made these stamping gestures about Sidwell, but it certainly doesn't look like that from the TV. The ref has his back to him for starters.

The 4th official was stood next to him the first time he did it, so must have heard what he actually said. Hoepfully he will be brave enough to put that in his report and the truth will come out at the FA hearing.

If Warnock is found guilty of asking his players to foul and injure Reading players, then he must fall on his sword and resign as manager of SUFC at the very least.

Having said all that, I still hate Mourinho more that Warnock. Warnock is just a bit crazy and is really just a fan in a manager's clothing, whereas Mourinho is just pure evil.
Last edited by DelBoyRodders on 21 Jan 2007 13:31, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Royal Rother
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 21843
Joined: 13 Apr 2004 23:22
Location: The handsome bald fella with the blue eyes

by Royal Rother » 21 Jan 2007 13:21

Personally I think that's crazy talk. No manager would have lasted this long in football management if he was really prone to that sort of violence.

Sorry, but no way DBR.

User avatar
From Despair To Where?
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 24832
Joined: 19 Apr 2004 08:37
Location: See me in m'pants and ting

by From Despair To Where? » 21 Jan 2007 13:31

Royal Rother
Warnock once again does his old trick of trying to deflect attention away from his own players' shortcomings or misdemeanours by trying to blame the whole incident on Sidwell's challenge, which was dealt with correctly by Halsey at the time.


More bollocks. He made no bones about it, Gillespie was a fool, let his teammates and club down and deserved to be sent off.

Referring to Sidwell's challenge is a red herring - Warnock was not blaming the Gillespie incident on Sidwell's challenge at all - he was trying to point out to Halsey that he should have sent off Sidwell, which was of course a nonsense.


Then why try to justify it as one type of elbow rather than another, why make an issue of Sidwell's challenge after his player has been sent off and not at the time of the challenge. The camera's zoomed in on Warnock immediately after the challenge and he was just stood there, arms behind his back and bottom lip wobbling. There was a good 90 seconds between the challenge on Armstrong and Gillespie's sending off. Why did Warnock not feel it necessary to make an issue of it at the time?


DelBoyRodders
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 294
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 14:15
Location: There's none so blind as them that won't listen.

by DelBoyRodders » 21 Jan 2007 13:57

From Despair To Where Why did Warnock not feel it necessary to make an issue of it at the time?


A very good point and only adds to the argument as to what his stamping gestures were really referring to.

User avatar
Royal Rother
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 21843
Joined: 13 Apr 2004 23:22
Location: The handsome bald fella with the blue eyes

by Royal Rother » 21 Jan 2007 14:11

From Despair To Where? Then why try to justify it as one type of elbow rather than another, why make an issue of Sidwell's challenge after his player has been sent off and not at the time of the challenge. The camera's zoomed in on Warnock immediately after the challenge and he was just stood there, arms behind his back and bottom lip wobbling. There was a good 90 seconds between the challenge on Armstrong and Gillespie's sending off. Why did Warnock not feel it necessary to make an issue of it at the time?


Because it WAS one kind of elbow not the other. Which he himself knows was a bollocks "defence" because he acknowledged he deserved to be sent off anyway.

As for why it took him 90 seconds to react, well there is no coverage of Warnock through that whole 2 minutes, but after Sidwell's challenge they did put a camera on him and he was gently shaking his head, probably struggling to keep himself in check, which, if you recall, he said at the start of the season he knew he must do in this league otherwise he would be spending most of the season in the stands.

After Gillespie got sent off he cracked, simple as that. When he was doing at least one of the stamping motions he was clearly pointing to the other side of the pitch where the Sidwell foul happened. Now I suppose he COULD have been telling his players to do the same thing to Hunt (after he sarcastically applauded him) but surely it is more likely he was still referring to the tackle that crocked Armstrong?

Sorry, I just don't buy it that Warnock is some kind of devil. He's a funny, self-depracating bloke most of the time, who clearly has a lot of passion for the game which boils over into daft behaviour at times but out of all the Premiership managers is probably the one I would most enjoy a pint with I suspect.

User avatar
M4 Junction 11
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1718
Joined: 13 Jan 2006 22:36
Location: Land That Time Forgot

by M4 Junction 11 » 21 Jan 2007 14:17

If he has a moan about the linesmen yesterday I'm going to agree with him :lol:

User avatar
Arch
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 4082
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 23:35
Location: USA! USA! USA!

by Arch » 21 Jan 2007 14:21

Royal Rother
From Despair To Where? Then why try to justify it as one type of elbow rather than another, why make an issue of Sidwell's challenge after his player has been sent off and not at the time of the challenge. The camera's zoomed in on Warnock immediately after the challenge and he was just stood there, arms behind his back and bottom lip wobbling. There was a good 90 seconds between the challenge on Armstrong and Gillespie's sending off. Why did Warnock not feel it necessary to make an issue of it at the time?


Because it WAS one kind of elbow not the other. Which he himself knows was a bollocks "defence" because he acknowledged he deserved to be sent off anyway.

As for why it took him 90 seconds to react, well there is no coverage of Warnock through that whole 2 minutes, but after Sidwell's challenge they did put a camera on him and he was gently shaking his head, probably struggling to keep himself in check, which, if you recall, he said at the start of the season he knew he must do in this league otherwise he would be spending most of the season in the stands.

After Gillespie got sent off he cracked, simple as that. When he was doing at least one of the stamping motions he was clearly pointing to the other side of the pitch where the Sidwell foul happened. Now I suppose he COULD have been telling his players to do the same thing to Hunt (after he sarcastically applauded him) but surely it is more likely he was still referring to the tackle that crocked Armstrong?

Sorry, I just don't buy it that Warnock is some kind of devil. He's a funny, self-depracating bloke most of the time, who clearly has a lot of passion for the game which boils over into daft behaviour at times but out of all the Premiership managers is probably the one I would most enjoy a pint with I suspect.
Agreed, RR. This morning's hysteria reminds me of Ronaldo in the World Cup, and it's many of the same people seething with blinkered self-righteous indignation. Get a grip, guys!

User avatar
Royal Rother
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 21843
Joined: 13 Apr 2004 23:22
Location: The handsome bald fella with the blue eyes

by Royal Rother » 21 Jan 2007 14:25

Indeed, and thank you. Hmm, I seem to recall we were in the minority in the Ronaldo bruhaha as well. Why is neutral good sense so hard for football supporters to find in the wake of a controversy?

User avatar
Arch
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 4082
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 23:35
Location: USA! USA! USA!

by Arch » 21 Jan 2007 14:27

Royal Rother Indeed, and thank you. Hmm, I seem to recall we were in the minority in the Ronaldo bruhaha as well. Why is neutral good sense so hard for football supporters to find in the wake of a controversy?
Yes, ye. But what about what Coppell said about Lita. :wink:

User avatar
M4 Junction 11
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1718
Joined: 13 Jan 2006 22:36
Location: Land That Time Forgot

by M4 Junction 11 » 21 Jan 2007 14:27

Whether you love him or loath him you've got to admit he's good value for money - a typical post-match debrief.
Is this where the telling players to break legs story comes from?

239 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kev Royal and 234 guests

It is currently 27 Nov 2024 19:11