Brighton 2-1 Bolton.

Lonerghans fucking useless goalkeeping cost us the match a standard save for any keeper worth his salt.The ball went through him,Casper the ghost is Lonerghans new name.Watford he was at fault for the first and should of dived in front of the ball not over it Lump.

White84 wrote:Lonerghans fucking useless goalkeeping cost us the match a standard save for any keeper worth his salt.The ball went through him,Casper the ghost is Lonerghans new name.Watford he was at fault for the first and should of dived in front of the ball not over it Lump.

I though Lonergan was a bit unlucky with the goal, their player beat our defender and shot the ball which went through another defenders legs, then going through his.

For it to go through someone elses legs first he obviously couldn't possibly have a clear view of the shot.

Bogdan let one through his legs last game and he too didn't stand a chance with the shot.

Lonergan has faults but that goal wasn't one of them.

FFS, did we really discuss these minutiae points in the 70's or 80's when there weren't cameras everywhere?

No, we didn't..........

There is a definite line to be drawn.

HD and twenty camera angles are great, until it gets to the point where we're discussing shit that can't be seen by the naked eye without Ultimate SloMo and we then try and hang a season on it.......

Breadman wrote:FFS, did we really discuss these minutiae points in the 70's or 80's when there weren't cameras everywhere?

No, we didn't..........

There is a definite line to be drawn.

HD and twenty camera angles are great, until it gets to the point where we're discussing shit that can't be seen by the naked eye without Ultimate SloMo and we then try and hang a season on it.......

In the 70s/80s we had very definite opinions about things - which in many cases slo mo etc proved to be wrong in hindsight.

There are fine margins that decide games so I think having the benefit of better/more angles is a good thing.

This game is a good example. We lost by a goal. A deflected goal at that and the television proves it. If we'd had a deflection at the other end we might have been the winners.

The implication is that it could have gone either way which is true - but that doesn't translate into meaning that the game was even. Brighton had far more efforts than we did so they made their own luck. Having more shots meant that statistically they gave themselves more chance of winning and so it proved - even if the coup de grace itself was jammy.

Not sure if that's aimed at me but I only had to see the goal once - at normal speed - to see what happened.

I'm sure you would have seen the same too - and White84.

And if we are talking about the 70's, the winger would have been 'chopped' down long, long before he got a shot off!

You're still quite wound up, aren't you, mate?

Stick Babestation on and unwind for a bit.

And stop saying "fine margins" - you sound like him.

Breadman wrote:You're still quite wound up, aren't you, mate?

Stick Babestation on and unwind for a bit.

And stop saying "fine margins" - you sound like him.

Me not Sluffy huh?

Babestation doesn't do it for me TBF. My mate is a right wanker and he swears by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] although I've never visited the site personally. Must be good though as his eyes are permanently bloodshot.

Quite unwound as it happens. Pub was kicking it being a Bank Holiday and all.

Sluffy wrote:Not sure if that's aimed at me but I only had to see the goal once - at normal speed - to see what happened.

I'm sure you would have seen the same too - and White84.

And if we are talking about the 70's, the winger would have been 'chopped' down long, long before he got a shot off!

No,not aimed at you specifically Sluff, more at the way we all now watch football in general.

We all expect to see every contentious decision played out in HD ad nauseam on Sky now and we all spend far too long reviewing them because it's a fast game and you can't expect the human eye to capture it all but the likes of Sky make a massive deal out of everything just to make news and it's bollocks.

That was my point and it wasn't a criticism of anybody - just the system and the way the broadcasters exploit it for their own ends.

You've gone to check out the Hun.

wanderlust wrote:Me not Sluffy huh?

Babestation doesn't do it for me TBF. My mate is a right wanker and he swears by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] although I've never visited the site personally. Must be good though as his eyes are permanently bloodshot.

Quite unwound as it happens. Pub was kicking it being a Bank Holiday and all.

That link looks like a trap.

I'm not doing a Gary Glitter and taking my laptop to PC World to get fixed after some virus ruins it and I get fingered......

Nice try, Moriarty..... 

That's what I told my mate with the bloodshot eyes.

See you at Reichenbach!

Bring it on!

I'm in charge this time.......

Breadman wrote:
That link looks like a trap.

I'm not doing a Gary Glitter and taking my laptop to PC World to get fixed after some virus ruins it and I get fingered......

Nice try, Moriarty..... 

Not sure why I clicked that link, all I got were ladyboy's on it. Just stick to your usual Tube8 mate.

I wouldn't take your laptop to PC World either Breadders if I were you, it will come back worse than when you took it in!  

Told you...!

I can smell a trap a mile off.

I'm like that DCI John Luther, me.

But whiter and less intelligent.

And not a copper............

karlypants wrote:

Breadman wrote:
That link looks like a trap.

I'm not doing a Gary Glitter and taking my laptop to PC World to get fixed after some virus ruins it and I get fingered......

Nice try, Moriarty..... 

Not sure why I clicked that link, all I got were ladyboy's on it. 

Were any of them from Preston?
My bleary eyed mate did say there was something for everyone.

I think the "sour-faced, wonkey-titted, caurterzed-fanny, footballer-boyfriend-obsessed, Joyce Grenfell wannabee" is a very particular market.

I can't see there being a big demand for that, but who knows....?

Breadman wrote:I think the "sour-faced, wonkey-titted, caurterzed-fanny, footballer-boyfriend-obsessed, Joyce Grenfell wannabee" is a very particular market.

Very popular on here apparently.


On another note I really am pissed now so it's time to stagger off into the sunset. I'm working up to it - only half a bottle to go.