| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal 22:18 - Dec 1 with 5333 views | Coastalblue |
Agree? |  |
| |  |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 22:23 - Dec 1 with 5312 views | Mullet |
Surely we've had more points with Bart due to our solitary win?
What are their PPG? |  |
| |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 22:25 - Dec 1 with 5299 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
Err, no |  |
| |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 22:26 - Dec 1 with 5290 views | PJH |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 22:23 - Dec 1 by Mullet |
Surely we've had more points with Bart due to our solitary win?
What are their PPG? |
Gerks played at Swansea.
Seven points in games that Gerks started in. |  | | |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 22:28 - Dec 1 with 5280 views | Mullet |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 22:26 - Dec 1 by PJH |
Gerks played at Swansea.
Seven points in games that Gerks started in. |
Christ, I need to drink less. I just assumed that win wasn't a Hurst one! | |
| |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 22:30 - Dec 1 with 5273 views | PJH |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 22:28 - Dec 1 by Mullet |
Christ, I need to drink less. I just assumed that win wasn't a Hurst one! |
It was the one that meant we kept him for a bit longer.
I think that win did us more damage than it did Swansea. [Post edited 1 Dec 2018 22:35]
| | | |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 22:31 - Dec 1 with 5264 views | Mullet |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 22:30 - Dec 1 by PJH |
It was the one that meant we kept him for a bit longer.
I think that win did us more damage than it did Swansea. [Post edited 1 Dec 2018 22:35]
|
We were discussing this pre game amongst many other things.
If only we'd gone from Mick to Lambert (how's that for a double Ipswich reference?) | |
| |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 22:34 - Dec 1 with 5247 views | PJH |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 22:31 - Dec 1 by Mullet |
We were discussing this pre game amongst many other things.
If only we'd gone from Mick to Lambert (how's that for a double Ipswich reference?) |
But that was not what the natives would have wanted.
I think that there are not of "if only's" over the last 12 months. | | | |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 22:40 - Dec 1 with 5204 views | jpring89 |
Nah we would still be bottom we’re awful we’re League 1 mid table side at best. Our club is dead so are the fans history means nothing now. We’re a big bag of dogsh1t. I think this club won’t exist in 5 years time. Shame but life goes on. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 22:43 - Dec 1 with 5177 views | No9 |
Nah, I don't think it would make a blind bit of difference | | | |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 22:45 - Dec 1 with 5176 views | WestStanderLaLaLa |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 22:30 - Dec 1 by PJH |
It was the one that meant we kept him for a bit longer.
I think that win did us more damage than it did Swansea. [Post edited 1 Dec 2018 22:35]
|
I’m not so sure it gave him more time. Lambert watched us against Boro didn’t he? Massive coincidence or the wheels were in motion before that game. |  |
| |
| on 22:51 - Dec 1 with 5118 views | _ |
| | | |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 23:27 - Dec 1 with 5042 views | ArnieM |
Agree- OP |  |
| |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 01:32 - Dec 2 with 4894 views | harlingblue |
We would still be bottom, but by less points, I think we would have gained 3 points against Bristol City on Wednesday. Gerken has been the better keeper this year, but it is a bit unfair to single out the keepers when our whole squad looks far weaker than last years. | | | |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 05:44 - Dec 2 with 4815 views | Benters2 |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 22:40 - Dec 1 by jpring89 |
Nah we would still be bottom we’re awful we’re League 1 mid table side at best. Our club is dead so are the fans history means nothing now. We’re a big bag of dogsh1t. I think this club won’t exist in 5 years time. Shame but life goes on. |
That’s the spirit! | | | |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 05:46 - Dec 2 with 4812 views | distractored |
No.
Goalies are easy to criticise, but the ball has to get past 10 other players before it ends up in the net. |  | | |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 05:51 - Dec 2 with 4808 views | Burwell_Blue |
Ah you can’t say that on here I’m afraid.
The divs lost their minds when he was dropped by Hurst you see, and they are always right. |  | | |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 09:33 - Dec 2 with 4652 views | Swansea_Blue |
We'd be top by some distance if it wasn't for Bart. Def info.
Nurse!! |  |
| |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 09:56 - Dec 2 with 4609 views | braveblue |
No. Not good enough. Bart will recover. Anyway, majority of goals are down to defenders. | | | |
| We were bottom with Gerken in goal on 11:03 - Dec 2 with 4549 views | Guthrum |
Indeed it was during his tenure of the gloves we drifted to five points from safety.
However, in reality, I'd say it's unfair to point the blame at him. Bialkowski is lacking in form and confidence at the moment, I might well be inclined to rest him and give Gerken another go. |  |
| |
| We were bottom with Gerken in goal on 11:19 - Dec 2 with 4528 views | No9 |
| We were bottom with Gerken in goal on 11:03 - Dec 2 by Guthrum |
Indeed it was during his tenure of the gloves we drifted to five points from safety.
However, in reality, I'd say it's unfair to point the blame at him. Bialkowski is lacking in form and confidence at the moment, I might well be inclined to rest him and give Gerken another go. |
I don't disagree but changing the GK isn't going to address the real problems | | | |
| We were bottom with Gerken in goal on 11:24 - Dec 2 with 4521 views | Guthrum |
| We were bottom with Gerken in goal on 11:19 - Dec 2 by No9 |
I don't disagree but changing the GK isn't going to address the real problems |
No, it isn't. But if we can save one or two of those shots which are currently getting through, we stand a much better chance of picking up points. | |
| |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 12:27 - Dec 2 with 4470 views | PositivelyPortman |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 22:40 - Dec 1 by jpring89 |
Nah we would still be bottom we’re awful we’re League 1 mid table side at best. Our club is dead so are the fans history means nothing now. We’re a big bag of dogsh1t. I think this club won’t exist in 5 years time. Shame but life goes on. |
Steady on petal. â¤ï¸ |  |
| |
| We were bottom with Gerken in goal on 15:58 - Dec 2 with 4355 views | Pilgrimblue |
| We were bottom with Gerken in goal on 11:03 - Dec 2 by Guthrum |
Indeed it was during his tenure of the gloves we drifted to five points from safety.
However, in reality, I'd say it's unfair to point the blame at him. Bialkowski is lacking in form and confidence at the moment, I might well be inclined to rest him and give Gerken another go. |
Agreed, no point in putting more pressure on Bart which I imagine opposition may well target. Plus some players do bring an element of luck which we did have in abundance v Swans.
so Gerks for me plus Donacian and Kenlock if fit. |  | | |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 16:53 - Dec 2 with 4295 views | ITFC_Forever |
Only if it’s possible to be even lower.
Gerken’s run in the team still showed he’s still not as good as an out-of-sorts Bart.
The two goals conceded at Birmingham away provide all the evidence you need. |  |
| |
| We wouldn't be bttom with Gerken in goal on 17:19 - Dec 2 with 4260 views | Oxford_Blue |
No because there is no evidence for it. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
