Re: Wakefield (H) : Sat Mar 19, 2016 8:32 am  

airliebird,runninglate! wrote:

Tala and Fonua would be both wingers. My god I'd have Tala back. Stood out like a sore thumb him not being there last night. Both wingers were very ineffective/poor
Talanoa is usually in nearly every game he plays one of our top metre makers,carrier,tackle busters,clean breakers fastest play of the ball and penalty winners. Would that be a welcome addition of attributes to the team. Err yes. Just a lot!!!
Manu was pretty much in my top 2 or 3 players in the first 3 games. Dropped off a bit since mind but then who hasn't.

Both wingers were ineffective because we created little other than the 2 opportunites Naughton dropped.

Michaels predominantly just carted the ball out of defence due to our lack of attacking creativity or ability to actually ship the ball along the line at all last night but I thought he played well and can't believe some people are scape goating him (it seems to happen to most our right wingers).

Just think the players along with most fans are now fed up of Radford as demonstrated by the flat performance, flat atmosphere and low turnout.

Re: Wakefield (H) : Sat Mar 19, 2016 8:37 am  

Kosh wrote:

No. It's an RL fan who got sick to death of you mentioning the soccer during an RL game. And chuntering on about inconsequential nonsense rather than describing the action on the pitch.

If you don't like criticism, stay off the radio.

Didn't question the criticism, you're entitled to a view. Hence why I posted a light hearted response. I visited the thread to see what fans' thoughts were on the game & saw my name pop up.

I'll make no apology for the references to City. I was presenting, as well as commentating, on a SPORTS show that also included a big game for City - of which many of our listeners are fans of both.

As for 'inconsequential nonsense', I'm not really sure what that refers to as you never missed any significant moment of action. However, I challenge you to listen to ANY commentary/commentator and you will never get 100% of "kick, run, pass, tackle, run, pass, kick, run, pass, try" for 80 (or 90) mins. Now that would be dull.

Always open to constructive feedback btw but if you don't like the commentary, more power to ya.

Re: Wakefield (H) : Sat Mar 19, 2016 8:45 am  

mwhite wrote:

Didn't question the criticism, you're entitled to a view. Hence why I posted a light hearted response. I visited the thread to see what fans' thoughts were on the game & saw my name pop up.

I'll make no apology for the references to City. I was presenting, as well as commentating, on a SPORTS show that also included a big game for City - of which many of our listeners are fans of both.

As for 'inconsequential nonsense', I'm not really sure what that refers to as you never missed any significant moment of action. However, I challenge you to listen to ANY commentary/commentator and you will never get 100% of "kick, run, pass, tackle, run, pass, kick, run, pass, try" for 80 (or 90) mins. Now that would be dull.

Always open to constructive feedback btw but if you don't like the commentary, more power to ya.

You've done it now,you will now get his all knowing wrath now.

Re: Wakefield (H) : Sat Mar 19, 2016 8:45 am  

mwhite wrote:

Didn't question the criticism, you're entitled to a view. Hence why I posted a light hearted response. I visited the thread to see what fans' thoughts were on the game & saw my name pop up.

I'll make no apology for the references to City. I was presenting, as well as commentating, on a SPORTS show that also included a big game for City - of which many of our listeners are fans of both.

As for 'inconsequential nonsense', I'm not really sure what that refers to as you never missed any significant moment of action. However, I challenge you to listen to ANY commentary/commentator and you will never get 100% of "kick, run, pass, tackle, run, pass, kick, run, pass, try" for 80 (or 90) mins. Now that would be dull.

Always open to constructive feedback btw but if you don't like the commentary, more power to ya.

You've done it now,you will now get his all knowing wrath now.

Re: Wakefield (H) : Sat Mar 19, 2016 8:47 am  

mwhite wrote:

Kosh wrote:

No. It's an RL fan who got sick to death of you mentioning the soccer during an RL game. And chuntering on about inconsequential nonsense rather than describing the action on the pitch.

If you don't like criticism, stay off the radio.

I'll make no apology for the references to City. I was presenting, as well as commentating, on a SPORTS show that also included a big game for City - of which many of our listeners are fans of both.

Always open to constructive feedback btw but if you don't like the commentary, more power to ya.

If they were that interested in City they would have retuned to the frequency and listened to that.

Wonder how many mentions our game got during their commentary?

Re: Wakefield (H) : Sat Mar 19, 2016 9:01 am  

mwhite wrote:

Didn't question the criticism, you're entitled to a view. Hence why I posted a light hearted response. I visited the thread to see what fans' thoughts were on the game & saw my name pop up.

I'll make no apology for the references to City. I was presenting, as well as commentating, on a SPORTS show that also included a big game for City - of which many of our listeners are fans of both.

As for 'inconsequential nonsense', I'm not really sure what that refers to as you never missed any significant moment of action. However, I challenge you to listen to ANY commentary/commentator and you will never get 100% of "kick, run, pass, tackle, run, pass, kick, run, pass, try" for 80 (or 90) mins. Now that would be dull.

Always open to constructive feedback btw but if you don't like the commentary, more power to ya.

At least you get paid to watch that crap. In all seriousness as a fan ( which I believe you are ) can you see us getting that early season form back. Last night was like rewinding a year.everything about it was what we'd seen before Radders got his own team. Said to my mate last night that rovers would beat us with that performance ( especially if Kelly fit ) and I stand by it.very worried for next Friday

Re: Wakefield (H) : Sat Mar 19, 2016 9:20 am  

fc baldy wrote:

You've done it now,you will now get his all knowing wrath now.

How dare anyone question, disagree or challenge Kosh.
What was Mike thinking of using his profesional knowledge and expertise to form an opinion that differs from his.
Kosh will be going into meltdown at home. Does not compute does not compute.

Re: Wakefield (H) : Sat Mar 19, 2016 9:22 am  

Dave K. wrote:

If fit Fonua would be in, maybe on the wing for Naughton. Logan needs a rest and Talanoa, is better than Yeaman.

Thought like most Manu was great the first few games, but last two has disappointed, but unlucky against Widnes, not to score twice, which would have won us the game.

Radford needs to learn how to use his forwards, as it seems every week he picks one backrower to play 70 minutes, last week it was Frank, this week Mini, with our forwards, there is no need to do that.

Ridiculous last night when he took off washbrook who was playing well and looked fresh and left mini on who was obviously out on his feet

Re: Wakefield (H) : Sat Mar 19, 2016 9:32 am  

Jake the Peg wrote:

Ridiculous last night when he took off washbrook who was playing well and looked fresh and left mini on who was obviously out on his feet

Agreed. On a related point I think Washbrook's done OK for us so far.

Re: Wakefield (H) : Sat Mar 19, 2016 9:34 am  

Mrs Barista wrote:

Agreed. On a related point I think Washbrook's done OK for us so far.

Looked our most enterprising player last night