futchers briefs Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Playing as a wing back as well?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Playing as a wing back as well?!? Certainly pushing forward a lot. Looking good for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futchers briefs Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Certainly pushing forward a lot. Looking good for it. Yeah...Wales loook to be playing with 3 at the back and then a very deep holding midfielder - allowing both wing backs to 'push on' - Great to see a young player from the club looking comfortable in an international shirt....get that price up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted June 6, 2009 Author Share Posted June 6, 2009 Lovely ball up the line for Earnshaw - the rest is history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simpo Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Wing back seems to suit him brilliantly. Licence to get forward loads, and defensive responsibilities reduced. I'd look into signing a right back and try Eards on the right side of midfield in friendlies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futchers briefs Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Wing back seems to suit him brilliantly. Licence to get forward loads, and defensive responsibilities reduced. I'd look into signing a right back and try Eards on the right side of midfield in friendlies If he looks good at wing back, why play him right midfield? I don't think he'd be good enough as a right midfielder - but the wing back role certainkly seems to suit - as long as you've 3 quick, solid defenders as your back 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Wing back seems to suit him brilliantly. Licence to get forward loads, and defensive responsibilities reduced. I'd look into signing a right back and try Eards on the right side of midfield in friendlies You might want to give Coventry/whoever a call and let them know! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdw76 Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Well done Neal, enjoyed watching him play more than the England game. All valuable experience for a player so young and one of our most experienced players already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futchers briefs Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Well done Neal, enjoyed watching him play more than the England game. All valuable experience for a player so young and one of our most experienced players already. He ran his nads off and although looked a tad cream crackered at the end, he put in a good shift and some quality balls in their box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsPete Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 So we can watch Wales in about 6 formats but not England thanks to :censored:anta. Gits. No we can't watch England because the BBC would rather pay for snooker, Jonathan Ross , and sending multiple correspondents to any event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 He ran his nads off and although looked a tad cream crackered at the end Could be due to all those bottles of vodka he sank over in Ibiza the other week? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 No we can't watch England because the BBC would rather pay for snooker, Jonathan Ross , and sending multiple correspondents to any event. The BBC spends more money on digital channels than Sky pay for Premiership football. They also spend 4 times as much on BBC News 24 as Sky spend on Sky News. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 The BBC spends more money on digital channels than Sky pay for Premiership football. They also spend 4 times as much on BBC News 24 as Sky spend on Sky News. I think the BBC takes a lot of stick when in reality it's one of the most valuable resources this country has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 (edited) I think the BBC takes a lot of stick when in reality it's one of the most valuable resources this country has. It could certainly be a more cost focused valuable resource. I think it deserves a lot of the stick it gets and could be run better. At the same time, it does indeed have many strengths and caters to a diverse audience worldwide. I thought the reference to Latics here was rather good! (I just wish BBC World wasn't the only English channel you seem to be able to get in a foreign hotel !!) Edited June 6, 2009 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Don't see the same complaints when Sky are the only ones showing the games. I love watching boxing yet hardly get to see any these days as I don't want to pay for Sky. I get Setanta free through my BT Vision and saw the game tonight, believe me, until we scored you were better off not watching it. I am gutted Haye has hurt himself as I was looking forward to that fight as that was on Setanta too. Market forces, funny old game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 I think the BBC takes a lot of stick when in reality it's one of the most valuable resources this country has. How on Earth do you define something that costs more than a billion pounds in a tax disguised as a subscription fee as a resource? It spends a huge amount of it producing :censored: TV that any number of channels can make anyway, it has hardly any free to air sport worth watching, it spends tens or hundreds of millions on product for children that commercial ventures already do better and I am struggling to think of the huge amount of ground breaking drama it produces. It's news coverage isn't great, it's website is sickeningly craven and to me offensive as an atheist (it describes all world religions as matters of faith except for Islam, which it describes as true (unless they changes it since)) and it is massively overstaffed by wasters collecting huge salaries to do :censored: all in a bloated institution, mostly still bizarrley situated in London, for reasons that make no economic sense and have nothing to do with making any product that the, "licence fee payers," want to enjoy. Throw it in the well. Talented people will make producyt that we want without the Government holding a gun to our head to fund them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Becketts Anchor Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 How on Earth do you define something that costs more than a billion pounds in a tax disguised as a subscription fee as a resource? It spends a huge amount of it producing :censored: TV that any number of channels can make anyway, it has hardly any free to air sport worth watching, it spends tens or hundreds of millions on product for children that commercial ventures already do better and I am struggling to think of the huge amount of ground breaking drama it produces. It's news coverage isn't great, it's website is sickeningly craven and to me offensive as an atheist (it describes all world religions as matters of faith except for Islam, which it describes as true (unless they changes it since)) and it is massively overstaffed by wasters collecting huge salaries to do :censored: all in a bloated institution, mostly still bizarrley situated in London, for reasons that make no economic sense and have nothing to do with making any product that the, "licence fee payers," want to enjoy. Throw it in the well. Talented people will make producyt that we want without the Government holding a gun to our head to fund them. That's bollocks. News reporting has gone downhill across the board in recent years, as news organisations struggle to make something appear interesting every minute of the day. But the BBC is still the best one. The BBC (in my opinion, not that I watch much of it) produces more EDUCATIONAL children's television than the crap on the commercial channels. I'm delighted that they're showing F1 again, although ITV did a great job to be fair. The licence fee is a tiny amount compared to what many of us pay to get the 'extra' satellite and cable channels, many of which are showing BBC programmes. Anyway, thought this thread was about Neal Eardley... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 Well done Neal (again) Showing what an asset he is ! 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.