Sir Bob Almighty! 0 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I cant put into words how ecstatic i was being at the game last night, especially after that first goal for boro no-one knew what to do with themselves and i thought we were in for a torrid time. then Taylor scored + celebrated right next to where i was sitting and it always seemed like we could go on a win with a little more effort and we did Kudos to Shearer for the selection and substitutions aswell, i thought he got both spot on for the occasion. The atmosphere at the start of the game and towards the end were fantastic but there was massive chunks of the game where we were outsung by the Boro fans, that made me feel quite sick. It was still fun to wave them goodbye when we got our third though I think if we can grab three point against Fulham we will be safe. Also i thought Viduka and Guthrie imparticular were fantastic last night. umm, no shit sherlock??? Its better having obvious input than no input at all, not naming names like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbyshinton 59 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Ridiculous the amount of people who want to talk about negatives after a neet like last night. Some of you aren't happy unless you're abusing or contriving some opinion to cause a row. good post. pack of cocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I think the crushing sense of impending doom when the ball bobbled beyond Beye's foot into the net made the rest of the game better. Now I'm not suggesting that we concede every game, just to make it interesting, but I fondly remember the games under Bobby, where we'd invariably concede early thanks to Titus, then because of the confidence at the club, we'd still go onto win regardless. Taylor's goal was the right kind of equaliser too, if that makes any sense. A powerful header gets the heart racing that little harder than a unfortunate own goal in our favour would have. More so than a penalty too imo. That Oba's was more rushed and bumblesome added to the frenetic feeling, then to seal it with a decent flowing goal was great. I know I'm gushing a bit, but I've not felt this giddy after a game all season, except maybe the draw at Man U, but even that was tempered with thoughts of ill for the rest of the season (although not as dark as the season came to be). Still stupidly happy. We haven't done that (go behind and go on to win - prior to Monday) in a long, long, long time. But we may not do it again for a very long time either, although confidence has something to do with it, of course, the difference in team quality and balance also has a vast amount too. Robson's team would have probably beaten that Boro side by a cricket score, and probably wouldn't have been put under anything like as much pressure, even with a Brambleism or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Shut it fish, you flabby slaphead! Robert, Martins, now Harper... you're unstoppable. Annoying to admit it but he's been right with each one though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Guthrie shunned NUFC protocol Harper - absolute gash, says the match reviewer Well I've seen some shocking keepers but I wouldn't put Harper's performance anywhere near that list. Given's had some howlers at City btw.... Well done though everyone, I'm sure Harper'll be feeling on top of the world for Saturday now. Perhaps he doesn't browse on here? That article may well get back to him though. Good stuff whoever wrote that. Excellent psychology. Wheras you practice nothing but positive reinforcement... http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...mp;#entry613433 Do you really think Harper deserves to be put in the same bracket as Smith and Geremi? REALLY? Even so, had either of those two played on Monday night I'd have said the same thing as I did about Harper. The day after a morale boosting victory isn't the time to go looking for someone to criticise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 You could argue it's worse to slaughter someone after they've just had a stinker when we've lost though. Not that I think it makes any difference. It's the people who constantly have a go at certain players at the match who are really counter-productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11003 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Shut it fish, you flabby slaphead! Robert, Martins, now Harper... you're unstoppable. Annoying to admit it but he's been right with each one though He was calling for Robert's head long before Larry came up short though. I think Robert's turn in form had more to do with the change in tactics and power balance in the dressing room, than himself. As for Martins, the jury is still out for me, I don't think he's half as bad as the ginger one declares, I'm not saying he's our best striker, but he's sure as shit not the retarded geriatric Gemmil purports. Harper, well Steve is just the latest in line to come in for Gemmil's vitriol. The first two have one thing in common which explains Gemmil's want for their exclusion, they're both enigmatic. One game they can rule the roost, the other they can be utterly anonymous. This frustrating quality seems to be the litmus test for our bank breaking buddy. I can understand frustration, but see a pattern... that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 3581 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Shut it fish, you flabby slaphead! Robert, Martins, now Harper... you're unstoppable. Annoying to admit it but he's been right with each one though He was calling for Robert's head long before Larry came up short though. I think Robert's turn in form had more to do with the change in tactics and power balance in the dressing room, than himself. As for Martins, the jury is still out for me, I don't think he's half as bad as the ginger one declares, I'm not saying he's our best striker, but he's sure as shit not the retarded geriatric Gemmil purports. Harper, well Steve is just the latest in line to come in for Gemmil's vitriol. The first two have one thing in common which explains Gemmil's want for their exclusion, they're both enigmatic. One game they can rule the roost, the other they can be utterly anonymous. This frustrating quality seems to be the litmus test for our bank breaking buddy. I can understand frustration, but see a pattern... that's all. There are two l's in Gemmill. Martins is shit by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Shut it fish, you flabby slaphead! Robert, Martins, now Harper... you're unstoppable. Annoying to admit it but he's been right with each one though He was calling for Robert's head long before Larry came up short though. I think Robert's turn in form had more to do with the change in tactics and power balance in the dressing room, than himself. As for Martins, the jury is still out for me, I don't think he's half as bad as the ginger one declares, I'm not saying he's our best striker, but he's sure as shit not the retarded geriatric Gemmil purports. Harper, well Steve is just the latest in line to come in for Gemmil's vitriol. The first two have one thing in common which explains Gemmil's want for their exclusion, they're both enigmatic. One game they can rule the roost, the other they can be utterly anonymous. This frustrating quality seems to be the litmus test for our bank breaking buddy. I can understand frustration, but see a pattern... that's all. There are two l's in Gemmill. Martins is shit by the way. And Robert was shit long before Gemmill jumped on his case.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46523 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Shut it fish, you flabby slaphead! Robert, Martins, now Harper... you're unstoppable. Annoying to admit it but he's been right with each one though He was calling for Robert's head long before Larry came up short though. I think Robert's turn in form had more to do with the change in tactics and power balance in the dressing room, than himself. As for Martins, the jury is still out for me, I don't think he's half as bad as the ginger one declares, I'm not saying he's our best striker, but he's sure as shit not the retarded geriatric Gemmil purports. Harper, well Steve is just the latest in line to come in for Gemmil's vitriol. The first two have one thing in common which explains Gemmil's want for their exclusion, they're both enigmatic. One game they can rule the roost, the other they can be utterly anonymous. This frustrating quality seems to be the litmus test for our bank breaking buddy. I can understand frustration, but see a pattern... that's all. Drivel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 3581 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Shut it fish, you flabby slaphead! Robert, Martins, now Harper... you're unstoppable. Annoying to admit it but he's been right with each one though He was calling for Robert's head long before Larry came up short though. I think Robert's turn in form had more to do with the change in tactics and power balance in the dressing room, than himself. As for Martins, the jury is still out for me, I don't think he's half as bad as the ginger one declares, I'm not saying he's our best striker, but he's sure as shit not the retarded geriatric Gemmil purports. Harper, well Steve is just the latest in line to come in for Gemmil's vitriol. The first two have one thing in common which explains Gemmil's want for their exclusion, they're both enigmatic. One game they can rule the roost, the other they can be utterly anonymous. This frustrating quality seems to be the litmus test for our bank breaking buddy. I can understand frustration, but see a pattern... that's all. There are two l's in Gemmill. Martins is shit by the way. And Robert was shit long before Gemmill jumped on his case.... Shame it took Scotty so long to wake up and realise Souness was just as shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11003 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Shut it fish, you flabby slaphead! Robert, Martins, now Harper... you're unstoppable. Annoying to admit it but he's been right with each one though He was calling for Robert's head long before Larry came up short though. I think Robert's turn in form had more to do with the change in tactics and power balance in the dressing room, than himself. As for Martins, the jury is still out for me, I don't think he's half as bad as the ginger one declares, I'm not saying he's our best striker, but he's sure as shit not the retarded geriatric Gemmil purports. Harper, well Steve is just the latest in line to come in for Gemmil's vitriol. The first two have one thing in common which explains Gemmil's want for their exclusion, they're both enigmatic. One game they can rule the roost, the other they can be utterly anonymous. This frustrating quality seems to be the litmus test for our bank breaking buddy. I can understand frustration, but see a pattern... that's all. Drivel. I'm right though. You've had a player in the squad that you rail against for as long as I can remember. I don't mean justifiably criticisng a player when they've had a shit game, I mean persecuting a player regardless of performance, result or competition for you anger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46523 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 More drivel. Try getting something right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11003 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 More drivel. Try getting something right. Hah not your best retort ninja. it's true and you haven't a leg to stand on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46523 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 You were (are?) stupid enough to think that it was ok to have a player who sometimes basically didn't turn up in the case of Robert. It wasn't and it isn't ok. We lost games sometimes because he didn't try. We won games sometimes because of his brilliance too, but you thought that that excused the times he just couldn't be bothered. It didn't. And towards the end, which is when I really started having a go at him, he couldn't be fucked the majority of the time. Martins and Harper are just both not good enough. I criticised Martins a lot because he was getting so much unwarranted praise. I criticise Harper because he is both not good enough AND he is orange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11003 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Aye but that's my point, when we won without his brilliance you berated him, when we won because of his brilliance, you still picked holes in his performance. You think it's ok to harangue a player because of the games he doesn't show up for, despite him single handedly winning games on other occasions. I admit I have a soft spot for players like Robert. The unpredictable luxury player is brilliant when you're up at the right end of the table. I tell you now I wouldn't have him near the side for these last few games though. You're not the only person who identifies a player as public enemy number one. I would have been on his case as much as you were if he was the worst offender in the shirt every game, but he wasn't. You have to admit you disliked the lad more than any other in that side and there were far far worse offenders. Bramble for one. p.s. I'm not stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Tbf, Robert was probably as frustrating a player as I've seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46523 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Bramble was shit. Robert was brilliant but couldn't be bothered, which is a far worse crime. There's no excuse for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Aye but that's my point, when we won without his brilliance you berated him, when we won because of his brilliance, you still picked holes in his performance. You think it's ok to harangue a player because of the games he doesn't show up for, despite him single handedly winning games on other occasions. I admit I have a soft spot for players like Robert. The unpredictable luxury player is brilliant when you're up at the right end of the table. I tell you now I wouldn't have him near the side for these last few games though. You're not the only person who identifies a player as public enemy number one. I would have been on his case as much as you were if he was the worst offender in the shirt every game, but he wasn't. You have to admit you disliked the lad more than any other in that side and there were far far worse offenders. Bramble for one. p.s. I'm not stupid. Not a lot of logic to that. Put the thesaurus away for a second. Robert is exactly the sort of player we've been lacking (despite everything) and Bramble was probably a far more consistent performer than Robert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Bramble was shit. Robert was brilliant but couldn't be bothered, which is a far worse crime. There's no excuse for it. Ridiculous to see the work ethic of Barcelona and compare it our teams, past and present. Bobby only bought Robert as he knew he could get him to play. Robert should have left when Bobby did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 If Gemmill takes the piss out of Harper for being orange, does that make him an harangue-a-tan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11003 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Aye, reading that back, it is a mess... sorry bout that studying for an interview tomorrow. Robert is the sort of player we've been lacking all season, not the sort of player I'd have in the final three games of a relegation scrap though. Gemmill, I'd rather a player win us 1 game in three by himself, to a player who's shit in all of them. I know we'll never agree on this, but I just needed to say that you've always had a scapegoat. I'm saying that there are fans who (rightly) are never satisfied with the team. They want perfection and that's fine, right and proper. However, they don't spread the blame around, they'll pick out one player to bear the flag of disappointment. Some Man U fans hate O'Shea and want rid of him for someone, anyone better, but truth is, they needed him and SAF is a better judge of what fits into his team than they are. Rather than blame the mercurial Berbatov, they'd rather slate O'Shea's performance every game instead. I'm rambling again, so I'll try and get back on track. Some fans focus they're frustration on one player and I think that's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I was disagreeing though. He's exactly the sort of player I would have for a relegation scrap as we've no fucker who can create / make the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbyshinton 59 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 If Gemmill takes the piss out of Harper for being orange, does that make him an harangue-a-tan? Please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now