is brucie right??

Post a reply

Smilies
:goodpost: :lol: :rofl: :goal: :scarf: :keepie: :clap: :bow: :engflag: :-P :) :-D :nod: ;-) :-/ :( :'( :Z :@ :| :oops: :yellow: :red: :O :whistle: (*) (8) (D)

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: is brucie right??

Re: is brucie right??

by Southampton Gull » 01 Apr 2012, 19:24

Obviously not..............

Re: is brucie right??

by ferrarilover » 01 Apr 2012, 19:05

Trojan 67 wrote:"Luck" is the result of thorough preparation.

The recent behind the scenes view that we've seen, has shown us the "luck" that goes into games before, during and after matches.
The more we train, the luckier we get.

Matt.

Dave, surely it's apparent to everyone by now; that's the bloody point!

Re: is brucie right??

by Southampton Gull » 01 Apr 2012, 15:53

Back on track, no brucie isn't right. When is he ever right?

If brucie was right we would now have Compton back in charge because Ling would have been sacked months ago. Remember his "Ling is clueless" rant? Well give me Lings version of clueless every time.

Re: is brucie right??

by Trojan 67 » 01 Apr 2012, 15:47

"Luck" is the result of thorough preparation.

The recent behind the scenes view that we've seen, has shown us the "luck" that goes into games before, during and after matches.

Re: is brucie right??

by cambgull » 01 Apr 2012, 15:36

This is why I decided to prank a friend who has terrible grammar and spelling by saving a bunch of wrong spellings to his MS Word dictionary. He was lucky though, the only chance we got was after his dissertation was done!

Re: is brucie right??

by Southampton Gull » 01 Apr 2012, 15:29

He usually does, he just uses spellcheck ;-)

Re: is brucie right??

by cambgull » 01 Apr 2012, 15:24

Maybe you should try writing in their language.
I iz wel takin dis geez 2 cort coz he sed mi clyent iz a fag LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

C U Next Tuesday,

Matto

Re: is brucie right??

by ferrarilover » 01 Apr 2012, 13:22

cambgull wrote: Maybe this is why the reception girls keep losing your letters! ;-)
:~D This is actually very similar to a paragraph I include in my letters!

Matt.

Re: is brucie right??

by Gullscorer » 01 Apr 2012, 09:51

cambgull wrote: Maybe this is why the reception girls keep losing your letters! ;-)
Maybe this is why lawyers don't put in any punctuation in legal documents.. =D

Re: is brucie right??

by cambgull » 01 Apr 2012, 09:39

ferrarilover wrote:Just re-read my initial post, its appallingly written, best off just ignoring it, save me rewriting it properly. I know what I meant, but the punctuation is all over the place, causing mayhem.
Maybe this is why the reception girls keep losing your letters! ;-)

Re: is brucie right??

by ferrarilover » 31 Mar 2012, 22:27

McLeod is at Barnet because he didn't kick a ball, due to injury for two and a half years. Career totals of 106 goals in 252 games is perfectly acceptable. The only Blue thing which relates wholly and specifically to IM is the penalty issue, so I'd suggest it's not as contradictory as you might think.

Cambridge, I never put either good or poor performance down as lucky or unlucky for either side. You play how you play.

Just re-read my initial post, its appallingly written, best off just ignoring it, save me rewriting it properly. I know what I meant, but the punctuation is all over the place, causing mayhem.

Matt.

Re: is brucie right??

by Alpine Joe » 31 Mar 2012, 21:50

Well done to Cambridge Gull for getting his head round this quicker than I can. The Ref is poor & we miss out on 5 stonewall penalties in our favour - this is unlucky.
The opposition are poor & therefore miss 5 stonewall goalscoring opportunities & we now benefit, yet that won't be considered lucky ?

Re: is brucie right??

by Glostergull » 31 Mar 2012, 21:31

ferrarilover wrote: Blue bit contradicts red bit.

The opposition being sh*t at shooting is not lucky on our part, it's their own fault for not being better. They had three on target to our one. For all their good play and what not, they managed three shots on target, and only a single one of note. This is not luck, it is a poor show from the opposition. Having 20 shots on target, finding a keeper on blinding form (think Bevan against us at home, he will NEVER play that well again if he plays the game for another 50 years). Hitting the referee with half a dozen shots, having 5 stonewall penalties turned down or being flagged offside every time you come forward, THAT is unlucky. Singly failing to muster a meaningful shot in an hour and a half of football is not 'unlucky' Barnet, it's rubbish Barnet.

Have posed this to them (in friendlier terms) on their board, just to see what they'll say.

Matt.
If you indeed have done that Matt, I think that knowing how your idea of Diplomacy reads on here, There is a high risk of them contracting a visit by Achmed to your abode. :lol:

Re: is brucie right??

by Dave » 31 Mar 2012, 21:17

No, Bruice is not right, no team has ever gained 75 points from 40 match's of the back of nothing but good luck, you can spin things which ever way you want, some will say look at all those 1.0 wins, if the other team hadn't have missed a penalty, if Bobby didn't make the save, if they had a striker who knew where the goals was, if we hadn't have scored from our 1 and only chance.

Simple matter of fact, for most of this season, teams we have come up against have not been good enough to score against us, and we have been good enough to score from limited number of chances, thats why the team are 2nd and they are thier on merit, think the system the team plays is allways going to mean the other team is going to see a lot of the ball.

This is not the best team we have seen by a long chalk, but they have got plenty of balls and fight, they don't know when they are beaten, and they have proved they can see out a match even when things are not going there way, kkep it up for 6 more matchs and thier is only one place we are going to be next term...league 1.

Re: is brucie right??

by EmetEdadsBeard » 31 Mar 2012, 21:14

ferrarilover wrote:Ok, let's get some perspective here. Izale McLeod is million pound striker who is in completely the wrong division for his talents. Barnet have got a manager In Sanchez who has had a pretty good career, on both sides of the white line. He is certainly capable of arranging Barnet into a formation and method which makes the most of the one and only asset they possess.
Barnet have a game plan, and that game plan is to smash it straight down the middle, and hope that their Championship quality striker can latch into something. Their 'football' relies on little apart from the law of averages.

Those who were there last night saw the home side have, maybe, 10 shots, 8 of which missed the goal by account try mile. Two went over that tall stand at the far end. If you've been to Underhill, you'll appreciate that as quite an achievement.
The run for the penalty was, conservatively, three yards offside. Credit really must go to Bobby for forcing McLeod to attempt to round him, rather than simply shooting into the goal. As for the contact, well, every striker in England would have done exactly the same thing, but it really was a case of McLeod hoofing the ball out for a goal kick, then getting within 5 feet of Bobby and launching himself into the air, arms flailing, legs spread wide, a howl of 'pain' and a buck of the head completed the move. Tom Daly would have been proud.
I'm firmly of the opinion that 'getting away with it' involves more than the opposition being wasteful. Missing a penalty is top of the list of footballing sins. It's not lucky for the oppo striker to be so hopeless as to mis-que from 12 yards, it is simply poor form from the forward.
Equally, it is not lucky from us if they can't shoot straight from open play, or miss decent headed opportunities. To suggest this is akin to suggesting we got lucky because Lionel Messi chose to sign for Barcelona, rather than Barnet, because 'he would have had a hatful last night.'

The real story of the matter is that we gave Barnet every opportunity last night to pick up three points, and they simply were not anywhere near good enough to capitalise. They have forced our keeper into one save (from a long ranger which he saw late and pushed wide, excellently). Aside from this, they asked precious few questions of a Torquay side who are happy to play away from home, against a weaker team, after a long journey and at the end of a very tiring season, played after a very tiring last season, under difficult conditions, with no real change to the starting XI (have a couple played every second of this season, Manse, Oastler, perhaps?)

As I opened with, let's get some perspective. If we can play that far below our usual standards and still get a win, taking into account all of the above, do you really not think that is a GOOD thing?

Matt.
The bits in red completely contradict the bits in blue Matt. McLeod is playing for Barnet for one reason, and that is despite being able to do 100 metres in about 11 seconds he couldn't hit a cows arse with a banjo.

Top