by Snowball » 22 Nov 2010 00:04
by Stranded » 22 Nov 2010 08:47
Snowballglass half full
Sorry, Snowball. What I meant, -albeit obscurely - was that he kept on trying. This was meant as a form of support for you and for Shane Long, who, whatever may be said about him, keep on trying.
No probs. I am totally serious when I say I believe Shane Long to be real quality
and vastly under-estimated by too many. If it's true he's on 15K a week and
the club didn't think he was worth it, why would they extend his contract?
by Wycombe Royal » 22 Nov 2010 08:56
SnowballT.R.O.L.I.Snowball And Shane? HIS league appearances for RFC are LESS starts
FEWER
I'm a professional writer with 400 publications including five novels and a collection of prize-winning short stories. LESS is totally fine by me.
The less-fewer disntinction is anal.
by Negative_Jeff » 22 Nov 2010 09:27
Snowball
For me Long and Hunt are a perfect partnership because we can switch in and out of 442, 451, 4411 with the same players.
by Platypuss » 22 Nov 2010 11:33
by brendywendy » 22 Nov 2010 12:02
by cmonurz » 22 Nov 2010 12:05
brendywendy id question/blame the system that made our striker mark their striker, rather than the striker failing to mark a man properly
by Hoop Blah » 22 Nov 2010 12:20
by brendywendy » 22 Nov 2010 12:25
by Man Friday » 22 Nov 2010 12:32
SnowballT.R.O.L.I.Snowball And Shane? HIS league appearances for RFC are LESS starts
FEWER
I'm a professional writer with 400 publications including five novels and a collection of prize-winning short stories. LESS is totally fine by me.
The less-fewer disntinction is anal.
by Platypuss » 22 Nov 2010 12:33
brendywendy agree totally- just disagreeing with plat attaching much blame to the lad for it
by brendywendy » 22 Nov 2010 13:11
Platypussbrendywendy agree totally- just disagreeing with plat attaching much blame to the lad for it
Long had his head in his hands, so as he clearly put blame on himself, it's hardly unfair for us to do the same.
by BR2 » 22 Nov 2010 13:24
brendywendyPlatypussbrendywendy agree totally- just disagreeing with plat attaching much blame to the lad for it
Long had his head in his hands, so as he clearly put blame on himself, it's hardly unfair for us to do the same.
i agree he was at fault.
i simply question whether the actual blame lies with him, or the person who decided he should mark the big striker instead of our 2 big CBs, is all
by brendywendy » 22 Nov 2010 13:27
by Hoop Blah » 22 Nov 2010 13:31
brendywendyPlatypussbrendywendy agree totally- just disagreeing with plat attaching much blame to the lad for it
Long had his head in his hands, so as he clearly put blame on himself, it's hardly unfair for us to do the same.
i agree he was at fault.
i simply question whether the actual blame lies with him, or the person who decided he should mark the big striker instead of our 2 big CBs, is all
by brendywendy » 22 Nov 2010 13:34
by BR2 » 22 Nov 2010 13:37
brendywendy i didnt say it was. at no point did i say, or imply that the person who sorted it out was anyone at all.
by Snowball » 22 Nov 2010 13:42
Wycombe Royal Finally enough clues to work out who you are....
by cmonurz » 22 Nov 2010 13:43
by Hoop Blah » 22 Nov 2010 13:44
brendywendy there are taller, and better headers of the ball, and theyre already part of the back 4. so imo they should probably be in charge of marking the strikers at corners.pretty simple and self explanatory
it was just a passing comment and im not sure deserves this much analysis
Users browsing this forum: Sutekh and 138 guests