Wanderers v The Delusional (Mackems)

Where fellow sufferers gather to share the pain, longing and unrequited transfer requests that make being a Wanderer what it is...

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

Post Reply
User avatar
plymouth wanderer
Icon
Icon
Posts: 4571
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:20 pm
Location: Er Plymouth

Re: Wanderers v The Delusional (Mackems)

Post by plymouth wanderer » Sat Oct 22, 2011 6:38 pm

Sebadee wrote:
thebish wrote:
Sebadee wrote:
plymouth wanderer wrote::fishing:


that says alot about steve bruce

muppet
It does aye, my point being Bruce is a clueless idiot

However, he is a clueless idiot whose team has just picked up 3 easy points
my guess is we'd have had slightly more respect for you if you had come on here before the game - rather than your "post when you're winning" strategy.. that's a wee bit pathetic, son.
Well my guess is, I had no idea about this board until I read a quote from here on RTG. Something about us being a small club.... :oops:
so you think you are a big club then
Never get into an argument with an idiot. i'll bring you down to my level and beat you with experience

a1
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 3427
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:11 pm

Re: Wanderers v The Delusional (Mackems)

Post by a1 » Sat Oct 22, 2011 6:43 pm

'the sunderland = small club' thing is supposed to be ironic considering the shit their armchairers give teams like bolton

"only 17k ? up here in the arse end of nowhere , paul stewart had 50 thousand rokerites cheering him on"
Last edited by a1 on Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Gail Platz
Reliable
Reliable
Posts: 973
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:22 pm

Re: Wanderers v The Delusional (Mackems)

Post by Gail Platz » Sat Oct 22, 2011 6:47 pm

Sebadee wrote:
plymouth wanderer wrote::fishing:


that says alot about steve bruce

muppet
It does aye, my point being Bruce is a clueless idiot

However, he is a clueless idiot whose team has just picked up 3 easy points
Other than stuffing your fat face with burgers, nachos and hot dogs, feeding your fat in typical Sunderland style (is Sunderland the fattest place in the world? The Reebok was on a slope with the amount of fat bastards in the Sunderland end today), have you nothing better to do than come on another team's forum and post?

Sebadee
Hopeful
Hopeful
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 6:00 pm

Re: Wanderers v The Delusional (Mackems)

Post by Sebadee » Sat Oct 22, 2011 6:52 pm

a1 wrote:the sunderland = small club is supposed to be ironic considering the shit their armchairers give teams like bolton

"only 17k ? up here in the arse end of nowhere , paul stewart had 50 thousand rokerites cheering him on"
Ironic? Course it is :lol:

User avatar
Harry Genshaw
Legend
Legend
Posts: 9404
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:47 pm
Location: Half dead in Panama

Re: Wanderers v The Delusional (Mackems)

Post by Harry Genshaw » Sat Oct 22, 2011 6:53 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:Didn't play well, hate ten-man defending that just keeps giving them the ball back. What chances we had we never looked like scoring. Petrov, ball rolling, twelve yards out, no defenders near and he hits the keeper who never had to move. That was missing a sitter personified. When Davies went off we never won a long ball, Klasnic just gets pushed off the ball every time and Eagles had an accuracy crisis. We never dominated the game anywhere and didn't deserve any more than we got. It was tight and I was fully expecting a point. We got nothing and Sunderland played like the home team instead of us. Reo Coker was the only one with a clue in midfield till Ricky came on. No use moaning though, we'd better just improve in a hurry.
Cheers Tango, I always look to your posts for a reasoned response on how we did. If you're being critical, then I know we were bad :(
"Get your feet off the furniture you Oxbridge tw*t. You're not on a feckin punt now you know"

User avatar
plymouth wanderer
Icon
Icon
Posts: 4571
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:20 pm
Location: Er Plymouth

Re: Wanderers v The Delusional (Mackems)

Post by plymouth wanderer » Sat Oct 22, 2011 6:54 pm

Sebadee wrote:
a1 wrote:the sunderland = small club is supposed to be ironic considering the shit their armchairers give teams like bolton

"only 17k ? up here in the arse end of nowhere , paul stewart had 50 thousand rokerites cheering him on"
Ironic? Course it is :lol:

seriously do you think you are a big club
Never get into an argument with an idiot. i'll bring you down to my level and beat you with experience

Gail Platz
Reliable
Reliable
Posts: 973
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:22 pm

Re: Wanderers v The Delusional (Mackems)

Post by Gail Platz » Sat Oct 22, 2011 6:56 pm

plymouth wanderer wrote: seriously do you think you are a big club
Big is a small word to them, they're absolutely massive, like all of their arses.

User avatar
plymouth wanderer
Icon
Icon
Posts: 4571
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:20 pm
Location: Er Plymouth

Re: Wanderers v The Delusional (Mackems)

Post by plymouth wanderer » Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:12 pm

Sebadee wrote:
a1 wrote:the sunderland = small club is supposed to be ironic considering the shit their armchairers give teams like bolton

"only 17k ? up here in the arse end of nowhere , paul stewart had 50 thousand rokerites cheering him on"
Ironic? Course it is :lol:


dodge the question


pussy
Never get into an argument with an idiot. i'll bring you down to my level and beat you with experience

Sebadee
Hopeful
Hopeful
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 6:00 pm

Re: Wanderers v The Delusional (Mackems)

Post by Sebadee » Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:19 pm

plymouth wanderer wrote:
Sebadee wrote:
a1 wrote:the sunderland = small club is supposed to be ironic considering the shit their armchairers give teams like bolton

"only 17k ? up here in the arse end of nowhere , paul stewart had 50 thousand rokerites cheering him on"
Ironic? Course it is :lol:

seriously do you think you are a big club
Historically, we are one of the bigger teams.

Nowadays we are one of the mid-table pack. Unless we get a City or Chelsea type owner, 7th and a decent cup run is all we can hope to achieve.

Foundations are there for us to push on and become bigger. With this plum as manager I seriously doubt we will achieve anything other than a flirt with relegation

thebish
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37589
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:01 am
Location: In my armchair

Re: Wanderers v The Delusional (Mackems)

Post by thebish » Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:29 pm

I'm really not sure what Coyle's excuses could possibly be now....

Norwich went to Liverpool today and got a point... yet we surrendered before it had started...

it isn't just ability - we haven't the money to compete on that score - but it costs NOWT to have a fecking go and organise yourself so you know what you're doing.

User avatar
plymouth wanderer
Icon
Icon
Posts: 4571
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:20 pm
Location: Er Plymouth

Re: Wanderers v The Delusional (Mackems)

Post by plymouth wanderer » Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:32 pm

Sebadee wrote:
plymouth wanderer wrote:
Sebadee wrote:
a1 wrote:the sunderland = small club is supposed to be ironic considering the shit their armchairers give teams like bolton

"only 17k ? up here in the arse end of nowhere , paul stewart had 50 thousand rokerites cheering him on"
Ironic? Course it is :lol:

seriously do you think you are a big club
Historically, we are one of the bigger teams.

Nowadays we are one of the mid-table pack. Unless we get a City or Chelsea type owner, 7th and a decent cup run is all we can hope to achieve.

Foundations are there for us to push on and become bigger. With this plum as manager I seriously doubt we will achieve anything other than a flirt with relegation

a simple yes or no would of sufficed

i don't think that's much different from our expectations

but things are not looking good at the moment
Never get into an argument with an idiot. i'll bring you down to my level and beat you with experience

User avatar
BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38813
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: Wanderers v The Delusional (Mackems)

Post by BWFC_Insane » Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:35 pm

thebish wrote:I'm really not sure what Coyle's excuses could possibly be now....

Norwich went to Liverpool today and got a point... yet we surrendered before it had started...

it isn't just ability - we haven't the money to compete on that score - but it costs NOWT to have a fecking go and organise yourself so you know what you're doing.
There are no excuses for Coyle. He just isn't up to it. We need a manager who is prepared to be nasty. Some of those players need a reality check!

Sebadee
Hopeful
Hopeful
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 6:00 pm

Re: Wanderers v The Delusional (Mackems)

Post by Sebadee » Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:40 pm

plymouth wanderer wrote:
Sebadee wrote:
plymouth wanderer wrote:
Sebadee wrote:
a1 wrote:the sunderland = small club is supposed to be ironic considering the shit their armchairers give teams like bolton

"only 17k ? up here in the arse end of nowhere , paul stewart had 50 thousand rokerites cheering him on"
Ironic? Course it is :lol:

seriously do you think you are a big club
Historically, we are one of the bigger teams.

Nowadays we are one of the mid-table pack. Unless we get a City or Chelsea type owner, 7th and a decent cup run is all we can hope to achieve.

Foundations are there for us to push on and become bigger. With this plum as manager I seriously doubt we will achieve anything other than a flirt with relegation

a simple yes or no would of sufficed

i don't think that's much different from our expectations

but things are not looking good at the moment
What has gone wrong? Loss of Sturidge? Or has Coyle just been lucky with Burnley/start of Bolton?

We were made to look good today as you were poor. Was expecting you to come at us, which never really happened after the 1st 25/30 minutes.

Was hoping for a point before the game.

Sponge
Dedicated
Dedicated
Posts: 1980
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:17 am

Re: Wanderers v The Delusional (Mackems)

Post by Sponge » Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:40 pm

I thought we were decent in the first half and deserved to be up at half time. However, second half was very poor. Every game we end up carrying three or four players, players who can be excellent one week and piss-poor the next (i.e., Eagles, Pratley (who was superb today, mind), Petrov, KD).

Wheater was MOTM, in my opinion: defended as if his life depended on it, and probably blocked three or four goal-bound shots. Cahill was class too, but he will be gone in January. Ngog busted a gut. Boyata did well. Robinson was Robinson: a liability. Reo-Coker had his first bad game for us.

We have no clue how to relieve pressure, we lose all composure, just put ten men behind the ball and hoof it away. I'm worried.

William the White
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8454
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 pm
Location: Trotter Shop

Re: Wanderers v The Delusional (Mackems)

Post by William the White » Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:46 pm

Came home, helped cook a curry, and now, while waiting for it to simmer to sweet,scented conclusion, finally get the chance to say...

We were dreadful... a dull, fairly evenly 'contested' first half, followed by almost a 'no-show' in the second, as Sunderland, basically, destroyed us, pushing us back into last ditch (quite brave, actually) defending, that was near-certain to lead to a goal eventually... Late, but soon enough, it did...

Two more home goals conceded. none scored.

And the seriousness of the loss of Stuart Holden and Lee Chung-Yung once more demonstrated.

We are in deep trouble, companeros...

And our ability to concede means - it seems to me like B follows A - that we have to field defensive midfielders in front of our current back four, which is the best we have on the books, and stop the flood...

4-2-3-1....

Anyone know what has happened to Muamba? Is he injured? Why can't he even make the bench?

CAPSLOCK
Icon
Icon
Posts: 5790
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:35 am

Re: Wanderers v The Delusional (Mackems)

Post by CAPSLOCK » Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:51 pm

He's not injured

Coyle doesn't think he's worth a place
Sto ut Serviam

jaffka
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8439
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: uk

Re: Wanderers v The Delusional (Mackems)

Post by jaffka » Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:52 pm

Just got in after the match and am not happy.

We are in a rut and need to get out of it.

Still not worried but getting anxious, and to those who are saying Owen out, feck off.

User avatar
plymouth wanderer
Icon
Icon
Posts: 4571
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:20 pm
Location: Er Plymouth

Re: Wanderers v The Delusional (Mackems)

Post by plymouth wanderer » Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:53 pm

we are missing holden and chung young lee and IMO elmander we look completely toothless at the minute

i don't think coyle is ruthless enough sure he is a jack the lad nice bloke blah blah

but we are in the trenches at the mo and it's proving abit to much for him hope i am wrong

i got a sunderland fan in work and he said exactly the same thing as yourself

but we always seem to struggle against yourselves

and i the same as you was hoping for a point but that second half you really did give us a pounding :oops:

if it was't for cahill and wheater it would of been a bigger score line
Never get into an argument with an idiot. i'll bring you down to my level and beat you with experience

User avatar
BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38813
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: Wanderers v The Delusional (Mackems)

Post by BWFC_Insane » Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:54 pm

William the White wrote:Came home, helped cook a curry, and now, while waiting for it to simmer to sweet,scented conclusion, finally get the chance to say...

We were dreadful... a dull, fairly evenly 'contested' first half, followed by almost a 'no-show' in the second, as Sunderland, basically, destroyed us, pushing us back into last ditch (quite brave, actually) defending, that was near-certain to lead to a goal eventually... Late, but soon enough, it did...

Two more home goals conceded. none scored.

And the seriousness of the loss of Stuart Holden and Lee Chung-Yung once more demonstrated.

We are in deep trouble, companeros...

And our ability to concede means - it seems to me like B follows A - that we have to field defensive midfielders in front of our current back four, which is the best we have on the books, and stop the flood...

4-2-3-1....

Anyone know what has happened to Muamba? Is he injured? Why can't he even make the bench?
All very well, I don't see us having a striker capable of playing up front on his own!

Today's problem was that we couldn't pass the ball, couldn't tackle, couldnt create chances.

I thought defensively, apart from Robinson, the back four did ok. Coyle has no idea how to organise a team to defend from front to back. Had enough chances to sort it out.

Time to say ta but ta ra!

Sponge
Dedicated
Dedicated
Posts: 1980
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:17 am

Re: Wanderers v The Delusional (Mackems)

Post by Sponge » Sat Oct 22, 2011 8:01 pm

CAPSLOCK wrote:He's not injured

Coyle doesn't think he's worth a place
Coyle likes twinkley-toed, greasy-haired, fancy-boot wearers (à la Eagles). I have to wonder if he (Muamba) is being punished for an off-field misdemeanour, because I can't think what he's done worse on the pitch than the likes of Robinson and KD, who are not only on the bench but starting every game.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], The_Gun and 59 guests