You don't even oxf*rd watch games Ian, go awaySnowflake Royal wrote:Don't like Joao-Carroll, encourages us to just lump it and they're both focal points.clauski wrote:I'd say an industrious pairing. Lots of running and work, but neither are great finishers with pretty average goals per game. Can't help but think I'd rather have Joao/Carroll on - albeit their stats aren't always great either, I think they look a more dangerous pairing.Snowflake Royal wrote:
Meite and Long look a decent pairing. Both somewhat clumsy battering rams, lacking a little guile and finishing, but they'll create plenty of chaos someone might capitalise on.
Think the best might be Long-Joao, but with Joao off form less so.
He’s been pretty dreadful tonight tbhZip wrote:Orion1871 wrote:Take the ball with you Hendrick, you dumbarse.
He really isn't very good I'm afraid.
He's very much the player you want in the middle of the pitch doing the simple things. Not in either end third.Zip wrote:Orion1871 wrote:Take the ball with you Hendrick, you dumbarse.
He really isn't very good I'm afraid.
Far too dangerous to play onHound wrote:Been a lot of slipping over this half. Pitch icing up I reckon
Not as embarrassing as club1871Orion1871 wrote:I forgot Birmingham was the club with the idiot fans that shout "who" whenever the opposition make a sub. More embarrassing than our defending.
Would agree here. Been totally unimpressed with Rahman this season, while NGW has looked half decent at least. Also think Loum is pretty poor.Snowflake Royal wrote:Any chance this might result in some time for Guiness-Walker? Because Rahman can neither defend nor cross, nor shoot.
Loum is unplayably great about a third of the time and clumsy and off the pace the other two thirds.Sutekh wrote:Would agree here. Been totally unimpressed with Rahman this season, while NGW has looked half decent at least. Also think Loum is pretty poor.Snowflake Royal wrote:Any chance this might result in some time for Guiness-Walker? Because Rahman can neither defend nor cross, nor shoot.
Snowflake Royal wrote:Could easily be 5.
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Amazon [Bot], Bazzaballs, Google [Bot], Houlton11, RG30, WestYorksRoyal and 160 guests