mainly because...

we had ZERO shots on target. against a very poor stoke. who would have been in the s**t had we actually bothered to put a shot on target. and we would have def been safe. but we didnt. due to the way we were set up and selection of players. fact.

Posted By: Cheltenham_Canary on April 28th 2013 at 10:35:52

Message Thread

The current obsession with the "shots on target" stat: (NCFC) - HairyBobbingManAss, Apr 28, 09:43:58
- Hinted a couple of times about the price of their squad (n/m) (NCFC) - pants, Apr 28, 11:35:12
- IF we HAD just a couple of decent efforts on target no one would ever bring it up. (NCFC) - Cheltenham_Canary, Apr 28, 10:24:38
  - noone would notice, if it hadn't happened a fair few times since christmas (NCFC) - phrankin, Apr 28, 10:30:06
- Agree (n/m) (NCFC) - essexcanaryOTBC, Apr 28, 10:17:59
- I would just like some decent shots (n/m) (NCFC) - Dandy Highburyman, Apr 28, 10:01:50
  - I can understand that..... (NCFC) - HairyBobbingManAss, Apr 28, 10:07:24
    - disagree...... (NCFC) - Cheltenham_Canary, Apr 28, 10:28:32
    - we made sure of it by playing shit (NCFC) - phrankin, Apr 28, 10:27:02
- The second season back up was always going to be tough (NCFC) - scruffy, Apr 28, 09:59:20
- 3 goals away from home since the turn of the year tells its own story (n/m) (NCFC) - phrankin, Apr 28, 09:57:31
- Well said. There's been a lot of good logical posts in amongst the reactionary shite, (NCFC) - I Am Hoot, Apr 28, 09:48:53
- Good post. (NCFC) - lurd, Apr 28, 09:47:06
  - mainly because... (NCFC) - Cheltenham_Canary, Apr 28, 10:35:52

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.