loop wrote:Yes he waved so we should be free of tantrums this week. :P
i didnt see him wave, maybe cos i was with those who was crying because he didnt wave to us at bournemouth
Saddler4Life wrote:loop wrote:Yes he waved so we should be free of tantrums this week. :P
i didnt see him wave, maybe cos i was with those who was crying because he didnt wave to us at bournemouth
loop wrote:Saddler4Life wrote:loop wrote:Yes he waved so we should be free of tantrums this week. :P
i didnt see him wave, maybe cos i was with those who was crying because he didnt wave to us at bournemouth
maybe, i thought i saw him acknowledge us at full time. but to be honest it isnt something i particularly look out for.
Bernie wrote:A good result, but only a fair performance.
Cheltenham were very poor. Their defence was very weak, so I am not sure how people can say that Ricketts played well. He will not be given the same amount of space by many other sides in this division. Mooney put the penalty away and took his other goal well, but apart from that it was one of his worst performances - generally he looked pretty ineffective against a terrible defence.
There were some good points for us. Ince commanded his area well, the defence were fine, apart from Weston who had another poor game when it came to his distribution. In midfield I thought that Bradley and Sonko both showed promise.
The gate of 4,810 was about as many as could be expected after only one win in six home matches. Despite the very welcome win, it is unlikely that all that many new fans will be gained by performances like this.
Bernie wrote:A good result, but only a fair performance.
Cheltenham were very poor. Their defence was very weak, so I am not sure how people can say that Ricketts played well. He will not be given the same amount of space by many other sides in this division. Mooney put the penalty away and took his other goal well, but apart from that it was one of his worst performances - generally he looked pretty ineffective against a terrible defence.
There were some good points for us. Ince commanded his area well, the defence were fine, apart from Weston who had another poor game when it came to his distribution. In midfield I thought that Bradley and Sonko both showed promise.
The gate of 4,810 was about as many as could be expected after only one win in six home matches. Despite the very welcome win, it is unlikely that all that many new fans will be gained by performances like this.
Bernie wrote:A good result, but only a fair performance.
Cheltenham were very poor. Their defence was very weak, so I am not sure how people can say that Ricketts played well. He will not be given the same amount of space by many other sides in this division. Mooney put the penalty away and took his other goal well, but apart from that it was one of his worst performances - generally he looked pretty ineffective against a terrible defence.
There were some good points for us. Ince commanded his area well, the defence were fine, apart from Weston who had another poor game when it came to his distribution. In midfield I thought that Bradley and Sonko both showed promise.
The gate of 4,810 was about as many as could be expected after only one win in six home matches. Despite the very welcome win, it is unlikely that all that many new fans will be gained by performances like this.
Bernie wrote:A good result, but only a fair performance.
Cheltenham were very poor. Their defence was very weak, so I am not sure how people can say that Ricketts played well. He will not be given the same amount of space by many other sides in this division. Mooney put the penalty away and took his other goal well, but apart from that it was one of his worst performances - generally he looked pretty ineffective against a terrible defence.
There were some good points for us. Ince commanded his area well, the defence were fine, apart from Weston who had another poor game when it came to his distribution. In midfield I thought that Bradley and Sonko both showed promise.
The gate of 4,810 was about as many as could be expected after only one win in six home matches. Despite the very welcome win, it is unlikely that all that many new fans will be gained by performances like this.
Duke wrote:Bernie wrote:A good result, but only a fair performance.
Cheltenham were very poor. Their defence was very weak, so I am not sure how people can say that Ricketts played well. He will not be given the same amount of space by many other sides in this division. Mooney put the penalty away and took his other goal well, but apart from that it was one of his worst performances - generally he looked pretty ineffective against a terrible defence.
There were some good points for us. Ince commanded his area well, the defence were fine, apart from Weston who had another poor game when it came to his distribution. In midfield I thought that Bradley and Sonko both showed promise.
The gate of 4,810 was about as many as could be expected after only one win in six home matches. Despite the very welcome win, it is unlikely that all that many new fans will be gained by performances like this.
DD was very pleased with Mooney and Ricketts considering they have only trained once together , i really don't know what some fans want and expect you can only beat whats in front of you
loop wrote:Bernie wrote:A good result, but only a fair performance.
Cheltenham were very poor. Their defence was very weak, so I am not sure how people can say that Ricketts played well. He will not be given the same amount of space by many other sides in this division. Mooney put the penalty away and took his other goal well, but apart from that it was one of his worst performances - generally he looked pretty ineffective against a terrible defence.
There were some good points for us. Ince commanded his area well, the defence were fine, apart from Weston who had another poor game when it came to his distribution. In midfield I thought that Bradley and Sonko both showed promise.
The gate of 4,810 was about as many as could be expected after only one win in six home matches. Despite the very welcome win, it is unlikely that all that many new fans will be gained by performances like this.
:? Mooney ineffective ??? i don't agree he was certainly effective enough to score two goals and trouble there defence on more than one occasion, also Ricketts and Mooney linked up well i thought, not sure wether you were watching the same game as me then Bernie.....
Duke wrote:Bernie wrote:A good result, but only a fair performance.
Cheltenham were very poor. Their defence was very weak, so I am not sure how people can say that Ricketts played well. He will not be given the same amount of space by many other sides in this division. Mooney put the penalty away and took his other goal well, but apart from that it was one of his worst performances - generally he looked pretty ineffective against a terrible defence.
There were some good points for us. Ince commanded his area well, the defence were fine, apart from Weston who had another poor game when it came to his distribution. In midfield I thought that Bradley and Sonko both showed promise.
The gate of 4,810 was about as many as could be expected after only one win in six home matches. Despite the very welcome win, it is unlikely that all that many new fans will be gained by performances like this.
DD was very pleased with Mooney and Ricketts considering they have only trained once together , i really don't know what some fans want and expect you can only beat whats in front of you
Bernie wrote:A good result, but only a fair performance.
Cheltenham were very poor. Their defence was very weak, so I am not sure how people can say that Ricketts played well. He will not be given the same amount of space by many other sides in this division. Mooney put the penalty away and took his other goal well, but apart from that it was one of his worst performances - generally he looked pretty ineffective against a terrible defence.
There were some good points for us. Ince commanded his area well, the defence were fine, apart from Weston who had another poor game when it came to his distribution. In midfield I thought that Bradley and Sonko both showed promise.
The gate of 4,810 was about as many as could be expected after only one win in six home matches. Despite the very welcome win, it is unlikely that all that many new fans will be gained by performances like this.
geoffwhiting wrote:Bernie wrote:A good result, but only a fair performance.
Cheltenham were very poor. Their defence was very weak, so I am not sure how people can say that Ricketts played well. He will not be given the same amount of space by many other sides in this division. Mooney put the penalty away and took his other goal well, but apart from that it was one of his worst performances - generally he looked pretty ineffective against a terrible defence.
There were some good points for us. Ince commanded his area well, the defence were fine, apart from Weston who had another poor game when it came to his distribution. In midfield I thought that Bradley and Sonko both showed promise.
The gate of 4,810 was about as many as could be expected after only one win in six home matches. Despite the very welcome win, it is unlikely that all that many new fans will be gained by performances like this.
Unbelievable comments about Mooney and Ricketts. We could have scored six today and it would NOT have flattered us in the slightest. These two made a massive contribution to that.
One simple rule in football - you can only beat what is put in front of you - and we did that at a canter, allowing Cheltenham virtually zero chances.
A very complete performance for me today, we did everything we had to do, and I left Banks's Stadium totally delighted that everyone played their part in completely dominating this game from start to finish. What more can you ask?
I'd add that Tommy Mooney is already well on his way to becoming a Saddlers legend, the guy is pure class, no doubt about it. If you can't see that Bernie, you surprise me.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests