Port Vale Thread - Page 9

lancsdave · 28-11-2010, 10:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapdoor

What happened to that post from the Bradford fan? I need something to laugh at...

Bantams only use fowl language

football19 · 28-11-2010, 12:43

Reamer,all i was doing was giving my opinion on your post " it was a poor performance tonight" and "they played good footy", If we dont have many shots and they dont either(check the match stats,acci nearly double theres),why were we poor and them good?
I accept a couple of players may have not have performed to there normal levels,but to say it was poor was a bit harsh as i couldnt see anybody not trying,even if on the night it wasnt coming off for them

Reamer · 28-11-2010, 13:46

All you can do is give your opinion, football19, and yours differs from mine. This forum is full of opinions on all sorts of topics but to say someone's 'having a go' just because they have a different opinion to you is out of order. I had an opinion and I gave my reasons, now if I were to call someone I was chatting to 'a plonker' without justification, I would consider that 'having a go'
Anyway you've neglected to mention that I also gave some positives in my original post, which is more ,apparently, than JC could do in his post match reflections
By the way, I didn't consult the match stats before forming my impression of the game. My opinion was based on what I saw

lancsdave · 28-11-2010, 18:13

Ooops that was a costly defeat, you lost out on your cup final

AccyMad · 28-11-2010, 18:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancsdave

Ooops that was a costly defeat, you lost out on your cup final

So have you

Redash · 28-11-2010, 18:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancsdave

Ooops that was a costly defeat, you lost out on your cup final

Do you already know who we would have got in the fourth round?

jaysay · 28-11-2010, 18:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancsdave

Ooops that was a costly defeat, you lost out on your cup final

Wouldn't have happened Dave Stanley's number would have been 1 and would be at home to dirty Leeds

lancsdave · 28-11-2010, 18:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redash

Do you already know who we would have got in the fourth round?

Crewe away

lancsdave · 28-11-2010, 18:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

Wouldn't have happened Dave Stanley's number would have been 1 and would be at home to dirty Leeds

Not this round, numbers were done last week. Port vale or Accrington were always number 60

Revived Red · 28-11-2010, 18:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancsdave

Ooops that was a costly defeat, you lost out on your cup final

Where were they published, Dave?

football19 · 28-11-2010, 18:45

Reamer,you did make some fair points,but what i said was you was "a bit harsh",not out of order,on this occasion we will agree to disagree !!!!,
I also thought JCs comments were harsh,but he will have his reasons( probably hates losing!),at least we agreed Barnett had a top game,so we had something in common !

lancsdave · 28-11-2010, 18:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revived Red

Where were they published, Dave?

I guess the FA published them on Tuesday, thats the day they were on Clarets Mad board

jaysay · 28-11-2010, 18:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancsdave

Not this round, numbers were done last week. Port vale or Accrington were always number 60

Sorry Dave didn't know that, so Stanley have missed the chance of visiting Anfield in round 4

:rolleyes :

Revived Red · 28-11-2010, 19:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancsdave

I guess the FA published them on Tuesday, thats the day they were on Clarets Mad board

Thanks, Dave. I wasn't aware of that.

lancsdave · 28-11-2010, 19:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

Sorry Dave didn't know that, so Stanley have missed the chance of visiting Anfield in round 4

:rolleyes :

In a strange sort of way it might not be a bad thing. Lack of cup money might actually be better in the long run if it brings things to a head sooner