Watch the whole match again?

[tarquinbeech]

Not for the faint-hearted......watch aimless balls pumped up to aging strikers, a Notts goalie plucking balls from the back of his own onion-bag....... and a comedy special, featuring a left-back spinning around in circles looking for his attacking namesake....."there he is, he's gone, where'd he go? he was here a minute ago Boss....this'll look great on video"

No?......ok, rob the kid's piggy-bank and head off to the pub (they should be open now)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adNgsrTxKKk

[jackal2]

I watched it last night. It's hard to believe that six weeks of pre-season training and tactical analysis produced that shambles. As you say, it was unsophisticated hoofball, reminiscent of what we saw under Steve Thompson years ago.

[tarquinbeech]

I watched it last night. It's hard to believe that six weeks of pre-season training and tactical analysis produced that shambles. As you say, it was unsophisticated hoofball, reminiscent of what we saw under Steve Thompson years ago.

Call me a masochist, but I've just watched it all again....and I've solved a couple of mysteries.

Our ONLY shot on target was in injury time (palmed over by the Covo keeper) and gave us our SECOND corner ie only one corner in the previous 90 minutes of normal time....mmmmm

Strangely enough, Collin only used his backs ONCE in 90 minutes (kicked it to the right back who sprinted forward, kept possession and fed it into the box).......every other time, Collin pumped it high and hard.

Lastly, 23 Jones wasn't actually at fault for the second goal (my apologies), it looked like Tootle (I still cannot read the shirt numbers) doing the comedy "spinning dervish" routine......not to be outdone by Toots, Jones then copied the routine which led to the 3rd goal.....at least we were consistent!!

[tarquinbeech]

Call me a masochist, but I've just watched it all again....and I've solved a couple of mysteries.

Our ONLY shot on target was in injury time (palmed over by the Covo keeper) and gave us our SECOND corner ie only one corner in the previous 90 minutes of normal time....mmmmm

Strangely enough, Collin only used his backs ONCE in 90 minutes (kicked it to the right back who sprinted forward, kept possession and fed it into the box).......every other time, Collin pumped it high and hard.

Lastly, 23 Jones wasn't actually at fault for the second goal (my apologies), it looked like Tootle (I still cannot read the shirt numbers) doing the comedy "spinning dervish" routine......not to be outdone by Toots, Jones then copied the routine which led to the 3rd goal.....at least we were consistent!!

Nope, not Tootle doing a "spinning dervish" for their 2nd goal...he was stood on the far post in my slo-mo.....by a process of elimination it can only be 24 Milsom, as Jones was stranded half-way up the pitch after fluffing a free-kick.

Someone has some explaining to do over these shirts....grrrrr

[Steward]

My theory is as long as the ref can see the No's close up that's all that counts.

[Freeman25]

Nope, not Tootle doing a "spinning dervish" for their 2nd goal...he was stood on the far post in my slo-mo.....by a process of elimination it can only be 24 Milsom, as Jones was stranded half-way up the pitch after fluffing a free-kick.

Someone has some explaining to do over these shirts....grrrrr

The thought at the time regarding the second goal was that Jones could have made an interception and didn't and then slowly jogged back while they were attacking. The first and third third were 100% his fault.

[LaxtonLad]

CAN Collin be coached into NOT booting the ball as hard as he can to no-one in particular - or is that a clever tactic?

WILL Nolly ever pick a different pairing in attack other than Stead and Ameobi - or do their contracts say they must?

OUGHT Alan Hardy be persuaded to use his £100,000 to re-paint the names and numbers on the players' shirts in a colour that can be read further than five yards away - or are they the colour they are to preserve their anonymity?

[Steward]

Its the management and the players that need to watch it again. once is enough for me

[tarquinbeech]

My theory is as long as the ref can see the No's close up that's all that counts.

What about the general public?......what about the commentators?

No idea if it was because of the numbers, but even the Ricoh announcer said it was 23 Jones coming off, not 20 Walker being replaced by Milsom....I made a right mess of my team sheet and notes

On the camera close-ups you can just about read the numbers....but not from the commentator's box or the back of the Kop, impossible

[Freeman25]

CAN Collin be coached into NOT booting the ball as hard as he can to no-one in particular - or is that a clever tactic?

As I said in another thread, why do people think that it's up to Adam Collin where he distributes the ball and not the overall instructions he's been given to play direct? If he wanted to he could roll the ball out to a defender every time but we are quite clearly a (not very good) direct team and thus he kicks it up to Shola/Stead every time.

@Tarquin - The announcer got the substitute wrong because they held up the wrong numbers on the board at first, they then tried to change it, presumably it didn't work though because we then didn't see the board again for the rest of the subs.

[tarquinbeech]

As I said in another thread, why do people think that it's up to Adam Collin where he distributes the ball and not the overall instructions he's been given to play direct? If he wanted to he could roll the ball out to a defender every time but we are quite clearly a (not very good) direct team and thus he kicks it up to Shola/Stead every time.

@Tarquin - The announcer got the substitute wrong because they held up the wrong numbers on the board at first, they then tried to change it, presumably it didn't work though because we then didn't see the board again for the rest of the subs.

If they'd stuck with bringing 23 Jones off, we might have not conceded another 2 goals?

[Old_pie]

What about the general public?......what about the commentators?

Yes but they don't actually need to watch the match, the ref does, and last season Uncle C just made up names anyway.



On the camera close-ups you can just about read the numbers....but not from the commentator's box or the back of the Kop, impossible

AH made a big thing about saying that the faded stripes on the back were to make the indistinct gold number clearer and that everyone would love, but then he also said that about the signings. Roll on the Class of 2018.

[LaxtonLad]

Yes but they don't actually need to watch the match, the ref does, and last season Uncle C just made up names anyway.

As Jimmy Connors used to shout "YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!" Are you saying commentators don't need to watch the match? The general public either? Why are we there then?

[DelroyFacey22]

The general public don't NEED to watch games, that's why games can be played behind closed doors, I think he's saying that the only people that officially NEED to be able to see numbers are the officials

[LaxtonLad]

The general public don't NEED to watch games, that's why games can be played behind closed doors, I think he's saying that the only people that officially NEED to be able to see numbers are the officials

The general public don't NEED to watch games! That's why games can be played behind closed doors!! What a good idea!!! It would save clubs an awful lot of money if no-one turned up to watch any games because they don't NEED to - just send your cash! Brilliant! Well it seems a good idea, you must have thought it through. I won't bother with the next game then as I don't NEED to, I'll just post a £20 note to Notts County c/o Silent Stadiums plc.

[60YearsAPie]

As Jimmy Connors used to shout "YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!" Are you saying commentators don't need to watch the match? The general public either? Why are we there then?

Think you're wrong there, Laxton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0hK1wyrrAU

[DelroyFacey22]

The general public don't NEED to watch games! That's why games can be played behind closed doors!! What a good idea!!! It would save clubs an awful lot of money if no-one turned up to watch any games because they don't NEED to - just send your cash! Brilliant! Well it seems a good idea, you must have thought it through. I won't bother with the next game then as I don't NEED to, I'll just post a £20 note to Notts County c/o Silent Stadiums plc.

Are you simple or what? I'm not suggesting fans don't go to games I'm saying they're not required there for the game to take place. You are familiar with games that are played with no fans in attendance right? Usually because they're friendlies with trialists that managers want to keep quiet or because teams don't want to spend money on stewards and catering for the small amount of people that might turn up. It can also be done as a punishment for teams with fans that cause trouble.

I'm not sure whats so difficult to grasp, I thought i made it pretty clear but apparently not. If no fans at all turned up on Saturday the game would still go ahead and would still enter the record books as being played. If the ref doesn't show up the game can't be played though, there's a difference in being there to watch the game as a spectator and being there in an official capacity, fans are not REQUIRED to be there, the officials are, which is why the referee's are the one's that are required to be able to make out the numbers and make sure that there are no kit clashes.

[LaxtonLad]

Are you simple or what? I'm not suggesting fans don't go to games I'm saying they're not required there for the game to take place. You are familiar with games that are played with no fans in attendance right? Usually because they're friendlies with trialists that managers want to keep quiet or because teams don't want to spend money on stewards and catering for the small amount of people that might turn up. It can also be done as a punishment for teams with fans that cause trouble.

I'm not sure whats so difficult to grasp, I thought i made it pretty clear but apparently not. If no fans at all turned up on Saturday the game would still go ahead and would still enter the record books as being played. If the ref doesn't show up the game can't be played though, there's a difference in being there to watch the game as a spectator and being there in an official capacity, fans are not REQUIRED to be there, the officials are, which is why the referee's are the one's that are required to be able to make out the numbers and make sure that there are no kit clashes.

That's not what you said though, is it? I am not simple and I can read your statements, if you cannot phrase your sentences clearly it is no fault of mine if they are not taken the way you would like. You said fans don't NEED to attend when what you meant was fans are not NEEDED to attend for a game to take place. A referee and his assistants are NEEDED for this and it helps them if numbers on shirts can be read clearly, it is not NECESSARY for the fans to read these but why not make it easy for them, this was a problem last year too but was ignored.

[DelroyFacey22]

Fans don't need to attend, it's not mandatory is it? It works as need or needed, fan's don't need to attend is the same as fan's aren't needed to attend.

[tarquinbeech]

Fans don't need to attend, it's not mandatory is it? It works as need or needed, fan's don't need to attend is the same as fan's aren't needed to attend.

This argument has gotten a bit silly IMO.

Sid stated last week at York that he couldn't read the numbers, Elite said the same on the Match Ratings thread and several others have commented on it.....there WERE 10,000 fans at Covo, many of which cannot possibly have read the Notts numbers unless they had telescopic 20/20 vision....is it necessary to read them? IMO yes because I don't know all the players and so it's difficult to reach an assessment on who is sheer pants and who is half decent.

Part of the reason I watched the game twice (apart from masochism) was to try to identify players by their physical shape and size and style.

I've now got Shola (he's the black guy), Stead (he's the guy that never touches the ball but loiters around the box), Collin is the guy scooping the ball out of his net, Aless is the baldish nippy winger, Duffy is the scruffy tall guy that growls at all the other backs and Jones and Milsom spin round in circles when an oppo attacker runs at them.......no idea on the midfield yet as they never touch the ball as it's normally 50 feet above them.....I think I'm doing well so far.

[tarquinbeech]

This argument has gotten a bit silly IMO.

Sid stated last week at York that he couldn't read the numbers, Elite said the same on the Match Ratings thread and several others have commented on it.....there WERE 10,000 fans at Covo, many of which cannot possibly have read the Notts numbers unless they had telescopic 20/20 vision....is it necessary to read them? IMO yes because I don't know all the players and so it's difficult to reach an assessment on who is sheer pants and who is half decent.

Part of the reason I watched the game twice (apart from masochism) was to try to identify players by their physical shape and size and style.

I've now got Shola (he's the black guy), Stead (he's the guy that never touches the ball but loiters around the box), Collin is the guy scooping the ball out of his net, Aless is the baldish nippy winger, Duffy is the scruffy tall guy that growls at all the other backs and Jones and Milsom spin round in circles when an oppo attacker runs at them.......no idea on the midfield yet as they never touch the ball as it's normally 50 feet above them.....I think I'm doing well so far.

Oops, forgot about HorHey, he's the highly-rated guy from last season who sits on the bench between the Job Creation Scheme trainees and has a snooze.

[ancientpie]

This argument has gotten a bit silly IMO.

Sid stated last week at York that he couldn't read the numbers, Elite said the same on the Match Ratings thread and several others have commented on it.....there WERE 10,000 fans at Covo, many of which cannot possibly have read the Notts numbers unless they had telescopic 20/20 vision....is it necessary to read them? IMO yes because I don't know all the players and so it's difficult to reach an assessment on who is sheer pants and who is half decent.

Part of the reason I watched the game twice (apart from masochism) was to try to identify players by their physical shape and size and style.

I've now got Shola (he's the black guy), Stead (he's the guy that never touches the ball but loiters around the box), Collin is the guy scooping the ball out of his net, Aless is the baldish nippy winger, Duffy is the scruffy tall guy that growls at all the other backs and Jones and Milsom spin round in circles when an oppo attacker runs at them.......no idea on the midfield yet as they never touch the ball as it's normally 50 feet above them.....I think I'm doing well so far.

Oh for a slowmo replay at the ground,you are doing much better than me, I thought Collin's No stood out really well & Shola takes some missing Stead is the one who constantly nearly gets there but apart from them I'm buggered. I shelled out £3 for a Prog on Saturday in the hope that it would help,what a waste of money.

[Elite_Pie]

Oh for a slowmo replay at the ground,you are doing much better than me, I thought Collin's No stood out really well & Shola takes some missing Stead is the one who constantly nearly gets there but apart from them I'm buggered. I shelled out £3 for a Prog on Saturday in the hope that it would help,what a waste of money.

The sad thing is that these days the colour of a player's boots is the easiest way to recognise them from a distance.

[SmiffyPie]

It baffles me why clubs/chairmen/whoever consistently fail to think things like this through. Did the club receive a sample of the shirt and actually have a look at it on the pitch?? What is wrong with a solid black/red/blue (etc etc) number and name??

[Old_pie]

This argument has gotten a bit silly IMO.

It's has become (gotten?? yuk) very silly. It was my post originally and it was a dig at the current regime. They made a lot about the shirts and the numbers after some of the criticisms of last year and AH made a point of saying how well pleased the supporters would be. How hard is it to try it first? He was going for something classy and the faded black was supposed to make the numbers stand out and there was some skepticism but you only get listened to if you praise the man. So as with other issues and promises supporters' requirements (pay at the gate, signings, PA system, mickey mouse cups etc) don't come high up on the list of priorities hence my slightly more than tongue in cheek comment.

Message: Just get the basics right and stop trying to be too clever.

[SmiffyPie]

Message: Just get the basics right and stop trying to be too clever.ReTweet that !!!

[tarquinbeech]

It's has become (gotten?? yuk) very silly. It was my post originally and it was a dig at the current regime. They made a lot about the shirts and the numbers after some of the criticisms of last year and AH made a point of saying how well pleased the supporters would be. How hard is it to try it first? He was going for something classy and the faded black was supposed to make the numbers stand out and there was some skepticism but you only get listened to if you praise the man. So as with other issues and promises supporters' requirements (pay at the gate, signings, PA system, mickey mouse cups etc) don't come high up on the list of priorities hence my slightly more than tongue in cheek comment.

Message: Just get the basics right and stop trying to be too clever.

In American and Canadian English, the past participle of the verb get is usually gotten. For example, we might say, “I have gotten behind on my work,” or, “The book was not gotten easily.” Got is the participle in some uses, though, such as where has got to or have got to means must (e.g., “We have got to go to the store.”) and where has got or have got means has or have (e.g., “I have got five sisters.”)

In the main varieties of English from outside North America, the past participle of get in all its senses is usually got. Gotten appears occasionally, and it is standard in a few set phrases such as ill-gotten gains, but the shorter form prevails by a large margin.

That gotten is primarily used in North America has given rise to the mistaken belief that it is American in origin and hence new and inferior. But gotten is in fact an old form, predating the United States and Canada by several centuries. It fell out of favor in British English by the 18th century, but it was eventually picked up again on the other side of the Atlantic, perhaps by analogy with forgotten.

The vehemence of some Britons’ scorn for gotten likely has to do with the fact that it has gained ground in British English over the last couple of decades. Many English speakers from outside North America resist the encroachment of so-called Americanisms (many of which, like gotten, are not actually American in origin) on their versions of English, and, for mysterious reasons, some feel especially strongly about gotten.

You Sir, have gotten your comeuppance

[Old_pie]

In American and Canadian English, the past participle of the verb get is usually gotten. For example, we might say, “I have gotten behind on my work,” or, “The book was not gotten easily.” Got is the participle in some uses, though, such as where has got to or have got to means must (e.g., “We have got to go to the store.”) and where has got or have got means has or have (e.g., “I have got five sisters.”)

In the main varieties of English from outside North America, the past participle of get in all its senses is usually got. Gotten appears occasionally, and it is standard in a few set phrases such as ill-gotten gains, but the shorter form prevails by a large margin.

That gotten is primarily used in North America has given rise to the mistaken belief that it is American in origin and hence new and inferior. But gotten is in fact an old form, predating the United States and Canada by several centuries. It fell out of favor in British English by the 18th century, but it was eventually picked up again on the other side of the Atlantic, perhaps by analogy with forgotten.

The vehemence of some Britons’ scorn for gotten likely has to do with the fact that it has gained ground in British English over the last couple of decades. Many English speakers from outside North America resist the encroachment of so-called Americanisms (many of which, like gotten, are not actually American in origin) on their versions of English, and, for mysterious reasons, some feel especially strongly about gotten.

You Sir, have gotten your comeuppance

I'm was generally aware of its history and grammatical correctness and it probably arrived (back) here having been successfully expelled as a result of all those soaps and no doubt a few westerns and it is still yuk, just like those shirt numbers. Anyway, you're Mexican aren't you? Don't say you speak merkin there?

[Bridg4d_Pie_]

Think you're wrong there, Laxton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0hK1wyrrAU

Try Mcen-Bratt. Eh.