mzungu_royal Conned again by a bunch of divers.
And a set of negative substitutions
by clauski » 29 Sep 2009 21:40
mzungu_royal Conned again by a bunch of divers.
by SLAMMED » 29 Sep 2009 21:41
by DelBoyRodders » 29 Sep 2009 21:41
mzungu_royal Conned again by a bunch of divers.
by rotherwick_royal » 29 Sep 2009 21:41
by T.R.O.L.I. » 29 Sep 2009 21:41
wolsey what was the pen for?
by nev monkey » 29 Sep 2009 21:42
by strap » 29 Sep 2009 21:42
by Kitson12 » 29 Sep 2009 21:42
by mzungu_royal » 29 Sep 2009 21:42
clauskimzungu_royal Conned again by a bunch of divers.
And a set of negative substitutions
by ZacNaloen » 29 Sep 2009 21:42
by mzungu_royal » 29 Sep 2009 21:43
strap So Mills was another "inspired" substitution then ?!
FFS, can't BR EVER get a sub right??
by Ian Royal » 29 Sep 2009 21:43
by sandman » 29 Sep 2009 21:43
by nev monkey » 29 Sep 2009 21:44
strap So Mills was another "inspired" substitution then ?!
FFS, can't BR EVER get a sub right??
by Wimb » 29 Sep 2009 21:44
by strap » 29 Sep 2009 21:46
Ian Royal commo says Mills slipped and it was harsh... would like to see it before judging.
This is what happens when you surrender the initiative to try and "weather the storm" early 2nd half and hope it'll blow itself out. They just get more and more involved as we get penned further and further back and more and more desperate
by Terminal Boardom » 29 Sep 2009 21:47
strapIan Royal commo says Mills slipped and it was harsh... would like to see it before judging.
This is what happens when you surrender the initiative to try and "weather the storm" early 2nd half and hope it'll blow itself out. They just get more and more involved as we get penned further and further back and more and more desperate
Agreed, but if the pen was iffy, tehn fair enough.
by Wimb » 29 Sep 2009 21:47
by gazzer, loyal royal » 29 Sep 2009 21:47
by Ian Royal » 29 Sep 2009 21:47
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 140 guests