Yes or No? Those not committed to training or with bad attitude towards the team
Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ramsey's dilemma. Should he have played mavericks to try and keep us up?
Collapse
X
-
Taarabt, Zarate and Vargas (the latter two obviously when not injured) a big 'yes' from me. It's what you do on the pitch that counts, not what you do in training at the end of the day. But I'll be told no doubt this is an 'embarrassing' comment from those who think they know better. Do they ****.
Comment
-
Yes
Our problem has been lack of quality, all season...we should have taken risks. Honestly couldn't care less of what they do off the pitch or what they think of the club...what they do on the pitch is what matters. It's football after all lol."When you went to the corner and saw our fans celebrating the way they were you just wanted to be part of it" - Shaun Derry after we beat the scum 1-0
Comment
-
Originally posted by Greengrass View PostShould he have played mavericks to try and keep us up?
Because if so, what use are they to any team?
Stan Bowles and Rodney Marsh were mavericks but they never came in the above category because they were always super-fit and trained well.
So perhaps you need to better explain your question's criteria?
Comment
-
Big no.
Save a couple of games our performances were far better than under HR. That was achieved by having a more unified squad and commitment. Any number of games we lost out on points due to silly individual errors. Overall performances were promising. Chuck a couple of unfit wrong uns in and it wouldn't have worked.
Shame we didn't stay up but I don't think the mavericks would have made any difference.
Comment
Comment