No Jackett required?

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

Re: No Jackett required?

Post by jaffka » Sun Nov 10, 2013 4:57 pm

plymouth wanderer wrote:Looks as though the away fans were abusing (racist?) hall just after his goal
Living in that smoggy overcrowded sh*t hole they have to call home is punishment enough.

User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 31615
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: No Jackett required?

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:12 pm

jaffka wrote:
plymouth wanderer wrote:Looks as though the away fans were abusing (racist?) hall just after his goal
Living in that smoggy overcrowded sh*t hole they have to call home is punishment enough.
Point taken, but not everybody that lives nearby is a knuckle-dragging waste of organs. Which implies that they don't have to be.

Annoyed Grunt
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8046
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 9:25 am
Location: Bolton

Re: No Jackett required?

Post by Annoyed Grunt » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:20 pm

plymouth wanderer wrote:Looks as though the away fans were abusing (racist?) hall just after his goal
Millwall fans racist?

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

Re: No Jackett required?

Post by jaffka » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:38 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
jaffka wrote:
plymouth wanderer wrote:Looks as though the away fans were abusing (racist?) hall just after his goal
Living in that smoggy overcrowded sh*t hole they have to call home is punishment enough.
Point taken, but not everybody that lives nearby is a knuckle-dragging waste of organs. Which implies that they don't have to be.
Not sure what your point is, are you sticking up for them?

User avatar
Abdoulaye's Twin
Legend
Legend
Posts: 9714
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:27 pm
Location: Skye high

Re: No Jackett required?

Post by Abdoulaye's Twin » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:42 pm

jaffka wrote:
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
jaffka wrote:
plymouth wanderer wrote:Looks as though the away fans were abusing (racist?) hall just after his goal
Living in that smoggy overcrowded sh*t hole they have to call home is punishment enough.
Point taken, but not everybody that lives nearby is a knuckle-dragging waste of organs. Which implies that they don't have to be.
Not sure what your point is, are you sticking up for them?
I think he is saying that not everyone that lives in London/East London is a knuckle dragging...well, you get the meaning. I used to live in Canary Wharf, a mere stones throw from Millwall (Isle of Dogs is in Millwall), and I as well as most inhabitants were completely normal people and no more racist than anyone from anywhere. DSB lives in London and is a very decent and affable chap.

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

Re: No Jackett required?

Post by jaffka » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:44 pm

Abdoulaye's Twin wrote:
jaffka wrote:
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
jaffka wrote:
plymouth wanderer wrote:Looks as though the away fans were abusing (racist?) hall just after his goal
Living in that smoggy overcrowded sh*t hole they have to call home is punishment enough.
Point taken, but not everybody that lives nearby is a knuckle-dragging waste of organs. Which implies that they don't have to be.
Not sure what your point is, are you sticking up for them?
I think he is saying that not everyone that lives in London/East London is a knuckle dragging...well, you get the meaning. I used to live in Canary Wharf, a mere stones throw from Millwall (Isle of Dogs is in Millwall), and I as well as most inhabitants were completely normal people and no more racist than anyone from anywhere. DSB lives in London and is a very decent and affable chap.
Thanks for your interpretation of what he meant but the question is directed at him.

User avatar
Abdoulaye's Twin
Legend
Legend
Posts: 9714
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:27 pm
Location: Skye high

Re: No Jackett required?

Post by Abdoulaye's Twin » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:52 pm

Dunno why anyone bothers on here :roll:

mummywhycantieatcrayons
Legend
Legend
Posts: 7192
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: London

Re: No Jackett required?

Post by mummywhycantieatcrayons » Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:10 pm

:lol:
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families

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

Re: No Jackett required?

Post by CAPSLOCK » Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:12 pm

bobo the clown wrote:by the way everyone ... #41, on the bench ... Oscar Threlkeld.

Anyone know about the guy ?
Very highly regarded by the junior coaches

Think he was injured by the back end of last years cup run
Sto ut Serviam

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 44175
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Between the Bible, Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: No Jackett required?

Post by TANGODANCER » Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:15 pm

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote: What did you make of Ream's part in their goal?

My take on Ream at centreback is that in more games than not he will have a weak moment that gives the opposition a clear goal-scoring opportunity. That's what happened yesterday, isn't it?

I'm not saying that we have a better option at the moment, incidentally.
Have to say I think all this talk of weak moments is a bit naff. There isn't a player in any of the leagues who doesn't have at least one every game. Forwards miss goals, midfielders miss passes and defenders get turned. Their guy just got luck yesterday because that ball could easily have evaded him, bounced kindly for a defender or been deflected away. As luck would have it, it bounced right in his path. For me, it wasn't weakness, just bad luck.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

StaffsTrotter
Reliable
Reliable
Posts: 839
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: No Jackett required?

Post by StaffsTrotter » Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:26 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:
mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote: What did you make of Ream's part in their goal?

My take on Ream at centreback is that in more games than not he will have a weak moment that gives the opposition a clear goal-scoring opportunity. That's what happened yesterday, isn't it?

I'm not saying that we have a better option at the moment, incidentally.
Have to say I think all this talk of weak moments is a bit naff. There isn't a player in any of the leagues who doesn't have at least one every game. Forwards miss goals, midfielders miss passes and defenders get turned. Their guy just got luck yesterday because that ball could easily have evaded him, bounced kindly for a defender or been deflected away. As luck would have it, it bounced right in his path. For me, it wasn't weakness, just bad luck.
+1

who are these mythical good at everything, no mistakes ever, players. I've never seen one

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 34731
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: No Jackett required?

Post by Worthy4England » Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:42 pm

StaffsTrotter wrote:
TANGODANCER wrote:
mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote: What did you make of Ream's part in their goal?

My take on Ream at centreback is that in more games than not he will have a weak moment that gives the opposition a clear goal-scoring opportunity. That's what happened yesterday, isn't it?

I'm not saying that we have a better option at the moment, incidentally.
Have to say I think all this talk of weak moments is a bit naff. There isn't a player in any of the leagues who doesn't have at least one every game. Forwards miss goals, midfielders miss passes and defenders get turned. Their guy just got luck yesterday because that ball could easily have evaded him, bounced kindly for a defender or been deflected away. As luck would have it, it bounced right in his path. For me, it wasn't weakness, just bad luck.
+1

who are these mythical good at everything, no mistakes ever, players. I've never seen one
Don't think there are any at our level, but it's about when and where you make your mistakes. Both CD's making a mistake like that every game, wouldn't make them very good CB's in my book.

See Zat Knight for further reference.

mummywhycantieatcrayons
Legend
Legend
Posts: 7192
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: London

Re: No Jackett required?

Post by mummywhycantieatcrayons » Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:00 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:
mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote: What did you make of Ream's part in their goal?

My take on Ream at centreback is that in more games than not he will have a weak moment that gives the opposition a clear goal-scoring opportunity. That's what happened yesterday, isn't it?

I'm not saying that we have a better option at the moment, incidentally.
Have to say I think all this talk of weak moments is a bit naff. There isn't a player in any of the leagues who doesn't have at least one every game. Forwards miss goals, midfielders miss passes and defenders get turned. Their guy just got luck yesterday because that ball could easily have evaded him, bounced kindly for a defender or been deflected away. As luck would have it, it bounced right in his path. For me, it wasn't weakness, just bad luck.
"Naff" :conf:

Are you speaking Polari?

When I say 'weak' in this context, I am not making a general statement about inconsistency, which is what your examples all seem to speak to.

In Ream's case I am speaking literally about a lack of physical strength.

It sounds like he's been playing well recently, which is great, as we're desperately short of quality at CB, but that goal yesterday is exactly what I think about if I picture Ream's shortcomings - his being shrugged limply out of the way at a very inopportune moment.
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families

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

Re: No Jackett required?

Post by CAPSLOCK » Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:01 pm

Worthy4England wrote:but it's about when and where you make your mistakes. Both CD's making a mistake like that every game, wouldn't make them very good CB's in my book.
They're not doing

I can only remember two notable saves by Lonergan in the last 2 games, plus yesterdays goal of course

One of 'em ballsed up at Bournemouth but the other was quickly around to cover

That, for me, is what they have going for themselves as a pair

Completely different and - for this level - well suited
Sto ut Serviam

mummywhycantieatcrayons
Legend
Legend
Posts: 7192
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: London

Re: No Jackett required?

Post by mummywhycantieatcrayons » Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:07 pm

CAPSLOCK wrote:
Worthy4England wrote:but it's about when and where you make your mistakes. Both CD's making a mistake like that every game, wouldn't make them very good CB's in my book.
They're not doing

I can only remember two notable saves by Lonergan in the last 2 games, plus yesterdays goal of course

One of 'em ballsed up at Bournemouth but the other was quickly around to cover

That, for me, is what they have going for themselves as a pair

Completely different and - for this level - well suited
Don't think Worthy was saying that the current pair have been - partly because Zat Knight hasn't been involved.
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families

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

Re: No Jackett required?

Post by CAPSLOCK » Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:09 pm

Was anybody asking you?
Sto ut Serviam

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

Re: No Jackett required?

Post by CAPSLOCK » Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:10 pm

Anyway, how is the fat lass, these days?
Sto ut Serviam

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 34731
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: No Jackett required?

Post by Worthy4England » Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:39 pm

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:
CAPSLOCK wrote:
Worthy4England wrote:but it's about when and where you make your mistakes. Both CD's making a mistake like that every game, wouldn't make them very good CB's in my book.
They're not doing

I can only remember two notable saves by Lonergan in the last 2 games, plus yesterdays goal of course

One of 'em ballsed up at Bournemouth but the other was quickly around to cover

That, for me, is what they have going for themselves as a pair

Completely different and - for this level - well suited
Don't think Worthy was saying that the current pair have been - partly because Zat Knight hasn't been involved.
Worthy wasn't - so thanks Mummy. :-)

I was just making the point that "no players at this level are mistake-free" which I agree with, all depends on where and when they make their mistakes, as to whether they're a good 'un or a bad 'un.

If any CD made a gaffe like yesterday's every game, they wouldn't be very good as a CD. Regardless of "at this level" or not.

I'm not convinced by either of them against tougher opposition, and Ream, I still don't think is a CD.

That said, as a pairing, they've done ok - we've let 5 goals in, in 7 games, albeit against teams predominantly in the bottom half of the table. So onwards and upwards.

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

Re: No Jackett required?

Post by plymouth wanderer » Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:03 pm

Bet the Uk has a tampax shortage this week
Never get into an argument with an idiot. i'll bring you down to my level and beat you with experience

LeverEnd
Legend
Legend
Posts: 9969
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:18 pm
Location: Dirty Leeds

Re: No Jackett required?

Post by LeverEnd » Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:09 pm

plymouth wanderer wrote:Bet the Uk has a tampax shortage this week
:lol:
...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 30 guests