Northfield 53 Posted January 17, 2021 Author Share Posted January 17, 2021 12 hours ago, Otis Blue said: As you said above DD. Bit of a reality check for us today. Our defence and centre midfield is weak any time a team has a go at us we look like we will concede every time they go forward . How often has a simple corner to the back post result in a free header no excuse for that. I can guarantee Arbroath would not chuck away a 2 goal lead as easily as we did . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SotesBornalichtie Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 Is it some kind of surreal tactic by Dick to put out an untried lineup and give the opposition a goal or two then make some substitutions to save the day? Or does he just like to come from behind? Regarding football, regarding football. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fae_the_'briggs Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 I must have missed the 2 "stonewall" penalties that Ian Campbell claims Arbroath were denied. I recall a couple of mibbes it was mibbes it wisnae penalty shouts, Queens had one of those also, but stonewallers, never. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFC360PUNK1320 Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 17 hours ago, stan3600 said: Well, that was exciting after a turgid first half. Why Dick decided to switch the back four around is a mystery given Queens attack got nowhere in the first half. What an impact! FFS. Still, it woke us up. Some learnings from today. Don’t play Whatley at right back. Jason Thomson has regressed this season after being a star in the previous two. I’d finally break up our back four by playing Scott Stewart at right back - what an impact. Some had a theory that Doolan and Hilson up front was the answer. Obviously not. Ruth showed more in 20 minutes than both of them put together. I think Davidson was signed to replace Miko and I thought he played well. Williamson was a great addition, got a few shots in, tried to play defence splitting passes and made a lot of tackles. He would have been my man of the match if Tom O’Brian hadn’t been such a rock in defence and got a goal. I think the two new loan signings could work out very well but we do need another striker - to play alongside Ruth. Oh, and we really need Ricky back. Have you actually ever played football before? Doolan's control and link up play was superb. Yes he maybe missed a sitter but what other Red Lichtie player has not ever done that before? Great fight back after being 2-0 done, give credit where's its due. 36-0. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
die hard doonhamer Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 11 minutes ago, AFC360PUNK1320 said: Have you actually ever played football before? Calling cards of morons thread for this pish. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gone fishing Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 Doolan was signed to score goals not his hold up play and missed a sitter 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stan3600 Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 Calling cards of morons thread for this pish.Answer: Yes, and I was crap. But Doolan’s link up play was average at best, he created nothing. Only once got into a goal scoring position and missed. If you compare him to opposition strikers we see every week he is not at the level of this league any more. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 Doolan looked finished at this level when we signed him last season. He cited an injury as the reason why he didn't get going for us but he was garbage whenever he played. Surprised that he found another club at this level but not that he doesn't look like scoring at all. His finishing is probably fine but he never came close to getting into goalscoring opportunities. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecto Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 3 hours ago, AFC360PUNK1320 said: Have you actually ever played football before? Doolan's control and link up play was superb. Yes he maybe missed a sitter but what other Red Lichtie player has not ever done that before? Great fight back after being 2-0 done, give credit where's its due. 36-0. 38 minutes ago, virginton said: Doolan looked finished at this level when we signed him last season. He cited an injury as the reason why he didn't get going for us but he was garbage whenever he played. Surprised that he found another club at this level but not that he doesn't look like scoring at all. His finishing is probably fine but he never came close to getting into goalscoring opportunities. Hoped for the old Kris Doolan, what we have is an old Kris Doolan 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
36-0 Maroon Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 4 hours ago, Fae_the_'briggs said: I must have missed the 2 "stonewall" penalties that Ian Campbell claims Arbroath were denied. I recall a couple of mibbes it was mibbes it wisnae penalty shouts, Queens had one of those also, but stonewallers, never. The one on Craigen looked a penalty and the Ruth challenge where he stayed on his feet was a clumsy reckless challenge and if he goes down it’s a penalty so lucky for you guys he somehow stayed on his feet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fae_the_'briggs Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 58 minutes ago, 36-0 Maroon said: The one on Craigen looked a penalty and the Ruth challenge where he stayed on his feet was a clumsy reckless challenge and if he goes down it’s a penalty so lucky for you guys he somehow stayed on his feet. As he managed to stay on his feet the challenge obviously wasn't bad enough to bring him down. I'm not saying it wasn't a clumsy challenge, possibly was a penalty, no way was it a stonewaller. I'm in the camp firmly against the attitude "he felt a slight touch so he had every right to go down", that's just a form of cheating. Surely you only hit the deck when it's impossible to stay on your feet. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keptie Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 54 minutes ago, Fae_the_'briggs said: As he managed to stay on his feet the challenge obviously wasn't bad enough to bring him down. I'm not saying it wasn't a clumsy challenge, possibly was a penalty, no way was it a stonewaller. I'm in the camp firmly against the attitude "he felt a slight touch so he had every right to go down", that's just a form of cheating. Surely you only hit the deck when it's impossible to stay on your feet. He stayed on his feet but that doesn't mean he wasn't fouled, it made him stumble for a few strides so wasn't in control of his run so that's a foul and a penalty. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 4 hours ago, keptie said: He stayed on his feet but that doesn't mean he wasn't fouled, it made him stumble for a few strides so wasn't in control of his run so that's a foul and a penalty. Fuxake man, stop being rational, truthful & sensible. This sort of thing has no place on Pie and Bovril. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammerafc Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 I thought the Ruth one was a pen but can't tell 100% as the other defender obscured the view. Certainly don't condone going down but imo the refs have caused this by never giving a pen if you stay on your feet. Natural human reaction is to do everything to prevent yourself going over, I'm sure he will have that trained out of him soon enough...... ETA Craigen was never a pen as not in the box 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokerson Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 On another day we couldve had two penalties, both debatable and certainly not stonewallers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 16 minutes ago, Smokerson said: On another day we couldve had two penalties, both debatable and certainly not stonewallers. 2? Ruth maybe but contact is pretty minimal. Where's the other one? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fae_the_'briggs Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 2 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said: 2? Ruth maybe but contact is pretty minimal. Where's the other one? Think they mean in the first half on Craigen. It was never a penalty for 2 reasons, firstly he looked to catch his own foot and more Importantly he started to fall outside the box. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Fae_the_'briggs said: Think they mean in the first half on Craigen. It was never a penalty for 2 reasons, firstly he looked to catch his own foot and more Importantly he started to fall outside the box. About 2 yards outside the box, and he wasn't touched. Surely they aren't referring to that. I can understand Ian Campbell doing so before he's seen the footage. Nobody who has seen it could still be referring to it now though surely? EDIT - We had a better penalty shout than the Ruth one in the first half when Connor Shields was levelled at the byeline inside the box after firing the ball across goal. Edited January 18, 2021 by Skyline Drifter 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19QOS19 Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 If only Ruth had cheated like Craigen they'd have had a stonewaller 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.