Regiment wrote:
when they went to the touchline when the score was 3 nil, and said "lets have a word with the Rovers manager" i turned the tv off before he even opened his gob. much as i have no problem with rovers, i was really hoping that was gonna be the final nail in the coffin for that little turd.
so i only saw the first 3 goals, and you had to feel sorry for the keeper, he barely saw any of them on his big day, three quality strikes.
I think its temporarily papered over the cracks, even still, Totten could have scored 4 at least.
I've got a feeling we will still be the same in the league, and Buckle will be gone soon if he cant turn that form around.
You can have Zebs back for free, you can see for yourself he is useless even against a side 3 leagues below. Stanley isnt that much better either. Buckles problem hasnt been injuries, its not being able to get the best out of players he should know really well.
Zebs will never be consistently good for anyone else, i've convinced myself of that. I was never his biggest fan while here to be honest but I could understand why loads liked him. He'd always give his all, did produce some excellent goals and performances over his time here. Said it 100 times but some clubs just work for players and players for clubs. Branston and Zebs were two that just fitted Torquay a treat. I'm not sure the bigger club move was great for them. Zebs went off to Wycombe once we had him on loan, he didn't last long there before ending up back here and again (especially if Buckle goes at some point) I don't expect him to last long at Rovers. Technically he's not a very good footballer. He does have a turn of pace, a bit of strength but an awkward clumsy style and when he's bad he looks really bad. Like I say that sort of player just isn't to my personal taste, when I watched Reading a bit Stephen Hunt was there and he was similar.
I liked Stanley, proper footballer who while didn't quite have the stamina or fitness levels that Mansell has did his bit defenisvely and kept things simple. I think Lathrope is maturing into that sort of player and I'm hoping Damon can then add that extra bit of quality when on the ball like Stanley has.
I'm probably on my own but I just honestly don't really care about Bristol Rovers, I wanted them to lose yesterday natch but that was only because they were playing Totton, and if Totton had been playing Hereford I'd have wanted Hereford to lose. In all honesty, all of Rovers goals were superbly taken finishes but it was a bizarre game because if anyone had started brighter it was Totton, but Rovers hit them with 3 bits of quality in a couple of minutes killing the game.
Echo your thoughts on Zebs too Royal, i wasn't in the least bothered when he left unlike Branno and Kee to an extent. Lathrope is quickly developing into a quality player and like you say, if he learns to be a bit more composed and comfortable on the ball and maybe look for other options instead of the simple ball then he will become hot property. I'm not knocking him keeping it simple though, its effective and he does it really well and if he kept on playing like that i wouldn't have a problem with it. Stanley was solid when i've seen him but i'd rather have Damon.
Strangely enough it was Pope Gregory the 9th inviting me for drinks aboard his steam yacht, the saucy sue currently wintering in montego bay with the England cricket team and the Balanese Goddess of plenty.
Hahahaha, yeah, I hear they have some massive goalkeeper who might be worth that at a stretch.
Out of interest, did anyone else hear the commo before the match, when the players were in the tunnell, he said something along the lines of "That Bevan is huge, I bet he doesn't have trouble on crosses". Oh but only if that were the case...
As for the guy above who reckoned Totton could have had 4, I think, given a very broad look at the game, Rovers can consider themselves lucky to have won the match. Totton had two off the line, two penners turned down (one nailed on, one dubious, but I've seen them given) plus the one they got, that's five. You could give those same players those same chances another 100 times (for the first three goals), and probably 50% of the time, you'd come up with three balls out of the ground.
Now, of course, I'm not suggesting that Rovers were actually 'lucky' to win, but on another day, it really could have been the shock of the round.
As for the guy above who reckoned Totton could have had 4, I think, given a very broad look at the game, Rovers can consider themselves lucky to have won the match. Totton had two off the line, two penners turned down (one nailed on, one dubious, but I've seen them given) plus the one they got, that's five. You could give those same players those same chances another 100 times (for the first three goals), and probably 50% of the time, you'd come up with three balls out of the ground.
Now, of course, I'm not suggesting that Rovers were actually 'lucky' to win, but on another day, it really could have been the shock of the round.
Matt.
I would imagine that if you studied the vast majority of matches the result 'could have' gone either way. As shite as we have been for most of this season (not all btw) , we did very well on Sunday. Admittedly , there is no way we should be struggling against Totton- my neighbour, a plasterer pointed out to me he played againstthem last season and got a draw- but Rovers (and Buckle) did a good job on Sunday.
He is still a **** though (Buckle that is,not my neighbour)
gasrex wrote:
I would imagine that if you studied the vast majority of matches the result 'could have' gone either way. As shite as we have been for most of this season (not all btw) , we did very well on Sunday. Admittedly , there is no way we should be struggling against Totton- my neighbour, a plasterer pointed out to me he played againstthem last season and got a draw- but Rovers (and Buckle) did a good job on Sunday.
He is still a t**t though (Buckle that is,not my neighbour)
Aye, but the vast majority of matches don't finish 1-6.
