Shots on target

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pboromag

he took on a job and he failed to do it

other managers have gone into teams and saved them under very similar circumstances
if i hire someone to do a job and they fail to do it then they have failed to achieve what they said they could or would do

lets not beat around the bush rafa came here for the excessivly large wage packet he is on

it doesnt matter how many goals we did score or dint score
the simple fact is he failed to do enough to keep us up

fat sam has gone into clubs in very similar circumstances and done what he said he would do
keep them up

so is he not better at his job than rafa

---

He took on what was almost an impossible task because of the position Ashley's former choices of make believe managers had got us into. If you are STUPID enough to continue to bleat that only one loss out of eight games is relegation form then no one can have any respect for any of your opinions.

IT IS SIMPLY A MATHEMATICAL FACT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zippity

Fu.ck off, man. He took us down?? Ffs, that is exactly what the mackems say. You'll be saying they relegated us next. Pfft.

McClown took us down. Aye, Rafa didn't manage to keep us up but saying he took us down is just boll0cks.

---

You can't expect a W.U.M. merchant come Mackem like Pboro to even begin to grasp that though. He thinks he's getting everyone upset about his opinions about Rafa but all he is doing is confirming that if there's nothing between the ears then you can't put anything there.

Just refer to his recent post " I may have been wrong about Rafa"

Answer to that is that no one's wrong about you Matey Mackem.

If rafa is a fat spanish waiter (that has actually won the champions league), what the **** are you peterboro? A fat turkish waiter? From cyprus? You truly are a horrible hate filled spunk trench of a man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ex_pat_magpie

You can't expect a W.U.M. merchant come Mackem like Pboro to even begin to grasp that though. He thinks he's getting everyone upset about his opinions about Rafa but all he is doing is confirming that if there's nothing between the ears then you can't put anything there.

Just refer to his recent post " I may have been wrong about Rafa"

Answer to that is that no one's wrong about you Matey Mackem.

---

Nail on the head there, Pat.

The thing is PBoro casts his hook and within seconds his keep net is brimming.

The best way to deal with WUMs is to ignore them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geordie_Exile_De

The thing is PBoro casts his hook and within seconds his keep net is brimming.

The best way to deal with WUMs is to ignore them.

---

The best thing to do with Mackem Wumpties is to let them see that they are even more stupid than they appear to be.

Pboro is the poorest fisherman who has ever been on here. Everyone but himself has him sussed out.

One has to admit, though, that trying to stop or fight Pboro back is almost as boring as reading his usually senseless posts.

All this shots on target and off target are basically irrelevant if they don't change the game scoreline.

10 shots on target could be 10 weak shots at the keeper who merely catches them with no fuss.
10 shots off target could be overhead kicks hitting the wood work or deflecting off another players and going wide. They could look spectacular but still off target.

The one's that go over the goal line and count as a goal no matter how it happens, is a goal and that changes the scoreline.
Whether one team has had 50 shots on target and 100 shots off target and scored no goals, whereas the other team might have had one shot on target and that being their only shot which deflects into the goal...wins the game.

Who deserves it?
The goal scorers, because the game is not decided by what if's or hard luck or could have and should have. It's decided by HAVE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghostrider

All this shots on target and off target are basically irrelevant if they don't change the game scoreline.

10 shots on target could be 10 weak shots at the keeper who merely catches them with no fuss.
10 shots off target could be overhead kicks hitting the wood work or deflecting off another players and going wide. They could look spectacular but still off target.

The one's that go over the goal line and count as a goal no matter how it happens, is a goal and that changes the scoreline.
Whether one team has had 50 shots on target and 100 shots off target and scored no goals, whereas the other team might have had one shot on target and that being their only shot which deflects into the goal...wins the game.

Who deserves it?
The goal scorers, because the game is not decided by what if's or hard luck or could have and should have. It's decided by HAVE.

---

That's exactly the point Ghostrider. A few years ago it was never a factor to even be discussed but the bookies cottoned on to it as another way to to grab more money out of the stupid punter's pockets.

And hey ho it has become another "relevant factor" and as Ghostrider pointed out, it's only shots on target which beat the goalie and nestle in the back of the net which count.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ex_pat_magpie

it's only shots on target which beat the goalie and nestle in the back of the net which count.

---

How about a shot that hits the bar and bounces down and in, but doesn´t nestle in the back of the net. Does that count?















Sorry. :)