Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2018 16:53:03 GMT
Nichols on, we've decided to go down to 10 men.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2018 17:34:50 GMT
Not related in any way but saw the s**t had 2 corners today after 90 mins at home they must be well worth watching !
|
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Mar 17, 2018 17:41:53 GMT
Not related in any way but saw the s*** had 2 corners today after 90 mins at home they must be well worth watching ! You saw two corners at the gate. Strange place to be. |
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,361 
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Mar 17, 2018 18:29:34 GMT
I just woke up after my last post, no sleep at all last night. I take it we lost then
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,565
|
Post by harrybuckle on Mar 17, 2018 18:59:10 GMT
I just woke up after my last post, no sleep at all last night. I take it we lost then it was a bad dream and a very dubious second penalty not spotted by anyone including me who watched it on the screens at the beam back at the Mem.
Perhaps someone can explain why the late penalty was given.
To be honest Slocombe had little to do including an own goal and a spot kick. Bennett had stoppage time volley wide which would have been justice. Locks, Craig and Sercombe did well as did Harrison particularly as he was upfront on his own. |
|
|
|
Post by DudeLebowski on Mar 17, 2018 20:29:19 GMT
Sounds ‘typical’ as a travelling away supporter whose just been beaten, but that was one of the most hideously biased referring displays in living memory. 12 men Argyle for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Mar 17, 2018 20:42:00 GMT
|
|
cornwallgas
Predictions League
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 475
|
Post by cornwallgas on Mar 17, 2018 21:40:57 GMT
Not sure I would say that the ref's display was the main reason we lost (although Ellis got no decisions against their centre back despite being shoved all over the place)...main problem is inability to defend corners and crosses (would broadband be better than craig? and fullbacks not stopping crosses enough). Despite this deserved at least a point..could/should have been 3-1 up at half time which would have killed it. Argyle put us under a lot of early 2nd half pressure which lead to lucky deflected equaliser. After that a bit unlucky to lose. All in all not discouraged although that probably ends playoff chances.
|
|
JeffNZ
Administrator
Jimmy Morgan
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,761
|
Post by JeffNZ on Mar 18, 2018 1:59:54 GMT
Not sure I would say that the ref's display was the main reason we lost (although Ellis got no decisions against their centre back despite being shoved all over the place)...main problem is inability to defend corners and crosses (would broadband be better than craig? and fullbacks not stopping crosses enough). Despite this deserved at least a point..could/should have been 3-1 up at half time which would have killed it. Argyle put us under a lot of early 2nd half pressure which lead to lucky deflected equaliser. After that a bit unlucky to lose. All in all not discouraged although that probably ends playoff chances. They looked very dodgy penalty decisions. I think the ref himself would agree when he sees those highlights. I agree you can't always blame the ref for results but as the away team it's always going to be an uphill task when the ref is a homer (sic). |
|
|
|
Post by CabbagePatchBlues on Mar 18, 2018 6:44:59 GMT
We were on top most of the first half, very comfortable on the ball. Their equaliser was a text book header from a set piece. We have no height in defence and got picked off easily. Craig has brought stability and experience but shouldn't play at CB. Second half they came storming out of the blocks and got back into it. Teams doing well generally have luck on their side. How they score is largely irrelevant; they made it happen and we got a bit sloppy and lackadaisical under pressure with misplaced passes and indecisive tackling. Our style of football sometimes makes us look like we're taking a stroll, we knock it about nicely but with a lack of urgency. I still say Ellis is no target player. He looks clumsy and not altogether happy with the role. Imo He's best on the front foot attacking defenders.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,600
|
Post by eppinggas on Mar 18, 2018 10:07:25 GMT
We were on top most of the first half, very comfortable on the ball. Their equaliser was a text book header from a set piece. We have no height in defence and got picked off easily. Craig has brought stability and experience but shouldn't play at CB. Second half they came storming out of the blocks and got back into it. Teams doing well generally have luck on their side. How they score is largely irrelevant; they made it happen and we got a bit sloppy and lackadaisical under pressure with misplaced passes and indecisive tackling. Our style of football sometimes makes us look like we're taking a stroll, we knock it about nicely but with a lack of urgency. I still say Ellis is no target player. He looks clumsy and not altogether happy with the role. Imo He's best on the front foot attacking defenders. At the risk or repeating myself - if we persevere with playing Locks (5ft 11") and Craig (6ft) as centre-backs, then we will continue to concede plenty of goals from corners and set pieces. Add to that a diminutive mid-field (Lines aside) - we are physically just not big enough. Is Darrell looking to build a side in tribute to Ken Dodds diddymen? It is bleedin' obvious. I really hope that doesn't come across as too condescending, I would sincerely hate to upset the easily offended. |
|
|
|
Post by CabbagePatchBlues on Mar 18, 2018 10:32:20 GMT
I'd have thought Craig would be better as a deep midfielder where he could help Broadbent along.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Mar 18, 2018 10:42:48 GMT
We were on top most of the first half, very comfortable on the ball. Their equaliser was a text book header from a set piece. We have no height in defence and got picked off easily. Craig has brought stability and experience but shouldn't play at CB. Second half they came storming out of the blocks and got back into it. Teams doing well generally have luck on their side. How they score is largely irrelevant; they made it happen and we got a bit sloppy and lackadaisical under pressure with misplaced passes and indecisive tackling. Our style of football sometimes makes us look like we're taking a stroll, we knock it about nicely but with a lack of urgency. I still say Ellis is no target player. He looks clumsy and not altogether happy with the role. Imo He's best on the front foot attacking defenders. At the risk or repeating myself - if we persevere with playing Locks (5ft 11") and Craig (6ft) as centre-backs, then we will continue to concede plenty of goals from corners and set pieces. Add to that a diminutive mid-field (Lines aside) - we are physically just not big enough. Is Darrell looking to build a side in tribute to Ken Dodds diddymen? It is bleedin' obvious. I really hope that doesn't come across as too condescending, I would sincerely hate to upset the easily offended. Re Locks height. Ellis said Locks is taller than him, so not sure what that makes him. |
|
|
|
Post by gasheadpirate on Mar 18, 2018 10:47:38 GMT
Just seen the highlights. The first pen was harsh at best as the bloke just ran into Locks and fell over, the sec and nd was a complete joke. Locks was facing the ball, their bloke ran from behind him into Lock’s ar: and fell to the ground - probably hoping for a pen and a sending off. We were robbed by the cheat and a conned ref.
|
|
bloogas
Joined: July 2016
Posts: 1,119
|
Post by bloogas on Mar 18, 2018 11:25:03 GMT
Just seen the highlights. The first pen was harsh at best as the bloke just ran into Locks and fell over, the sec and nd was a complete joke. Locks was facing the ball, their bloke ran from behind him into Lock’s ar: and fell to the ground - probably hoping for a pen and a sending off. We were robbed by the cheat and a conned ref. What goes around comes around. We ain't going down, they ain't going up. Next season...... |
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Mar 18, 2018 16:01:30 GMT
Just seen the highlights. The first pen was harsh at best as the bloke just ran into Locks and fell over, the sec and nd was a complete joke. Locks was facing the ball, their bloke ran from behind him into Lock’s ar: and fell to the ground - probably hoping for a pen and a sending off. We were robbed by the cheat and a conned ref. The first penalty was against Tony Craig - number 25. Difficult to tell - even on full screen - what contact was made, and Ollie Clarke was running alongside the Argyle player too. Craig seems to slow up, as he gets close to the player, but it does appear he just chucks himself to the ground. Agree the second penalty was a complete and utter con. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2018 16:48:09 GMT
Not related in any way but saw the s*** had 2 corners today after 90 mins at home they must be well worth watching ! Dear Kegan Degg, It is so good to have you back. In your absence, our 1982 updates and away support statistics have been provided mainly by another young whippersnapper called Kegan Deg. I must confess, I gave him a little tease here and there. You and him should talk, because in addition to your similar names, you have similar BS3 and away support interests. I cannot tell you how glad I am to see you are both still on the Guzzler. Yours sincerely, Shove Ler x x x |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2018 17:41:36 GMT
Just seen the highlights. The first pen was harsh at best as the bloke just ran into Locks and fell over, the sec and nd was a complete joke. Locks was facing the ball, their bloke ran from behind him into Lock’s ar: and fell to the ground - probably hoping for a pen and a sending off. We were robbed by the cheat and a conned ref. The first penalty was against Tony Craig - number 25. Difficult to tell - even on full screen - what contact was made, and Ollie Clarke was running alongside the Argyle player too. Craig seems to slow up, as he gets close to the player, but it does appear he just chucks himself to the ground. Agree the second penalty was a complete and utter con. I thought the 1st pen was because of a push from behind from lockyer[shirt no 6],after the push their player collided with craig who was coming across to try and intercept. Alleged push. |
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Mar 18, 2018 18:34:18 GMT
The first penalty was against Tony Craig - number 25. Difficult to tell - even on full screen - what contact was made, and Ollie Clarke was running alongside the Argyle player too. Craig seems to slow up, as he gets close to the player, but it does appear he just chucks himself to the ground. Agree the second penalty was a complete and utter con. I thought the 1st pen was because of a push from behind from lockyer[shirt no 6],after the push their player collided with craig who was coming across to try and intercept. Alleged push. Lockyer = No.4 (and was in front of goal, 10 yards away). Sweeney = No.6 (and was on the bench). I think you're referring to No.8 = Ollie Clarke. Ollie is trying to track the player. Does he push him? Does he trip him? I can't tell. See from 1.00 mins: |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2018 21:05:06 GMT
If anything, that 2nd penalty, the Argyle player has his elbow high.
If there's enough contact with him to cause him to fall over then I would say he's so seriously weak and unwell that he shouldn't be anywhere near contact sport, he should be in a hospital with his vital signs being carefully monitored.
But this is what the game has become, grown men throwing themselves around. It's pathetic and sad to see.
|
|
