Newest Message: RE: What by seadog365 on 24/6/2019, 19:05:11 - View Thread

6

Thread: 92156

quiz just for fun… by seadog365 User: seadog365

Posted: 27/1/2019 at 15:47:07, 244 views.

Without looking at old programmes or internet sites, see how many of the ELEVEN specialist goalkeepers you can remember who we used in the 2015/16 season. I managed eight

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.174

I’ve got all 11.. by Battersea (unreg)

Posted: 27/1/2019 at 18:52:24, 302 views. In reply to 'quiz just for fun…'

Though I would have to admit to a couple of minutes ‘research’ (otherwise known as cheating).

I remembered 3 off the top of my head.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.162

Thread: 92155

Free kick at yesterday’ s game. by Seamer unreg.

Posted: 27/1/2019 at 09:53:49, 542 views.

Taylor was trying to organise his wall when the big number 4 went and stood in front of him trying to stop Taylor setting his wall. Never seen this before at any game. This confused the ref even more and said nothing. Is this legal,poor sportsmanship or have they come up with something new?

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 109.155.185.103

RE: Free kick at yesterday’ s game. by seadog365 User: seadog365

Posted: 27/1/2019 at 10:40:48, 233 views. In reply to 'Free kick at yesterday’ s game. '

Agreed that pissed me off too and I don’t think Tommy was too impressed either.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.60

Free kick by Riponseadog

Posted: 27/1/2019 at 10:41:06, 491 views. In reply to 'Free kick at yesterday’ s game. '

I too sen lots of football but not seen a guy stand in front of keeper. Proably call it unsportsmanship, and a wadte of time because as he jogged back tommy could have moved the wall, very strange tactic

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.174

Free kick by Riponseadog

Posted: 27/1/2019 at 10:48:14, 267 views. In reply to 'Free kick'

Sorry bout shite spelling was outside walking dog and hands numb.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.174

RE: Free kick at yesterday’ s game. by original seadogx

Posted: 28/1/2019 at 09:46:51, 196 views. In reply to 'Free kick at yesterday’ s game. '

It comes under the heading “unsporting behaviour" and punishable with a yellow card.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.198

RE: Free kick at yesterday’ s game. by joshlawrance User: joshlawrance

Posted: 29/1/2019 at 11:46:09, 455 views. In reply to 'Free kick at yesterday’ s game. '

its bad sportsmanship but if its not written down its not a rule so we dont have to follow it. Personally don’t know why more people don’t have a pop from drop balls or when we “throw it back" actually try and create something from it.

winning is winning.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.60

it is written down by original seadogx

Posted: 29/1/2019 at 13:47:59, 206 views. In reply to 'RE: Free kick at yesterday’ s game. '

Unsporting conduct equals yellow card, it is there in black and white in the laws of the game.

Of course, some teams push the boundaries as far as they can and take advantage of weak refs. I’d prefer to win fairly.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.186

RE: it is written down by joshlawrance User: joshlawrance

Posted: 29/1/2019 at 16:24:06, 436 views. In reply to 'it is written down'

I cant decided if its blinkered viewing but I honestly don’t know why we have not really had teams that do that.

We all surely know that Wally dives a lot but we’re happy because we get free kicks right?

I’m saying we should be the team that pushes the boundaries.

That’s what winners do.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.60

RE:RE: it is written down by Burniston User: Burniston

Posted: 30/1/2019 at 22:31:46, 253 views. In reply to 'RE: it is written down'

I don’t simply see it as winning is winning. Apart from that incident not having a bearing on the outcome of the game, I would be embarrassed to see any of our players do it as blatantly as that. Sure stand in the line of the goalie to hamper his view especially when the kick was about to be taken but what I interpret happened was he stood in a player’s (Tommy) face and space while the ball was not in play probably trying to make Tommy push him away. He would then fall on the floor holding his face & try to get Tommy sent off. Nothing less than bad sportsmanship - yellow card. This exact thing happened with Johnson. Their attacker jumped up and into Jack’s face, he pushed him away from ‘his space’ and promptly got a yellow. The Farsley guy who instigated it never even received a word from the ref.

The issue about Wally is that he obviously has a reputation with refs of going down easily and so they will always tend to give the benefit of the doubt to ‘the defender’. I haven’t seen the playbacks yet but on the face of it Wally should have won at least 1 penalty if not 2. Thought the ref against Farsley was very one sided and crap although I am not blaming him for the defeat - he just didn’t help. I don’t mind refs being harsh but they have to be consistent to both sides which he wasn’t & I have to say he spoiled the game for me.

PMA

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 2.26.98.44

Thread: 92154

What on earth is going on?? by Derek Abbey’s barnet

Posted: 27/1/2019 at 02:13:27, 362 views.

Shambles - why have we let McGuire leave but kept Valentine? He looks like he’s never been introduced to a football, awful.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 51.7.188.254

RE: What on earth is going on?? by seadog365 User: seadog365

Posted: 27/1/2019 at 09:17:03, 297 views. In reply to 'What on earth is going on??'

First of all we didn’t “let him leave", his loan period ended. Secondly Valentine is normally one of our best players.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.162

RE: RE: What on earth is going on?? by vernon

Posted: 27/1/2019 at 09:30:52, 254 views. In reply to 'RE: What on earth is going on??'

maguire was kack, had no quality on the ball, maybe a battler but certainly no better than the other handful of average midfielders sk has brought in.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.88.160

Thread: 92153

quick summary by cynic

Posted: 26/1/2019 at 17:56:02, 405 views.

Difficult today given how many players missing. Farsley were efficient but little more and we could have got something out of game if not conceding at bad times ( I know every time is a bad time, but you get my drift) - South Shields looked a much better team (and with better fans, I suppose the twattish Farsley fans being arseholes are not regular attenders, certainly the ones I chatted to were sound enough). Why, given our inexperienced defence, that Merris was not included for his organisational nous is beyond my understanding.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.180

RE: quick summary by Seadogs93

Posted: 26/1/2019 at 18:13:31, 371 views. In reply to 'quick summary'

Thought they (Farsley) edged it throughout the game, obviously our defence was a makeshift back 4 and you could see this when Farsley started to move in to empty spaces when attacking.
Is it me or are we too honest to the referee, many a teams play acting to get freekicks or surrounding the referee when there player is fouled. (bamber, Farsley Warrington come to my mind).
I thought today we looked more of a threat when the ball was going into the box from wide areas

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 2.26.138.154

As a point by Cynic

Posted: 26/1/2019 at 18:56:42, 370 views. In reply to 'RE: quick summary'

Our disallowed goal (from my view) looked fair enough - what about their 3rd goal? From 90 yrds away possible off -side? Anybody with a decent view?

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.186

RE: As a point by geoff hooley

Posted: 26/1/2019 at 19:45:50, 360 views. In reply to 'As a point'

dus it matter , we were crap . not going to name names ,but two of them got booked . kt ought to dissolve is business partner ship and get shut of one of them ,he,s out of is depth ,and at times is lost .another player seems to think that hitting cross field balls 30 yards makes him look good ,I bet our forwards don’t. god it makes me want gooder back and you no how bad I think he is.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 172.69.54.191

RE: RE: As a point by Cynic

Posted: 26/1/2019 at 20:14:41, 308 views. In reply to 'RE: As a point'

Even if you were right in every point Geoff, it does matter, it’s how football matches are often decided.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.126

RE: RE: As a point by Terry Hope

Posted: 26/1/2019 at 20:55:36, 328 views. In reply to 'RE: As a point'

For my own personal perspective on your weekly ‘observations’ Geoff, can I ask how old you are? A 5 year bracket is good enough.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 178.78.99.91

RE: RE: RE: As a point by Geoff Hooley

Posted: 26/1/2019 at 21:09:45, 321 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: As a point'

Old enough to kick your arse

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.111.15

RE: RE: RE: RE: As a point by Terry Hope

Posted: 26/1/2019 at 21:48:45, 293 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: As a point'

Is that old enough to differentiate between a poor performance and an honest, nothing to be ashamed about defeat?

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 178.78.99.91

RE: As a point by Neutral

Posted: 26/1/2019 at 21:14:11, 347 views. In reply to 'As a point'

Yes, perfectly good goal, just p–s poor defending, as was most of the Scarborough effort on the day.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 172.68.46.229

Geoff Hooley by christopher56 User: christopher56

Posted: 28/1/2019 at 18:56:47, 277 views. In reply to 'RE: As a point'

Geoff Hooley we don’t need you
Two things
One learn to spell
Two find another football team to ‘support’
You are the most negative person I’ve read
You bring everyone down

South Elmsall seadog

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 31.50.139.160

RE: Geoff Hooley by Geoff Hooley

Posted: 28/1/2019 at 20:24:37, 262 views. In reply to 'Geoff Hooley '

Aw diddums ,who gives a sh## ,your another loser ,who thinks it’s ok for certain so called players to get away with murder. I say what I think ,nobody forced you to read my posts ,go to mummy and such an orange .

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 172.69.54.101

RE: RE: Geoff Hooley by Dewsbury User: Dewsbury

Posted: 28/1/2019 at 21:15:11, 327 views. In reply to 'RE: Geoff Hooley '

That’s going to be my new favourite insult: “you’re such an orange!”

Simon Cope - Was Chair Of Something Some Time Ago

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.150

RE: RE: RE: Geoff Hooley by Armchairdog User: Armchairdog

Posted: 29/1/2019 at 09:04:30, 265 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: Geoff Hooley '

Hell will freeze over before Geoff posts anything positive on here.

He’s so negative that “glass half empty” doesn’t do him justice. He’s more “everything tastes like p*$$”.

Anyone who disagrees with that is such an orange.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 197.234.242.174

RE: RE: RE: RE: Geoff Hooley by Orange Tree

Posted: 29/1/2019 at 13:02:16, 214 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: Geoff Hooley '

On the upside, if the most we have to worry about is some terminal misery, then things aren’t going too badly. It isn’t so very long ago that we spent much of our time worrying about which shady character was going to be the next to come and run the old club into the ground.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.162

RE: RE: RE: RE: Geoff Hooley by geoff hooley

Posted: 30/1/2019 at 08:49:20, 231 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: Geoff Hooley '

we will see at the end of the season who was negative and who was a dreamer , two of the top strikers in the league, but we leak goals for fun , poor tommy must be getting a bad back.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 86.151.166.19

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Geoff Hooley by seadog365 User: seadog365

Posted: 30/1/2019 at 09:02:03, 208 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: RE: Geoff Hooley '

Funny because we’d kept 2 clean sheets in a row in the league before Saturday

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.150

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Geoff Hooley by Geoff Hooley

Posted: 30/1/2019 at 12:55:35, 222 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Geoff Hooley '

Sorry I missed them ,it must have been all the (red type) results .😀

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 172.69.55.36

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Geoff Hooley by Orange Tree

Posted: 30/1/2019 at 10:17:43, 256 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: RE: Geoff Hooley '

4th best goal scoring record, 7th best defensive record. Not terrible by any stretch.

Who’s dreaming? Just being realistic.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.150

Geoff Hooley by christopher56 User: christopher56

Posted: 30/1/2019 at 19:29:19, 203 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Geoff Hooley '

We should make a collective effort not to reply or make any comment made by him
He obviously craves attention
He mustn’t have had much as a child poor thing
The only thing you can do with needy people like him is ignore him
Up the Boro

South Elmsall seadog

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 31.50.139.160

geoff by leicesterlad

Posted: 30/1/2019 at 19:51:32, 244 views. In reply to 'Geoff Hooley '

If Geoff turns out on a Saturday afternoon and pays his money to watch his chosen team he has every right to Express an opinion. What has his childhood got to do with this? Why is he needy? Why would he be seeking attention? And your remark in a previous post about his spelling was unnecessary and rude. Just for the record I do not know Geoff. Always up the boro.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.162

RE: geoff by Geoff Hooley

Posted: 30/1/2019 at 21:28:12, 206 views. In reply to 'geoff'

Cheers for that, some on this forum would be ok as MP,s and there to##ers as well😇

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.111.147

RE: RE: geoff by Orange Tree

Posted: 31/1/2019 at 14:01:56, 356 views. In reply to 'RE: geoff'

You are certainly entitled to your opinion Geoff, as are others to question it. I can never understand why anyone purporting to be a supporter of the club would actively choose to be so relentlessly, vehemently and, in my view, disproportionately negative. It doesn’t help and can only do harm. If you are comfortable with that, then fine, but you have to accept it will be viewed negatively by the majority.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.174

RE: RE: RE: RE: Geoff Hooley by Geoff Hooley

Posted: 2/2/2019 at 19:21:32, 261 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: Geoff Hooley '

Great outcome today how positives that😀

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 81.37.247.237

Thread: 92152

Latest: Boro 0-1 FARSLEY (Spencer) by Armchairdog User: Armchairdog

Posted: 26/1/2019 at 15:12:17, 198 views.


  • Reply
  • IP Address: 197.234.242.168

Latest: Boro 0-2 FARSLEY (Spencer) by Armchairdog User: Armchairdog

Posted: 26/1/2019 at 15:50:54, 175 views. In reply to 'Latest: Boro 0-1 FARSLEY (Spencer)'


  • Reply
  • IP Address: 197.234.242.174

Att 1186 n/t by Armchairdog User: Armchairdog

Posted: 26/1/2019 at 16:10:19, 179 views. In reply to 'Latest: Boro 0-2 FARSLEY (Spencer) '


  • Reply
  • IP Address: 197.234.242.132

Latest: Boro 0-3 FARSLEY (Syers) by Armchairdog User: Armchairdog

Posted: 26/1/2019 at 16:29:54, 155 views. In reply to 'Att 1186 n/t'


  • Reply
  • IP Address: 197.234.242.132

Latest: BORO (Coulson) 1-3 Farsley by Armchairdog User: Armchairdog

Posted: 26/1/2019 at 16:36:18, 175 views. In reply to 'Latest: Boro 0-3 FARSLEY (Syers)'


  • Reply
  • IP Address: 197.234.242.174

FT: Boro 1-3 Farsley by Armchairdog User: Armchairdog

Posted: 26/1/2019 at 17:03:13, 173 views. In reply to 'Latest: BORO (Coulson) 1-3 Farsley'


  • Reply
  • IP Address: 197.234.242.174

RE: FT: Boro 1-3 Farsley by seadog365 User: seadog365

Posted: 26/1/2019 at 17:30:12, 199 views. In reply to 'FT: Boro 1-3 Farsley'

We definitely missed key players today. Watson out for a lengthy period isn’t a help, but to be without all three of Killock, Burgess and Gooda is unfortunate in the extreme. Need them back as soon as possible. Gainsborough were held, so we hold onto 5th for the time being, that’s the saving grace.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.150

RE: RE: FT: Boro 1-3 Farsley by Armchairdog User: Armchairdog

Posted: 26/1/2019 at 18:13:01, 163 views. In reply to 'RE: FT: Boro 1-3 Farsley'

When i saw first our teamsheet today i thought it was going to be a difficult afternoon. Did we not even have a full bench?

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 197.234.242.168

Thread: 92142

Midfield re-shuffling by Seadog93

Posted: 24/1/2019 at 13:35:38, 375 views.

With Watson out for some time who would your
replacement be in midfield. McGuire, Forrester etc…

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 154.59.156.73

McGuire has returned to Frickley n/t by SAFC Admin

Posted: 24/1/2019 at 17:27:17, 513 views. In reply to 'Midfield re-shuffling '


  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.162

Thread: 92141

BORO lead 1-0 by Old Git

Posted: 22/1/2019 at 20:09:15, 254 views.

Jamie Forrester smashes in from 35 yards.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.162

1-1 Guis with pen after Valentine foul by Old Git

Posted: 22/1/2019 at 20:18:05, 193 views. In reply to 'BORO lead 1-0'


  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.162

FT: Boro 2-1 Guisborough by Armchairdog User: Armchairdog

Posted: 22/1/2019 at 21:42:50, 234 views. In reply to '1-1 Guis with pen after Valentine foul'

Coulo with the winning goal.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.93.143

RE: FT: Boro 2-1 Guisborough by seadog365 User: seadog365

Posted: 22/1/2019 at 22:06:12, 263 views. In reply to 'FT: Boro 2-1 Guisborough'

Wasn’t a vintage display by any means and for much of the first half they were actually the better team, but we ground it out against a team we’d never beaten before and grabbed the win. We took off Watson and Killock in the first half for injuries so I don’t know if they were precautionary or more serious. Brooksby later replaced McNaughton, and so when both Brooksby and Valentine went down injured it looked like we’d have to finish with at most 10 men but they both battled on bravely. No complaints from me about the penalty, it was nailed on

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.162

RE: RE: FT: Boro 2-1 Guisborough by vernon

Posted: 22/1/2019 at 22:35:40, 257 views. In reply to 'RE: FT: Boro 2-1 Guisborough'

dont imagine farsley scouts will be worried having watched that, we look poor, midfield 2nd to everything, no cohesion, reliant on coulo magic, why cant we try and play it on the deck. painful

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.93.149

guisborough by leicesterlad

Posted: 22/1/2019 at 22:59:13, 256 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: FT: Boro 2-1 Guisborough'

For those who have not been to guisborough it is a beautiful small market town (village)approx 10 miles from middlesborough. Strong team tonight but we struggle against a team who probably do not even get a penny for turning out to play.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.174

Not a bad gate for the game 423, by Seamer unreg

Posted: 23/1/2019 at 11:45:17, 281 views. In reply to 'BORO lead 1-0'


  • Reply
  • IP Address: 109.153.229.58

can anyone remember… by Dunno

Posted: 23/1/2019 at 17:06:20, 301 views. In reply to 'Not a bad gate for the game 423, '

what crowds we used to get at the McStad for these matches. I remember going to a couple but seem to remember they weren’t treated as seriously as now and crowds were very low.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.89.243

Yes… by Malton Seadog User: Malton Seadog

Posted: 23/1/2019 at 17:37:58, 296 views. In reply to 'can anyone remember…'

In the 2003/04 season, we played the previous season’s final during the July pre-season against Middlesbrough (youth) at the McCain Stadium. 552 turned up.

The next season, the same thing happened, against the same opposition, in front of a slightly higher 800.

On 10th January 2005, just 9 days after our wonderful 0-2 victory at Bootham Crescent, I was one of 293 who saw us beat Dormans Athletic at the McCain in the quarter final. So - there’s your best comparison. About 150-200 better off last night than in the olden days, but we didn’t treat it as a first team fixture back then, just like York/Middlesbrough don’t now, so it’s not a totally fair comparison.

Edited on 23/01/19 at 17:39:42
  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.150

RE: Yes… by seadog365 User: seadog365

Posted: 23/1/2019 at 18:11:51, 356 views. In reply to 'Yes…'

Wonder what happened to Dormans. You never get them in the NRSC any more

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.150

Thread: 92140

Today’s team by seadog365 User: seadog365

Posted: 22/1/2019 at 19:16:48, 234 views.

Taylor, Johnson, Davie, Forrester, Williamson, Killock, Valentine, Watson, Walshaw, Coulson, McNaughton.

Subs: Brooksby, Morgan, Dixon, Lacey, Merris.

Guisborough have a Brian Close and a Steve Roberts in their squad

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.162

RE: Today’s team by Old Seadog User: Old Seadog

Posted: 22/1/2019 at 20:16:57, 179 views. In reply to 'Today’s team'

Where is Gooda?

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.162

Thread: 92139

Gooda Suspension by Rockett Fuel User: Rockett Fuel

Posted: 22/1/2019 at 18:09:03, 303 views.

Anyone know why Bailey’s suspension doesn’t apply tonight when Valentine was suspended for the game against Middlesbrough following his sending off in a league game?

*Evo-Stik Division 1 North Runners-Up 2017-18* *NCEL Premier Division Champions 2012-13* *NCEL Division 1 Champions 2008-09*

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.150

RE: Gooda Suspension by Armchairdog User: Armchairdog

Posted: 22/1/2019 at 19:12:25, 228 views. In reply to 'Gooda Suspension'

If that’s true that’s a very Gooda question :)
Where did you hear it didn’t apply to tonight’s game?

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.93.143

RE: RE: Gooda Suspension by seadog365 User: seadog365

Posted: 22/1/2019 at 19:15:00, 228 views. In reply to 'RE: Gooda Suspension'

Yes where did you hear that? He’s not on the teamsheet so I assume it still does apply!

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.60

RE: RE: RE: Gooda Suspension by burton seadog User: burton seadog

Posted: 22/1/2019 at 19:53:51, 225 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: Gooda Suspension'

It was here: https://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/news/scarborough-athletic-welcome-back-key-players-ahead-of-guisborough-cup-tie-1-9550852

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.89.165

RE: RE: RE: RE: Gooda Suspension by Rockett Fuel User: Rockett Fuel

Posted: 22/1/2019 at 20:18:34, 229 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: Gooda Suspension'

Maybe there was some confusion over the suspension and so erred on the side of caution and so didn’t select him?

*Evo-Stik Division 1 North Runners-Up 2017-18* *NCEL Premier Division Champions 2012-13* *NCEL Division 1 Champions 2008-09*

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.111.57

Suspension by SAFC Admin

Posted: 22/1/2019 at 23:48:15, 322 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: RE: Gooda Suspension'

Tonight’s game was classified as a non-first team fixture in the eyes of the CFA (who run the competition) and the FA (who sanction the miconduct for all other competitions)

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 172.69.55.84

Thread: 92138

2,894 at Tadcaster tonight by Stuart Hamill’s silky skills

Posted: 21/1/2019 at 23:27:12, 390 views.

Record crowd at the i2i tonight with 2,894 in attendance. Tadcaster didn’t even play!!! Leeds u23 v Southampton u23

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 2a00:23c4:e08:5001:5

Thread: 92137

Let off by Geoff Hooley

Posted: 19/1/2019 at 19:02:49, 364 views.

Keep voting for killock because he was the best of a dire defence.what’s happened to jj ?he never puts a tackle in and just backs off.not the best performance by any means from the rest of the team.seems we went back to the hump it and hope. Let’s hope the new signings make a difference.. If we’d come away 3.0 down i don’t think we could complain .and yes I did go to the game 😁😴😇

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 86.175.204.151

Re: Let Off by Tommy Wooton

Posted: 19/1/2019 at 19:44:22, 321 views. In reply to 'Let off'

Positives - kept a clean sheet, usual fight and desire shown right to the end, a point gained from an away match played on a freezing cold day with a very heavy pitch.
Not so positives - successful pass completion couldn’t have been more than 40% ish: Lots of misplaced passes and aimless high balls. I understand the substitutions, but I thought they affected the momentum we were building with chances starting to come and then we were suddenly under the kosh at the end.

Also, the parking availability was dire.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.92.126

RE: Re: Let Off by Geoff Hooley

Posted: 19/1/2019 at 19:46:58, 286 views. In reply to 'Re: Let Off'

Ya right cost me £4

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 86.175.204.151

On the plus side by Burniston User: Burniston

Posted: 19/1/2019 at 20:03:06, 282 views. In reply to 'RE: Re: Let Off'

Matlock have won 6 of their last 10 matches at home only being beaten once. Their form and rise up the league has been noticeable. Maybe not such a bad point to come away with especially as we are still settling down from a previous poor run.

PMA

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 2.26.98.44

RE: On the plus side by Zante Seadog

Posted: 20/1/2019 at 12:39:49, 339 views. In reply to 'On the plus side'

They haven’t won in five league games? They are 3rd from bottom of the form league? And they were better than us for 75mins!

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.162

RE: RE: On the plus side by Burniston User: Burniston

Posted: 20/1/2019 at 23:03:10, 303 views. In reply to 'RE: On the plus side'

Come on Zante I understand but I am trying to stay positive. I’m talking of their Home form which had them 3rd or 4th best in the league - so presumably they are pretty poor away. We are still trying to rebuild the confidence that we had upto a month or so ago. Agree with Geoff about the new signings and hopefully we’ll see them on Tuesday night.

PMA

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 2.26.98.44

RE: Let off by Terry Hope

Posted: 19/1/2019 at 20:00:48, 244 views. In reply to 'Let off'

As always fascinating insight. Only a matter of time before SK had you on the payroll.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 213.205.192.123

RE: Let off by seadog365 User: seadog365

Posted: 19/1/2019 at 20:45:52, 263 views. In reply to 'Let off'

That’s two clean sheets in two games by our “dire defence", brilliant haha I’ll take that every time thanks

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.174

Bottom burp by Dunno

Posted: 19/1/2019 at 21:04:09, 367 views. In reply to 'Let off'

Good point today.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.89.57

RE: Let off by Dewsbury User: Dewsbury

Posted: 20/1/2019 at 10:04:13, 306 views. In reply to 'Let off'

OK, I’ll just come out and say it: I agree with Geoff.

Nurse, quick! Pass me my meds!

Simon Cope - Was Chair Of Something Some Time Ago

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.174

RE: RE: Let off by Tree unreg

Posted: 20/1/2019 at 11:35:44, 252 views. In reply to 'RE: Let off'

Don’t worry too much, if one repeatedly makes the same point, it’s bound to be correct eventually. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.174

RE: RE: RE: Let off by Geoff Hooley

Posted: 20/1/2019 at 11:47:42, 303 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: Let off'

The truth always hurts😢 let’s get the new lads playing Tues nite. use it as a training session and try some new tactics ,let’s not have Coolio playing more in our half like he did saturday. He his a forward not a midfielder! .Let’s not have farsle y turn us over (again)

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 86.175.204.151

RE: RE: RE: RE: Let off by Tree unreg

Posted: 21/1/2019 at 13:44:39, 209 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: Let off'

You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!

I’ll get my coat…

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.174

Thread: 92136

HT: Matlock 0-0 Boro by Armchairdog User: Armchairdog

Posted: 19/1/2019 at 15:48:07, 201 views.


  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.92.126

Latest scores in Evo Prem by Armchairdog User: Armchairdog

Posted: 19/1/2019 at 16:19:29, 211 views. In reply to 'HT: Matlock 0-0 Boro'

https://www.footballwebpages.co.uk/northern-premier-league-premier-division

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.91.133

Latest: Mickleover Sports 0-1 Gainsborough Trinity by Armchairdog User: Armchairdog

Posted: 19/1/2019 at 16:39:49, 159 views. In reply to 'Latest scores in Evo Prem'


  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.89.57

FT: Matlock 0-0 Boro by Armchairdog User: Armchairdog

Posted: 19/1/2019 at 16:51:00, 191 views. In reply to 'Latest: Mickleover Sports 0-1 Gainsborough Trinity'


  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.89.63

Thread: 92135

Tom Davie Returns to Boro. See official site. n/t. by Seamer unreg.

Posted: 18/1/2019 at 10:21:49, 400 views.


  • Reply
  • IP Address: 172.69.55.156

Tom Davie - welcome back by Burniston User: Burniston

Posted: 18/1/2019 at 21:38:02, 354 views. In reply to 'Tom Davie Returns to Boro. See official site. n/t. '

From what I remember he was a decent attacking player. Maybe similar to Will Annan. Just what we need after losing Max from last year and then Will and Wayne to injury this year.

PMA

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 2.26.98.44

Thread: 92134

Bad luck for Paddy last by Seamer unreg

Posted: 15/1/2019 at 10:12:02, 329 views.


  • Reply
  • IP Address: 109.156.137.56

Whopps. by Seamer unreg

Posted: 15/1/2019 at 10:21:33, 367 views. In reply to 'Bad luck for Paddy last '

Went to play football last night and after the first kick had to go off, taken to hospital and he has a broken foot and now out of action for 4-5 weeks. But as a true pro he was still at work this morning pot and all with the foot on the mixing desk. Don’t think it will stop his support for the Boro.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 109.156.137.56

RE: Whopps. by Old Seadog User: Old Seadog

Posted: 17/1/2019 at 17:31:11, 283 views. In reply to 'Whopps. '

Who is Paddy?

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.60

RE: RE: Whopps. by seadog365 User: seadog365

Posted: 17/1/2019 at 19:10:44, 302 views. In reply to 'RE: Whopps. '

Paddy Billington aka Paddy in the Morning AKA one of the matchday commentary team.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.150

So thanks to his diligence in soldiering on…. by mrs trellis User: mrs trellis

Posted: 17/1/2019 at 21:15:18, 335 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: Whopps. '

….literally dozen of early morning listeners were spared the prospect of having to get through a day without not having first listened to Jambalaya by the Carpenters!

Not everyone can be this silly but it is nice to see so many trying.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.89.63

RE: RE: RE: Whopps. by BoroBen

Posted: 19/1/2019 at 08:56:51, 282 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: Whopps. '

Ugh that utter cheese ball. Shame he’s not lost his voice to go with his broken ankle. The bloke is a complete wet drip.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 172.69.55.132

RE: RE: RE: RE: Whopps by Burniston User: Burniston

Posted: 19/1/2019 at 13:58:36, 240 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: Whopps. '

Nice.
Come on BoroBen, lets not knock those who help the club. No need.

PMA

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 172.69.226.103

Totally agree Burniston by Chester Perry

Posted: 19/1/2019 at 18:37:19, 202 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: RE: Whopps'

there is no need to slag someone who supports and helps publicise the club, plus he ain’t a bad DJ, better than some off the nationals.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.111.165

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Whopps by BoroBen

Posted: 19/1/2019 at 20:15:31, 239 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: RE: Whopps'

Absolutely nothing to do with SAFC

The bloke is a complete wet cabbage.

Cringe of the highest order 😂

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.111.57

BoroBen by borotomas User: borotomas

Posted: 19/1/2019 at 20:31:59, 208 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Whopps'

Just out of interest, who do you listen to on a morning? I don’t listen to Paddy either but let’s hear who you suggest.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 109.158.255.49

no need… by snainton seadog User: snainton seadog

Posted: 21/1/2019 at 14:29:05, 259 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: Whopps. '

for any personal attacks. Thanks.

-- UP THE BORO

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.60

Thread: 92133

Hyde video showing technology by Burniston User: Burniston

Posted: 13/1/2019 at 22:43:02, 235 views.

Interesting short video here highlighting Hyde’s use of technology to aid training and preparedness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAV7LCkVfuU

PMA

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.155.244

Thread: 92132

Peter Taylor by Nicola Taylor User: Nicola Taylor

Posted: 13/1/2019 at 08:51:46, 271 views.

On behalf of Peter Taylor’s family, I would like to thank SAFC for yesterday. It was a lovely and much appreciated gesture.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 213.205.192.210

Condolences to you all by Chester Perry

Posted: 13/1/2019 at 11:58:08, 284 views. In reply to 'Peter Taylor'

at this difficult time.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 165.225.81.70

Thread: 92131

This league by Burniston User: Burniston

Posted: 12/1/2019 at 23:45:00, 354 views.

It just shows the competitiveness of this league.
No less than 7 teams have held top spot. I doubt there will be an 8th.

We held it the longest at 9 weeks but we had played more games during that time.
Nantwich - 8 weeks
Gainsborough - 3
S Shields, Warrington & Farsley - 2 each
Basford - 1

PMA

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.155.142

pedantically… by seadog365 User: seadog365

Posted: 13/1/2019 at 09:22:20, 275 views. In reply to 'This league'

Matlock Town also held top spot, after the opening round of games :)

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.150

re: pedantically… by Burniston User: Burniston

Posted: 13/1/2019 at 11:08:32, 216 views. In reply to 'pedantically…'

LOL You beat me to it - I just spotted that myself after thinking about the first weekend.
Another little tidbit then: Matlock are the only team to have been both top AND bottom in this league. So which one will we meet next Saturday. Sure not to be an easy game & we need revenge on that draw at our place.

PMA

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.154.81

Thread: 92130

Today by Stepney Seadog 1

Posted: 12/1/2019 at 21:39:44, 258 views.

Possibly the best Boro. performance and result so far this season. Every player contributed and worked tirelessly against a good Warrington side who showed why they had a long unbeaten run. They also were quite physical, and the ref. although having a good game, nevertheless was more lenient to them than us. Whilst they edged the first half, there could be no doubting that over the 90 mins, Boro were the more convincing, and I thought Walshaw was always a threat to their defence, and deserved is well taken goal. Well done Boro.!

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.154.201

Re: today by Tommy Wooton

Posted: 13/1/2019 at 10:26:58, 203 views. In reply to 'Today'

Very satisfying and enjoyable game to watch, albeit one of two halves: 3 points won against tough opposition, clean sheet kept, fight and determination shown throughout, some great quick interplay going up the pitch and exciting counterattacking runs.Well done!

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.154.81

Thread: 92129

GOLDEN GAMBLE by not now gamble girl

Posted: 12/1/2019 at 21:34:26, 182 views.

Someone has asked the winning number today as it was difficult to hear

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 86.167.66.145

RE: GOLDEN GAMBLE by Burniston User: Burniston

Posted: 12/1/2019 at 22:41:13, 175 views. In reply to 'GOLDEN GAMBLE'

I missed it as well & still got my tickets in case.
Has it been claimed?

PMA

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.155.244

RE: RE: GOLDEN GAMBLE by seadog365 User: seadog365

Posted: 12/1/2019 at 23:01:05, 176 views. In reply to 'RE: GOLDEN GAMBLE'

Yes it was claimed and the number was 39538

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 94.118.5.48

Thread: 92128

Kittrick interview from TSN by seadog365 User: seadog365

Posted: 12/1/2019 at 19:52:03, 227 views.

https://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/news/video-interview-with-scarborough-athletic-boss-steve-kittrick-after-the-win-against-warrington-1-9534141

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.34.60
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22
© Surfing Seadog. All Rights Reserved. Site design and development: Steve Smith

Views expressed on this forum are those of the individual poster, and not of the site administrators,scarborough athletic football club or the seadog trust unless otherwise stated.