No Jackett required?
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32757
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: No Jackett required?
They were unbeaten in 3. Better than QPR, Forest, Reading.BL3 wrote:Except Brighton won their last game. Millwall last won six games ago before today.Worthy4England wrote:But they weren't at the bottom before we kicked off. They had the same sort of form as Brighton. Talk about trying to make utter bollocks fit your argument.BL3 wrote:Millwall have replaced Bournemouth at the bottom. No wins in their last six games.Armchair Wanderer wrote:Trying to figure out where we are on the form table if you use the past 6 games, looks like 3rd to me after today's result.
Complete bollocks as usual.
Re: No Jackett required?
So if we win it's because the opposition are shite, if we lose it's because we're shite, and the fact that Ream is playing so well means our manager is shit!
There's still a lot to do despite these wins, but that level of negativity is just breathtaking.
There's still a lot to do despite these wins, but that level of negativity is just breathtaking.
...
Re: No Jackett required?
We're not 'shite' though. In fact that's the point which has been made repeatedly by some of us all fecking season. We should be doing far better than we are. The last two performances in particular have proved that.LeverEnd wrote:So if we win it's because the opposition are shite, if we lose it's because we're shite, and the fact that Ream is playing so well means our manager is shit! There's still a lot to do despite these wins, but that level of negativity is just breathtaking.
Re: No Jackett required?
Wow wow fecking WOW!thebish wrote:blimey this is tedious - but I blame Chris for un-necessarily inviting it with the come-on he threw at SF...
can't we just be happy for an evening without an outbreak of accusation and willy-waving??? we won - fecking 3-1!!!
Un-necessary? I was asking a genuine question to a genuine poster who has wanted DF sacked. Things have picked up and I was genuinely curious about what SF thought now. No digs, no windup etc..
I do apologise, I won't post again incase I upset someone. F U C K me sideways, this forum has gone to absolute dog shit!
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28832
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
Re: No Jackett required?
Well done Bolton; lovely to see Beckford continue his goal spree and be joined by two new scorers from the creative department. As one of the players put it after the game, onwards and upwards.
Re: No Jackett required?
A very good win which is what was needed.
Two wins on the bounce as well, they make this unbeaten run look all the much better.
I am astounded that a certain dickhead poster isn't celebrating the win and still searching for negatives. I don't think that person is actually a bolton fan.
Freedman in
Two wins on the bounce as well, they make this unbeaten run look all the much better.
I am astounded that a certain dickhead poster isn't celebrating the win and still searching for negatives. I don't think that person is actually a bolton fan.
Freedman in
Re: No Jackett required?
thebish wrote:blimey this is tedious - but I blame Chris for un-necessarily inviting it with the come-on he threw at SF...
can't we just be happy for an evening without an outbreak of accusation and willy-waving??? we won - fecking 3-1!!!
I'm waving it about Bish!! We won 3-1! Though I don't usualy need any excuse to wave it about, as it feels good anytime
Re: No Jackett required?
Ream and Mills = quality today. Have been for a while now.
And for those of us who can't get to games much, is comforting to know. I've been a big critic of DF, but it now sounds like he's found his best central pairing from what's available. However, I still see big Zat being involved in the not too distant future, when his confidence is back. Nice to see Ream becoming the player a lot of people ( OC!!? + others); told us he was.
And for those of us who can't get to games much, is comforting to know. I've been a big critic of DF, but it now sounds like he's found his best central pairing from what's available. However, I still see big Zat being involved in the not too distant future, when his confidence is back. Nice to see Ream becoming the player a lot of people ( OC!!? + others); told us he was.
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: No Jackett required?
Well, I thought we'd be discussing giving away the lead twice more than I did a 3-1 victory. Our three goals proved what we can do when we take the game to the opposition, so I've no idea why we spent most of the 90 minutes inviting them onto us. That said, Mills looked like a footballer today and Ream was excellent. His passing was Campo-esque. Who stepped over his pass to Beckford, btw? Someone did, but it happened so fast I didn't see who. Either a good shout from Beckford or a great spot of Beckford's run by the step over-er. Any news on McNaughton?
May the bridges I burn light your way
Re: No Jackett required?
lesson 1: how to totally over-react! PASS!ChrisC wrote:Wow wow fecking WOW!thebish wrote:blimey this is tedious - but I blame Chris for un-necessarily inviting it with the come-on he threw at SF...
can't we just be happy for an evening without an outbreak of accusation and willy-waving??? we won - fecking 3-1!!!
Un-necessary? I was asking a genuine question to a genuine poster who has wanted DF sacked. Things have picked up and I was genuinely curious about what SF thought now. No digs, no windup etc..
I do apologise, I won't post again incase I upset someone. F U C K me sideways, this forum has gone to absolute dog shit!
-
- Legend
- Posts: 8046
- Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 9:25 am
- Location: Bolton
Re: No Jackett required?
It wasn't a Mr Piccollo over reaction though.....thebish wrote:lesson 1: how to totally over-react! PASS!ChrisC wrote:Wow wow fecking WOW!thebish wrote:blimey this is tedious - but I blame Chris for un-necessarily inviting it with the come-on he threw at SF...
can't we just be happy for an evening without an outbreak of accusation and willy-waving??? we won - fecking 3-1!!!
Un-necessary? I was asking a genuine question to a genuine poster who has wanted DF sacked. Things have picked up and I was genuinely curious about what SF thought now. No digs, no windup etc..
I do apologise, I won't post again incase I upset someone. F U C K me sideways, this forum has gone to absolute dog shit!
Re: No Jackett required?
Yes chris would need to start a new thread telling thebish to feck off to match that one!
...
Re: No Jackett required?
I agree. I'm also very unhappy with Freedman's management of the club, even today in some respects. But I'm happy because the team that I support won and scored some top notch goals. I presume you are but I'm not sure.BL3 wrote:We're not 'shite' though. In fact that's the point which has been made repeatedly by some of us all fecking season. We should be doing far better than we are. The last two performances in particular have proved that.LeverEnd wrote:So if we win it's because the opposition are shite, if we lose it's because we're shite, and the fact that Ream is playing so well means our manager is shit! There's still a lot to do despite these wins, but that level of negativity is just breathtaking.
...
Re: No Jackett required?
According to Dougie's post match interview, he wants us to pass the ball around at the back, despite the crowd urging the team to get it forward. However, he didn't explain why he wants us to do this. I don't understand why we don't just take the game to teams at home. Particularly teams as average as Millwall. It's remarkable that we're a third of the way through the season and we've only just won our first home game.Bruce Rioja wrote:Well, I thought we'd be discussing giving away the lead twice more than I did a 3-1 victory. Our three goals proved what we can do when we take the game to the opposition, so I've no idea why we spent most of the 90 minutes inviting them onto us.
Re: No Jackett required?
yeah - but don't it just give you that happy smiley saturday evening feeling??BL3 wrote:According to Dougie's post match interview, he wants us to pass the ball around at the back, despite the crowd urging the team to get it forward. However, he didn't explain why he wants us to do this. I don't understand why we don't just take the game to teams at home. Particularly teams as average as Millwall. It's remarkable that we're a third of the way through the season and we've only just won our first home game.Bruce Rioja wrote:Well, I thought we'd be discussing giving away the lead twice more than I did a 3-1 victory. Our three goals proved what we can do when we take the game to the opposition, so I've no idea why we spent most of the 90 minutes inviting them onto us.
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 3935
- Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:35 pm
- Location: Swashbucklin in Brooklyn
Re: No Jackett required?
Back, fed and watered. I concur with Bruce. We were totally dominant in the first half without really capitalising. Two good goals and one against the run of play. I need to see their goal again as it looked to me like their forward stepped on the ball, fell over and accidentally dummied our centre back.
Second half we seemed to revert to Dougie's favourite tactic of letting the opposition have the ball and inviting Them onto us, which in my experience always leads to disaster.
I thought Moritz looked like he struggled to get on the ball, but he took his goal well. Ironically, what we desperately needed was Feeney banging balls across the box to Moritz and Cravies. Hall did OK, took his goal casually and then proceeded to wind up the Racist Bastards in the away stand. He does look to me though like he's a guy longing to play through the middle.
Danns did well, particularly in the last 20 man marking Feeney, but I thought our central two had average games today. Our centre backs were immense and Reams pass for our second was nothing short of Campoesque. Motm for me though was Mills.
The only downside for me was us playing 451 against such a poor team. I would love to have seen Cravies start with Beckford against the Shittu supertanker. Onwards and upwards though, today was a good day.
Second half we seemed to revert to Dougie's favourite tactic of letting the opposition have the ball and inviting Them onto us, which in my experience always leads to disaster.
I thought Moritz looked like he struggled to get on the ball, but he took his goal well. Ironically, what we desperately needed was Feeney banging balls across the box to Moritz and Cravies. Hall did OK, took his goal casually and then proceeded to wind up the Racist Bastards in the away stand. He does look to me though like he's a guy longing to play through the middle.
Danns did well, particularly in the last 20 man marking Feeney, but I thought our central two had average games today. Our centre backs were immense and Reams pass for our second was nothing short of Campoesque. Motm for me though was Mills.
The only downside for me was us playing 451 against such a poor team. I would love to have seen Cravies start with Beckford against the Shittu supertanker. Onwards and upwards though, today was a good day.
Uma mesa para um, faz favor. Obrigado.
Re: No Jackett required?
After taking a breather, I apologise for my language Bish.thebish wrote:lesson 1: how to totally over-react! PASS!ChrisC wrote:Wow wow fecking WOW!thebish wrote:blimey this is tedious - but I blame Chris for un-necessarily inviting it with the come-on he threw at SF...
can't we just be happy for an evening without an outbreak of accusation and willy-waving??? we won - fecking 3-1!!!
Un-necessary? I was asking a genuine question to a genuine poster who has wanted DF sacked. Things have picked up and I was genuinely curious about what SF thought now. No digs, no windup etc..
I do apologise, I won't post again incase I upset someone. F U C K me sideways, this forum has gone to absolute dog shit!
It's hard to understand where most people are coming from at times on here. Especially at the moment with the cut throat atmosphere on here. I was genuinely curious what SF thought. It wasn't a dig or an attempt to start an argument.
-
- Reliable
- Posts: 839
- Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 5:50 pm
Re: No Jackett required?
just back.
a win, hurrah. 3 really good well worked, well taken goals.
started off like a train. first 10 minutes - movement, sharp passing, threatening, scored.
and then the wheels slowly came off, all became scrappy and what happened in the first 10 minutes stopped. They came more into it, scored, started to look the better team.
Pretty much against the run of play, Ream advances plays the pass & Beckford finishes well.
2nd half we obviously went into controlling the game without the ball and haneded the intiative to them. Beckford missed a sitter to settle the nerves. Thought Moritz looked good - comfortable on the ball, looks like he can pick a pass and find space. Took his goal well.
Dougie was obviously just toying with us when he brough Zat on - I do wonder what he would be like as a premiership manager - would the team actually get off the bus before it was parked.
All in all, glad of the 3 points, but unconvincing.
a win, hurrah. 3 really good well worked, well taken goals.
started off like a train. first 10 minutes - movement, sharp passing, threatening, scored.
and then the wheels slowly came off, all became scrappy and what happened in the first 10 minutes stopped. They came more into it, scored, started to look the better team.
Pretty much against the run of play, Ream advances plays the pass & Beckford finishes well.
2nd half we obviously went into controlling the game without the ball and haneded the intiative to them. Beckford missed a sitter to settle the nerves. Thought Moritz looked good - comfortable on the ball, looks like he can pick a pass and find space. Took his goal well.
Dougie was obviously just toying with us when he brough Zat on - I do wonder what he would be like as a premiership manager - would the team actually get off the bus before it was parked.
All in all, glad of the 3 points, but unconvincing.
Re: No Jackett required?
There was a lot of talk about needing a "20 goal man" before this season kicked off, well Beckford scored his 4th in 5 today, anyone else daring to wonder if he might be digging deep for his Leeds form?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 140 guests