by Esteban » 31 Jan 2016 08:57
by VOR » 31 Jan 2016 09:43
by Jano » 31 Jan 2016 10:40
by harry » 31 Jan 2016 11:10
by Jano » 31 Jan 2016 11:23
by SydenhamRoyal » 31 Jan 2016 11:23
If you still hate Futcher ^Although it would've made things interesting had the shot from Sawyers been a few inches lower
by Victor Meldrew » 31 Jan 2016 12:16
by Snowball136 » 31 Jan 2016 12:18
by paultheroyal » 31 Jan 2016 13:19
Jano Really struggling to see how people can say Walsall were the better team in the first half, they offered almost nothing going forward except for Sawyers. Admittedly we weren't great, but they were not worrying us at all.
by Royal Ginger » 31 Jan 2016 13:24
by 3points » 31 Jan 2016 13:26
paultheroyal It was pretty evens and cagey for first 20 or so and the second goal killed the game as a contest so attention turned to their fans!!
by Kitsondinho » 31 Jan 2016 13:27
paultheroyalJano Really struggling to see how people can say Walsall were the better team in the first half, they offered almost nothing going forward except for Sawyers. Admittedly we weren't great, but they were not worrying us at all.
People see what they want to see...
They had a bit of possession and threatened which means they dominated clearly!!
It was pretty evens and cagey for first 20 or so and the second goal killed the game as a contest so attention turned to their fans!!
by Winchester Royal » 31 Jan 2016 15:29
3pointspaultheroyal It was pretty evens and cagey for first 20 or so and the second goal killed the game as a contest so attention turned to their fans!!
what was happening with their fans and the stewards in the second half. Couldn't see what was going on from the North Stand.
by RG7Fan » 31 Jan 2016 16:03
Winchester Royal3pointspaultheroyal It was pretty evens and cagey for first 20 or so and the second goal killed the game as a contest so attention turned to their fans!!
what was happening with their fans and the stewards in the second half. Couldn't see what was going on from the North Stand.
It appears that the stewards didn't want to allow that group back into that area, so barricaded the entrance.
by Ian Royal » 31 Jan 2016 16:36
by Harpers So Solid Crew » 31 Jan 2016 16:50
by marlowuk » 31 Jan 2016 16:58
KitsondinhopaultheroyalJano Really struggling to see how people can say Walsall were the better team in the first half, they offered almost nothing going forward except for Sawyers. Admittedly we weren't great, but they were not worrying us at all.
People see what they want to see...
They had a bit of possession and threatened which means they dominated clearly!!
It was pretty evens and cagey for first 20 or so and the second goal killed the game as a contest so attention turned to their fans!!
I said Walsall were the better team in the first half because we were shite until HRK scored. Walsall indeed had more of the balland created a few threats. At no point did I suggest they were dominating......just they were the better of the two teams playing during that section of the game. Once we went ahead, we were much better. During the 2nd half we were dominating them and could of scored 5 or 6.
by CountryRoyal » 31 Jan 2016 17:13
by Vision » 01 Feb 2016 09:40
windermere_royal If Walsall are typical of a top L1 side then the gulf in class from championship level is huge, plenty of pretty football but absolutely sod all up front.
.
by UpThePrem » 01 Feb 2016 09:57
Ian Royal I was wondering why they stayed penned up going nowhere, when all they had to do was disperse and go through one of the two or three other gates.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 120 guests