Birmingham Match Thread

[foxpodder]

Tactically inept. Inflexible as regards 4-4-2. RK needs the confidence to be proactive in a game to make things happen - not just stick to 4-4-2. We are where we are in the league table cos thats where we deserve to be after 10 games - I just hope we are not in the same position after 30 games. RK has only managed for 26 league games - he is still a novice and we have to hope he learns quickly 'cos the board won't make a change yet - if at all this season.

Foxpodder

 

[fcukcov]

I didnt go to the game but I was extremely pleased with the result compared to what I was expecting to happen. Were we really that bad? We got a draw away from home at a promotion challenging team. It’s the smaller clubs we struggle against IMO. Things need sorting out and we are no where near where we should be in terms of performances etc but I think sat was a step in the right direction.

 

[Hazzman]

http://football.guardian.co.uk/Match_Report/0,,1885342,00.html

Guardian's report

 

[Melton Fox]

http://football.guardian.co.uk/Match_Report/0,,1885342,00.html

Guardian's report

The first line of that says everything. Birmingham have only picked up 2 points in their last 3 games. We have given them half of them :icon_lol:

 

[Naughty Fox]

http://foxestrust.co.uk/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=227&Itemid=2

was not at the same game????

 

[Real Sharapova]

I would tend towards the FT view of the game. We were not at our best, but kept battling and I think we were just about worth a point. OK, Brum had more chances, but that is generally what home teams do.

 

[DesertFox]

http://foxestrust.co.uk/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=227&Itemid=2

was not at the same game????

The first paragraph told me what I needed to know. Even though I'm 5000 miles away I know that:

they played magnificently

Magnificently? No, they didn't.

In the first 10 minutes they would have scored if Elvis Hammond had been on the pitch

Why, because he's so clinical in front of goal? :icon_lol:

We do badly need some height in the box

Yes, Elvis is really tall (5'9"). Good job he replaced the 6'3" Chris O'Grady after 70 mins then... :icon_conf

The only thing we appeared to be lacking is a goal scorer. Hume (and Fryatt) are both fast...

Fryatt's not "fast". And he wasn't even in the squad!

...but don't have a heading ability

Hume is a good header of the ball (obviously not as a target man but there's no denying he's got a tremendous leap, Mrs).


All in all, a pretty cack report. Sorry John! :icon_redf :icon_wink

 

[Melton Fox]

If I had the same work ethic as you Des I would have done exactly what you just did, but I couldn't be bothered. But you have it spot on

All of them quotes were seemingly laughable, I'm sure the FT wil have a damn good explanation as to why those comments were made

 

[OldGit]

If I had the same work ethic as you Des I would have done exactly what you just did, but I couldn't be bothered. But you have it spot on

All of them quotes were seemingly laughable, I'm sure the FT wil have a damn good explanation as to why those comments were made

read to the end:

The views expressed in this report are the opinions of the Trust member nominated to file the report only and do not represent the views of the Foxes Trust organisation

Last Updated ( Sunday, 01 October 2006 )

 

[Melton Fox]

read to the end:

The views expressed in this report are the opinions of the Trust member nominated to file the report only and do not represent the views of the Foxes Trust organisation

Last Updated ( Sunday, 01 October 2006 )

If somebody is representing you, then that is what they are doing. Caveats are nonsense really, this is on the FT website, so the FT are responsible.

I did find it strange that the FT would do that report, so that explains that, but they are still responsible

 

[DesertFox]

If I had the same work ethic as you Des I would have done exactly what you just did, but I couldn't be bothered. But you have it spot on

If I had a good work ethic I'd be doing some fecking work! :icon_lol: :icon_lol:

 

[Melton Fox]

If I had a good work ethic I'd be doing some fecking work! :icon_lol: :icon_lol:

:icon_lol:

 

[DesertFox]

If somebody is representing you, then that is what they are doing. Caveats are nonsense really, this is on the FT website, so the FT are responsible.

I did find it strange that the FT would do that report, so that explains that, but they are still responsible

Probably more a case of they ask for guest reporters - sometimes the reports are really good but sometimes they are... less so.

You'd have to be a genuinely hard-nosed bastard to tell someone to their face that their report is shite and they'll not bother having one this time. I couldn't do it (but I'm not genuinely hard-nosed).

 

[Melton Fox]

Probably more a case of they ask for guest reporters - sometimes the reports are really good but sometimes they are... less so.

You'd have to be a genuinely hard-nosed bastard to tell someone to their face that their report is shite and they'll not bother having one this time. I couldn't do it (but I'm not genuinely hard-nosed).

No doubt even harder if that reporter is a paying member :icon_wink

 

[DesertFox]

Exactly.

"Thanks for the donation - we think you're a c*nt!"

:icon_razz

 

[bocadillo]

I would tend towards the FT view of the game. We were not at our best, but kept battling and I think we were just about worth a point. OK, Brum had more chances, but that is generally what home teams do.

And so would I. It's interesting that the people who are disagreeing with it are, in general, people who were not at the game.

 

[OldGit]

I wasn't at the game, so I can't give a view of what it was like. However, I have read widely differing views on this forum, and more so in the press reports, few of which were as negative as some of the comments on here.

While the one on the FT site does look more than a couple of standard deviations from the mean (to put it politely), it is someone's view of what they saw. The site uses a colophon, which I copied, - that is the norm in most publications where non-staff writers are used.

Otherwise editors have the task of censoring everything so that it fits to some imagined "norm", rather ruining the whole idea of subjective views and debate.

Imagine if the moderators on here were to try to do that with everything we write on here (Ahhh.... )

 

[homer]

Can't see waht the fuss is all about on two points:

1. Even if we played like complete and utter waankers, a point away at Birmingham is a bloody good result
2. The FT allow one of their members to file a game report on-line - and it's just their opinion, nothing else. It's a good thing to do, IMO. You can't have a "Foxes Trust view of the game" - the Trust is made up of 900 different people who all see different things.
If you take your lead from this site, you can see that every game produces wildly differing opinions about individual players, tactics, the ref, substitutions etc. etc. so it's hardly surprising that one persons opinions' are going to produce debate. That's why football is wonderful.

 

[Yorkshire Vixen]

Can't see waht the fuss is all about on two points:

1. Even if we played like complete and utter waankers, a point away at Birmingham is a bloody good result
2. The FT allow one of their members to file a game report on-line - and it's just their opinion, nothing else. It's a good thing to do, IMO. You can't have a "Foxes Trust view of the game" - the Trust is made up of 900 different people who all see different things.
If you take your lead from this site, you can see that every game produces wildly differing opinions about individual players, tactics, the ref, substitutions etc. etc. so it's hardly surprising that one persons opinions' are going to produce debate. That's why football is wonderful.

well said homey

 

[homer]

Aye but he's still a ***** though

Forum Rules

4. Personal abuse of other forum users is not permitted. If you disagree with what someone else says, say so and use whatever arguments you like to support your views. However personal attacks only suggest that you cannot support your views in any other way and are not allowed. They will be edited as and when moderators find such abuse. This is not censorship of your opinions, but a rule designed to ensure that we conduct a friendly debate. Remember - attack the argument and not the person.


EDIT by moderator: That's why the orignal post was deleted and the quoted part of this post has been amended.