| Burgess has been very good (n/t) 21:17 - Nov 7 with 2097 views | Garv |
|  |
| |  |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 21:18 - Nov 7 with 2090 views | TrumptonBlue |
Agreed. MotM for me. |  | | |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 21:27 - Nov 7 with 2045 views | StokieBlue |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 21:18 - Nov 7 by TrumptonBlue |
Agreed. MotM for me. |
He's been fine at the back without really much difficult stuff to do but his distribution forward has been pretty poor, especially in the first half.
He's been fine.
SB [Post edited 7 Nov 2022 21:30]
|  | | |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 21:31 - Nov 7 with 1990 views | TrumptonBlue |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 21:27 - Nov 7 by StokieBlue |
He's been fine at the back without really much difficult stuff to do but his distribution forward has been pretty poor, especially in the first half.
He's been fine.
SB [Post edited 7 Nov 2022 21:30]
|
Don’t know what you mean by “I suspected this would be posted…”. I have no strong opinions about Burgess either way, I just thought he’s been decent. Even his distribution. It’s ok not to agree, though. | | | |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 21:34 - Nov 7 with 1959 views | LeoMuff |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 21:31 - Nov 7 by TrumptonBlue |
Don’t know what you mean by “I suspected this would be posted…”. I have no strong opinions about Burgess either way, I just thought he’s been decent. Even his distribution. It’s ok not to agree, though. |
I also thought he has been good, brought the ball out well. |  |
| |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 21:37 - Nov 7 with 1923 views | StokieBlue |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 21:31 - Nov 7 by TrumptonBlue |
Don’t know what you mean by “I suspected this would be posted…”. I have no strong opinions about Burgess either way, I just thought he’s been decent. Even his distribution. It’s ok not to agree, though. |
Indeed, I changed that and it wasn't a reference at you.
He's been fine, his (and Keogh) distribution in the first half was very poor as was noted by a few at half time.
He's been better with distribution in the second half I would say, I wouldn't say MOTM though
It's interesting how people see things so differently.
SB [Post edited 7 Nov 2022 21:42]
| | | |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 21:37 - Nov 7 with 1914 views | gtsb1966 |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 21:31 - Nov 7 by TrumptonBlue |
Don’t know what you mean by “I suspected this would be posted…”. I have no strong opinions about Burgess either way, I just thought he’s been decent. Even his distribution. It’s ok not to agree, though. |
He has been good. Strange original post, before edited , by Stokie. |  | | |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 21:40 - Nov 7 with 1814 views | Chrisd |
Yes, he was my MoM. Really enjoyed the way he has shown confidence bringing the ball out from the back to start attacks. He certainly provides natural balance with that left peg of his. |  |
| |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 21:41 - Nov 7 with 1806 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
The whole defence has been fine. Keogh dealt with aerial balls into the box and cleared second balls well.
Of course, the opposition were not putting them under as great pressure as we should expect in the league, but they did what they had to do absolutely fine. Hladky didn't have a save to make and I thought the commentator's idea that they "deserved a goal" was wide of the mark and simply patronising to them for putting in a good effort. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 21:41 - Nov 7 with 1785 views | TrumptonBlue |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 21:37 - Nov 7 by StokieBlue |
Indeed, I changed that and it wasn't a reference at you.
He's been fine, his (and Keogh) distribution in the first half was very poor as was noted by a few at half time.
He's been better with distribution in the second half I would say, I wouldn't say MOTM though
It's interesting how people see things so differently.
SB [Post edited 7 Nov 2022 21:42]
|
Fair dos. I thought he was MotM in what was at the time a fairly uninspiring team performance. He was maybe pipped by Humphreys by the end. [Post edited 7 Nov 2022 21:42]
| | | |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 21:43 - Nov 7 with 1735 views | StokieBlue |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 21:41 - Nov 7 by TrumptonBlue |
Fair dos. I thought he was MotM in what was at the time a fairly uninspiring team performance. He was maybe pipped by Humphreys by the end. [Post edited 7 Nov 2022 21:42]
|
Humphrey was also just fine until he was moved centrally instead of Ball and then he was far better.
I think it's clear his best position is in the middle of the park where he can pick those through balls, the one for the goal was superb.
SB | | | |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 21:43 - Nov 7 with 1712 views | reusersfreekicks |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 21:37 - Nov 7 by StokieBlue |
Indeed, I changed that and it wasn't a reference at you.
He's been fine, his (and Keogh) distribution in the first half was very poor as was noted by a few at half time.
He's been better with distribution in the second half I would say, I wouldn't say MOTM though
It's interesting how people see things so differently.
SB [Post edited 7 Nov 2022 21:42]
|
Nope. Dixon called it right with KVY. Constant threat down our left, 2 assists and a disallowed goal |  | | |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 21:45 - Nov 7 with 1673 views | Stewart27 |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 21:18 - Nov 7 by TrumptonBlue |
Agreed. MotM for me. |
1. KVY
2. Humphreys
3. Burgess
I know it’s only Bracknell but professionally done tonight with squad depth the stars of the show. | | | |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 22:05 - Nov 7 with 1538 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 21:45 - Nov 7 by Stewart27 |
1. KVY
2. Humphreys
3. Burgess
I know it’s only Bracknell but professionally done tonight with squad depth the stars of the show. |
Bracknell wore themselves out stopping us from playing and never really threatened at all. They ran out of steam. It was a professional performance from us. Helped by not massively weakening our team. | |
| |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 14:15 - Nov 19 with 1121 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 21:27 - Nov 7 by StokieBlue |
He's been fine at the back without really much difficult stuff to do but his distribution forward has been pretty poor, especially in the first half.
He's been fine.
SB [Post edited 7 Nov 2022 21:30]
|
Good to see Burgess bringing the ball out from the back at times today.
Great all around performance. |  |
| |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 14:18 - Nov 19 with 1081 views | bournemouthblue |
Accidentally downthumbed, he was very solid! |  |
| |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 15:49 - Nov 19 with 983 views | SpruceMoose |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 14:15 - Nov 19 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Good to see Burgess bringing the ball out from the back at times today.
Great all around performance. |
Hmmm. Plenty of other Burgess threads you could have added this to. But then, you wouldn't have been able to have yet another tug on Stokie's dingleberries if you hadnt trawled back to drag it up.
Guess that PM you sent him which he ignored must have really irritated you! He's been ignoring you for months mate, give it up! |  |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 15:52 - Nov 19 with 967 views | SlippinJimmyJuan |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 14:15 - Nov 19 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Good to see Burgess bringing the ball out from the back at times today.
Great all around performance. |
Note to self, check the date before blindly upvoting... | |
| |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 16:13 - Nov 19 with 938 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Burgess has been very good (n/t) on 15:49 - Nov 19 by SpruceMoose |
Hmmm. Plenty of other Burgess threads you could have added this to. But then, you wouldn't have been able to have yet another tug on Stokie's dingleberries if you hadnt trawled back to drag it up.
Guess that PM you sent him which he ignored must have really irritated you! He's been ignoring you for months mate, give it up! |
WhatsApp have spoken! What do you call it washerwomenRus?
It's good to remind him he's not infallible now and again.
Oh and as you mentioned the PM and I know you wouldn't want anybody to get the wrong idea. Imagine being so precious that he wouldn't pass on what telescope he uses to a friend of mine who I was telling about Stokie's astronomy photography. So, no not irritated at all just mildly bewildered.
Edit....oh and what with you not being on here recently you probably missed his propensity to hound people he disapproves of by dragging up historical posts from his spreadsheets. [Post edited 19 Nov 2022 16:17]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
