Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: Wellred on March 21, 2010, 07:20:04 am
-
Wilson top yesterday!!!
I really must go to Specsavers.
-
WHY ?
.... BECAUSE you thought he WAS (ie you did not believe he had it in him and you were surprised by his performance) OR
.... BECAUSE you thought he WAS NOT (and loads of other people who voted him MOM need to go to Specsavers)
-
I thought WIlson was good yesterday, and in a team performance where no-one really stood out I can understand why he got some votes. Oster gets my vote, though.
-
Oster was my MOTM, followed by JOC
Wilson had a decent first half, totally vanished for the second half.
If he grew some balls as well as he can grow a beard then he might be a bit better. Always bottles it when its a 50/50 ball as he showed yesterday.
-
Wellred wrote:
Oster was my MOTM, followed by JOC
Wilson had a decent first half, totally vanished for the second half.
If he grew some balls as well as he can grow a beard then he might be a bit better. Always bottles it when its a 50/50 ball as he showed yesterday.
You complain about bottling 50/50s but have Oster as motm? Think our entire midfield all has the same faults with regards to not being strong enough and giving silly little balls away which is why so many defenders (and Sharp) get motm I reckon.
-
Thats an interesting point, Noel. Just thinking about the midfield we had last season... if only we'd had the MoM vote then.
-
Also thought Wilson had a good game yesterday along with O'Conner and Hayter who did all the hard work running off the ball and also doing JET FAIR SHARE OR CLOSING DOWN!!!!
Sum people just don't like Wilson because he hasn't got the pace or flair like other players just like sum Sheff Utd fans don't like Montgomery who i also thought was good for them yesterday
-
Wellred wrote:
Wilson top yesterday!!!
I really must go to Specsavers.
With your poor eyesight are you sure you can find it B)
-
I think JOC shaded it. The only reason that I choose him over Oster is that although Oster is great to watch and very talented, he needs to stop giving the ball away cheaply quite so often. A lot of talented players seem to find it so easy that they are a little blase and wasteful with their distribution. I'm sure that it drives SOD and ROK mad at times too. Richie Wellens would be telling him were he still here.
-
Filo wrote:
Wellred wrote:
Wilson top yesterday!!!
I really must go to Specsavers.
With your poor eyesight are you sure you can find it B)
Wilson MOTM and you are querying my eyesight??
I think someone needs to take a look in the mirror. But then would it do any good as you wouldn't be able to see anything in it would you?
-
In the first half i was having difficulty deciding who would be MotM could have been Wilson or Oster for me, but I have Martis down for MOtM based on performance over the full 90.
-
Wellred wrote:
Filo wrote:
Wellred wrote:
Wilson top yesterday!!!
I really must go to Specsavers.
With your poor eyesight are you sure you can find it B)
Wilson MOTM and you are querying my eyesight??
I think someone needs to take a look in the mirror. But then would it do any good as you wouldn't be able to see anything in it would you?
Where did I say Wilson was MoM?
I don`t think my eyesight is as bad as yours!
-
Wilson was full of commitment yesterday and should be proud of his performance, without him doing some of the ugly things we would have suffered a heavy defeat given as we played with 10 men for 90 mins !
-
Absolutely; a fair assessment Norfolk. He got my vote on his performance yesterday.
-
TheRev wrote:
Absolutely; a fair assessment Norfolk. He got my vote on his performance yesterday.
Stick to your Sunday job Rev, you obviously know more about that than football.
-
No need to be so negative Wellred, Wilson had a good first half as did all our players, second half all our midfield did worse as is always the case when the other team ups their game and start to use muscle and the odd kick to try to break up their play. I went for Martis by the way, I thought he had a great game, good tackles and some great balls out from the back.
-
Biggles wrote:
In the first half i was having difficulty deciding who would be MotM could have been Wilson or Oster for me, but I have Martis down for MOtM based on performance over the full 90.
not seen it mentioned but i thought martis did OK but he could of got penalised for pushing a couple of times,one was a nailed on penalty to sheff u in the first half
-
Wellred wrote:
TheRev wrote:
Absolutely; a fair assessment Norfolk. He got my vote on his performance yesterday.
Stick to your Sunday job Rev, you obviously know more about that than football.
Yes that's true....so are you some way involved in football away from your daily job because with your negative comments on here it doesn't show up too often?
Anyway, it looks like Care In The Community has failed you.
-
If you care to read back you will see that I actually did say Wilson had a decent first half.
I don't however share the belief that he adds anything to the side.
He is a plodder who can't tackle and unless a player is less than 5 yards from him often fails to make a pass.
He wasn't good enough when he first came to club and for me he hasn't done anything to show he is good enough for this level.
If you think that by making do with an average player we will progress then good for you.
-
Martis got my vote, he definatley adds to our team with his physical presence & like last season when we had him we don't leak goals.
But as a side note JOC has been the revelation since moving to centre half for me he does an amazing job with James Chambers on the right side with their pace . If we had Martis , O'Connor , Elliot Ward & being greedy Shackell we would have an amazing defensive unit in the middle of the park with Roberts & Chambers on the flanks.
-
Wellred wrote:
If you care to read back you will see that I actually did say Wilson had a decent first half.
I don't however share the belief that he adds anything to the side.
He is a plodder who can't tackle and unless a player is less than 5 yards from him often fails to make a pass.
He wasn't good enough when he first came to club and for me he hasn't done anything to show he is good enough for this level.
If you think that by making do with an average player we will progress then good for you.
Well it's obvious that you don't have a career in football then from those comments.
He can't tackle and can't pass more than 5 yards? Yeah OK - what were you saying about Spec Savers?
I think you just like to slag him off. Am I right?
You also say that because he was here before, under Penny (and don't forget we played a different style of football then) that he still isn't good enough.
Well SOD thinks he is, so shouldn't that be good enough for us all?
And he still gets my vote....
-
The comment about Wilson vanishing in the second half could apply to most of our players simply because we were made to play deeper and couldn't get out passing game going.
-
Filo wrote:
Wellred wrote:
Filo wrote:
Wellred wrote:
Wilson top yesterday!!!
I really must go to Specsavers.
With your poor eyesight are you sure you can find it B)
Wilson MOTM and you are querying my eyesight??
I think someone needs to take a look in the mirror. But then would it do any good as you wouldn't be able to see anything in it would you?
Where did I say Wilson was MoM?
I don`t think my eyesight is as bad as yours!
Again wher did i say Wilson was MoM? Do you only reply selectivly?
-
Wilson was our MOTM. Best player out there yesterday. First half he was outstanding, second just OK. First half was his best spell ever in a Rovers shirt, he was superb. He was carrying Woods and JET who struggled second half yesterday.
-
Well SOD thinks he is, so shouldn't that be good enough for us all?
I am surprised a Rev would be a follower of the principles of communism!
Do we all have to accept what the man in charge says or are we not allowed opinions?
-
You still haven`t pointed out to me where I said Wilson was MoM!
-
The reason is I didn't.
-
Wellred wrote:
Filo wrote:
Wellred wrote:
Wilson top yesterday!!!
I really must go to Specsavers.
With your poor eyesight are you sure you can find it B)
Wilson MOTM and you are querying my eyesight??
I think someone needs to take a look in the mirror. But then would it do any good as you wouldn't be able to see anything in it would you?
It looks like you did to me
-
Maybe you interpreted what I said wrongly then.
-
The man of the match poll just seems to be a way for the Wilson lovers to get their point across.
He had an ok game yesterday, but no way was he man of the match, and shouldn't be anywhere near the top of the poll when Copps, JOC, Oster and Hayter were all superb, and Wilson bumbled along as usual \"not doing anything wrong.\" :blink:
-
Y'know what? I'm sitting here wondering just what kind of a person could possibly maintain a vendetta against an individual, any individual, over months and months and months whilst ignoring the evidence before his eyes? It's certainly true that those eyes must have extreme selective vision isn't it? What makes this bout of pondering even more incredible to me, is the fact that the person principally involved has just about never, in all his 437 posts, ever said anything constructive, appreciative or positive.
Just what sort of person can this be? Really. I'm mystified by the mentality of anyone who can continue to inhabit such a negative, dreary and unpleasant world.
Cheers
BobG
-
I suggest you get your facts right before you start the pontificating. 18 negative posts about the player in question. Very few of which were started by me.
The trouble with certain individuals on this forum is that they are holier than though and always right.
If anyone has the temerity to say anything negative it gets exagerated. The positives are always forgotten.
Where is the evidence then Bob G? Is it correct because you say so?
I am certainly not the only one who doesn't rate the player in question have all the others read the evidence wrong as well?
-
Wellred wrote:
I suggest you get your facts right before you start the pontificating. 18 negative posts about the player in question. Very few of which were started by me.
The trouble with certain individuals on this forum is that they are holier than though and always right.
If anyone has the temerity to say anything negative it gets exagerated. The positives are always forgotten.
Where is the evidence then Bob G? Is it correct because you say so?
I am certainly not the only one who doesn't rate the player in question have all the others read the evidence wrong as well?
Cheers for the recognition ;)
-
Never said you were the only one to dislike Wilson WellRed. The point that gets right up my nose, if you care to read my post none selectively, is your never ending stream of complaints, whinging, moaning and negative vibes.
Cheers
BobG
-
BobG wrote:
, if you care to read my post none selectively
Cheers
BobG
Mission imposable!
-
come on people...why do the selective bunch really dislike Wilson.
He's not a flare player like others, he does his job nice n simple...pass and move, pass and move etc etc.
He's doing a Wellens 'style' role and is filling the spot well
-
RedRockets wrote:
come on people...why do the selective bunch really dislike Wilson.
He's not a flare player like others, he does his job nice n simple...pass and move, pass and move etc etc.
He's doing a Wellens 'style' role and is filling the spot well
Am I ill, or did I just see Wilson's contribution to the team being compared to that of Richie Wellens? :blink:
Lets turn it round shall we. What do the selective bunch see from Wilson that suggests to them that he is a Championship standard midfielder?
-
He is a CCC standard player because he plays in that league regularly and is picked by a manager who knows a damn sight more than the whinging moaners who are on here every week. That is why SOD is worth several million pounds to the football club and the moaners are worth only £3-400 per year to sit in the stands. I know who's opinion I would rather accept.
-
BobG wrote:
Never said you were the only one to dislike Wilson WellRed. The point that gets right up my nose, if you care to read my post none selectively, is your never ending stream of complaints, whinging, moaning and negative vibes.
Cheers
BobG
And if you were to look at ALL my posts instead of being selective to suit your own argument you would see that I support the club and have as many positive posts as negative posts.
I take it you think that by not being in agreement with certain posters who see absolutely everything through rose tinted spectacles that is being negative.
Maybe nobody should be allowed to voice their opinion if it isn't in a positive manner no matter what is posted.
Do you really want this forum to be one great big love in?
-
Filo wrote:
BobG wrote:
, if you care to read my post none selectively
Cheers
BobG
Mission imposable!
wow is that the best you can come up with after spitting your dummy out yesterday when you couldn't get your own way?
Surely you can come up with something better than that. Two words and one of them spelt wrong!!! tut tut
-
Well at halftime my vote would have gone to either Wilson or Oster,i thought they played well together.However as good as both were in the first half they were as bad in the second.How any of our midfield could be in for mom is beyond me.As soon as the ref blew for the second half to start they dropped back 15 yards and never moved from that line and in my huble opinion probabley cost us the win..
So for me it was between JOC and Martis,not a lot to choose as they were both excellent but ill go for JOC as Martis missed a sitter... :lol:
-
Wellred wrote:
wow is that the best you can come up with after spitting your dummy out yesterday when you couldn't get your own way?
Surely you can come up with something better than that. Two words and one of them spelt wrong!!! tut tut
Wellred from the John Oster thread
Whatever.
Wellred also from the John Oster thread
If it makes you happy.
Me spitting the dummy out?
They were pretty well thought out answers by you eh?
When it was pointed out that it was actually you who changed the subject to another player to suit your argument
It`s easier to ignore that fact than admit your were wrong isn`t it?
-
If you actually look back to the start of the post Rob the Rover made a comment about John Oster being his MOTM. I then replied to his post agreeing that I thought so too.
If you are going to use that flimsy argument to say I changed the subject then frankly you are clutching at straws.
-
Wellred wrote:
If you actually look back to the start of the post Rob the Rover made a comment about John Oster being his MOTM. I then replied to his post agreeing that I thought so too.
If you are going to use that flimsy argument to say I changed the subject then frankly you are clutching at straws.
And if you read the entire thread, you`ll also see that I agreed Oster was class but also expressed an opinion that he has flaws to his game, (as do most players at this level, thats why they are not playing premier league football).
Then further down the thread you brought stock into the argument I saw one yesterday but if we are going down that road how many sloppy balls does Stocky give away in dangerous positions? and that isn't a criticism of Stock as he is for me probably our most influential player when fit.
To which i repliedI didn`t ask you about Stock, the debate is about Oster, you only choose to see the posative things about oster, likewise it`s the opposite with Wilson, you only see the negative things
And then you accuse me of changing the debate from Oster to Wilson to suit my purposeSo now you are changing the debate from Oster to Wilson to suit your purpose
I then pointed out that you had actually already changed the debate from one player to another to suit your purposeJust like you changed the debate from Oster to Stock to suit your purpose
To which you came out with the well thought out commentsWhatever.
If it makes you happy
Remind me again who spat the dummy out! ;)
-
Remind me again who was the baby crying in the photo ;-)
-
Wellred wrote:
Remind me again who was the baby crying in the photo ;-)
You!
I did notice the point was lost on you
-
Oh I thought the reason you had taken so long to reply was you was having the photo taken
-
Eeeeh dear. People whinge on about posters bickering on here.........I say leave em to it, it's what makes this place great. I loves reading a good argument between posters. Some top quality arguing, backtracking, pictures, failure to agree, stubborness etc etc
-
Wellred wrote:
Oh I thought the reason you had taken so long to reply was you was having the photo taken
No I had to wait for your mummy to change your nappy :)