Who was your man of the match?
Moderators: marko69, Bluemike, Charnwood
-
- Posts: 3084
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 9:55 pm
- Location: Swavesey, Cambridgeshire
- Contact:
Who was your man of the match?
Again, bloody difficult choice. De Vos, was as we are coming to expect, excellent. But Horlock was hugely influential in midfield, Miller had a fantastic game, and if it hadn't been for one embarassing c*ck-up, Naylor had a hugely impressive game. Let's not forget Westlake who had a superb game, and linked up most impressively with Miller a few times - they looked world class a couple of times.
Its such a hard choice - Bent was on top form, Bowditch also looked superb - Wilnis did a great job as fall in left back, and even Diallo was hugely impressive. Only usual MOTM candidate who can't really stand for it is Kelvin Davies, who basically had nothing to do.
For me, it was between De Vos and Horlock - De Vos was superb, but Horlock was hugely influential for me, and considering we were outgunned in midfield for the first 45 minutes, he made the difference.
Its such a hard choice - Bent was on top form, Bowditch also looked superb - Wilnis did a great job as fall in left back, and even Diallo was hugely impressive. Only usual MOTM candidate who can't really stand for it is Kelvin Davies, who basically had nothing to do.
For me, it was between De Vos and Horlock - De Vos was superb, but Horlock was hugely influential for me, and considering we were outgunned in midfield for the first 45 minutes, he made the difference.
- Riviera
- Posts: 22224
- Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 10:07 am
- Location: Chudleigh Knighton - On the edge of Dartmoor
Re: Who was your man of the match?
bloody hell mork, everyone had a superb game according to that lolMork wrote:Again, bloody difficult choice. De Vos, was as we are coming to expect, excellent. But Horlock was hugely influential in midfield, Miller had a fantastic game, and if it hadn't been for one embarassing c*ck-up, Naylor had a hugely impressive game. Let's not forget Westlake who had a superb game, and linked up most impressively with Miller a few times - they looked world class a couple of times.
Its such a hard choice - Bent was on top form, Bowditch also looked superb - Wilnis did a great job as fall in left back, and even Diallo was hugely impressive. Only usual MOTM candidate who can't really stand for it is Kelvin Davies, who basically had nothing to do.
For me, it was between De Vos and Horlock - De Vos was superb, but Horlock was hugely influential for me, and considering we were outgunned in midfield for the first 45 minutes, he made the difference.
the guy on skysports said it was a pretty boring game in the 1st half
-
- Posts: 3084
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 9:55 pm
- Location: Swavesey, Cambridgeshire
- Contact:
Re: Who was your man of the match?
The first half was superb, the second half kinda died. But we did play our best football of the season so far imo, excellent stuff for the most part.riviera wrote:bloody hell mork, everyone had a superb game according to that lolMork wrote:Again, bloody difficult choice. De Vos, was as we are coming to expect, excellent. But Horlock was hugely influential in midfield, Miller had a fantastic game, and if it hadn't been for one embarassing c*ck-up, Naylor had a hugely impressive game. Let's not forget Westlake who had a superb game, and linked up most impressively with Miller a few times - they looked world class a couple of times.
Its such a hard choice - Bent was on top form, Bowditch also looked superb - Wilnis did a great job as fall in left back, and even Diallo was hugely impressive. Only usual MOTM candidate who can't really stand for it is Kelvin Davies, who basically had nothing to do.
For me, it was between De Vos and Horlock - De Vos was superb, but Horlock was hugely influential for me, and considering we were outgunned in midfield for the first 45 minutes, he made the difference.
the guy on skysports said it was a pretty boring game in the 1st half
I can't really think of anything negative to say about our boys today - shame about Pablo's couple of misses, and Naylor's total c*ck-up - but even so, both played well otherwise.
-
- Posts: 1183
- Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 3:37 pm
Wouldn't say it was boring first half - bit stop start but that was really due to picky refs & the injuries.
Just wanted to say Naylor would have got my vote today if it had not been for 10 seconds of madness! But Bent worked hard the whole game and covered miles, tracked back, scored a goal... Tough, tough choice today though.
Just wanted to say Naylor would have got my vote today if it had not been for 10 seconds of madness! But Bent worked hard the whole game and covered miles, tracked back, scored a goal... Tough, tough choice today though.
- budgiebasher
- Posts: 5893
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 7:05 pm
- Location: Ipswich
Re: Who was your man of the match?
They did play well, even though it wasn't end to end football. Without the c*ck-up goal we gave them, Cardiff didn't force Davies to make a single save.riviera wrote:
bloody hell mork, everyone had a superb game according to that lol
the guy on skysports said it was a pretty boring game in the 1st half
I rate that a good performance after the last 2 games, and certainly better than Gillingham.
-
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 1:52 am
- Location: Essex
Re: Who was your man of the match?
Was u watching the same game as me ??Mork wrote:Again, bloody difficult choice. De Vos, was as we are coming to expect, excellent. But Horlock was hugely influential in midfield, Miller had a fantastic game, and if it hadn't been for one embarassing c*ck-up, Naylor had a hugely impressive game. Let's not forget Westlake who had a superb game, and linked up most impressively with Miller a few times - they looked world class a couple of times.
Its such a hard choice - Bent was on top form, Bowditch also looked superb - Wilnis did a great job as fall in left back, and even Diallo was hugely impressive. Only usual MOTM candidate who can't really stand for it is Kelvin Davies, who basically had nothing to do.
For me, it was between De Vos and Horlock - De Vos was superb, but Horlock was hugely influential for me, and considering we were outgunned in midfield for the first 45 minutes, he made the difference.
Re: Who was your man of the match?
Well Mork was watching Ipswich Vs Cardiff which game were you watching?Tony wrote:Was u watching the same game as me ??Mork wrote:Again, bloody difficult choice. De Vos, was as we are coming to expect, excellent. But Horlock was hugely influential in midfield, Miller had a fantastic game, and if it hadn't been for one embarassing c*ck-up, Naylor had a hugely impressive game. Let's not forget Westlake who had a superb game, and linked up most impressively with Miller a few times - they looked world class a couple of times.
Its such a hard choice - Bent was on top form, Bowditch also looked superb - Wilnis did a great job as fall in left back, and even Diallo was hugely impressive. Only usual MOTM candidate who can't really stand for it is Kelvin Davies, who basically had nothing to do.
For me, it was between De Vos and Horlock - De Vos was superb, but Horlock was hugely influential for me, and considering we were outgunned in midfield for the first 45 minutes, he made the difference.
Notts Blue
- Earl Blue
- Posts: 27506
- Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 11:33 pm
- Location: Blighty
- Contact:
OK my turn..
I actually believe we should give some Credit to Diallo today as well..
Ok he was not everyones flavour of the month against Derby, but played a role in at least one of the goals, and I think although he may not get my vote for man of the match He was not far off..
And also Pablo.. Again a contributor to one of the goals..
Come on be fair..
I actually believe we should give some Credit to Diallo today as well..
Ok he was not everyones flavour of the month against Derby, but played a role in at least one of the goals, and I think although he may not get my vote for man of the match He was not far off..
And also Pablo.. Again a contributor to one of the goals..
Come on be fair..
-
- Posts: 3084
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 9:55 pm
- Location: Swavesey, Cambridgeshire
- Contact:
Heh. It was funny the way Earnshaw just gave up jumping for the ball - he didnt stand a chance up against De Vos - Earnshaw looks what, 5"8?Dazza wrote:De Vos without doubt. Beat Earnshaw EVERYTIME and played perfect considering he was sent home from the Candian squad.
I do believe he'll make a great difference to our defence (like he hasnt already)
- Earl Blue
- Posts: 27506
- Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 11:33 pm
- Location: Blighty
- Contact:
LOL I am 5' 8 Mork and I felt like a giant..Mork wrote:Heh. It was funny the way Earnshaw just gave up jumping for the ball - he didnt stand a chance up against De Vos - Earnshaw looks what, 5"8?Dazza wrote:De Vos without doubt. Beat Earnshaw EVERYTIME and played perfect considering he was sent home from the Candian squad.
I do believe he'll make a great difference to our defence (like he hasnt already)
-
- Posts: 3084
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 9:55 pm
- Location: Swavesey, Cambridgeshire
- Contact:
Heh, I dunno what De Vos is in terms of height, but he towered over Earnshaw, and I don't believe Earnshaw got to one high ball - he did eventually just stop jumping for em.Earl Blue wrote:LOL I am 5' 8 Mork and I felt like a giant..Mork wrote:Heh. It was funny the way Earnshaw just gave up jumping for the ball - he didnt stand a chance up against De Vos - Earnshaw looks what, 5"8?Dazza wrote:De Vos without doubt. Beat Earnshaw EVERYTIME and played perfect considering he was sent home from the Candian squad.
I do believe he'll make a great difference to our defence (like he hasnt already)
- Earl Blue
- Posts: 27506
- Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 11:33 pm
- Location: Blighty
- Contact:
Mork wrote:Heh, I dunno what De Vos is in terms of height, but he towered over Earnshaw, and I don't believe Earnshaw got to one high ball - he did eventually just stop jumping for em.Earl Blue wrote:LOL I am 5' 8 Mork and I felt like a giant..Mork wrote: Heh. It was funny the way Earnshaw just gave up jumping for the ball - he didnt stand a chance up against De Vos - Earnshaw looks what, 5"8?
Hes so small I did not notice he had been subbed..