Evolution

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Kent canary

Kent canary

Well-Known Member
Mar 27, 2011
1,751
25
48
Kent
2009-10 - first game
Theoklitos
Otsemobor
Drury
Nelson
Doherty
Gill
Tudur-Jones
Whaley
Hoolahan
Holt
Martin

2010-11 -first game

01 Ruddy
02 Martin
03 Drury
05 Nelson
22 Ward
07 Crofts
11 Surman (McNamee 87)
14 Hoolahan
15 Fox
10 Jackson (Holt 72)
16 Martin

2011-12 - first game


01 Ruddy
02 R Martin
06 Whitbread (Barnett - 71' )
23 Tierney
24 De Laet
07 Crofts
11 Surman (Bennett - 75' )
14 Hoolahan
15 Fox Booked
05 Morison Booked (Pilkington - 75' )
09 Holt


2012-13


01 Ruddy
02 R Martin
06 Turner
23 Tierney
24 R Bennett
04 Johnson
08 Howson
11 Surman (Morison - 46' )
12 Pilkington
07 Snodgrass (E Bennett - 56' )
09 Holt (Hoolahan - 77' )


2013-14?

Just in case we forget how far we've come.
 
Thanks for doing that, Kent. It really does help to put it all into perspective when I start getting too negative about our style of play now.
 
Christ, the amount of people who thought Tudor Jones was a good signing back in those dark days,

I know Pyjamas worked for City, was he a scout for City then?
 
vietnamcanary said:
Now you're being naughty and showing insufficient respect!
Click to expand...

I do genuinely wonder sometimes.

It is true I have very little respect for his views (on the rare occasion they are his), which is sufficient, particularly with his assessment of players (physical described first, skills described second).

I like his insider information however, I just don't like how it controls his judgement and every comment.
 
carrabuh said:
I do genuinely wonder sometimes.

It is true I have very little respect for his views (on the rare occasion they are his), which is sufficient, particularly with his assessment of players (physical described first, skills described second).

I like his insider information however, I just don't like how it controls his judgement and every comment.
Click to expand...


He always reminds me of Captain Mainwaring in Dad's Army. He takes himself so seriously and assumes he is some kind of leader/spokesperson for the site. But at least he cares about the club passionately, we can't deny that.
 
vietnamcanary said:
He always reminds me of Captain Mainwaring in Dad's Army. He takes himself so seriously and assumes he is some kind of leader/spokesperson for the site. But at least he cares about the club passionately, we can't deny that.
Click to expand...

No I can't deny that.

It's more the idea that he thinks people don't understand the most basic of concepts when they disagree with them.
 
vietnamcanary said:
He always reminds me of Captain Mainwaring in Dad's Army. He takes himself so seriously and assumes he is some kind of leader/spokesperson for the site. But at least he cares about the club passionately, we can't deny that.
Click to expand...

Takes himself seriously? Pots - kettles ..... Plenty of them here. In fact apart fom carrabuh I can barely think of anyone who doesn't! <ok>
 
carrabuh said:
Christ, the amount of people who thought Tudor Jones was a good signing back in those dark days,

I know Pyjamas worked for City, was he a scout for City then?
Click to expand...

<laugh> i can assure you i have an alibi!

i was involved under worthington looking at specific youth who hadn't been picked up by clubs, aged 13-15 although i had a role looking at professional football in scotland for a short period before. and carrabuh, you'd love to know the reason why i, and indeed a number of other members of the scouting team walked out of the worthy regime...

we disagreed with the criteria - 'young players should be strong physical, powerful and if possible quick'. skill, technique etc, not considered a priority. it's one of the reasons why i've always been so damning of him on here - it maybe looked a bit harsh at times but he was very one dimensional <ok>
 
Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed said:
<laugh> i can assure you i have an alibi!

i was involved under worthington looking at specific youth who hadn't been picked up by clubs, aged 13-15 although i had a role looking at professional football in scotland for a short period before. and carrabuh, you'd love to know the reason why i, and indeed a number of other members of the scouting team walked out of the worthy regime...

we disagreed with the criteria - 'young players should be strong physical, powerful and if possible quick'. skill, technique etc, not considered a priority. it's one of the reasons why i've always been so damning of him on here - it maybe looked a bit harsh at times but he was very one dimensional <ok>
Click to expand...


Strange that he would ask for those attributes in a youngster as Worthys teams were always quite technical and liked to play football the "Norwich way".
 
How old were you when you took that job fella, I got the impression you were only about 30 now so you must have been a relative pup working under Worthy.

I really liked the guy for the first three years or so, always agreed with his team selections and he brought us out of the doldrums for a short time after several years of **** and brought some great players to the club such as Hucks, Ashton, Gary Holt etc. He did lose the plot through towards the end, and some of his later signings were dreadful and it was probably right for him to go when he did, keeping most of his integrity intact.
Never really worked out for him anywhere else so I hope he does ok with York this season <ok>
 
On a totally different topic, can someone please explain to this very old, non-techie person what the thumbs up sign is supposed to mean? I had always assumed you gave it to someone else to show that you agreed 100% with what they said, but several of the uses I've seen on this thread and others suggests that it isn't just that.
 
vietnamcanary said:
On a totally different topic, can someone please explain to this very old, non-techie person what the thumbs up sign is supposed to mean? I had always assumed you gave it to someone else to show that you agreed 100% with what they said, but several of the uses I've seen on this thread and others suggests that it isn't just that.
Click to expand...

It actually means OK <ok>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back