I do like you Perry. And your stance on Agro's stance on this tedious subject is spot on. Well done and happy new year.
Did you read the article?? "On the subject of whether his line-up and tactics had dragged Leeds down, Warnock was unconvinced. “It wasn’t because of the system or anything like that,” he said. “It was because of Hull’s desire, their organisation. They were too strong for us and they don’t give goals away. Their wing-backs were fantastic. “I remember reading a few weeks ago about Huddersfield coming here and being disappointed about not having a shot on target. I understand now why that happened. It’s not just us. Hull are where they are on merit.” Christ what more do you want him to say
I hate people generally, even myself, but your stance on Tony's stance on Agro's stance on this tedious subject is spot on. Well done and a happy New Year.
I think you're trying too hard to be the victim here, which is becoming a worrying trend amongst Hull City fans. The article says we're one of the best teams in the league and we dicked 'em, Warnock said we dicked 'em. There's no conspiracy unless you continuously look for one.
I know what you mean and generally speaking I hate most people. Saying that I appreciate your stance on my stance on Perry's stance on Agro's stance on this tedious subject. Well done and happy new year.
That's what I mean though: 'organised', 'don't give goals away', 'desire'. If I didn't know better I'd think he was playing some boring, defensive anti-football side. We had 21 shots ffs. It isn't his job to go on about us obviously, but if he's going to talk about us it'd be nice if it didn't make out that we're just a disciplined, defensive side which is the impression that gives.
In our three home Yorkshire derbies (Barnsley, Huddersfield and Leeds), they've managed one shot on target between them.
FFS what do you,want three cheers for Ramirez!! It's the opposition manager. The article and Warnock are a lot more complimentary that I expected.
Eddie Gray's column was very complimentary. As he said, it was 'attack, attack, attack' from City, and it could have been anything between five and ten nil.
Apart fro not knowing where we live I thought it was a good appraisal of the game and good to see the opposition admitting City are a good side
I don't think there really was a geographical region of Humberside until a Humber bridge was built and that was many years after the county of the same name was formed. Before the bridge the two sides of the river were completely alien to each other and so couldn't really be said to make up a distinct region.
The zone around the Humber has been referred to as a geographical region for many decades, and for most of the twentieth century.
Are you seriously attempting to deny that the area around the Humber estuary was never referred to as Humberside before the mid 70s?
I had never heard the term Humberside till Ted Heath and his cronies thought they could win more seats by changing the boundaries; it didn’t work as Harold Wilson took over. it was never referred to as Humberside before the 1970s
You may not have heard the term yourself but it was in use for several decades before then. Some people on here seem blinded to the facts by their dislike of the word/idea. Try putting the word Humberside in this search engine for British Newspapers, and you'll see scores of references to it http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search
I agree with the various stances of cityagro, WTF et al. And how any city fan can find a reason to moan at that article is beyond me. A Leeds paper telling its readership that city pissed all over their team - great stuff
