| MoM last night 13:45 - Oct 3 with 2575 views | judd |
Who were the match sponsors and what was it that formed their opinion to award the MoM to Josh?
Personally thought Sam Hart (especially 1st half) should have got it. |  |
| |  |
| MoM last night on 14:25 - Oct 3 with 2506 views | D_Alien |
Agree on Hart
As others have said, the MoM choice was possibly a reaction against Lillis being dropped, plus he made a couple of vital saves
It certainly raised a murmur in the crowd - although not a Hart murmur |  |
| |
| MoM last night on 14:43 - Oct 3 with 2470 views | SuddenLad |
| MoM last night on 14:25 - Oct 3 by D_Alien |
Agree on Hart
As others have said, the MoM choice was possibly a reaction against Lillis being dropped, plus he made a couple of vital saves
It certainly raised a murmur in the crowd - although not a Hart murmur |
Norman made an equally vital save in the first half, as Josh did in the second half. Don't see why there's any controversy about the choice. Equally, Sam Hart had done plenty to be a contender. He's getting better with each game. |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| MoM last night on 14:51 - Oct 3 with 2453 views | dingdangblue |
Not picking Sam for Man of the Match shouldn't be seen as some sort of Hart attack. |  |
| |
| MoM last night on 15:45 - Oct 3 with 2380 views | richfoad32 |
| MoM last night on 14:43 - Oct 3 by SuddenLad |
Norman made an equally vital save in the first half, as Josh did in the second half. Don't see why there's any controversy about the choice. Equally, Sam Hart had done plenty to be a contender. He's getting better with each game. |
I quite like Norman, after a shaky start I think he looks a competent 'keeper. Maybe a rush of blood last night but someone had to try and deal with a ball pumped 70 yards that should've been a centre half's all day long. Whether he offers anything more than Josh is debatable, but I certainly have no problem seeing him between the sticks. The dropping of Lillis was strange though, only Hill can explain the thinking behind that one. Should be no goalkeeping controversies for the next three games at least (expect Moore to start Saturday then.)
Agree about Hart, really impressed with him. Early days but I would love to see a permanent move for him, assuming he's not in Rovers plans. As ever though, there will probably be clubs higher up the food chain sniffing around as well. |  | | |
| MoM last night on 15:58 - Oct 3 with 2343 views | ChaffRAFC |
The choice was blatantly a dig at Hill and one I quite agree with. I've never been Lillis' biggest fan but he certainly doesn't deserve dropping for a loan keeper who's previous professional experience was Southport and hasn't pulled up any trees so far.
It was needless and it backfired, massively.
That being said, Hart was my man of the match, just ahead of Henderson. |  |
| If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor |
| |
| MoM last night on 16:07 - Oct 3 with 2334 views | BartRowou |
According to one of the old soaks in the Sandy, Lillis is only a handful of games off being Dale's longest-serving keeper. Last night's sending-off will hopefully make this happen sooner than later. |  |
| |
| MoM last night on 19:17 - Oct 3 with 2179 views | YadHoDale |
| MoM last night on 16:07 - Oct 3 by BartRowou |
According to one of the old soaks in the Sandy, Lillis is only a handful of games off being Dale's longest-serving keeper. Last night's sending-off will hopefully make this happen sooner than later. |
Just had a look at Wikipedia and Soccerbase (which are hopefully accurate). The top 5 I can find quickly are:
Neil Edwards 239
Josh Lillis 233*
Ted Burgin 207
Keith Welch 205#
Matt Gilks 176
*not out
#coincidentally, per wiki, its Welchy's 50th birthday today! |  | | |
| MoM last night on 19:29 - Oct 3 with 2139 views | rich_dale |
| MoM last night on 15:45 - Oct 3 by richfoad32 |
I quite like Norman, after a shaky start I think he looks a competent 'keeper. Maybe a rush of blood last night but someone had to try and deal with a ball pumped 70 yards that should've been a centre half's all day long. Whether he offers anything more than Josh is debatable, but I certainly have no problem seeing him between the sticks. The dropping of Lillis was strange though, only Hill can explain the thinking behind that one. Should be no goalkeeping controversies for the next three games at least (expect Moore to start Saturday then.)
Agree about Hart, really impressed with him. Early days but I would love to see a permanent move for him, assuming he's not in Rovers plans. As ever though, there will probably be clubs higher up the food chain sniffing around as well. |
For me Josh is more solid. He wouldn't have rushed out like that. As you were watching it, you just thought 'what are you doing...' You don't want that from your keeper. Their lad had his back to goal when he clattered him. Totally unnecessary. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| MoM last night on 19:35 - Oct 3 with 2122 views | TVOS1907 |
| MoM last night on 19:17 - Oct 3 by YadHoDale |
Just had a look at Wikipedia and Soccerbase (which are hopefully accurate). The top 5 I can find quickly are:
Neil Edwards 239
Josh Lillis 233*
Ted Burgin 207
Keith Welch 205#
Matt Gilks 176
*not out
#coincidentally, per wiki, its Welchy's 50th birthday today! |
Wikipedia only lists league appearances. Soccerbase lists all appearances, but doesn't have much pre-1997.
As things stand tonight, the top 5 in all competitions are:
Neil Edwards 277 (239 league, 36 cup, 2 play-off)
Josh Lillis 272 (233 league, 39 cup)
Mike Poole 249 (219 league, 30 cup)
Keith Welch 239 (205 league, 34 cup)
Ted Burgin 234 (207 league, 27 cup) |  |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| MoM last night on 20:54 - Oct 3 with 2032 views | boromat |
Think MoM was hard to choose mine was Hendo but calls for Hart and Lillis are equally valid I think. The team was solid with 10 men for the majority and it was very much a team effort. | |
| |
| MoM last night on 21:16 - Oct 3 with 1996 views | SuddenLad |
| MoM last night on 15:58 - Oct 3 by ChaffRAFC |
The choice was blatantly a dig at Hill and one I quite agree with. I've never been Lillis' biggest fan but he certainly doesn't deserve dropping for a loan keeper who's previous professional experience was Southport and hasn't pulled up any trees so far.
It was needless and it backfired, massively.
That being said, Hart was my man of the match, just ahead of Henderson. |
Using the MoM award in such a way, to have a dig at the manager, (if that was the case) completely devalues the whole award. It's a pointless gesture which potentially denies another player an award he has earned. | |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| MoM last night on 21:29 - Oct 3 with 1974 views | TVOS1907 |
| MoM last night on 21:16 - Oct 3 by SuddenLad |
Using the MoM award in such a way, to have a dig at the manager, (if that was the case) completely devalues the whole award. It's a pointless gesture which potentially denies another player an award he has earned. |
To be honest, given that the match sponsors were a company who sponsored the business networking event and are 'friends of the club', I'd imagine their choice of Lillis was quite innocent. | |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| MoM last night on 21:30 - Oct 3 with 1970 views | rochdaleriddler |
| MoM last night on 21:16 - Oct 3 by SuddenLad |
Using the MoM award in such a way, to have a dig at the manager, (if that was the case) completely devalues the whole award. It's a pointless gesture which potentially denies another player an award he has earned. |
It’s an award usually decided by a load of tanked up blokes, who tbf have paid for the privilege so it’s up to them surely? |  |
| |
| MoM last night on 10:26 - Oct 4 with 1754 views | dawlishdale |
| MoM last night on 21:16 - Oct 3 by SuddenLad |
Using the MoM award in such a way, to have a dig at the manager, (if that was the case) completely devalues the whole award. It's a pointless gesture which potentially denies another player an award he has earned. |
Lillis was certainly up there for MOM, together with Hendo and Hart based on what I saw.
Personally I'd have gone for Hart, as he played 90 minutes rather than 45, but can see why the sponsors decision could be taken as a dig at Hill, because there was no reason not to play Lillis from the start.
Who sponsored the match ? I couldn't hear as the announcer shouts so loud that it distorts what he's trying to say. | | | |
| MoM last night on 10:56 - Oct 4 with 1726 views | YadHoDale |
| MoM last night on 19:35 - Oct 3 by TVOS1907 |
Wikipedia only lists league appearances. Soccerbase lists all appearances, but doesn't have much pre-1997.
As things stand tonight, the top 5 in all competitions are:
Neil Edwards 277 (239 league, 36 cup, 2 play-off)
Josh Lillis 272 (233 league, 39 cup)
Mike Poole 249 (219 league, 30 cup)
Keith Welch 239 (205 league, 34 cup)
Ted Burgin 234 (207 league, 27 cup) |
Thanks TVOS. Mike Poole - knew I'd missed someone... :( | | | |
| MoM last night on 10:56 - Oct 4 with 1725 views | TVOS1907 |
| MoM last night on 10:26 - Oct 4 by dawlishdale |
Lillis was certainly up there for MOM, together with Hendo and Hart based on what I saw.
Personally I'd have gone for Hart, as he played 90 minutes rather than 45, but can see why the sponsors decision could be taken as a dig at Hill, because there was no reason not to play Lillis from the start.
Who sponsored the match ? I couldn't hear as the announcer shouts so loud that it distorts what he's trying to say. |
This magazine were the sponsors:
https://northernrevive.co.uk/
EDIT: Northern Revive were actually the sponsors v Portsmouth.
The Bristol Rovers' sponsors were actually the Dale supporters branch from Norway who, I believe, chose Lillis independent of any other rationale. [Post edited 4 Oct 2018 19:09]
| |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
