Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

308 Excellent

About davetherivelinowl

  • Rank
    Sheffield Wednesday Reserves

Recent Profile Visitors

1,267 profile views
  1. I don't agree with all of this but do think we were doing better tonight than I expected given the line up. We were unlucky to lose Murphy and even unluckier to have the goal disallowed. Plenty of players picked up knocks tonight (Palmer, Murphy, Harris maybe more). We're running out of bodies and that bit isn't the managers fault. I'm all for slagging off the manager when we've been rubbish but will give him the benefit of the doubt this time
  2. I emailed the ticket office ([email protected]) with my ID number, they replied to say they had processed my refund. They said they would ring me to get my card details so they could refund the card. That was last Friday. Haven't heard anything since but their email does say they'll be in touch 'within 60 days of the end of the Season Ticket rebate period' But I'm happy about the fact that they've acknowledged in an email that I'm entitled to a refund and I haven't missed a deadline or anything.
  3. Hi, Thanks so much. Great advice. But on the next page when I try to claim the rebate I get this: The quantity of tickets owned by ****** ****** exceeds limit set by SWFC. To resolve, click 'Assign owners' and assign some of the tickets to other owners. Sorry, you cannot buy any more tickets to event 19/20 Season Rebate . Sales to this event are limited to 0 tickets per event per history per item owner. I've no idea why. I've tried calling the office - nobody available. I've sent two emails to the ticketing enquiries. No reply so far. I've never known a company that was so consistently difficult to deal with. It's a good job I love my football.
  4. This doesn't work for me at all. The only option that isn't greyed out is the ifollow bundle and there's no option to see more areas. The whole rebate process seems to have been made as hard to find and as difficult to achieve as possible.
  5. Having read through all of this, here are my reflections: SOOOOOO much better with three in midfield. It suits all 3 of them and we won because we bossed it there. Lee still isn't the player he was but he's getting there and Luongo has long quiet spells but pops up now and again with really important contributions like the goal. I thought Wickham led the line really well. The comment about his poor touch is a surprise to me - wasn't that Rhodes? Before the break I assumed he was a spent force but he's getting better all the time. Not as mobile as Fletcher but just as good in the air. I'm amazed by the praise for Harris who I think has been a weak link in both games. There's just no end product to what he does, especially when he sees so much of the ball. Last week he had 14 crosses but none reached a Wednesday player. This week, apart from one peach of a cross I thought he was really ineffective going forward. Works hard enough defensively but please can we put someone in that role who can cross a ball. Stand up Adam Reach. Murphy is pretty much the opposite - sees so little of the ball that you forget he's playing but his shots and crosses, when they do come, are much more of a threat. Outstanding save from Wildsmith but it must be rare for an MoM to have so few touches in a game. Brizzle were so poor that he had little to do. I hope Rhodes keeps his place. He makes good runs and has been unlucky not to score - so far. Da Cruz's pace and willingness makes him useful as a late sub - more so than I ever thought he could be Why has it taken us this long to find this formation and start looking good?
  6. Bannan, Hutch and Lee are all now 30 or more. I was delighted we had brought in Luongo, not least because he's 3 years younger so, in theory, at a good age for an experienced Championship midfielder. But when he plays he looks to me like someone even older and slower than any of those three. He's a bits and bobs sort of player: he does a few good things, sometimes very good, in the games he plays but mostly seems to drift out of games. Maybe we haven't seen the best of him, maybe he's been struggling for fitness, maybe he's been carrying an injury. But, for whatever reason, so far he's been underwhelming. But I always hope he gets picked ahead of Pelupessy.
  7. Sure, some full backs are better going forward. Alexander-Arnold is a classic example. But my problem with Odubajo is that he's never looked any good going forward either. I don't remember a single run or cross that made me think he might be what we need. Imagine playing him as a left-midfielder. Imagine relying on him to provide the service to the strikers. No thanks. But in a bargain-basement world he might be the sort of quality we'll have to get used to.
  8. Petrescu. Great footballer, one of the best I've seen at Hillsborough. But never a full-back. The writing was on the wall for Francis when we got mullered by Stan Collymore and Brian Roy, 7-1 at home. Even I could see that Petrescu was simply absent as a full-back and Francis didn't have a clue how to change it (not picking him as a full-back was all that was needed). Petrescu went on to be a leading light for Chelsea but NOT as a full-back. No wonder we sacked Francis after that.
  9. Blondeau was a weird one. I don't actually remember seeing him play live but I remember listening to a Radio Sheffield commentary in which the co-commentator (a pro-footballer, possibly Laurie Madden), normally slow to criticise, kept saying 'We're all over the place at the back and it's all down to this new full-back, He just doesn't seem to know what he should be doing. I've never seen anything like it' And yet he was French international who continued a successful career back in France, at Champions League level, after leaving us. It's like we played the full-back role differently and he insisted on doing it his way. Mind you I've heard that other players of that era said that Pleat was so full of what he thought were clever ideas that nobody had a clue what he was on about.
  10. My first impressions of the two are very different. The first few games of watching Joao led me to think he'd be one of our best players ever! He was raw but obviously had bags of talent. He was capable of outrageous skills, had a terrific shot, great pace and scored a couple of bullet headers early on in his time here. What I didn't realise was the extent to which he lacked application so he turned out to be a big disappointment (but not without his sublime moments). So far I've seen precious little evidence of any talent from da Cruz (I don't remember a single pass or shot to give cause for optimism) although, unlike Joao, he does seem willing to work hard. As ever I'd be delighted to be proved wrong. I was with Reach and Fox (and Joao, in the opposite way).
  11. What he does offer that's different is energy and pace and Monk decided that would be more useful last night - someone to chase their defenders. Can you imagine Rhodes or Nuhiu (or Wickham) trying to do that?
  12. I think he was picked last night for his pace and his willingness to run around a lot and to be fair he probably ran further than anyone else on the pitch last night. He wasn't helped by Forestieri having one of those games where he rests for longer than he plays. But with Forestieri you know there could be a bit of magic at any moment so we give him more slack than a worker who frankly has never shown any kind of magic. Even so it's starting to be a long time since Forestieri lived up to his past reputation.
  13. I'm one of those who thinks Bannan is our best player BUT even I have to concede that he's been a pile of SH'ITE for the last month at least. I agree that we're no longer getting the best out of him. I think this is down to our tactics. There's a reason why very few teams play two wide wingers and its because it leaves the centre of midfield wide open. For a while we solved it by having 3 in midfield with just one up front but we moaned because only Fletcher was scoring. So we then played two up top and left too many gaps in centre midfield. Bannan has spent the last two months running his little legs off trying to plug those gaps but now he's knackered. We complain that he plays too deep but, as someone has pointed out, when Hutchinson plays, Bannan gets 10 yards further up the pitch. Another problem he faces as our supposed playmaker is a lack of people to play to. He does his spin, makes time to pick a pass, looks up and bloody hell there's no-one making a run, either into a channel or coming short. As a team we've just stopped running around for more than 10 minutes. I don't know what to make of his tantrums during games. He just seems so p'd off when others make mistakes (especially the ref). Should we applaud his passion? Or is he bad for morale? I think he tries to lead by example but spreads himself too thinly. I noticed yesterday he was having a fit when he had to cover at right back because da Cruz (who was supposed to be there) wandered into midfield and showed no intention of getting back in place. Da Cruz argued he was being subbed anyway but Bannan was waving his arms at the bench as if to say 'Why am I having to do this?' In this case Bannan at least did the responsible thing of playing right back himself when he saw that no-one else was doing it. But he always looks the most frustrated player on the pitch.
  14. Not sure if anyone else has said this in the rest of the thread but Bannan and Dawson both gave him a pat on the head as well as Borner, I'd like to have seen captain Palmer do the same.
  • Create New...