[The Earl of Chesterfield]

..from 'Heisenberg'...or is it 'Carlsberg'...or is it - aw never mind, i'll start a thread on yesterday's game.

It was pretty much what we've been witnessing all season: some decent enough football, a reasonable amount of possession, not to mention looking relatively comfortable for significant periods. However a lack of genuine quality in the final third meant we couldn't capitalise when on top whilst an ordinary outfit cut through us far too easily after we gave the ball away. Meanwhile Town fans were once again left wondering at team selection (no Smith?) and substitutions (was Allott injured?).

For Scunthorpe we could've read Colchester, Notts County or Hartlepool and any talk of improvement or lessons being learned is surely now redundant.

Oh, and in his post match interview Sheridan yet again inferred it was the players at fault. His players, from his squad, that he told us he must be judged on when he'd signed 'em. Well fair enough, John, in that case the judgement has to be 'shambolic'.

Now as someone that realised we were doomed some months ago i guess events didn't impact on me as much as those believing this was a 'must win' game. The sense of collective despair was tangible as soon as Scunny's second went in, though, and the almost inevitable third saw me heading pubwards. Enough was enough; this was us being humiliated by Scunthorpe - Scunthorpe for f**k's sake - and if staying 'til the end to express disapproval or call for the Manager's exit might've been appropriate i was just left feeling empty.

Scunthorpe's fourth was reported on Geoff's (that's Stelling not Mitchell, of course) Saturday thing as i walked through the Donkey Derby door to be met by what can only be described as sardonic amusement from those that'd left even earlier than me.

So, a day that'd begun with folk comparing notes on their Wembley experiences ended with us bowed over our beers dissecting the full extent of our failings. With coach loads of departing away fans reminding us of our embarrassment when we looked up from our deliberations, too. Eight goals conceded in a week and a season that'd promised so very, very much descending into frustrated ire. Somehow the lustre of the two trophy's so often referred to in the current spin doesn't appear so dazzling anymore...

This post has been edited by MDCCCLXVI: 01 April 2012 - 04:37 PM

[chesterblue]

MDCCCLXVI, on 01 April 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

..from 'Heisenberg'...or is it 'Carlsberg'...or is it - aw never mind, i'll start a thread on yesterday's game.

It was pretty much what we've been witnessing all season: some decent enough football, a reasonable amount of possession, not to mention looking relatively comfortable for significant periods. However a lack of genuine quality in the final third meant we couldn't capitalise when on top whilst an ordinary outfit cut through us far too easily after we gave the ball away. Meanwhile Town fans were once again left wondering at team selection (no Smith?) and substitutions (was Allott injured?).

For Scunthorpe we could've read Colchester, Notts County or Hartlepool and any talk of improvement or lessons being learned is surely now redundant.

Oh, and in his post match interview Sheridan yet again inferred it was the players at fault. His players, from his squad, that he told us he must be judged on when he'd signed 'em. Well fair enough, John, in that case the judgement has to be 'shambolic'.

Now as someone that realised we were doomed some months ago i guess events didn't impact on me as much as those believing this was a 'must win' game. The sense of collective despair was tangible as soon as Scunny's second went in, though, and the almost inevitable third saw me heading pubwards. Enough was enough; this was us being humiliated by Scunthorpe - Scunthorpe for f**k's sake - and if staying 'til the end to express disapproval or call for the Manager's exit might've been appropriate i was just left feeling empty.

Scunthorpe's fourth was reported on Geoff's (that's Stelling not Mitchell, of course) Saturday thing as i walked through the Donkey Derby door to be met by what can only be described as sardonic amusement from those that'd left even earlier than me.

So, a day that'd begun with folk comparing notes on their Wembley experiences ended with us bowed over our beers dissecting the full extent of our failings. With coach loads of departing away fans reminding us of our embarrassment when we looked up from our deliberations, too. Eight goals conceded in a week and a season that'd promised so very, very much descending into frustrated ire. Somehow the lustre of the two trophy's so often referred to in the current spin doesn't appear so dazzling anymore...

A reasonable account although for several months I personally don't think we have played well (JPT apart). We create very little and the tactics look to be non-existant...we never threaten from a free-kick or a corner, its simply shambolic!

[Heisenberg]

I think you're too chicken to start a blog because you're worried your fan club who read your self-satisfied dronings here will forget to show up there.

This post has been edited by Heisenberg: 01 April 2012 - 04:46 PM

[Westbars Spireite]

Heisenberg, on 01 April 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

I think you're too chicken to start a blog because you're worried your fan club who read your self-satisfied dronings here will forget to show up there.

I doubt he, like me, would know where to start even if he wanted to. Which is suspect he doesn't.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Westbars Spireite, on 01 April 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

I doubt he, like me, would know where to start even if he wanted to. Which is suspect he doesn't.

Or it could be that being called "chicken" (© 'The Beano') has about as much impact as the silly little red numbers.

[h again]

MDCCCLXVI, on 01 April 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

..from 'Heisenberg'...or is it 'Carlsberg'...or is it - aw never mind, i'll start a thread on yesterday's game.

It was pretty much what we've been witnessing all season: some decent enough football, a reasonable amount of possession, not to mention looking relatively comfortable for significant periods. However a lack of genuine quality in the final third meant we couldn't capitalise when on top whilst an ordinary outfit cut through us far too easily after we gave the ball away. Meanwhile Town fans were once again left wondering at team selection (no Smith?) and substitutions (was Allott injured?).

For Scunthorpe we could've read Colchester, Notts County or Hartlepool and any talk of improvement or lessons being learned is surely now redundant.

Oh, and in his post match interview Sheridan yet again inferred it was the players at fault. His players, from his squad, that he told us he must be judged on when he'd signed 'em. Well fair enough, John, in that case the judgement has to be 'shambolic'.

Now as someone that realised we were doomed some months ago i guess events didn't impact on me as much as those believing this was a 'must win' game. The sense of collective despair was tangible as soon as Scunny's second went in, though, and the almost inevitable third saw me heading pubwards. Enough was enough; this was us being humiliated by Scunthorpe - Scunthorpe for f**k's sake - and if staying 'til the end to express disapproval or call for the Manager's exit might've been appropriate i was just left feeling empty.

Scunthorpe's fourth was reported on Geoff's (that's Stelling not Mitchell, of course) Saturday thing as i walked through the Donkey Derby door to be met by what can only be described as sardonic amusement from those that'd left even earlier than me.

So, a day that'd begun with folk comparing notes on their Wembley experiences ended with us bowed over our beers dissecting the full extent of our failings. With coach loads of departing away fans reminding us of our embarrassment when we looked up from our deliberations, too. Eight goals conceded in a week and a season that'd promised so very, very much descending into frustrated ire. Somehow the lustre of the two trophy's so often referred to in the current spin doesn't appear so dazzling anymore...

Sorry, but well below your usual high standards. I'm not sure we really want to know what you did after you left early, even if it involved sardonic amusement.
Personally I thought we played them off the park in the first half, their offside, handball goal being merely an irritation. Trouble was, of course, we failed to put the chances away, even though we had a bit of aerial superiority for once. Nevertheless I couldn't see anything but a fairly comfortable win at half-time, but round about the hour mark, and after more missed chances, the wheels started to come off and a bad case of Wembley legs started. Then it just got embarrassing. Looking back, I wonder if Knill, who is nobody's fool, sent out his team to take it easy for an hour, then put the screws on when our legs gave out.They certainly upped their game after an hour.
I'm sure somebody will say that they should be capable of a full-out 90 minutes,even after Wembley and SheffU - not in my book. The final was obviously the highlight of the season, or even career for some of them, and they obviously gave it everything - not that we'd have expected less. We might still have got over it, but SheffU was a step too far - to put it bluntly, they were knackered.
I'm not going into the question of general fitness, apart from saying questions have been raised previously, because we're talking mental fitness as much as physical here - but I'm inclined to cut them some slack, and certainly allegations that they weren't giving it all they've got are so much hot air and should be treated with the contempt they deserve.
Bitterly disappointing, but it hasn't changed anything. We've been a lost cause since the Exeter game. But let's have a couple of days rest, re-group, and at least go out with a bit of style.

[boot]

h again, on 01 April 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

Sorry, but well below your usual high standards. I'm not sure we really want to know what you did after you left early, even if it involved sardonic amusement.
Personally I thought we played them off the park in the first half, their offside, handball goal being merely an irritation. Trouble was, of course, we failed to put the chances away, even though we had a bit of aerial superiority for once. Nevertheless I couldn't see anything but a fairly comfortable win at half-time, but round about the hour mark, and after more missed chances, the wheels started to come off and a bad case of Wembley legs started. Then it just got embarrassing. Looking back, I wonder if Knill, who is nobody's fool, sent out his team to take it easy for an hour, then put the screws on when our legs gave out.They certainly upped their game after an hour.
I'm sure somebody will say that they should be capable of a full-out 90 minutes,even after Wembley and SheffU - not in my book. The final was obviously the highlight of the season, or even career for some of them, and they obviously gave it everything - not that we'd have expected less. We might still have got over it, but SheffU was a step too far - to put it bluntly, they were knackered.
I'm not going into the question of general fitness, apart from saying questions have been raised previously, because we're talking mental fitness as much as physical here - but I'm inclined to cut them some slack, and certainly allegations that they weren't giving it all they've got are so much hot air and should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

Some will scoff at the very idea of tiredness h but it was foreseeable. I was told that Keith Edwards commentating on Radio Sheffield V the Blades predicted that we would tire second half after our Wembley exertions. Scunthorpe was just another step down that route and Knill would have been delighted to be playing us under those circumstances. It doesn't excuse our season but I think it does explain some if not all of Saturday - to me anyway, and I think professional opinion would concur with those thoughts.

[Heisenberg]

MDCCCLXVI, on 01 April 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

Or it could be that being called "chicken" (© 'The Beano') has about as much impact as the silly little red numbers.

Good thing you dismiss the "silly little red numbers" given how many you have. If nothing else the system is a decent indication of board popularity, and by the looks of things, you're about as beloved as Joseph Kony.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Heisenberg, on 02 April 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

Good thing you dismiss the "silly little red numbers" given how many you have. If nothing else the system is a decent indication of board popularity, and by the looks of things, you're about as beloved as Joseph Kony.

No, they're a decent indication that at least one cowardly inadequate plays infantile games.

Hmmm, now i wonder who i could be refering to.....

[Heisenberg]

MDCCCLXVI, on 02 April 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

No, they're a decent indication that at least one cowardly inadequate plays infantile games.

Hmmm, now i wonder who i could be refering to.....

I've no idea actually, Snell. You sound increasingly paranoid and cheesed off about being minused so often. For someone who doesn't care about the red marks it's obvious how much they wind you up.

Plus, isn't by calling the plus/minus system "infantile" indirectly criticising the forum staff who brought in the system? Tut tut...

[fishini]

MDCCCLXVI, on 02 April 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

No, they're a decent indication that at least one cowardly inadequate plays infantile games.

Hmmm, now i wonder who i could be refering to.....

All depends which name he is using. He seems to have so many to choose from

[Bonnyman]

fishini, on 02 April 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

All depends which name he is using. He seems to have so many to choose from

of course heisenberg is carlsberg,he has even gone to the trouble of putting his avatar as a man in disguise and the letters that start his forum name are the first letters off another beer in heinken..he is either completely mad or i am.

[Heisenberg]

bonnyman, on 02 April 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

of course heisenberg is carlsberg,he has even gone to the trouble of putting his avatar as a man in disguise and the letters that start his forum name are the first letters off another beer in heinken..he is either completely mad or i am.

You're either mad, or just a bit simple. I am not Carlsberg. Just because we both have "berg" in our usernames means bog all. I chose this username because I am a fan of Breaking Bad, the man in my avatar "in disguise" is Walter White, who goes by the pseudonym Heisenberg on the show. Heineken has nothing to do with it.

I do know Carlsberg personally, and he explained to me his username was a tribute to our chairman Barrie. Completely different to Heisenberg.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Heisenberg, on 02 April 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

I've no idea actually, Snell. You sound increasingly paranoid and cheesed off about being minused so often. For someone who doesn't care about the red marks it's obvious how much they wind you up.

Plus, isn't by calling the plus/minus system "infantile" indirectly criticising the forum staff who brought in the system? Tut tut...

My views on the facility in question are well documented, what's more i've never used it and have no intention of doing so. As for who takes them seriously it wasn't me who declared they're some sort of barometer of popularity. And wound up? Well you're the one posting insults, regularly visiting my profile page, obviously irritated by my contributions and calling me "Snell".

Infact you're so wound up you failed to read my post properly - i clearly said there's a cowardly inadequate who uses them to play infantile games. Perhaps the fact you're making such a song and dance about it merely confirms what i already suspect.

Anyway, have you decided if you're attending the Bob's Board game, yet? Oooooh, decisions-decisions. I'll certainly be there, popular or not, but something tells me there's about as much chance of you turning up as your alter-ego 'Carlsberg'.

[Johnnyspireite7]

Heisenberg, on 02 April 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

I've no idea actually, Snell. You sound increasingly paranoid and cheesed off about being minused so often. For someone who doesn't care about the red marks it's obvious how much they wind you up.

Plus, isn't by calling the plus/minus system "infantile" indirectly criticising the forum staff who brought in the system? Tut tut...

It's Mr Snell to you! Stop being rude for the sake of it! You wouldn't be calling him that if you stood close to him. He'd knock your block off!

[frearsghost]

bonnyman, on 02 April 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

of course heisenberg is carlsberg,he has even gone to the trouble of putting his avatar as a man in disguise and the letters that start his forum name are the first letters off another beer in heinken..he is either completely mad or i am.

Numerous reports are reaching me that some folk are trawling past posts and negating greens for reds. If this is true then it's detrimental to Bob's Board and his memory and disrespectful to posters. Can they not be identified and struck off? How anybody would want to do this is beyond me. It's secretive and nasty and says volumes about the people responsible.

I repeat my call for the reds and greens to go. I've seen versions of this board on other forums without the reds and greens so let's dump them or get another board. The system inhibits free speech and is, it seems, now being used to intimidate.

This post has been edited by frearsghost: 02 April 2012 - 06:10 PM

[Bonnyman]

Heisenberg, on 02 April 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

You're either mad, or just a bit simple. I am not Carlsberg. Just because we both have "berg" in our usernames means bog all. I chose this username because I am a fan of Breaking Bad, the man in my avatar "in disguise" is Walter White, who goes by the pseudonym Heisenberg on the show. Heineken has nothing to do with it.

I do know Carlsberg personally, and he explained to me his username was a tribute to our chairman Barrie. Completely different to Heisenberg.

If carlsberg made bad alibis.

frearsghost, on 02 April 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

Numerous reports are reaching me that some folk are trawling past posts and negating greens for reds. If this is true then it's detrimental to Bob's Board and his memory and disrespectful to posters. Can they not be identified and struck off? How anybody would want to do this is beyond me. It's secretive and nasty and says volumes about the people responsible.

I repeat my call for the reds and greens to go. I've seen versions of this board on other forums without the reds and greens so let's dump them or get another board. The system inhibits free speech and is, it seems, now being used to intimidate.

Please dont do that i pay a kid to trawl through my old posts and go green

This post has been edited by bonnyman: 02 April 2012 - 06:13 PM

[Heisenberg]

MDCCCLXVI, on 02 April 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

My views on the facility in question are well documented, what's more i've never used it and have no intention of doing so.

Theres no way you can prove that.

Quote

As for who takes them seriously it wasn't me who declared they're some sort of barometer of popularity. And wound up? Well you're the one posting insults, regularly visiting my profile page, obviously irritated by my contributions and calling me "Snell".

I don't regularly visit your profile. And your name is Snell, isn't it? No B****Y way am I typing out those Roman Numerals every time I address you.

Quote

Infact you're so wound up you failed to read my post properly - i clearly said there's a cowardly inadequate who uses them to play infantile games. Perhaps the fact you're making such a song and dance about it merely confirms what i already suspect.

Confirms nothing, your suspicions are just paranoid delusions. Do you only have two settings: paranoid or pompous?

Quote

Anyway, have you decided if you're attending the Bob's Board game, yet? Oooooh, decisions-decisions. I'll certainly be there, popular or not, but something tells me there's about as much chance of you turning up as your alter-ego 'Carlsberg'.

I don't even know when the game is. Doesn't matter if I miss it, I'm sure you'll post a 10-paragraph match report the day after anyway. I've seen Carlsberg today though and he says he's almost certainly going to be there, but he's giving the post-match drink at the Donkey Derby a miss because he doesn't want to sit and listen to you bore the bottom off the patrons as to how magical you were on the pitch.

Johnnyspireite7, on 02 April 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

It's Mr Snell to you! Stop being rude for the sake of it! You wouldn't be calling him that if you stood close to him. He'd knock your block off!

Hahaha... oh wait, you're being serious?

[Westbars Spireite]

Wouldn't it be easy to check if they were the same person?

[Bonnyman]

Heisenberg, on 02 April 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

Theres no way you can prove that.



I don't regularly visit your profile. And your name is Snell, isn't it? No B****Y way am I typing out those Roman Numerals every time I address you.



Confirms nothing, your suspicions are just paranoid delusions. Do you only have two settings: paranoid or pompous?



I don't even know when the game is. Doesn't matter if I miss it, I'm sure you'll post a 10-paragraph match report the day after anyway. I've seen Carlsberg today though and he says he's almost certainly going to be there, but he's giving the post-match drink at the Donkey Derby a miss because he doesn't want to sit and listen to you bore the bottom off the patrons as to how magical you were on the pitch.

is snelly going to be magical this year?.........I suppose one out of three aint bad.