by Royal Lady » 07 Aug 2006 12:26
by bobby1413 » 07 Aug 2006 12:27
by Royal Lady » 07 Aug 2006 12:29
by Gav » 07 Aug 2006 12:30
bobby1413 I completely agree with him here.
What's the point in dragging all the players over to sweden to play non-league part time teams.
If it was mid-july and the players were just returning from a little holiday and were ready to play their first game then fine. But 2 weeks before the season starts, we should be playing a bit more challenging teams.
Start with small teams like this, and then move your way up. They would have been more challenged by Reading Town.
Pointless in my opinion (at least at this stage of the pre-season).
by bobby1413 » 07 Aug 2006 12:31
Royal Lady none of their pre-season friendlies have been exactly challenging have they?
by Alan Partridge » 07 Aug 2006 12:33
Royal Lady none of their pre-season friendlies have been exactly challenging have they?
by URZZ » 07 Aug 2006 12:33
bobby1413Royal Lady none of their pre-season friendlies have been exactly challenging have they?
Well, not really. Have any other teams been challenged? Why didn't we play more championship clubs? Coventry, Leeds, etc...
Is that allowed?
by SpaceCruiser » 07 Aug 2006 12:33
by Gav » 07 Aug 2006 12:35
by Alan Partridge » 07 Aug 2006 12:37
SpaceCruiser Surely the point of these friendlies were to get match fit. The result or the quality of the opposition is irrelevant with that in mind.
by Drew_3 » 07 Aug 2006 13:07
by Alan Partridge » 07 Aug 2006 13:10
Drew_3 have to say i am losing sympathy for sidders, the point in the games likethis is to get match fit ie 90 minutes, not to play to notch sides very competetive and may be pick up a handfull of injuries.
also this is the 3rd year we have been to sweden?ever heard the phrase dont spit on those you meet on the way to the top cos you will meet them on the way down!!
so sidders it is a cliche but keep your mouth shut and let your football do the talking!
by Drew_3 » 07 Aug 2006 13:12
Alan Partridge 1st point. According to this thread we've played a load of rubbish so that must mean we have a full quota of players to choose from and no injuries then.
by Huntley & Palmer » 07 Aug 2006 13:14
by Drew_3 » 07 Aug 2006 13:17
by Hoop Blah » 07 Aug 2006 13:17
StrandedGav Which is my point, and I believe, Strandeds. It's not actually bigger news, and the fact that it was Sidwell is quite possibly the only reason it was even printed.
It is indeed, it's not news at all really just a normal player's whinge.
bobby1413 Why didn't we play more championship clubs? Coventry, Leeds, etc...
Is that allowed?
by Alan Partridge » 07 Aug 2006 13:17
Drew_3 have to say i am losing sympathy for sidders, the point in the games likethis is to get match fit ie 90 minutes, not to play to notch sides very competetive and may be pick up a handfull of injuries
by Drew_3 » 07 Aug 2006 13:21
Alan PartridgeDrew_3 have to say i am losing sympathy for sidders, the point in the games likethis is to get match fit ie 90 minutes, not to play to notch sides very competetive and may be pick up a handfull of injuries
We have injuries now and quite a few of them, according to this thread we've played rubbish so how is it so, when your implying that it only happens in competitive games against better opposition? . The point is, injurioes happen and it rarely is down to the opposition. In fact it could be argued it is easier to pick up injuries against poor opposition who would be later in the timing of tackles and play on worse pitches.
In summary this Sweden tour is a waste of time for the players.
by TFF » 07 Aug 2006 13:26
Alan Partridge In summary this Sweden tour is a waste of time for the players.
Users browsing this forum: From Despair To Where?, Google [Bot], Hove Royal, Orion1871, rabidbee, retro royal, Richard, rightroyalkneesup2, Snowflake Royal, stealthpapes, Sutekh, WestYorksRoyal and 247 guests