Todays Game - Page 2

WILL · 04-10-2004, 12:32

Hi folks

Don't come on the message board and moan to often but after travelling
11 hours on a coach on Saturday I feel I have a right to have a moan.

It was a disgrace. For any of the lucky ones who didn't travel to Farnborough
we turned into the Wimbledon of old on Saturday. Time and time again aimless
punts up field in hope that Paul (Who ran his socks off, as always) would get on to the end of them. Farnborough's 1st goal was a shot from about 30 yards. Good strike but I think Kennedy will be a little disappointed he didn't keep it out. Stanley started a little brighter second half and when we decided to PASS the ball we looked like we might get something from the game. Penalty came and the feeling was we could possibly sneak
a winner. But after the ref adjudged a penalty against Cav (NO comment cos I was at
the other end of the ground) we decided to go back to the long ball game which was hopeless. It's a sorry sight when Farnborough who finished in the bottom three last season are singing "Can we play you every week ?"

And just to top it all off, at the final whistle only two of the Stanley players AND management came over and applauded the Stanley fans for travelling the 5 hour journey to watch there team. So to Paul Mullin and King Craney I applaud you back.

It's about time, SOME of the players started having a long hard look at themselves.

Cammy ASFC · 04-10-2004, 12:47

Can't agree with you more cocker dee, Would like to add someting to that but don't think i can as you have said it all. Nowt worse though when people don't go and still slag certain people off, How is that possible.

KIPAX · 04-10-2004, 12:57

I have to say it is one of my pet hates that.. When players dont come over... OK they had a bad game and are upset.... well excuse me but they got paid.. we spent money not made money. They had a bad game.. everyone knows that so dont accuse me of knocking them plase...... But the fans there still applauded them off the pitch.. no booing or discontent.. they clapped them off.. yes even the ones that turned there backs and walked away.

JEFF · 04-10-2004, 13:20

I must agree. Well done supporters - not one booing for a disgraceful performance, just encoragement. Was this performance worse than Stevenage - I think so. At the end of the game Evil did not take any notice of the supporters but was too busy hugging and joking with Farnborough's No 3 who was only half his size but still managed to shove him off the ball more than once. No pace, nothing up front, no chance of scoring except from a set piece. Very disappointing after a long drive.

Has the Club made a statement as to Rory's injury ? Has the Club explained Lutel's absence on Saturday ? Why are the supporters not kept up to date as to what is happening ?

KIPAX · 04-10-2004, 13:25

Quote:

Has the Club made a statement as to Rory's injury ? Has the Club explained Lutel's absence on Saturday ? Why are the supporters not kept up to date as to what is happening ?

Scores for the under 9s junior teams are on the news page if that helps....

Please note... Sarcasm can be found in the dictionary in the S section.......

rob · 04-10-2004, 14:17

we are still awaiting the results from the consultant regarding rory's injury, when we find out we shall happily make a statement.

there is nothing to explain with regards to lutel's absence, only the 16 players selected in the squad travelled down on friday evening, paying hotel and meal bills for players who only come down to watch is a waste of money and so we do not do it.

we do attempt to keep supporters up to date with the latest news, and also answer all queries that are directed at us, either in person, by phone, post or email, or on the message board.

best regards

rob

JEFF · 04-10-2004, 16:06

Thanks for that explanation. I deduce from the explanation that Sean Tuck was preferred to Lutel who obviously wasn't selected. We only came to life against Gravesend when Lutel came on the field, then he was dropped for Bradford and not even in the squad for Farnborough. Are his days numbered at Stanley ?

Willie Miller · 04-10-2004, 16:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEFF

Thanks for that explanation. I deduce from the explanation that Sean Tuck was preferred to Lutel who obviously wasn't selected. We only came to life against Gravesend when Lutel came on the field, then he was dropped for Bradford and not even in the squad for Farnborough. Are his days numbered at Stanley ?

A rhetorical question, Jeff!

After all the recent highs this is a bit of a low that feels worse than it actually is. Keep the faith...............

LongLostSon · 04-10-2004, 18:17

look, I know I'm old and never made it past inter-schools level - but isn't it common sense that if your front men are in the main vertically challenged that you don't pump high balls from open play. Surely you get your little fast ferretts round the back to cross. Both at Farnborough and Stevenage their big lads at the back soaked up the high stuff all day - no problem. PM and McE are the only open play forwards of reasonable height - so learn to keep it on the floor Stanley.

Stanleyman · 04-10-2004, 19:35

Yeah i think lutels days are numbered i mainly think this is because he is not scouse

(They all P*ss in the same bucket)

here's to a good game on tuesday lets get behind the lads

But come on john coleman please change the formation at home Attack please lets prove all us doubters wrong PLEASE!!!

Smiffy16 · 04-10-2004, 19:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stanleyman

Yeah i think lutels days are numbered i mainly think this is because he is not scouse

(They all P*ss in the same bucket)

There you go again......are you stupid or something? I think he's days are numbered because he's not scouse!....That's a load of rubbish!

Come on get a grip!