That is the single most biased article I've ever read. Including all the moronic Koo Pee Arr comments yesterday It has to be a joke article, no-one can take that seriously?
Yep, managed to read it now and can confirm it is a load of absolute ****, completely riddled with errors and if that's what you call "interesting" I pity you. Now jog on eh? Our work with you is done, six points in the bag thank you very much and now we move on - which might be a good idea for you lot to attempt as well
Steve Davis was interesting. Mr Whittingham clearly isn't as he's preaching to the converted and has many factual errors in his report. It is impossible for a journo to get all that information and still watch the game. Good try Hoops. But you still haven't convinced any of us yet!
Unbelievably biased. Replays show there was contact. The zoomed in angle on match of the day is the best I think. But I don't care what happens to barton, only what happens to norwich.
I applaud the level of effort put into writing that review, but is unfortunatley the sort of effort and endeavour of a delusional fool.
error 1. "Joey Barton had already given the team he now captains a deserved early lead" qpr made 7 completed passes in the norwich half in the first 10 minutes error 2. "he found himself first kicked across the heals by Norwich’s Bradley Johnson and then shoved in the back by his team mate Zak Whitbread as the trio attempted to become involved in another QPR counter attack" complete bollocks. replays clearly show that barton swings an elbow firstly at whitbread and then johnson error 3. "Barton squared up to Johnson and the pair exchanged verbals" this is true, but no mention of barton barging johnson before barton, the aggressor throughout, squared up to johnson? error 4. "and replays showed was nowhere close to either a head butt, or attempted head butt" replays were inconclusive. nobody however can dispute that barton moved his head forwards and he even admitted making contact in a tweet to piers morgan later that evening error 5. "a horribly cynical display from the visiting team who have clearly learnt very quickly about the darker arts of the Premiership" again, complete bollocks. in fact, the commentator during the match even stated that the referee was lenient towards qpr players in the 2nd half. you can't have it both ways error 6. "Rarely were Norwich caught engaging in an unbroken piece of open play" i suppose having 80% possession for the first 20 minutes was nonsense then. better get in touch with opta to get them to correct it... error 7. "Grant Holt led the way, but was by no means acting alone" if you are talking about leading his team to a win then fine, but to say he was part of the red card is insane. he tried to prevent it! error 8. "QPR were conned out of this match" wrong again. barton got himself sent off. blame him. or blame your manager who left your best player on the bench and couldn't cope with lambert's substitutions. clearly a man out of his depth error 9. "the referee, fell for every single trick from Norwich’s lousy book across the entire 90 minutes" may not have had a good game, but he was equally poor at not sending off helguson for a two-footed lunge now i haven't bothered to read the rest of the piece as the opening few paragraphs are so biased it is pointless going on. an utterly carp article
I wonder if QPR are going to keep going on about this for as long as we did with Grant Holt's red at Reading last season? I would say no - they're going to go on longer!!! At least we had a very good case with plenty of evidence to prove he was innocent. What do QPR fans have - the word of a mindless moronic thug and a couple of so called footbaling experts!
Might this just by any chance have been written by THIS Clive Whittingham? www.queensparkrangersfc.com/links1.htm The QPR site by Clive Whittingham is another very popular site. With news, opinion and the chance to chat with other fans it is probably one of the very best QPR ... [Edit: see link on QPR site to Whittingham's "Loft for Words" site]
rob, i don't think its a joke. its what he genuinely believes. unfortunately, and we've all been there, his opinion isn't valid as he still hasn't assessed the match without the red mist descending. when he does, he may look back and think much of his report is bollocks, i don't know, but thats what it is, bollocks
I notice the OP is conspicuous by his absence, I wonder if he is feeling rather embarrassed at his pathetic attempt to try to peddle this crap as "interesting". If not then he bloody well should be - what a prat!
