TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

Then the article is badly written. How likely does it sound that the players didn't know this before this week?

Matt.

ferrarilover wrote:Then the article is badly written. How likely does it sound that the players didn't know this before this week?

Matt.

dont talk wet matt.

lathrope is quoted directly - it is "in his words" - so how can it be written badly?

I think the purpose of the article was to demonstrate to supporters that the players understand the enormity of the situation. Doesn't mean they didn't before or they've just realised.

Then Lathrope is a semi-literate moron. Any answer is a better answer than the one which suggests that the players all thought this season was going great guns until 5 minutes ago. They CANNOT be that stupid. I could show the table to my dog and she would understand that we are in trouble and have been for some time now, so it's utterly impossible that the players have only just realised.

Use yo' head, man! <Rastafarian smilie>

Matt.

ferrarilover wrote:Penny droppage rather assumes that they've been losing deliberately. Once again, I find myself typing a reminder that, until Lingy went off sick, we were a perfectly ordinary side, looking at no point as though we would struggle, despite not playing especially well. Settled manager next year for the whole season, the stability which that will bring and all the other benefits too and we'll be back up at the right end of the division.

Matt.

Just here to help you with honest facts, before Lingy went off sick we lost 1.0 to Harrogate, of Lingy's last 12 games before he went sick including Harrogate, we won 2 drew 3 and lost a whopping 7 . The side looked poo pants crap, and there was every indication of what was to come.

Lloyder5 wrote:I think the purpose of the article was to demonstrate to supporters that the players understand the enormity of the situation. Doesn't mean they didn't before or they've just realised.

really?

well, well done to them........pity no-one mentioned it before then really. then it might have been more appropriate.

ferrarilover wrote:Then Lathrope is a semi-literate moron. Any answer is a better answer than the one which suggests that the players all thought this season was going great guns until 5 minutes ago. They CANNOT be that stupid. I could show the table to my dog and she would understand that we are in trouble and have been for some time now, so it's utterly impossible that the players have only just realised.

Use yo' head, man! <Rastafarian smilie>

Matt.

maybe lathrope is and that the players are............

forevertufc wrote:
Just here to help you with honest facts, before Lingy went off sick we lost 1.0 to Harrogate, of Lingy's last 12 games before he went sick including Harrogate, we won 2 drew 3 and lost a whopping 7 . The side looked poo pants crap, and there was every indication of what was to come.

Of course there wasn't. We weren't getting thrashed. In fact, we lost just one of those games by more than a single goal and that was with Ricey in net. Harrogate was the FA Cup, these things happen in the FA Cup. We were robbed against Barnet. We lost a daft games against Wimbledon and got a creditable point against auto promotion candidates Northampton with their equaliser coming with the last kick of the game. We lost to a wonder striker at auto promotion candidates Burton and we took 4 points from playoff hopefuls Exeter. We also lost 1-0 to a wonder goal from Connell having held out so well for 80 minutes with 10 men at Bradford. Across 4 local derbies in that period, we were unbeaten and, added together, that lot left us with a side which, having won its game in hand, would have been 3 points outside the playoffs. We were doing just fine, points wise. We lucked out in a couple of matches and weren't quite getting the goals to win us matches for a little while, but there is bugger all to suggest that we were going to fail to win for 14 games or whatever it was. Nothing like. Indeed, it was probably more likely, given our recent history, that that little patch would have been an unfortunately costly blip and we would have kicked on.

The bare results are all well and good, but a football match is more than just the final result, other things considered, 9 points from 33 isn't as bad as it is expressed purely as 9 points from 33.

Matt.

really?

well, well done to them........pity no-one mentioned it before then really. then it might have been more appropriate.

Indeed, new regime etc. Seems to want to engage the supporters, sharing hopes and fears. Hope it lasts.

We weren't robbed against Barnet. That suggests that we dominated the game, which is not the case. We shaded it - a point would have been the just result.

We were poor at home to Northampton.

We were unspeakably poor against Harrogate.

But carry on, you're doing well.

We battered Barnet, they had one bloody shot. If you feel differently, that's your prerogative.
We weren't brilliant, but not is any other side in every match.
The FA Cup game was a massive freak, we missed two 'unmissable' chances.

I'd put something snide, but I'm not that pathetic... whoops.

Matt.

ferrarilover wrote: Of course there wasn't. We weren't getting thrashed. In fact, we lost just one of those games by more than a single goal and that was with Ricey in net. Harrogate was the FA Cup, these things happen in the FA Cup. We were robbed against Barnet. We lost a daft games against Wimbledon and got a creditable point against auto promotion candidates Northampton with their equaliser coming with the last kick of the game. We lost to a wonder striker at auto promotion candidates Burton and we took 4 points from playoff hopefuls Exeter. We also lost 1-0 to a wonder goal from Connell having held out so well for 80 minutes with 10 men at Bradford. Across 4 local derbies in that period, we were unbeaten and, added together, that lot left us with a side which, having won its game in hand, would have been 3 points outside the playoffs. We were doing just fine, points wise. We lucked out in a couple of matches and weren't quite getting the goals to win us matches for a little while, but there is bugger all to suggest that we were going to fail to win for 14 games or whatever it was. Nothing like. Indeed, it was probably more likely, given our recent history, that that little patch would have been an unfortunately costly blip and we would have kicked on.

The bare results are all well and good, but a football match is more than just the final result, other things considered, 9 points from 33 isn't as bad as it is expressed purely as 9 points from 33.
Matt.

matt its a result driven business. how you can say it isnt baffles me.
managers tend to get sacked if the team lose a lot and dont gain enough points in a given amount of time.
9 from 33 "not bad"?? are you having a laugh?

when you consider that you may ask yourself why a change wasnt made.

Lloyder5 wrote: Indeed, new regime etc. Seems to want to engage the supporters, sharing hopes and fears. Hope it lasts.

pity they didnt do it at least a month ago then.

SuperNickyWroe wrote: matt its a result driven business. how you can say it isnt baffles me.
managers tend to get sacked if the team lose a lot and dont gain enough points in a given amount of time.
9 from 33 "not bad"?? are you having a laugh?

when you consider that you may ask yourself why a change wasnt made.

With misquoting skillz like this, you want to work for the Mail.

I didn't say 9 from 33 was "not bad", I said it wasn't as bad as it necessarily looks when taken in isolation.

Yes, it's a results driven business, I never said it wasn't (despite your insistences that I did). My point is that it isn't purely about the result when determining the future direction of the team. The point of this is that Dave (and others) are suggesting that they saw our slump coming based on what happened in October and I'm suggesting that this couldn't really be the case with any certainty because, although we didn't win many matches, there was nothing in the performances necessarily (and I feel this was borne out in the scores) which suggested that we would go from comfortable mid-table, flirting with the playoffs to looking like we might never win another match inside the space of a few weeks.
Regardless of how dull it may have been to watch, I firmly believe that, had Dinger not been sick, we would now be sitting where Rovers are (or there about), unable to realistically make the playoffs, but in absolutely no danger of going down. We were in a bit of a "late goal drama" slump, compounded by the freak result against Harrogate and we were then dealt a hammer blow at a time when we would have been looking to get ourselves together.

The other argument is that Dinger was ill before he actually went on sick leave and that this was having an adverse affect on the team in the run up to Christmas. I suppose, although there is no evidence of which I am aware to support this, that Dinger could have been effectively relieved of his duties just days into the season. He was allowed and encouraged to retain his position on the touchline (where he was hardly Mr Dynamic) and around the club in order to avoid spooking the fans for as long as possible. Pure speculation on my part, of course.

Matt.

ferrarilover wrote:
With misquoting skillz like this, you want to work for the Mail.

I didn't say 9 from 33 was "not bad", I said it wasn't as bad as it necessarily looks when taken in isolation.

Yes, it's a results driven business, I never said it wasn't (despite your insistences that I did). My point is that it isn't purely about the result when determining the future direction of the team. The point of this is that Dave (and others) are suggesting that they saw our slump coming based on what happened in October and I'm suggesting that this couldn't really be the case with any certainty because, although we didn't win many matches, there was nothing in the performances necessarily (and I feel this was borne out in the scores) which suggested that we would go from comfortable mid-table, flirting with the playoffs to looking like we might never win another match inside the space of a few weeks.
Regardless of how dull it may have been to watch, I firmly believe that, had Dinger not been sick, we would now be sitting where Rovers are (or there about), unable to realistically make the playoffs, but in absolutely no danger of going down. We were in a bit of a "late goal drama" slump, compounded by the freak result against Harrogate and we were then dealt a hammer blow at a time when we would have been looking to get ourselves together.

The other argument is that Dinger was ill before he actually went on sick leave and that this was having an adverse affect on the team in the run up to Christmas. I suppose, although there is no evidence of which I am aware to support this, that Dinger could have been effectively relieved of his duties just days into the season. He was allowed and encouraged to retain his position on the touchline (where he was hardly Mr Dynamic) and around the club in order to avoid spooking the fans for as long as possible. Pure speculation on my part, of course.

Matt.

"as bad" is still "bad" matt.

i also didnt say that you said it wasnt a result driven business you said "bare results" is that not the same thing??
i think it is.
also you talk about "peformances" again they in the cold light of day count for nought - as for "bourne out in the scores" well, 1-0 or 3-0 is still a loss and creates pressure on the next game.

the point i wanted to make with this thread is that it has taken until today for any player to acknowledge and be interviewed regarding the situation that we find ourselves in with 2 games in the season reamaining.