No Jackett required?
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
Re: No Jackett required?
Yes they are playing very well and complement each other. Ream was at fault yesterday for their goal, I don't see that as luck. He's allowed one though the way he is playing, he's been excellent.
...
Re: No Jackett required?
That wasn't AT's interpretation. He merely read what DSB posted and understood it.jaffka wrote:Thanks for your interpretation of what he meant but the question is directed at him.Abdoulaye's Twin wrote: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 wrote:Not sure what your point is, are you sticking up for them?Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:Point taken, but not everybody that lives nearby is a knuckle-dragging waste of organs. Which implies that they don't have to be.jaffka wrote:Living in that smoggy overcrowded sh*t hole they have to call home is punishment enough.
Re: No Jackett required?
Don't sulk, it doesn't become youAbdoulaye's Twin wrote:Dunno why anyone bothers on here

Re: No Jackett required?
Thanks for that but its still not coming from the horses mouth.Jakerbeef wrote:That wasn't AT's interpretation. He merely read what DSB posted and understood it.
Re: No Jackett required?
^ to be fair - the original post was entirely from the horse's mouth! he's under no obligation to repeat it! - but then, who asked me! 

Re: No Jackett required?
Ream still worries me. Their goal is appallingly bad from him. Sunday League wrong side for no reason bad. He's been good recently, so he's allowed a mistake. Just hop it's a blip.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
- TANGODANCER
- 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?
[quote="mummywhycantieatcrayons"Naff"
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.[/quote]
No idea what polari is mummy? I've watched this incident a dozen times and Ream gets on the wrong side of the player, not gets limply shrugged off. He's inside the area and any challenge there that didn't get the ball would have had Easter down and howling penalty. It was a good ball and a good goal that Easter did very well to score.

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.[/quote]
No idea what polari is mummy? I've watched this incident a dozen times and Ream gets on the wrong side of the player, not gets limply shrugged off. He's inside the area and any challenge there that didn't get the ball would have had Easter down and howling penalty. It was a good ball and a good goal that Easter did very well to score.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
- Montreal Wanderer
- Immortal
- Posts: 12948
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Re: No Jackett required?
Yes, but he was positioned wrongly to create that possibility. That may be a matter of experience at this level -TANGODANCER wrote:No idea what polari is mummy? I've watched this incident a dozen times and Ream gets on the wrong side of the player, not gets limply shrugged off. He's inside the area and any challenge there that didn't get the ball would have had Easter down and howling penalty. It was a good ball and a good goal that Easter did very well to score.mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:Naff"![]()
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.

Polari is what they speak in circuses and other hangouts of less salubrious people so you can't understand them.
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 14515
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm
Re: No Jackett required?
Apart from when he cost us another goal by being a bit of a pansy and get arsed off the ball akin to a 6 year old.CAPSLOCK wrote:Ream was very goodBL3 wrote:Talk us through Ream's performance today.CAPSLOCK wrote:What makes you think he might not be a clueless know nowt any more?ChrisC wrote:Out of interest, would you still sack DF now or stick with him SF?SmokinFrazier wrote:Good result.
Hats off to the manager and his staff
Made up for that with the pass, but it's still startling that he gets 'done' by such poor opposition so often.
Good, steady performance by the team though. It's starting to look as if it's coming together now.
"I've got the ball now. It's a bit worn, but I've got it"
-
- Dedicated
- Posts: 1469
- Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 1:05 pm
Re: No Jackett required?
Prufrock wrote:Ream still worries me. Their goal is appallingly bad from him. Sunday League wrong side for no reason bad. He's been good recently, so he's allowed a mistake. Just hop it's a blip.
Bloody hell, what do you expect??
We're a (at best) mid table Championship team at the moment. Of course we're going to have players that aren't the best and drop b*llocks every so often.
We look a damn sight better at the back and seem to be going in the right direction.
What would you do differently?
What a hero, What a man...... Ooooh, what a bad foul...
Re: No Jackett required?
Them to not make school-boy mistakes? Accepting he isn't the best player ever doesn't mean any mistake is OK. If one of the centre-halves in the team I play for had done that it would have been embarrassing.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 34731
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: No Jackett required?
Correct. In the context of the game, forgivable, even though it got them back to 1-1.Prufrock wrote:Them to not make school-boy mistakes? Accepting he isn't the best player ever doesn't mean any mistake is OK. If one of the centre-halves in the team I play for had done that it would have been embarrassing.
Sat in the ground, I was thinking that the striker must've been offside, to get that much space off the defender.
On the replay, I can now see what happened - which is the defender gave him the acres of space he was stood in.
Re: No Jackett required?
Have I asked a question to the royaltythebish wrote:^ to be fair - the original post was entirely from the horse's mouth! he's under no obligation to repeat it! - but then, who asked me!

Re: No Jackett required?
Nobody but seeing as I asked the original question I think I have more right to butt into a discussionthebish wrote:who asked you??

- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 34731
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: No Jackett required?
Can we have a list of who's asked what questions and to who they've asked them, and who can respond to said questions in passing?
I'm lost on this.
I'm lost on this.
Re: No Jackett required?
LK i believe is the resident list expert.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 34731
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: No Jackett required?
Ohh good spot!
Over to you LK.
We might need a poll to clarify it all too.
Over to you LK.
We might need a poll to clarify it all too.
-
- Dedicated
- Posts: 1469
- Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 1:05 pm
Re: No Jackett required?
I could understand if we lost, but we didn't?Worthy4England wrote:Correct. In the context of the game, forgivable, even though it got them back to 1-1.Prufrock wrote:Them to not make school-boy mistakes? Accepting he isn't the best player ever doesn't mean any mistake is OK. If one of the centre-halves in the team I play for had done that it would have been embarrassing.
Sat in the ground, I was thinking that the striker must've been offside, to get that much space off the defender.
On the replay, I can now see what happened - which is the defender gave him the acres of space he was stood in.
He's been the best of what we've got (with Mills), so again I ask, what should we do? Drop him?
What a hero, What a man...... Ooooh, what a bad foul...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: dave the minion, Google [Bot], jmjhb, truewhite15 and 29 guests