Brentford observations

According to the football intelligentsia of Griffin Park, Rovers didn't deserve to win because they play "hoofball". If yours is normally the "passing game" (even if you did not employ it on this occasion beyond the first quarter of an hour as Uwe Rosler admitted) it seems that you are entitled to feel cheated if you are beaten by such a team as Rovers. Whether Brentford actually deserved the win they needed (or even the penalty for that matter) is highly debatable. It seemed rather unlikely that they would have scored in open play. In a game when there were few clear chances, a draw would probably have been a fair result.

Going on about the penalty is another hard luck line. I don't think the alleged nominated penalty taker, O'Connor, had scored from the spot this season, so there was no reason to assume he would have converted either. Trotta, on the other hand, had successfully taken the most recent penalty after Sanders had missed against Sheff U. Had he scored, no more would have been said.

They even complained about Sullivan as follows "every time he gathered the ball he simply put it down in the box and waited for a Bees forward to chase him before picking it up casually and belting it away like a moon ship"! Deliberate time -wasting may be a legitimate complaint, but it seems that they need to check the rules as even casual followers of the game will be aware that when the ball is in play you can keep it for as long as you like.

Some other reporter had timed all the goal kicks and throw ins and calculated that we had wasted one third of the 90 minutes! I may be mistaken, but would it not be their players who made final contact with the ball when it went out of play on these occasions? Surely such outstanding exponents of "the beautiful game" should be able to keep the ball in play and always hit the target thus minimising the time that the ball was dead?

Had Brentford only needed a point, are we to believe that they would have gone out of their way to ensure that we would be given every opportunity to win the match? If they positively exude "the beautiful game" as their followers profess, why was it not possible on such an important occasion to actually exhibit some small element of the silky skills which they apparently possess in abundance and give the "dirty, long ball pre-historic hoofers" something to think about? Then they would have wasted time; oh, sorry, perish the thought.

But they didn't turn it on and apparently couldn't? Or perhaps they actually did and we all failed to recognise it. Or more likely, the Brentfordians mistake a succession of short passes midfield which go nowhere (which one can observe if one takes in a few of their highlights) as the ultimate expression of the said "beautiful game"?

So Bee is for Bitter, extremely, excessively.

Donaldo, I have watched some of the youtube clips made by Brentford supporters and almost all of them say that they didn't play well enough to win the game.
It could be that we didn't allow them to play well enough of course.
I do love it though when we beat teams and their manager's and fans complain that we shouldn't have won, for various reasons , including that they were better than us.
Strange isn't it that we finish at the top of the league when apparently most of the teams below us are better than us.

Erudite as ever, Donaldo!

I watched them a couple of weeks ago, on Sky, and there wasn't much evidence, then, of their fine football or final flourish.

Can I repeat History please.?


BRENTFORD 0
DONCASTER ROVERS 1

End of

The originator of the

"dirty, long ball pre-historic hoofers"

comments was Richard Lee, Brentfords injured fist team keeper. I will forgive him for his biased, incorrect and emotional comments because a few years ago when he was at Watford he got me a team signed Watford shirt for Adam, 18 year old boy, who was brain damaged following a road traffic accident. Adam was in a coma for 6 months and was probably the best prospect to make it as a pro I had at my club.

Life can be very cruel.