Back from the game - Plymouth (H)

[rob the royal]

As for the support - what else is new? 3 home wins in a year, top 8 of the prem to second bottom championship in a few years, most the first team squad sold and fans in disbelief how crap we are, all this and we are still paying season ticket prices higher than most of the division. Really not a lot to be excited about. The plymouth fans were nosier than most in recent weeks but are there any more local fixtures for you?

That bit and the laughable comment about the ref being a homer just goes to show gbg is someone who is clearly not happy with the flavour of her grapes.

[floyd__streete]

Last night was cruel for me, delightful for you, no need to tear my team apart, rather unfairly in my opinion, especially when you say you were only marginally better.

If losing and getting slated on opposition message boards hurts you so much then I would politely suggest that you support someone other than Plymouth Argyle.

[RoyalBlue]

Last night was cruel for me, delightful for you, no need to tear my team apart, rather unfairly in my opinion, especially when you say you were only marginally better.

If losing and getting slated on opposition message boards hurts you so much then I would politely suggest that you support someone other than Plymouth Argyle.

Indeed they were truly dreadful last night, particularly in the first half. Almost embarrassing to watch - car crash TV. Had we had a clinical finisher on the pitch, Argyle would have been three or four goals down by half-time.

And yes, there were times in the second half when we reverted to our dreadfully shyte old selves of 2009.

[RoyalBlue]

Get back in the kitchen love.......make some pasties and stop talking CRAPP!

This

Grab your club and get back in your cave.

Don't forget to drag the woman in behind you!

[rotherwick_royal]

Handbags_Harris wrote:

As for the game itself, I thought Plymouth were the worst side to visit us this season

Have to disagree with Plymouth being the worst side to visit the Mad Stad this season.

Scunthorpe were dreadful and should have been 3 or 4 nil down a half time but went away with a point.

Have to agree with that. We should have been leading comfortably before Argyle scored too, but at least we won this time.

[FiNeRaIn]

My viewpoint on Plymouth is that they are a team of battlers but aren't a particularly good team, and I felt that they were the worst side to visit us this season. If that offends you, then I make no apologies

LOL did you not go to the scunthorpe game as said above? They were twice as worse as plymouth. Scunthorpe are the worst side to visit us in the league since we were in the old division two, thats going back some.

[handbags_harris]

My opinion is that Scunthorpe at least tried to play a bit of football on the floor and showed some semblance of ability to fashion out chances - four glorious opportunities in open play in fact. Defensive inability, in Scunthorpe's case, will sometimes be tempered by the fact that they can score goals. Plymouth's goalscoring inability, and therefore general inability to look like they can win a game (4-1 hammering aside) in my mind means that they are an inferior side, and their general play yesterday evening served to prove my point I think. It also shouldn't go unnoticed that Scunthorpe, by hook or by crook, went away with a point.

And for the record, my status should give you an indication of the number of consecutive matches I have been to

[weybridgewanderer]

My viewpoint on Plymouth is that they are a team of battlers but aren't a particularly good team, and I felt that they were the worst side to visit us this season. If that offends you, then I make no apologies

LOL did you not go to the scunthorpe game as said above? They were twice as worse as plymouth. Scunthorpe are the worst side to visit us in the league since we were in the old division two, thats going back some.

I'll see your Scunthorpe and raise you a Barnsley. They have visited the mad stad twice this season and were worse than Scunthorpe and Plymouth on both occassions. sad thing is on the first visit they left with a 2-1 victory

[FiNeRaIn]

And for the record, my status should give you an indication of the number of consecutive matches I have been to

But thats totally irrelevant to the subject ( quoting you on another thread).

We played badly agaisnt scunthorpe and created loads of chances, they couldn't put two passes together, couldn't defend and still managed to walk away with the point. They really were dreadful. I think they were worse than plymouth, but between plymouth and barnsley is a tough one.

[Focher]

in a nutshell, and im not trying to offend our green visitor, Plymouth were utter horse muck.

Luckily, our horse muck smelt marginally better.

[rob the royal]

yeah tough call...

and don't forget liverpool...

to be fair i don't think there's a great deal between them. In fact there's not a great deal between most clubs in this division. E.g. Leicester, they weren't up to much when they came down here and nicked their shabby 1-0 after we threw the kitchen sink at them, or attempted to...

[Dickie's Spear]

What I find bizarre is gbg wants West Brom to beat us in the cup, yet when the two sides last played down at Plymouth there was almost a brawl.
I notice both clubs are in strife for not controlling their players.

Quote : "Come on West Brom Sorry, but we need all the help we can get now!!!"

[handbags_harris]

And for the record, my status should give you an indication of the number of consecutive matches I have been to

But thats totally irrelevant to the subject ( quoting you on another thread).

We played badly agaisnt scunthorpe and created loads of chances, they couldn't put two passes together, couldn't defend and still managed to walk away with the point. They really were dreadful. I think they were worse than plymouth, but between plymouth and barnsley is a tough one.

Well, actually, no it's not. It's totally relevant as it gives you an indication as to the answer to your question "Did you go to the Scunthorpe game?" which clearly the answer implied is "yes".

Despite the fact that Scunthorpe "couldn't put two passes together", they still walked away with a point and created glorious opportunities from open play, including 3x 1-on-1's. Like I said before, a team that can't defend much but can score goals is a better team than one who can defend reasonably well but can't score goals. You need to score goals to win games. Scunthorpe have, and will, continue to score goals. They have a habit of fashioning chances whoever they play against, and they did so despite being under the cosh for most of the game at the Madejski. That makes their performance at the Madejski, in my opinion, better than Plymouth's.

[Plymouth_Royal]

Has anyone seen the highlights on Reading fc player. Everytime we have a chance the commentator gets the name wrong. It's hilarious!

[Ian Royal]

Just watched the highlights also.... Probably not going to be popular, but Ivar still looks a really weak link in the team for me. I'm positive Pearce, for example, would have buried at least one if not two or three of the 5 or 6 chances Ivar has had from corners in the last few games. Obviously that's not the key reason he's there.

He also looked to be at fault of some kind for about half of Plymouth's attacks, with someone else (I'm guessing Howard) losing out to Fallon on a corner a bit to easily and Long (I think) failing to stay with his man at another.

Plymouth should have had 3 or 4 based on that. But then we should have had seven or 8. I only really saw one chance I though Church really screwed up. Long took both his goals very well, but perhaps could and should have had a double brace.

Definite foul on HRK, only question for me is was the original foul outside the box.. probably, but I think he toughed his way past it only for the lesser foul to take him out as he was already off balance.

I want to see Zurab and Mills against Palace. I'd prefer Pearce to Ivar as well. But then I'm obviously not getting to see any of the good things Ivar did from the highlights.

[Sun Tzu]

Definite foul on HRK, only question for me is was the original foul outside the box.. probably, but I think he toughed his way past it only for the lesser foul to take him out as he was already off balance.

That's not a question. he was definitely fouled inside the area. What happened outside is not really relevant. if there was a foul outside and then one inside that was good refereeing (and therefore out of character with the general performance of the officials !!)

[Franchise FC]

Definite foul on HRK, only question for me is was the original foul outside the box.. probably, but I think he toughed his way past it only for the lesser foul to take him out as he was already off balance.

That's not a question. he was definitely fouled inside the area. What happened outside is not really relevant. if there was a foul outside and then one inside that was good refereeing (and therefore out of character with the general performance of the officials !!)

This ^^^

As far as the 'first foul was outside the box' - foul occurs, ref plays advantage, next foul being inside the box is an advantage to the attacking side, penalty given. Tell me where this goes wrong.

[Ian Royal]

Definite foul on HRK, only question for me is was the original foul outside the box.. probably, but I think he toughed his way past it only for the lesser foul to take him out as he was already off balance.

That's not a question. he was definitely fouled inside the area. What happened outside is not really relevant. if there was a foul outside and then one inside that was good refereeing (and therefore out of character with the general performance of the officials !!)

It is a question by definition.

Why are you trying to argue with me about it being a penalty when I think it was and you seem to as well?

Personally I think it's quite relevant if there is a foul outside the box, particularly given the way in which HRK went down. The contact in the box was pretty soft if there, which I think it was.

Different situation obviously, but reminds me of the Belamy penalty in the League cup a few weeks back. Obvious foul outside he box, slightly dubious contact inside the box with player going down easily.

[Franchise FC]

He's arguing because you're contention is that because there was contact outside the box, it's not a penalty when there's contact subsequently inside the box.

Either that or we've both misunderstood what you've said.

[Ian Royal]

He's arguing because you're contention is that because there was contact outside the box, it's not a penalty when there's contact subsequently inside the box.

Either that or we've both misunderstood what you've said.

Well there is a clear foul outside the box and a dubious one inside. Does he go down because of the first, or the second if it is a foul. If the second is just catching him after the damage is done, it's not a penalty IMO.

None of this is really important though, seeing as I think it WAS a penalty.