This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Palace V Stoke - Match Thread
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 deano77  guildford 18 Jan 14 7.49pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Iv been wilbs biggest critic for his finishing , and he is a striker so they are based on goals BUT if he helps the team get 3 points and see games out I'll back him ..support the team whoever plays I say , yes we need a forward but him playing puts him in the shop window for other teams ..
liverpool 3 palace 4 1990 fa cup semi final!what a day |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Kermit8  Hevon 18 Jan 14 7.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Have you antis not noticed yet that when Wilbraham plays even as just a sub we tend to get the desired result? I love him. He's quirky and thick-skinned. He's also been promoted five times. Don't care if he's not that great tbh. He's Palace, he tries 100% and he has my respect.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| cpj Kent 18 Jan 14 7.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
As I've put in the other thread - Wilbraham did more in 10 mins than lazy Chamakh did in 80. I thought the formation worked in the first half with Guedioura playing very well, but Chamakh was coming far too deep to get the ball and lay it off and then was far too slow to get back into the box.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Icepick Tony Chester 18 Jan 14 8.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote cpj at 18 Jan 2014 7.58pm
As I've put in the other thread - Wilbraham did more in 10 mins than lazy Chamakh did in 80. I thought the formation worked in the first half with Guedioura playing very well, but Chamakh was coming far too deep to get the ball and lay it off and then was far too slow to get back into the box.
"They got his own song 'He's just too good for you', it's quite unbelievable but when you see it and he's facing up someone - I actually feel sorry for them, 'Cos he actually is" - Ian Holloway |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Joeberto Streatham Hill 18 Jan 14 8.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote cpj at 18 Jan 2014 7.58pm
As I've put in the other thread - Wilbraham did more in 10 mins than lazy Chamakh did in 80. I thought the formation worked in the first half with Guedioura playing very well, but Chamakh was coming far too deep to get the ball and lay it off and then was far too slow to get back into the box. Another person criticising Chamakh's performance today - which I find genuinely bizarre. Oh well, each to their own. I thought he was very good and about as far from lazy as you can get. He isn't quick, so doesn't cover the ground as well as some, but that doesn't make him lazy. I do think playing as the furthest forward doesn't suit him as well as the withdrawn role, especially as he doesn't tend to have another genuine attacking central player in support.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| cornwalls palace Torpoint 18 Jan 14 9.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Joeberto at 18 Jan 2014 8.39pm
Quote cpj at 18 Jan 2014 7.58pm
As I've put in the other thread - Wilbraham did more in 10 mins than lazy Chamakh did in 80. I thought the formation worked in the first half with Guedioura playing very well, but Chamakh was coming far too deep to get the ball and lay it off and then was far too slow to get back into the box. Another person criticising Chamakh's performance today - which I find genuinely bizarre. Oh well, each to their own. I thought he was very good and about as far from lazy as you can get. He isn't quick, so doesn't cover the ground as well as some, but that doesn't make him lazy. I do think playing as the furthest forward doesn't suit him as well as the withdrawn role, especially as he doesn't tend to have another genuine attacking central player in support.
.......has our coach driver done a Poo'yet, without thinking about Gus! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| premier fan BR4 18 Jan 14 9.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote southport_eagle at 18 Jan 2014 2.10pm
Don't worry Bannan, Gayle and Williams will all play some part today. It is a 14 man game now not just the starting 11.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Kosowski  Standing at the top of B Block 18 Jan 14 9.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote cpj at 18 Jan 2014 7.58pm
As I've put in the other thread - Wilbraham did more in 10 mins than lazy Chamakh did in 80. I thought the formation worked in the first half with Guedioura playing very well, but Chamakh was coming far too deep to get the ball and lay it off and then was far too slow to get back into the box.
If you think Chamakh is a lazy player I can only assume you come to Selhurst Park led by a dog or holding a white stick. Edited by Kosowski (18 Jan 2014 9.15pm)
Block B comment of 2011/2012 Season: "That's better Palace, better...but still fucking shit!" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dann to Much, Much to Yong. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Gary St.Andrews Kenley 18 Jan 14 9.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Win ugly but who cares. Thought we carved out some good chances in the second half once Stoke decided to move the bus. But they are a cheating load of b******s, Crouch was falling down like a mighty oak in a storm and once they could see the game slipping away from them, they turned to kicking our players up in the air. Can't stand Mark Hughes and i hope he got plenty of abuse on his way back down the tunnel.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| cornwalls palace Torpoint 18 Jan 14 9.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Gary St.Andrews at 18 Jan 2014 9.21pm
Win ugly but who cares. Thought we carved out some good chances in the second half once Stoke decided to move the bus. But they are a cheating load of b******s, Crouch was falling down like a mighty oak in a storm and once they could see the game slipping away from them, they turned to kicking our players up in the air. Can't stand Mark Hughes and i hope he got plenty of abuse on his way back down the tunnel.
.......has our coach driver done a Poo'yet, without thinking about Gus! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| slubglurge welling 18 Jan 14 9.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote cornwalls palace at 18 Jan 2014 9.37pm
Quote Gary St.Andrews at 18 Jan 2014 9.21pm
Win ugly but who cares. Thought we carved out some good chances in the second half once Stoke decided to move the bus. But they are a cheating load of b******s, Crouch was falling down like a mighty oak in a storm and once they could see the game slipping away from them, they turned to kicking our players up in the air. Can't stand Mark Hughes and i hope he got plenty of abuse on his way back down the tunnel.
We are doing it the Pulis way, in other words we are the ugliest woman in the house but the best shag.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Crystallised Oxfordshire 18 Jan 14 9.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kosowski at 18 Jan 2014 9.14pm
Quote cpj at 18 Jan 2014 7.58pm
As I've put in the other thread - Wilbraham did more in 10 mins than lazy Chamakh did in 80. I thought the formation worked in the first half with Guedioura playing very well, but Chamakh was coming far too deep to get the ball and lay it off and then was far too slow to get back into the box.
If you think Chamakh is a lazy player I can only assume you come to Selhurst Park led by a dog or holding a white stick. Edited by Kosowski (18 Jan 2014 9.15pm) Those who can't see Chamakh's class have a skewed idea of his role. He is an exceptional passer of the ball, good in the air. He exudes class. Perhaps those that hold the opposite view aren't very familiar with world football.
"I look at Steve Coppell and what a fantastic, educated man he is." Ian Holloway Twitter : [Tweet Link]
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.