braddock Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Quick! put BBC1 on Tony Livesey`s face is a picture. He looks gutted.......& there`s a Rovers article coming up in a few minutes he literally just had his head in his hands
This thread is brought to you by theterracestore.com Enter code `BRFCS` at checkout for an exclusive discount!
BuckyRover Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Spot on Al, just cant belive how anyone can think Andrews played well. All I can think is they must be the younger supporters of the club. The club needs to seriously improve our central midfield options of Grella and Andrews or we will struggle.Beginning to think Nelsen has had his day aswell. Yep, that must be the reason, they are young? Trappatoni is a spring chicken!
JAL Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Yep, that must be the reason, they are young? Trappatoni is a spring chicken! Trappatoni has an extremely limited amount of players to chose from, poor old Ireland and Trappatoni. Rovers have a world wide player market that they can chose from, big, big difference. Are you a KA lover who wants to hold Rovers back or see Rovers progres Bucky ?
ABBEY Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Quick! put BBC1 on Tony Livesey`s face is a picture. He looks gutted.......& there`s a Rovers article coming up in a few minutes I SWEAR THERE WAS A TEAR IN HIS EYE LOL....he couldnt even mention it or congrat us hahahaha
JAL Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 They still think they outplayed us: Dave Pollard - Clarets mad. Rovers tried to find their "playmaker", goalkeeper Paul Robinson, at every opportunity. He simply leathered it as far as he could, while his team-mates played for free kicks and throw-ins in the Burnley half. The home team were desperate to watch, but the Clarets began to look more and more uncomfortable under the bombardment of Robinson's clearances and the recalled Morten Gamst Pederson's long throws. Rovers were happy to surrender territory to protect the lead, and even drew "Oles" from the home crowd whenever they completed a rare couple of passes along the ground. We were again reduced to laughing at our neighbours, as their fans poured out of the ground in their droves in the last ten minutes. The introduction of Gael Givet, who made David Dunn look like Kate Moss, also raised a chuckle. I wonder if he uses the same dietician as Jon Parkin? But it wasn't to be this time. Through gritted teeth, Rovers probably deserved to win on chances, as atrocious as their style of play was, and no matter how dubious their second goal was. The bragging rights belong to Rovers again, but could you really bring yourself to brag about a team which plays like that? Incredible. There again, they all seem to believe they played well and are a fantastic footballing side. Hopefully all at Turf Moor will continue to kid themselves. You could say Burnley's violent nature showed when Elliot stamped on Chimbondas head. Then Calisle malicously took David Dunn out kevin Ball style. Then their kepper 'the flying pig' deliberately prevented a goal scoring opportunity by taking the Rovers forward out with no intent on going for the ball. The dirty clarets and their dirty brand of football.
SIMON GARNERS 194 Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 I'm on that video! The idiot running around with no top on in shorts Steady on lads 'n' lasses.. dont destroy our uncle jack!
brian_gallagher85 Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Trappatoni has an extremely limited amount of players to chose from, poor old Ireland and Trappatoni. Rovers have a world wide player market that they can chose from, big, big difference. Are you a KA lover who wants to hold Rovers back or see Rovers progres Bucky ? We'll have less of the poor old Ireland and Trappatoni. Keith and the rest of the lads will show you all what for when we smash the Frogs! Andrews v Diarra....no contest
ABBEY Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 You could say Burnley's violent nature showed when Elliot stamped on Chimbondas head. Then Calisle malicously took David Dunn out kevin Ball style. Then their kepper 'the flying pig' deliberately prevented a goal scoring opportunity by taking the Rovers forward out with no intent on going for the ball. The dirty clarets and their dirty brand of football. ELLIOT ..WHAT A COCK. PILLOCK (SMITH I THINK) ON SKY JUST SAID IT WAS ACCIDENTAL KICK TO THE HEAD.
92er Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Lochhead a legend from Burnley ? Funnily enough I have never heard of him, must have been before the 60's era. As for Irvine ? He is a fully paid up member of jimbos' senile squad !!!! They can moan and groan but they cannot change the result. Rovers 3 - 2 Dingles Lochhead was a very good player for Burnley in the 60's. He and Mike England had legendary tussles. I don't think Irvine was as good, without consulting Mike Jackman's book, but I seem to remember he was sold to PNE and also scored for them against us.
Backroom Tom Posted October 19, 2009 Backroom Posted October 19, 2009 ELLIOT ..WHAT A COCK. PILLOCK (SMITH I THINK) ON SKY JUST SAID IT WAS ACCIDENTAL KICK TO THE HEAD. I was shocked at that watching it back, they showed a replay and glossed over it, surely he should get a call from the FA The dingles think its hilarious how Elliot later implied chimbonda had bad breath after they went face to face, remind me out of the two of them who scored the winner and who contributed nothing? Elliot 0 Chimbonda 1
longsiders1882 Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Bizarre - Burnley were the worst team some have seen at Ewood yet scored 2 goals, had more possesion, better passing success, the same tackle success and only a couple of shots less - what does that say about your side, who were playing at home against this woeful opposition? Did you deserve to win? I've already said I think that. We simply struggled against the physical dimension of your game, as we did against Stoke and probably will against Bolton, those teams being the other major route one protaginists of the division, hopefully we will learn to deal with it.
SIMON GARNERS 194 Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 I think some of the safety stuff diluted the derby.We should have sold the Dingles all the Darwen End. I'd rather have 8,000 watching Rovers beat them than 2,000! Honestly though, it would have done the 'Cotton Mill Derby' a big favour not have empty seats and have an even bigger roar instead. NO! you are wrong,very wrong..the f'kin dingles should never ever again get the whole Darwen end.Any empty seats should have been put on sale for OUR supporters and hopefully the rank stupid Police will allow this next time.You would have had OUR OWN supporters missing out to accomodate that lot who sing songs about 'dead jack' and smash the toilets to hell?? WTF! I think the comments from our deluded Clarrott neighbours just goes to prove that the vast majority of them are so jealous about Rovers,blinkered and graceless in defeat that they are quite simply puddled beyond belief.I do believe it has something to do with the water that trickles down into Burnley from the slag heaps over Hapton way. BTW Willie Irvine works at my place of employment,cant see beyond the end of his Clarrott spectacles and is a self confessed Rovers 'hater'....much the norm over yonder.
BillC Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Bizarre - Burnley were the worst team some have seen at Ewood yet scored 2 goals, had more possesion, better passing success, the same tackle success and only a couple of shots less - what does that say about your side, who were playing at home against this woeful opposition? Did you deserve to win? I've already said I think that. We simply struggled against the physical dimension of your game, as we did against Stoke and probably will against Bolton, those teams being the other major route one protaginists of the division, hopefully we will learn to deal with it. fewer, a couple of shots fewer. Will you ever learn over there in Yorkshire?
den Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Bizarre - Burnley were the worst team some have seen at Ewood yet scored 2 goals, had more possesion, better passing success, the same tackle success and only a couple of shots less - what does that say about your side, who were playing at home against this woeful opposition? Did you deserve to win? I've already said I think that. We simply struggled against the physical dimension of your game, as we did against Stoke and probably will against Bolton, those teams being the other major route one protaginists of the division, hopefully we will learn to deal with it. You disappoint me Longsiders. After having the guts to come on here after the game for which you deserve much respect, you follow it up with these deluded comments based on some "stats"? Don't you see that the scoreline flattered you? Don't you see that man for man, rovers were the better team in every position? Don't you see, that although, as you suggested probably most of us rovers fans were quite worried after your second goal, that for the most part it looked like it could have been another 5 goal drubbing? Why is it only the Burnley fans who aren't capable of analysing and discussing a football match properly? We don't have that problem with the fans of the other clubs who post on here. It's something in the water that makes you lot so bitter and unrealistic - it must be.
Claytons Left Boot Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 On a side note the comments from our deluded Clarrott neighbours just goes to prove that the vast majority of them are so jealous about Rovers,blinkered and graceless in defeat, they are quite simply puddled beyond belief.I do believe it has something to do with the water that trickles down into Burnley from the slag heaps over Hapton way. Burnley is quite simply a town with a village mentality. I have worked in both Burnley and Nelson and they are some of the weirdest and deluded bar stewards I have ever met.
DarrellH Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Did you deserve to win? I've already said I think that. We simply struggled against the physical dimension of your game, as we did against Stoke and probably will against Bolton, those teams being the other major route one protaginists of the division, hopefully we will learn to deal with it. I take it you are ignoring the goals scored by Dunn and Chimbonda in your assumptions on the physical dimensions - both quality goals.
SIMON GARNERS 194 Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Longsider,dont say even you believe this bullshyte hype emanating from Burnley and surrounding enclaves about your team being East Lancs footballing equivalent of Brazil? ...you were doing so well too
nicko Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 There may be some interesting Di Santo developments in the next few days or so. Interesting tale in the papers tomorrow.
den Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 No end to it: Willie Irvine Burnley legend Willie Irvine said: “I thought the officials were dreadful. “Burnley had no answer to that long ball, and they didn't defend well. "I think we played the better football, but we gave it away too easily at times. “I think we looked a lot better when Chris Eagles and Kevin McDonald came on, and I would have liked to have seen them on a bit earlier, but you have to trust Owen Coyle, he’s the man who got us into this division. “I suppose it gives Rovers the bragging rights, but they are a poor side. "They just play the big, long ball, but we just didn’t know how to deal with it. I’m gutted.” Andy Lochhead Fellow Claret favourite Andy Lochhead added: “All Blackburn have got is route one football. "But we were poor at the back and never dealt with thatgameplan.” Bitter, bitter, bitter.
brian_gallagher85 Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 There may be some interesting Di Santo developments in the next few days or so. Interesting tale in the papers tomorrow. You bubble bursting swine ...or will it be good news
nicko Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 You bubble bursting swine ...or will it be good news I would think it is more positive than negative...but time will tell how this one plays out.
RovertheHill Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 It's a real old laugh reading these bitter dingles. They really are deluded. There is a very simple test which we can apply. It's called the Premier League. Let's see exactly where the East Lancs equivalent of Brazil finish up in May.
Anti-Dingle-Brigade Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 I think it'll be Di Santo saying he wants to stay here, but the obvious snag is the fact that Chelsea won't let him go.
SIMON GARNERS 194 Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 There may be some interesting Di Santo developments in the next few days or so. Interesting tale in the papers tomorrow. Go on Nicko..potentially good or bad news?
eddiewac Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 I think it'll be Di Santo saying he wants to stay here, but the obvious snag is the fact that Chelsea won't let him go. Yeah I was thinking that! Not permanently but past January! Maybe he thinks that Chelsea will only need him for January and then he'll be frozen out again once the guys from African Nations return
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.