[60s 70s Spireite]

h again, on 27 October 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

You see, I have this terrible problem with your attitude. With a player of Randall's talent, who comes our way about every 10 years, why should you be falling over yourself to denigrate him? We can all see his faults, but if they can be ironed out he'll be a superb player and worth a fortune. You may think he'll never get his faults sorted out, and you may well be right, but shouldn't we all be ready to give him credit for the good things instead of waiting for one mistake and blaming the whole horror show on him? Plenty of players have had a problem imposing themselves physically on a game and been coached into respectability, and in the case of Mark Randall the rewards would be immense.
Be very intersting to see what the new gaffer thinks.

When you say every ten years, do you mean one this bad every ten years. Absolute disgrace, anyone who has played Sunday League football would be embarrassed by suck lack of fortitude. I don't think it will take Cook very long to make his mind up, in fact probably has done so already.

[h again]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 27 October 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

Well if you want to give us a long list of all these wondeful balls that ripped them to bits feel free, you've named one up to press.........Of the first 5 he played when he came on I can remembr 3 didn't find the man. The two that did Allot would have got slagged off for cos they where sideways

Those would have been the simple ball that 'necronomicon' says he never plays? Perhaps the two of you should get your act together and come up with something resembling fact.
You don't like the guy - I go to watch my team play L2 football, but now and then a class act that rises above the mediocrity is a welcome change. So I'm ready to give him a chance because the rewards would be tremendous - you're happy with kick and rush. Fair enough - it's your opinion.

[Wooden Spoon]

h again, on 27 October 2012 - 09:25 PM, said:

Those would have been the simple ball that 'necronomicon' says he never plays? Perhaps the two of you should get your act together and come up with something resembling fact.
You don't like the guy - I go to watch my team play L2 football, but now and then a class act that rises above the mediocrity is a welcome change. So I'm ready to give him a chance because the rewards would be tremendous - you're happy with kick and rush. Fair enough - it's your opinion.

trying to rewrite history again

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

h again, on 27 October 2012 - 09:25 PM, said:

Those would have been the simple ball that 'necronomicon' says he never plays? Perhaps the two of you should get your act together and come up with something resembling fact.
You don't like the guy - I go to watch my team play L2 football, but now and then a class act that rises above the mediocrity is a welcome change. So I'm ready to give him a chance because the rewards would be tremendous - you're happy with kick and rush. Fair enough - it's your opinion.

Can you tell me what is not fact about his first three forward balls not finding their man?

A class act? I'm still waiting for you to tell me where all these class balls where? This is a debating board, convince me he has something to offer, or at least back up your claim he made lots of telling passes.

[Westbars Spireite]

h again, on 27 October 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

You see, I have this terrible problem with your attitude. With a player of Randall's talent, who comes our way about every 10 years, why should you be falling over yourself to denigrate him? We can all see his faults, but if they can be ironed out he'll be a superb player and worth a fortune. You may think he'll never get his faults sorted out, and you may well be right, but shouldn't we all be ready to give him credit for the good things instead of waiting for one mistake and blaming the whole horror show on him? Plenty of players have had a problem imposing themselves physically on a game and been coached into respectability, and in the case of Mark Randall the rewards would be immense.
Be very intersting to see what the new gaffer thinks.

Really? I'll get over it. I have a similar issue with his funnily enough.

[Younger]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 27 October 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

Can you tell me what is not fact about his first three forward balls not finding their man?

A class act? I'm still waiting for you to tell me where all these class balls where? This is a debating board, convince me he has something to offer, or at least back up your claim he made lots of telling passes.

his first ball was class long for Darikwa. Nobody moans about Atkinson not tackling or the fact he never wants the ball. Randall is our player who can only improve physically. The fans will probably not accept this though unfortunatley

jack bauer, on 27 October 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

randall played one great ball, but for me he will never cut it as he just doesn't care enough. Thought Togwell was having a great game as was darikwa, can only hope that cook didn't make the call to pull those 2 off.

did Randall tell you he doesn't care?

h again, on 27 October 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

You see, I have this terrible problem with your attitude. With a player of Randall's talent, who comes our way about every 10 years, why should you be falling over yourself to denigrate him? We can all see his faults, but if they can be ironed out he'll be a superb player and worth a fortune. You may think he'll never get his faults sorted out, and you may well be right, but shouldn't we all be ready to give him credit for the good things instead of waiting for one mistake and blaming the whole horror show on him? Plenty of players have had a problem imposing themselves physically on a game and been coached into respectability, and in the case of Mark Randall the rewards would be immense.
Be very intersting to see what the new gaffer thinks.

good common sense. thanks

[Price]

luke_younger, on 27 October 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

his first ball was class long for Darikwa. Nobody moans about Atkinson not tackling or the fact he never wants the ball. Randall is our player who can only improve physically. The fans will probably not accept this though unfortunatley



did Randall tell you he doesn't care?



good common sense. thanks

So what about him bottling the challenge then?

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

[quote name='luke_younger' timestamp='1351375883' post='800954']
his first ball was class long for Darikwa. Nobody moans about Atkinson not tackling or the fact he never wants the ball. Randall is our player who can only improve physically. The fans will probably not accept this though unfortunatley



How do you think he is going to improve physically, he's about 23 he should be in his prime physically, its not like he is a kid? Do you think you can train being a bottler out of him?

I personally don't think Atkinson is much better, if any than Clay. Now if we wanted to stick with one of our own for me it would be him. Atkinson lacks pace to be central for me.

[Younger]

pubview, on 27 October 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

So what about him bottling the challenge then?

Im not saying he came on and played amazing because he didn't. He did bottle the challenge which was bad. What annoys me is when he does something bad, he gets hammered on here when others don't. The others can't pick a pass or are as technically gifted as Randall. Do you see what im saying?

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

luke_younger, on 27 October 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

Im not saying he came on and played amazing because he didn't. He did bottle the challenge which was bad. What annoys me is when he does something bad, he gets hammered on here when others don't. The others can't pick a pass or are as technically gifted as Randall. Do you see what im saying?

I think the counter arguement is that he does one or two good passes a game and that's it and offers very little in terms of drive and determination for the rest of the time and one or two passes a game isn't enough if you aren't contributing anything else to the team.

You can't even argue, with any conviction, that he hasn't had a chance, because he has had plenty and wasted them all. He doesn't support the defence and he doesn't support the attack, he just wanders around in that middle no mans land jogging around, serving no puropose other than the occasional 30 yard pump forward.

If he is the attcking central midfilder then sometimes he need to run with the ball at drive through the middle at the oppositions defence and if he passes it forward he needs to look for the return pass outside the oppposition box not think his bit is done.

Basically he needs to take a game by the scruff of the neck occasionally

[Spire Power]

h again, on 27 October 2012 - 09:25 PM, said:

Those would have been the simple ball that 'necronomicon' says he never plays? Perhaps the two of you should get your act together and come up with something resembling fact.
You don't like the guy - I go to watch my team play L2 football, but now and then a class act that rises above the mediocrity is a welcome change. So I'm ready to give him a chance because the rewards would be tremendous - you're happy with kick and rush. Fair enough - it's your opinion.

Randall is a long ball merchant. Get him listed.

[Younger]

EEE, (some reason i can't save when replying)

Do you also think Atkinson and Whitaker are bottlers aswell then because they played 90 minutes and between them made 0 tackles? i havn't seen their names flying about

Had Randall played 90 minutes i guarantee would have contributed more than these 2. I still stick by Randall coming good hopefully by a manager who likes passers of the ball and be able to train him right.

[Spire Power]

luke_younger, on 27 October 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

EEE, (some reason i can't save when replying)

Do you also think Atkinson and Whitaker are bottlers aswell then because they played 90 minutes and between them made 0 tackles? i havn't seen their names flying about

Had Randall played 90 minutes i guarantee would have contributed more than these 2. I still stick by Randall coming good hopefully by a manager who likes passers of the ball and be able to train him right.

It was a mistake bringing him on, Clay would have been a far better choice

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

luke_younger, on 27 October 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

EEE, (some reason i can't save when replying)

Do you also think Atkinson and Whitaker are bottlers aswell then because they played 90 minutes and between them made 0 tackles? i havn't seen their names flying about

Had Randall played 90 minutes i guarantee would have contributed more than these 2. I still stick by Randall coming good hopefully by a manager who likes passers of the ball and be able to train him right.

Randall won't play regularly under Cook, he hasn't got the work ethic he will demand. I don't think Atkinson is a bottler I just think he's overated. I don't think Whitts is a bottler he just can't tackle but he does try to , which is the difference. If Randall had just have stuck out a half hearted leg today it may have been enough, perhaps not to cleanly win the ball but for it to divert to somone else, but he chose to get out of the way which is unacceptable, almost child like as he was playing with the big boys.

[Andy Spireite]

I'm amazed anyone is still defending Randall to be honest. When he arrived here I really wanted him to succeed but he's been a passenger really.

The guy contributed nothing today except gifting the ball to Barnet by neshing a challenge that he was odds in to win.

His passing can range from crap to excellent but more often than not it's at the lower end of the spectrum.

For me he should be the first name we tout around to other clubs on Monday morning to try and free up a wage.

[Younger]

i disagree that he tries to tackle. He stands off until the ball is played elsewhere. If the ball is played in the air, he runs away like a child. For me, if Randall is a bottler then these 2 are aswell. Overall i'd rather have started clay and togwell who are guaranteed to put a shift in.

Andy Spireite, on 27 October 2012 - 11:05 PM, said:

I'm amazed anyone is still defending Randall to be honest. When he arrived here I really wanted him to succeed but he's been a passenger really.

The guy contributed nothing today except gifting the ball to Barnet by neshing a challenge that he was odds in to win.

His passing can range from crap to excellent but more often than not it's at the lower end of the spectrum.

For me he should be the first name we tout around to other clubs on Monday morning to try and free up a wage.

i'm defending him due to the stick he gets which isn't consistent to the other 'passengers'

[RPL42YEARS]

Randall is our best playmaker by far. This said if I were Cook I'd have him in the office On Monday to explain his failure to challenge.

[oh rodney rodney]

djs, on 27 October 2012 - 11:10 PM, said:

Because basically they had a decent game. And yes both did their far share of the ugly parts of the game today. Like I said Randal had 30mins to impress, more than enough time, and he didn't.

Randall still thinks he's big news sorry youth its taxi time you neshed out of that tackle bigtime, + not for the first time ! looks like them rotherscum fans were right

This post has been edited by oh rodney rodney: 28 October 2012 - 12:56 AM