by Millsy » 29 Sep 2008 01:52
by John 3:16 » 29 Sep 2008 15:28
by brendywendy » 29 Sep 2008 15:58
by Bill Oddie's Beard » 29 Sep 2008 16:04
brendywendy john 3:16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
why you choose that bit as your username?
or is your name john and did you just join the forum at 16 minutes past 4 in the afternoon
by brendywendy » 29 Sep 2008 16:30
by Woodcote Royal » 29 Sep 2008 17:14
by StevenKelliher » 29 Sep 2008 17:20
by earleyroyal » 29 Sep 2008 17:46
Royal Boil I haven't read all of this thread, (I got into the third screen before I gave up) but I'd like to say the following:
It's now making me start to wonder whether SHunt was actually to blame for THAT incident.
by Royal Boil » 29 Sep 2008 23:23
earleyroyalRoyal Boil I haven't read all of this thread, (I got into the third screen before I gave up) but I'd like to say the following:
It's now making me start to wonder whether SHunt was actually to blame for THAT incident.
Don't make us dredge this one up again. Even if he had meant to hurt Cech, there is no way that he could have controlled his movements once his leg was clipped. To smear him like that, without having the guts to come out and say so, is disgraceful as well as stupid.
by John 3:16 » 29 Sep 2008 23:32
Royal BoilearleyroyalRoyal Boil I haven't read all of this thread, (I got into the third screen before I gave up) but I'd like to say the following:
It's now making me start to wonder whether SHunt was actually to blame for THAT incident.
Don't make us dredge this one up again. Even if he had meant to hurt Cech, there is no way that he could have controlled his movements once his leg was clipped. To smear him like that, without having the guts to come out and say so, is disgraceful as well as stupid.
Agreed to an extent. Not sure what you mean about the smear, guts, etc though. I was just getting a bit carried away because I always felt we were a fair side, but what we did at Watford did make me wonder whether or not that image was built on a tissue of lies. Anyhow, this is probably a good moment to close this thread and move on to better pastures. Like Wolves tomorrow night.
by bobby m's syrup » 30 Sep 2008 13:04
Avon Royalbobby m's syrupRoyal Boil I haven't read all of this thread, (I got into the third screen before I gave up) but I'd like to say the following:
1. By accepting that "goal" we've joined the cheats of this world. I always thought we were better than that. It's now making me start to wonder whether SHunt was actually to blame for THAT incident.
2. By not allowing Watford to walk the ball into the net afterwards we've joined the cheats of this world. If we'd done this we'd have won international plaudits for fair play.
3. Half agreeing to the idea of a re-match at a later date, that was never going to happen, we've joined the cheats of this world. Again. We've come out of this really badly.
I'm sorry, but for me this is a lamentable day in the history, not only of the club, but also of football in general. Imagine if SSC had asked the players at half time if it had really been a goal or not and, having discovered that it was no more than a corner, he'd ordered recompense. Cheers all round for the team and the club. Instead, all we get is wishy washy stuff like "my players saw that it was an injustice but it's not down to them to make a right out of a wrong"."It's down to the officials". Bollox. And nice old Reading suddenly look like a bunch of cheats. Do I not like that! And all we've done is give that Chelsea worshiping ***hole yet another excuse to have a go at us in the national press.
I too, was disappointed by the events at Watford. During our meteoric rise in 05-06, we attracted plaudits far and wide for our team spirit and family values. It may have been naive to expect that to continue after the 8th place finish in 2007, but despite losing the odd prima donna to second and third rate Prem sides, the core Reading ethos appeared to be alive and well.
With the benefit of hindsight, it should have been a reasonably simple task to beat an under-par Watford side. The blatant injustice of the 'goal' probably spurred the home side on to greater efforts and must have been unsettling for our players as well. Had we allowed Watford to score from the kick off, there is every chance that the final outcome would have proved favourable, especially if our our third 'goal' had been allowed.
Instead, as well as becoming known as a team who don't perform away, we have the added mantle of division cheats to bear.
LOL at anyone accusing us of cheating! Which rules did we break exactly?
Stop whining and move on.
by AF1 » 30 Sep 2008 13:24
by brendywendy » 30 Sep 2008 15:11
by watfordroyal » 30 Sep 2008 15:56
by earleyroyal » 30 Sep 2008 17:56
Royal BoilearleyroyalRoyal Boil I haven't read all of this thread, (I got into the third screen before I gave up) but I'd like to say the following:
It's now making me start to wonder whether SHunt was actually to blame for THAT incident.
Don't make us dredge this one up again. Even if he had meant to hurt Cech, there is no way that he could have controlled his movements once his leg was clipped. To smear him like that, without having the guts to come out and say so, is disgraceful as well as stupid.
Agreed to an extent. Not sure what you mean about the smear, guts, etc though. I was just getting a bit carried away because I always felt we were a fair side, but what we did at Watford did make me wonder whether or not that image was built on a tissue of lies. Anyhow, this is probably a good moment to close this thread and move on to better pastures. Like Wolves tomorrow night.
by Royal Boil » 01 Oct 2008 09:47
by John 3:16 » 02 Oct 2008 07:01
Royal Boilearlyroyal So implying that a player deliberately kneed another in the head, nearly killing him, while not actually stating it, is neither a smear nor gutless?
Nope. I didn't say, nor imply, any of that - you did. Unless you're already working as a reporter for one of the red tops you're in the wrong job. There were plenty of other people who read that post before you decided to take it out of context and none of them complained about it. Read it again, go figure, and stop trying to accuse me of doing things I haven't done.
Royal Boil I haven't read all of this thread, (I got into the third screen before I gave up) but I'd like to say the following:
1. By accepting that "goal" we've joined the cheats of this world. I always thought we were better than that. It's now making me start to wonder whether SHunt was actually to blame for THAT incident.
2. By not allowing Watford to walk the ball into the net afterwards we've joined the cheats of this world. If we'd done this we'd have won international plaudits for fair play.
3. Half agreeing to the idea of a re-match at a later date, that was never going to happen, we've joined the cheats of this world. Again. We've come out of this really badly.
I'm sorry, but for me this is a lamentable day in the history, not only of the club, but also of football in general. Imagine if SSC had asked the players at half time if it had really been a goal or not and, having discovered that it was no more than a corner, he'd ordered recompense. Cheers all round for the team and the club. Instead, all we get is wishy washy stuff like "my players saw that it was an injustice but it's not down to them to make a right out of a wrong"."It's down to the officials". Bollox. And nice old Reading suddenly look like a bunch of cheats. Do I not like that! And all we've done is give that Chelsea worshiping ***hole yet another excuse to have a go at us in the national press.
by Far Canal » 02 Nov 2008 12:17
by Rex » 02 Nov 2008 12:27
by Morph » 02 Nov 2008 12:39
2 world wars, 1 world cup For everything that's been said pro and against I think we can all safely conclude one thing:
we'd all rather the incident had never happened and would rather the game had been played in normal circumstances and rightly or wrongly our image has been damaged slightly.
Users browsing this forum: WestYorksRoyal and 229 guests