| red_rebel2 Posted on 12/9 12:20 | |
| vickers marks out of ten | |
There is an interesting piece bit on Vickers blog today about how papers give their marks out of ten. He says the nationals match reports are finshed long before the end of the game - which I have long suspected anyway - and that the reporters have an agenda so don't actually watch the game in any detail and don't know the Boro players anyweay and are in no position to judge. That explains a lot. Also says why the Gazette doesn't give marks. Although I reckon another important reason is that Uncle Eric has to go and talk to the players again the next day after giving them a 3! | |
| Link: Five out of ten | |
| captain5 Posted on 12/9 12:24 | |
| re: vickers marks out of ten | |
It's that type of attention to detail that would mean he's talking about 'a creditable goalless draw'. | |
| Capybara Posted on 12/9 12:24 | |
| re: vickers marks out of ten | |
Pretty much what I thought too. But ..... 'But Boro got a creditable goalless draw despite playing the last half-hour with ten men' Eh? | |
| capio Posted on 12/9 12:26 | |
| re: vickers marks out of ten | |
‘But Boro got a creditable goalless draw’ 2/10 for lack of attention to detail | |
| capio Posted on 12/9 12:26 | |
| re: vickers marks out of ten | |
phuq. | |
| red_rebel2 Posted on 12/9 12:32 | |
| re: vickers marks out of ten | |
Well at least he's reading this board carefully. | |
| Capybara Posted on 12/9 12:34 | |
| re: vickers marks out of ten | |
 He did the same when I pointed out a spelling mistake a couple of weeks back. | |
| capio Posted on 12/9 12:34 | |
| re: vickers marks out of ten | |
haha yeah that was a quick change  --- Post edited by capio on 12/9 12:34 --- | |
| neiltrodden Posted on 12/9 12:55 | |
| re: vickers marks out of ten | |
At least he knows we read it! | |
| boroboy75 Posted on 12/9 13:09 | |
| re: vickers marks out of ten | |
red_rebel is vickers. He's always first to post any of Vicker's scribblings, since his disciple Briggsy disappeared. | |
| capio Posted on 12/9 13:11 | |
| re: vickers marks out of ten | |
Nah, his section would have been renamed comrade in arms by now. He would have led a revolt against McClaren last winter and all those who didn't come down to shovel the snow last year would have been shot. | |
| red_rebel2 Posted on 12/9 13:25 | |
| re: vickers marks out of ten | |
No BB75, you must have a page missing from your notes. I "am David Shayler". I thought Sas was Vickers. | |
| boroboy75 Posted on 12/9 13:31 | |
| re: vickers marks out of ten | |
I never ever thought your were a fat, treasonous, way down the ladder, intelligence employee. | |
