Match Day Thread The Post-Match Interview Thread
- Thread starter Quill
- Start date
-
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
-
Burnsey said he turned to look at ehab who had a stony face. Shame he wasn't a statue and Burnsey was a pigeon.
Firstly Ron thanks for posting this. It’s good to get these when you don’t live in the area. I can’t rationalise Terrys interview at all. Does he not have any passion for the game. He made it sound like he had lost 1 nil. He won’t question the players yet they just didn’t turn up. How many goals does he need to concede before he gets angry. I just don’t see how he is a manager at all. I found this whole interview unbelievable. Can’t he see that he needed to battle this situation out rather than just sticking to the standard bollocks that he spouts.
I would urge him not to prepare the team for Saturday. Let someone else do it who has a better ****ing idea. Andy Dawson or anyone else.
GM “We're stood on the sideline thinking, 'Is this ever going to stop?'
That’s the problem, you’re stood there thinking, doing **** all, probably with your hands in your pockets, instead of doing something constructive. No other manager is so laid back in a game, especially when getting stuffed like we have been. It’s unbelievable and so is Ehab, the ****.
Sorry about the swearing, I feel a little emotional this morning.
That’s the problem, you’re stood there thinking, doing **** all, probably with your hands in your pockets, instead of doing something constructive. No other manager is so laid back in a game, especially when getting stuffed like we have been. It’s unbelievable and so is Ehab, the ****.
Sorry about the swearing, I feel a little emotional this morning.
Was any of us genuinely expecting anything less than a good hiding. This bunch arnt just on a sinking ship they are in a lifeboat disguised as woman. Paid professional footballers with no heart and a manager and owners leaving the supporters On the deck watching them sail away.
I expected us to lose; maybe by 1 or 2 goals. Hoped we might sneak a draw or somehow a nick a win.
I did not expect a good hiding, and I certainly didn't expect 7-0 at half time (and could easily have been more). I have NEVER seen anything like that before. I'm still trying to rationalise it.
You'll never rationalise it. It was one of those freak results that football throws up from time to time. Yes we were terrible, yes Wigan were quite sharp but you could put the same teams out again and it wouldn't end up 8-0. Most of us expected to lose just not by that many!
One to completely forget about imo.
Was it a freak result Plum or entirely expected. We have regularly been shipping 3 or 4 for ages now. Many a game the forum has said they could have had a sackful. Still no 3 5 2 or similar that might have tightened things up. A good tanking has been on the cards for weeks now and a team with passion and a survival sense has delivered it. Terry must take the can here. It is his team.
pudseytiger
Well-Known Member
I think everybody but McCann and his coaching staff, saw this coming, his refusal to change, his chopping and changing, it was only a matter of time till we got a good hiding, although i have to admit never in my wildest dreams did i think it would be 8-0.
Actually I should have said a freak score, not result. The result was entirely expected by most.
Anyway, unless the players were doing it deliberately then yes I think it was a freak score. To have lost by 3, 4 or 5, even 6 wouldn't have surprised many, but 8? We haven't lost by 8 for 100-odd years, we probably won't again for another 100. Not trying to defend anyone, they're all a shower of **** but I think the focus should be on why we lost, not by how many.
OK, let's have a virtual fiver on how many we lose by, assuming we do lose.
I'll say by less than 3. What do you think?
edit: actually by 3 or fewer.
At least 5 or 6.