Jump to content

San Marino 9-0 Saints - Post Match Reaction


SKD
 Share

Recommended Posts

Wow the Turkish/SKD double act is everywhere. 

To be honest in think SKD is just trying to impress Turkish but in all honesty he's out of his league.

He should just stick to his odd comparisons like the incredible PFC to SFC one,that's a cracker 🤣

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Teddeer said:

You're ashamed of the fact you can't pull up the thread where I suggested Redmond should play centre midfield. The reason you can't is that you made it up.

Here we go pal.

worse than I thought, you even suggested Djenepo 😂😂😂😂😂😂

2A35039B-C05C-492A-BE42-8CA13A1DCE50.jpeg

Edited by SKD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SKD said:

Here we go pal.

worse than I thought, you even suggested Djenepo 😂😂😂😂😂😂

2A35039B-C05C-492A-BE42-8CA13A1DCE50.jpeg

A Redmond and Djenepo midfield to “stem the tide” 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Teddeer said:

I'm missing the bit where it says play Redmond centre mid. Think you just shot yourself in the foot.

You suggested moving JWP to wing back, to which the response was who’d go in midfield. That was the list you provided. 
 

Why are you trying to deny when it’s there for everyone to see. I’ll screenshot the whole thread if you want me to continue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

A Redmond and Djenepo midfield to “stem the tide” 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Best bit of it all, is he called me out for slagging off the manager, but done so himself in this very comment 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Chapel End said:

Wow the Turkish/SKD double act is everywhere. 

To be honest in think SKD is just trying to impress Turkish but in all honesty he's out of his league.

He should just stick to his odd comparisons like the incredible PFC to SFC one,that's a cracker 🤣

Mods - are you going to allow this blatant winding up baiting to continue from an already banned member!? 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Verbal said:

Anyway, so I thought JWP played well. 

Yes. Perfect game for him, retains the ball well. 
 

Seems like the perfect player for international football. 

Edited by SKD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SKD said:

Because to be Frank it’s absolutely embarrassing that it’s happened twice and the manager is under no pressure at all. 
 

The relevance here is that, this game highlights how bad it actually is to lose 9-0.

You don t sack a manager over 2 results you fucking tit.

What the fuck is wrong with you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, LiberalCommunist said:

Neither game was a 9 unless Mike Dean is there. So, its a stain, but it doesn't play heavily on my mind.

Anyone with any understanding of football understands this.  We were shit, but it took the perfect storm to make it a record result. 

Perfect storm? How many other teams go down to 10 men early and don’t lose 9-0. It doesn’t happen. The reason it doesn’t happen is because teams then set up defensively to counter. Anyone with an understanding of football understand this. 

Ralph seemingly doesn’t know how to shut up shop and see out a game. Not just the 2 9-0’s, but the number of leads we’ve thrown away as well. Even Steve Bruce gave him a lesson on how to defend a lead with 9 men ffs. 

Easy to blame Mike Dean, but both were red cards (excluding Bednerak from this, but at that point the damage was done). The players and manager need to look at themselves, going down to 10 men shouldn’t mean we get beaten 9-0. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SKD said:

Perfect storm? How many other teams go down to 10 men early and don’t lose 9-0. It doesn’t happen. The reason it doesn’t happen is because teams then set up defensively to counter. Anyone with an understanding of football understand this. 

Ralph seemingly doesn’t know how to shut up shop and see out a game. Not just the 2 9-0’s, but the number of leads we’ve thrown away as well. Even Steve Bruce gave him a lesson on how to defend a lead with 9 men ffs. 

Easy to blame Mike Dean, but both were red cards (excluding Bednerak from this, but at that point the damage was done). The players and manager need to look at themselves, going down to 10 men shouldn’t mean we get beaten 9-0. 

That Bertrand one was never a red card. No one at the game or on the pitch thought it was even close to one. Only someone watching from miles away could ever have thought so.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

What the feck is your problem? So, he lost a game or two but if you’re going to be selective you could invent all sorts of arguments.

Seriously, you have a problem.

“He lost a game or 2” or 10 in the last 12 premier league games.

Thats not being selective, that’s a fact and an awful statistic which coupled with a record equalling defeat, every manager should be under pressure from. 
 

I’m not saying sack him, but to have 0 pressure of being sacked is shocking. 

Edited by SKD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Whitey Grandad said:

That Bertrand one was never a red card. No one at the game or on the pitch thought it was even close to one. Only someone watching from miles away could ever have thought so.

Isn’t that what VAR is for? To spot the errors those on the pitch miss... 

He went over the ball and over the ankle. A dangerous tackle and absolutely a red card. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SKD said:

Isn’t that what VAR is for? To spot the errors those on the pitch miss... 

He went over the ball and over the ankle. A dangerous tackle and absolutely a red card. 

 

1 hour ago, SKD said:

“Never a red card” 😂😂😂

039C275E-37D7-42D4-8CC4-A4E455E15C6D.jpeg

And that is exactly why you cannot referee by remote image. At the instant that photo was caprured Bertrand had ceased his forward motion. There may have been some contact but even that is not certain. As I said above, neither the referee nor any of the players nor any of the spectators thought that it was even a foul. Total surprise all round when it was called back.

This is the problem with only taking a snapshot view. It gives you a blinkered outlook on the world.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

 

And that is exactly why you cannot referee by remote image. At the instant that photo was caprured Bertrand had ceased his forward motion. There may have been some contact but even that is not certain. As I said above, neither the referee nor any of the players nor any of the spectators thought that it was even a foul. Total surprise all round when it was called back.

This is the problem with only taking a snapshot view. It gives you a blinkered outlook on the world.

Mate, at tackle that high is a red card. Foolish to even argue it’s not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Chapel End said:

I amazed he's still here

I’m amazed you’re still here after being outed, by my detective skills, as a banned user. 

SKD for Moderator. 

Edited by SKD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, SKD said:

Mate, at tackle that high is a red card. Foolish to even argue it’s not.

It wasn't a tackle, that's the point. It was a leg stretched out. Bertrand had stopped moving by the time that the Leicester player arrived. Therefore not 'excessive force'.

As I said, you cannot judge anything from a still photograph. Were you at that game?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

It wasn't a tackle, that's the point. It was a leg stretched out. Bertrand had stopped moving by the time that the Leicester player arrived. Therefore not 'excessive force'.

As I said, you cannot judge anything from a still photograph. Were you at that game?

Yes I was at the game. At the time I thought it was harsh, but watching back, I thought it was justified. 

Any tackle or impact that high, you’re running the risk of a red card. For me; that’s a dangerous tackle and a red is justified. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, SKD said:

Yes I was at the game. At the time I thought it was harsh, but watching back, I thought it was justified. 

Any tackle or impact that high, you’re running the risk of a red card. For me; that’s a dangerous tackle and a red is justified. 

 

Reckless with excessive force? Nah, not for me. And look at the position of the referee. Right under his nose with a clear view of it. No complaints from any Leicester player either. Doesn't even qualify as a tackle. This is the problem with VAR. Slow motion doesn't give you any concept of the momentum of the players. 

All aroubnd me thought that the whole game was a bit of a laugh. Certainly not something that you would go on about year after bloody year.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

It wasn't a tackle, that's the point. It was a leg stretched out. Bertrand had stopped moving by the time that the Leicester player arrived. Therefore not 'excessive force'.

As I said, you cannot judge anything from a still photograph. Were you at that game?

Indeed. Dreadful conditions, side ways lashing rain, & nothing malicious in it at all. Play goes on, they score a goal. Mike Dean rather kindly brings play back so as to sent off Ryan, while obviously allowing the goal that was scored after the said incident to stand. Not making excuses for the heads that dropped and the disgusting display, but it takes a special kind of ref to interpret that tackle as deliberately dangerous with intent to injure. That made the historic night.

Roll on a season later, and due to a massive injury crisis a hot headed youngster is making his debut  does something utterly stupid after 79 seconds. Hammering incoming. No excuses. But at 6-0 Mike Dean decides that our player has committed a foul that leads to a penalty and red card. VAR ushers him over. He looks, he doesn't really care, he's always right and sends him off. Another 9-0. 

So I'll say again. History tells us we hold a record, but I always point the finger towards the man who seeks attention, Mike Dean. Without him, neither is possible. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LiberalCommunist said:

Indeed. Dreadful conditions, side ways lashing rain, & nothing malicious in it at all. Play goes on, they score a goal. Mike Dean rather kindly brings play back so as to sent off Ryan, while obviously allowing the goal that was scored after the said incident to stand. Not making excuses for the heads that dropped and the disgusting display, but it takes a special kind of ref to interpret that tackle as deliberately dangerous with intent to injure. That made the historic night.

Roll on a season later, and due to a massive injury crisis a hot headed youngster is making his debut  does something utterly stupid after 79 seconds. Hammering incoming. No excuses. But at 6-0 Mike Dean decides that our player has committed a foul that leads to a penalty and red card. VAR ushers him over. He looks, he doesn't really care, he's always right and sends him off. Another 9-0. 

So I'll say again. History tells us we hold a record, but I always point the finger towards the man who seeks attention, Mike Dean. Without him, neither is possible. 

This sounds like a recent game we just played against Newcastle. Conveniently, Newcastle had a man sent off and even went down to 9 men. 
 

Another team who hasn’t conceded 9, despite being down to 10 men. 
 

I love how we’re just accepting that even if Bednerak hadn’t been sent off, we may have kept it down to 6 or 7 as if that is some kind of achievement LOL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, LiberalCommunist said:

You seem to have missed your own point. You started a thread about how embarrassing it is to lose 9-0. 

Maybe change the title to 'what disappoints me most about Saints is............'

Fake news. I didn’t start the thread, it was a discussion about how San Marino managed to prevent England scoring 9, which highlights how bad those 2 9-0 defeats actually are. 
 

It was made its own thread and moved to here because the little snowflakes on here can’t handle some criticism of the supreme leader. 
 

But good idea about that thread idea. One for the main board in the coming days I expect 👍🏻

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SKD said:

Fake news. I didn’t start the thread, it was a discussion about how San Marino managed to prevent England scoring 9, which highlights how bad those 2 9-0 defeats actually are. 
 

It was made its own thread and moved to here because the little snowflakes on here can’t handle some criticism of the supreme leader. 
 

But good idea about that thread idea. One for the main board in the coming days I expect 👍🏻

Reduce San Marino to ten men and put Mike Dean in charge. 
 

Simples

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Reduce San Marino to ten men and put Mike Dean in charge. 
 

Simples

😂😂😂 does he nod them in does he? You can blame the ref for losing a game or giving a couple of bad decisions that lead to a goal, but not conceding 9 ffs. 
 

I think sticking Ralph and his continuous lunatic gung-ho approach in charge of them and they’d concede 20 probably. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SKD said:

😂😂😂 does he nod them in does he? You can blame the ref for losing a game or giving a couple of bad decisions that lead to a goal, but not conceding 9 ffs. 
 

I think sticking Ralph and his continuous lunatic gung-ho approach in charge of them and they’d concede 20 probably. 

Concede 20, you are the lunatic. 

Get the help

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chapel End said:

Concede 20, you are the lunatic. 

Get the help

You don’t think that if a team like San Marino played the way Ralph sets us up, they wouldn’t concede an absolute load? Of course they would you clown. 

The only reason it wasn’t over 10 was because they had all 11 men behind the ball and made it as difficult as possible for us to break them down. Like we should have done against United at 3/4/5/6/7-0 down. 

Imagine space him behind them to attack if they tried pressing us and had very little discipline and defensive shape 😭
 

Edited by SKD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, SKD said:

You don’t think that if a team like San Marino played the way Ralph sets us up, they wouldn’t concede an absolute load? Of course they would you clown. 

The only reason it wasn’t over 10 was because they had all 11 men behind the ball and made it as difficult as possible for us to break them down. Like we should have done against United at 3/4/5/6/7-0 down. 

Imagine space him behind them to attack if they tried pressing us and had very little discipline and defensive shape 😭
 

Er...  why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Of course. They’re both losses. You don’t lose any more points. It’s just a number. 
 

Why do you get so worked up over it? 

Because for it to happen once is bad enough, but twice is absolutely shambolic. 
 

If you seriously can’t see the difference to confidence, pride and reputation a record 9-0 defeat has over a standard 3/4-0 then let’s just end the discussion here. 
 

There’s a reason Ralph offered his resignation after the first one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})