IF another 10,000 people had turned up last night the attendance WOULD'VE been 12,000.genome wrote:Oh, you're trying to be funny
Factually wrongNo Fixed Abode wrote:IF another 10,000 people had turned up last night the attendance WOULD'VE been 12,000.genome wrote:Oh, you're trying to be funny
+1Westwood52 wrote:Kermit 2: I disagree with most, I thought he was awful. Missed a sitter, kept on falling over or losing the ball in possession.
Except for when he regularly misses, like he did with two good chances last night.Top Flight wrote: Feed the Kermie and he will score.
indeedIan Royal wrote:Except for when he regularly misses, like he did with two good chances last night.Top Flight wrote: Feed the Kermie and he will score.
They weren't easy chances. Kermie did well with those chances. McLeary's ball was lofted up slightly too high for him so he couldn't get above it enough. He still managed to crash it onto the crossbar.Ian Royal wrote:Except for when he regularly misses, like he did with two good chances last night.Top Flight wrote: Feed the Kermie and he will score.
the attendance for what has traditionally been a well supported fixture was pretty abysmal, highlighted by the unusually high amount of matchtime posters posting.bobby1413 wrote:I know we really don't need any more proof but some of our fans are fcking mongs.
Twat on twitter:
"Some of our 'fans' deserve that, 12.000 for a league game - pathetic; hope you lot who didn't go stay away forever #tinpotfans"
Some responses are things like:
"I was working. Is that ok?"
And he responds "yea of course that's fine"
Thanks you fcking d1ck
If he's so bloody good, he shouldn't need them to be easy chances. You've basically said he needs to either have an inch perfect ball placed on his forehead and / or no defenders pressuring him to score. And I didn't say they were easy chances anyway. I said they were good chances. Which they were.Top Flight wrote:They weren't easy chances. Kermie did well with those chances. McLeary's ball was lofted up slightly too high for him so he couldn't get above it enough. He still managed to crash it onto the crossbar.Ian Royal wrote:Except for when he regularly misses, like he did with two good chances last night.Top Flight wrote: Feed the Kermie and he will score.
The other chance, the defender was right in the way and put him under massive pressure but he still managed to head the ball and the defenders head to narrowly miss the post. The cut on his head shows that it wasn't an easy chance. He had to clash with the defenders head as well as the ball. He did well with a difficult chance.
If we had made him another two chances like that, the likelihood is that one of them would have gone in. We just need to do more in games. He showed what a serious aerial threat he can be. Let's take advantage of that strength. We're not doing enough going forward. Coppells side was the benchmark of what can be achieved in this division. We are not creating anywhere near the same number or quality of chances that the 106 side created and we don't play with anything like the same level of urgency.
Still though, we are doing well. So we can't complain too much and we are improving game by game. Long live Stam.
The players available are ok individually but don't perm into a cohesive unit.Hound wrote: The midfield was all wrong
I'm not saying that they weren't good chances. I was just saying that they weren't all that easy either. Also, I'm saying that we don't create enough of those chances. Kitson used to head the ball wide as well. He used to miss the target and hit the crossbar too. But Kitson had a lot more to work with.Ian Royal wrote:If he's so bloody good, he shouldn't need them to be easy chances. You've basically said he needs to either have an inch perfect ball placed on his forehead and / or no defenders pressuring him to score. And I didn't say they were easy chances anyway. I said they were good chances. Which they were.Top Flight wrote:They weren't easy chances. Kermie did well with those chances. McLeary's ball was lofted up slightly too high for him so he couldn't get above it enough. He still managed to crash it onto the crossbar.Ian Royal wrote: Except for when he regularly misses, like he did with two good chances last night.
The other chance, the defender was right in the way and put him under massive pressure but he still managed to head the ball and the defenders head to narrowly miss the post. The cut on his head shows that it wasn't an easy chance. He had to clash with the defenders head as well as the ball. He did well with a difficult chance.
If we had made him another two chances like that, the likelihood is that one of them would have gone in. We just need to do more in games. He showed what a serious aerial threat he can be. Let's take advantage of that strength. We're not doing enough going forward. Coppells side was the benchmark of what can be achieved in this division. We are not creating anywhere near the same number or quality of chances that the 106 side created and we don't play with anything like the same level of urgency.
Still though, we are doing well. So we can't complain too much and we are improving game by game. Long live Stam.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], katweslowski, Ralf, WestYorksRoyal and 240 guests