Yes I noticed that clipboard was trying to whisper sweet nothings into Stale's ear but he refused to even acknowledge his presence. Clipboard looked crest-fallen that he hadn't been acknowledged.
I don't think Jarvis did himself any favours if he was hoping to convince West Ham to up their bid. On 19/08/2012, at 9:25 AM, "Rog & Reet" <rognr...@exemail.com.au> wrote: > Pesto put in more decent crosses in his 45 minutes than Jarvis has in all the > time he’s been with us. > Did cross when he should have shot early on and then shot when he should have > crossed much later. > Overall the new boys looked all right and that loss should have added a > couple of points to our odds, yessss!! > > Whatever West Ham are offering for Jarvis we should halve it. > Why we refused a bid for Zubar I don’t know. > Looked like Clipboard is on the way out the way Ståle pointedly ignored his > words of wisdom. > > > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Jeremy Tonks > Sent: Sunday, 19 August 2012 8:02 AM > To: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Super > > It wasn’t dire – we moved the ball well but lacked shape at the back. That > seemed to me to be clear difference between the two sides. The Leeds’ back > four we always in position and we seemed to play into their hands by only > going wide. > Our back four got caught square several times – do we lack pace? I’d like to > see us do more direct attacking. There were one or two cracker through balls > on the inside right that we should have made more of. The one that put Pesto > through and he pulled it back square was encouraging. If we’d had shooting > boots on we could have won (ONE shot on target – I think Jarvis alone put 4 > wide of the right hand uprightL) > > > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Marcus Chantry > Sent: Sunday, 19 August 2012 7:45 AM > To: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Super > > I think the fundamentals were pretty good. we passed well and retained > possession well. It was only in the final third that we lacked options and I > think that is down to playing 2 strikers who haven't scored a goal between > them for 25 years. > > Give the news guys times to settle in and I reckon we've got a lot to look > forward to. Onwards and upwards after a 7 out of 10 performance. > > > On 18/08/2012, at 23:42 , Jeremy Tonks <to...@hotkey.net.au> wrote: > > > > > Long season ahead – I’ll revise my tip back to 140 L > > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Jeremy Tonks > Sent: Saturday, 18 August 2012 11:19 PM > To: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Super > > We’ll be lucky to have 11 fit for next week at this rate… > > > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Jeremy Tonks > Sent: Saturday, 18 August 2012 10:46 PM > To: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Super > > And mine L > > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Rog & Reet > Sent: Saturday, 18 August 2012 10:45 PM > To: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Super > > About 2 hours past your bedtime isn’t it Steve? > > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Steven Millward > Sent: Saturday, 18 August 2012 10:29 PM > To: nswolves > Subject: [NSWolves] Super > > Super, super Mick > Super, super Mick > Super Mick McCarthy > -- > Boo! Saft Solbakken out! > -- > Boo! Saft Solbakken out! > -- > Boo! Saft Solbakken out! > -- > Boo! Saft Solbakken out! > > -- > Boo! Saft Solbakken out! > > -- > Boo! Saft Solbakken out! > -- > Boo! Saft Solbakken out! > > -- > Boo! Saft Solbakken out! -- Boo! Saft Solbakken out!
