Stumpy Tim
Well-known member
We won the league by 6 clear points but were shit, most of the football that season was an absolute joy.
Because we had Zamora.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Adams NOT bringing the crowds back?
- Thread starter Withdean Wanderer
- Start date
Because we had Zamora.
Uncle Buck
Ghost Writer
- Jul 7, 2003
- 28,075
We won the league by 6 clear points but were shit
Nobody said we were shit.
However a lot of that succes was as we had Zamora who got a bucket load of goals.
Would we have signed Zamora if Adams had got Pinamonte?
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
Ok you cannot read ! Er the post a few above when Stumpy Tim said we were shit :thud:
Uncle Buck
Ghost Writer
- Jul 7, 2003
- 28,075
I would suggest it is you that is struggling, we will put it down to senior years and eyes.
He did say we were shit in Adams FIRST season. However we won the league the second time and Zamora was one of the main catalysts for that.
Not having a good day today are you Gav.
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
Who said that
Uncle Buck
Ghost Writer
- Jul 7, 2003
- 28,075
Eyes and ears going as well....
Being gazumped over Pinemonte was the best thing that happened to us. The greasy wop did show how much we needed a target man tho.
Would not be suprised to see Virgo in midfield a fair bit this season.
Not sure what the fuss is about best 11. How often does a team remain unchanged from game to game? 3 games max? There will be constant injuries/loss of form or just picking a team for a certain game
Man of Harveys
Well-known member
Blimey, compared to whose or which unsatisfiably-high standards were we "shit" around then? Compared to the Brazil side in Spain '82, well, maybe. But otherwise I remember us being pretty bloody good by any of the standards within my 30 year Albion-watching lifetime TIMOTHY.
Whether that's about to ensue again under Micky, well, that's all the fun of anticipation I guess.
Uncle Buck
Ghost Writer
- Jul 7, 2003
- 28,075
There is normally a core of players that are picked, but if you look at the team that played at Crewe last season, it was fairly different to the one picked say 6 weeks later.
Man of Harveys
Well-known member
We weren't THAT bad in that first season, IMHO: it did take a while for it all to gel (it took a while for Adams to get it together at Fulham too apparently) but we were very unlucky with a large number of last-minute defeats, as I recall, plus Mark Walton was utter pony throughout. But I reckon we've seen plenty worse over a season than that.
Anyway, I seem to find myself agreeing with the village idiot again, which is never a good sign.
Uncle Buck
Ghost Writer
- Jul 7, 2003
- 28,075
The first half of the season I remembr us being inconsistent, partly due to so many new players, with the odd cracking result at places like Rotherham.
The second half of the season we became hard to beat and then signed Zamora on loan, which made a big difference.
However I remember the football not being the most pleasing to the eye, which I do not mind if it gets us results.
The Large One
Who's Next?
'Shit' is the wrong word.
I'd go for 'inconsistent'.
You don't score 7, 6 and 5 by being shit.
I'd go for 'inconsistent'.
You don't score 7, 6 and 5 by being shit.
The Large One
Who's Next?
Bobby was only with us for six matches that season.
Uncle Buck
Ghost Writer
- Jul 7, 2003
- 28,075
I know and scored 6 goals, which was part of our unbeaten run until the end of the season. However once he went back to Rovers, we drew a lot of games. The positive there being we had become hard to beat.
The Large One
Who's Next?
So 'shit' is the wrong word?
Uncle Buck
Ghost Writer
- Jul 7, 2003
- 28,075
I never said we were.
My point was a lot of that season the football was not great, it was more pragmatic.
Mendoza
NSC's Most Stalked
Adams approach only seemed more attacking than it was, because it was proceeded by Peter "score one and defend" Taylor.
Both ways of playing were equally sucessful, but Adams seemed more attacking as Taylor used to score a goal, bring on more defenders and hold a lead.
Both ways of playing were equally sucessful, but Adams seemed more attacking as Taylor used to score a goal, bring on more defenders and hold a lead.
We won the league by 6 clear points but were shit
I can't believe you all missed the fact that the season we won 6-0 at home to Mansfield was NOT the season we won the league by 6 points. And Tim is almost spot on - we were absolutely GASH from the third game of that season (after Manfield home and Orient away) until some time in January when Paul Brooker was brought in and ran Northampton RAGGED in a one-nil away defeat. Zamora then joined shortly after and we marched up the league, but not quite in time to force our way into the playoff places. Under Adams, we went as low as 19th in the basement division after Rochdale beat us down here. Of course, at the time it was all the fault of Paul Rogers.
The following season we were great - once half of Adams' shit signings had been released and improved. Jamie Campbell, Mark Walton, Dave Cameron, some muppet from Swansea called Thomas, Aiden Newhouse etc. God he made some shit signings. Thank f*** he didn't sign Pinnamonte, otherwise we'd never have signed Zamora.
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
Ok fair play I thought Stumpy meant the 2nd season. In the first season the last 14 games we were unbeaten with 8 wins and 6 draws so shit is not a word that immediately springs to mind even in the first season.
Signed - The Village Idiot
Signed - The Village Idiot