Guest bwfcdan Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 The standard of football has improved tenfold, we played some decent stuff at times on Saturday. Yes im defending him, but as he said, when we play how we shoud play were a match for anyone. Im happy to give him more time to make it work all the time. Even if he was to go, were in a much, much, much better position than we were when he took over. Did we and are we?
HomerJay Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 Did we and are we? we played a lot better football than wolves did (not that that matters anyway), they were really shit yet somehow won the game with an offside goal and a fookin screamer that no keeper was saving. i was very pissed of after the match, but time has passed and ive seem the game now, and am still wondering HOW we lost.
Guest bwfcdan Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 we played a lot better football than wolves did (not that that matters anyway), they were really shit yet somehow won the game with an offside goal and a fookin screamer that no keeper was saving. i was very pissed of after the match, but time has passed and ive seem the game now, and am still wondering HOW we lost. I thought we were really poor in the first half and couldnt keep hold of the ball most of the time, we played better in the second half though.. still not enough though... Andy O'brien got torn apart...again
frank_spencer Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 Did we and are we? League position wise then no we're just as in the shit as we were before. As for the long term future of the club, that looks a lot more healthy than it did when megson came in. If megson stays then that may not be the case admitedly
george Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 League position wise then no we're just as in the shit as we were before. As for the long term future of the club, that looks a lot more healthy than it did when megson came in. If megson stays then that may not be the case admitedly Why? The club's debt is significantly higher now than it was 2 years ago after Megson's spending spree on Cahill,Steinsson,Mark Davies,Chung Young and a load of overpriced tat. We did have Anelka,Diouf and Nolan to flog when he was appointed.
Piemon Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 Why? The club's debt is significantly higher now than it was 2 years ago after Megson's spending spree on Cahill,Steinsson,Mark Davies,Chung Young and a load of overpriced tat. We did have Anelka,Diouf and Nolan to flog when he was appointed. These three will bring in more money in transfer fees than Nolan, Diouf and The Elk and will be on considerably less coin p/w
george Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 These three will bring in more money in transfer fees than Nolan, Diouf and The Elk and will be on considerably less coin p/w I agree with you that they will be drawing less wages, anyway.
frank_spencer Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 Why? The club's debt is significantly higher now than it was 2 years ago after Megson's spending spree on Cahill,Steinsson,Mark Davies,Chung Young and a load of overpriced tat. We did have Anelka,Diouf and Nolan to flog when he was appointed. We had no backroom staff. An elderly squad on relatively high wages. Senior squad members actively trying to get the manager sacked. A fat knacker of a captain who hadn't played to his ability for 2 or so seasons Diouf and Anelka were flogged because they wanted to be along with Meite As well as the 4 players Hughesy mentioned Muamba will fetch more than Nolan or Dioufy did. we now have a young promising side who with he right manager could get us back to where we were before Fat Sam left.
banktop wanderer Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 These three will bring in more money in transfer fees than Nolan, Diouf and The Elk and will be on considerably less coin p/w haha yeah alrite, cant see them beating the 15mil we got for the elk never mind the other 2.5 and 4.
Smiffs Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 we played a lot better football than wolves did (not that that matters anyway), they were really shit yet somehow won the game with an offside goal and a fookin screamer that no keeper was saving. i was very pissed of after the match, but time has passed and ive seem the game now, and am still wondering HOW we lost. See, I almost agree with you. We were definatly controlling the pace of the game and getting on top. However, because we are so unbelievably shit at the next bit, thats good enough reason for me to conclude that Gary Megson has built a fucking poor team.
dirty barsteward Posted December 7, 2009 Posted December 7, 2009 Taken from ESPN...... http://blogs.soccernet.com/boltonwanderers...of_the_week.php Stat of the week "If you need a number to tell you just what a bad result that was at Molineaux, here it is: 5. That is the number of times Mick McCarthy has ever won a Premier League match".
Zico Posted December 8, 2009 Posted December 8, 2009 See, I almost agree with you. We were definatly controlling the pace of the game and getting on top. However, because we are so unbelievably shit at the next bit, thats good enough reason for me to conclude that Gary Megson has built a fucking poor team. said it before many a time when appointed megson himself said he can build the foundations but can't teach us anything about going forward and attacking well he's done the first bit so maybe he should move aside and let someone who does know how crack on with the job given we've not kept a clean sheet all season we're not so good at the first bit either
Traf Posted December 8, 2009 Posted December 8, 2009 We're not very good at much at present, other than helping struggling teams/players get back into form.
Recommended Posts