Angels Online
Home
Fixtures & Results
League Table
Appearances/Goals
Archive
External Links
Isthmian Prem Forums
AFC Hornchurch
Ashford Town (Mx)
Billericay Town
Boreham Wood
Canvey Island
Carshalton Athletic
Dartford
Dover Athletic
Harlow Town
Harrow Borough
Hastings United
Hendon
Heybridge Swifts
Horsham
Maidstone United
Margate
Ramsgate
Staines Town
Sutton United
Tooting & Mitcham
Wealdstone
Isthmian Forum
Sky Sports Live Results Centre
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Thursday, 20 November, 2008, 13:41.09
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register Gallery
News: Thanks to spam robots you now have to wait to have your registration activated by an administrator. Apologies for the delay.

+  Angels Online Fans' Forum
|-+  Tonbridge Angels FC Forums
| |-+  Tonbridge Angels Forum
| | |-+  Angels 3 Clapton 1
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Go Down Print
Poll
Question: Man of the Match Poll
Matt Hollyoak   -7 (35%)
Ian Parkes   -0 (0%)
Michael Cramp   -1 (5%)
Luke Piscina   -2 (10%)
Darren Smith   -10 (50%)
Total Votes: 20

Author Topic: Angels 3 Clapton 1  (Read 3175 times)
oldnownewangel
Guest


Email
Re: Angels 3 Clapton 1
« Reply #20 on: Wednesday, 07 September, 2005, 07:55.32 »

I find it amazing that a game that was possibly the most meaningless we will play all year, definitely one of the worst we will see, yet without doubt one of the most hilarious, can cause such aggro.

Thank god for the Clapton keeper, the phantom whistler (and how on cue was the ref?) , the fog coming in to threaten that we would all have to come back for more and worse the ref booking the poor sod being stretchered off. At least they all contributed to us having a laugh.

Yet once again a simple comment – and IMHO Holyoake did have a poor game last night –and it all kicks off. AGAIN.

No one is saying Matt is a bad player, just last night a NUMBER of people thought he played poorly. Hence the disbelief that he was in the MOM poll. That doesn’t mean we have to get into a full blown argument ending with people once again being banned from the forum and to be honest ALL yes ALL parties acting like little kids.

Jane, people are entitled to say if player X or Y plays bad just as they should also praise those that play well. That does not make them bad fans any more than a blinkered ‘they are all gods’ view does. The comment on Danny Lye is not warranted – everyone has been saying this year he will stand out in this division and so far he has. And been rightly praised for it. Ditto the comment on Bert- fact he hasn’t played well so far this year. And as far as Warren , I do believe he has been receiving a lot of encouragement from ‘behind the goal’. Or is that the sort of criticism that has been levelled at a manger who so far has won 5 and drawn 1 game out of 6 Huh (pots and kettles spring to mind)

But what is standing out most is this constant petty point scoring –‘if he says one thing Ill say another’ FROM ALL SIDES.

FFS I want to go to watch football and enjoy myself not keep hearing petty squabbles from a bunch of people acting like 10 year olds.

Start at Hastings , stop being childish and shut up the whining and support the team . EVERYONE

Logged
AngelJoy
Supporter Trusted
Reserve Team
*****

Karma: 2
Online Online

Posts: 479



Re: Angels 3 Clapton 1
« Reply #21 on: Wednesday, 07 September, 2005, 09:42.11 »

I thought what this forum is all about is to voice your personal view, (as long as its not abusive) if anyone else agrees so what!
Logged

35th Season an Angel
ME
Triallist
*

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 30



Re: Angels 3 Clapton 1
« Reply #22 on: Wednesday, 07 September, 2005, 10:19.02 »

Just amazing.

The main point of last night was to win and not injure any first teamers in advance of Saturdays FA cup, so for the the reserves deserve a pat on the back for that.

In my opinion, Matt is a very good player at under 18's, good in the reserves and one to nurture for the first team. Keep slagging him off and you may find him no longer at the club!! What he needs is encouragement and a VERY HIGH STANDARD OF COACHING from the club.

I would be more concerned about some of the other fringe players on display, nothing special against a side no better than a Suburban league team.
Logged
oldnownewangel
Guest


Email
Re: Angels 3 Clapton 1
« Reply #23 on: Wednesday, 07 September, 2005, 11:15.18 »

Just amazing.

The main point of last night was to win and not injure any first teamers in advance of Saturdays FA cup, so for the the reserves deserve a pat on the back for that.

In my opinion, Matt is a very good player at under 18's, good in the reserves and one to nurture for the first team. Keep slagging him off and you may find him no longer at the club!! What he needs is encouragement and a VERY HIGH STANDARD OF COACHING from the club.

I would be more concerned about some of the other fringe players on display, nothing special against a side no better than a Suburban league team.

er isnt that what we were saying ??
yes Matt is one for the future

surely the last paragraph contradicts the message in the second??
Logged
TheKaiser
Trainee
**

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 59



Re: Angels 3 Clapton 1
« Reply #24 on: Wednesday, 07 September, 2005, 12:09.23 »

I think the criticism thrown at Hollyoak is a bit unfair. Admittedly he didn't have his best game ever but I didn't think he was that bad either. First half he looked pretty sound defensively and he did supply the cross for the all important second goal.
Hollyoak in my opinion is a good player, not ready for Ryman league yet but in time I think he will develop, other people better judges than us must see something in him.
Bare in mind he is only 17-18, he and all the other young lads really should get nothing other than encouragement. It's clear to me that Matt is a confidence player and I think negative comments could have an adverse affect on his performances. Some players raise their game when they get a bit of stick others need an arm round them to get the best results.
Anyway rant over, lets get behind the lads for Hastings at the weekend.
Logged
psp
Supporter Trusted
Reserve Team
*****

Karma: 2
Online Online

Posts: 253



Re: Angels 3 Clapton 1
« Reply #25 on: Wednesday, 07 September, 2005, 13:57.48 »

I am somewhat confused. I don't come on here often but did so today to support a young player who was being unfairly criticised.
Is the person who started the thread by naming the player and saying poor very poor the same person who is always telling people to get behind the players and not be negative? When people do voice their support they are told they are acting like 10 year olds,.perhaps only one or two 'experts' behind the goal are allowed to have an opinion.
Logged
oldnownewangel
Guest


Email
Re: Angels 3 Clapton 1
« Reply #26 on: Wednesday, 07 September, 2005, 14:33.28 »

the 10 year old comment is NOT aimed at anyone other than one or two people and they know full well who they are and no PSP that does not include you.
It involves people getting banned for merely stating said opinions it has nothing to do with stating any opinions.


Yes everyone is fully entitled to their opinion.  Mine is that -as stated- Matt has trremendous potential, has played well in preseasons (if you check back youll find I have said that) but last night IN MY OPINION and others he played less well (putting it nicer) and shouldnt have been in the MOM poll

thats not being negative its a fact. People constanly slating the club /chairman /manager was the issue concerning negativity

unfortunately theri seems to be an undercurrent of constant sniping at certain people by people with a hidden agenda. It is an issue I know Nick wants to resolve quickly when he returns
Logged
AngelJoy
Supporter Trusted
Reserve Team
*****

Karma: 2
Online Online

Posts: 479



Re: Angels 3 Clapton 1
« Reply #27 on: Wednesday, 07 September, 2005, 18:09.58 »

"It is an issue I know Nick wants to resolve quickly when he returns"

What is he going to do or say, "This is my football club your banned"

He'll alienate a lot of people, turn himself into another Nigel Rimmer!

Its so pathetic that you and certain other people are getting their knickers in a twist over what players are or are not in MOM poll, your all acting like 10 year olds.

Lets all get behind the team saturday and stuff the sussex s••m
Logged

35th Season an Angel
Dan
Administrator
Team Coach
*****

Karma: 218
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,702



WWW
Re: Angels 3 Clapton 1
« Reply #28 on: Wednesday, 07 September, 2005, 18:23.55 »

I'm intrigued by exactly what two people slating a young confidence-driven 18 year old player on his competitive starting debut, on an independent supporters' website has to do with Nick Sullivan?

As for this "10-year olds" comment that you continue to push, the two main causes of this situation have now been removed which will put an end to that, and an end to that is what we have all been asking for. This should not have been necessary as you were invited, on SIX separate occasions over six weeks, to put an end to it yourself, but decided instead to ignore every one of those invitations. I still have copies of them in my outbox if you want to read them again.

In the mean time rather than whining about the man of the match vote, I suggest that next time if there is one you don't like then vote for one of the other four.
Logged

Webmonkey
oldnownewangel
Guest


Email
Re: Angels 3 Clapton 1
« Reply #29 on: Wednesday, 07 September, 2005, 18:31.46 »


. This should not have been necessary as you were invited, on SIX separate occasions over six weeks, to put an end to it yourself, but decided instead to ignore every one of those invitations. I still have copies of them in my outbox if you want to read them again.



would that include telling us and I quote

 'to crawl back under the stone we came from ??'and keep away from the Barmy Army Huh?? '

was that intended to end the situation ?

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Angels Online Fans' Forum | Powered by SMF 1.0.9.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.116 seconds with 21 queries.