• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

West Ham 0 v 1 Wolves: The Verdict Thread

Patricio in Garth Crooks team of the week. Apparently without him we would have lost. Okaay...

Crooks has a myopic view of wolves full stop.

Wolves more possession 52% more attempts 15 to 13 , more on target 6 to 3.
 
Crooks is correct but if it wasn't for Fabianski then West Ham could have been hammered (pun intended).

Both keepers made top saves to keep their team in the game.

Patricio is an unreal keeper, it's awesome to watch him.
 
Crooks has a myopic view of wolves full stop.

Wolves more possession 52% more attempts 15 to 13 , more on target 6 to 3.

I think Crooks is just lazy and thinks because he played the game his opinion is valid

I think Nieve from Bolton would do a much better job
 
Patricio in Garth Crooks team of the week. Apparently without him we would have lost. Okaay...

Apparently, if my Auntie had balls she'd be my Uncle... Crooks is technically correct but without any number of players we could have lost. It's weak.
 
Apparently, if my Auntie had balls she'd be my Uncle... Crooks is technically correct but without any number of players we could have lost. It's weak.

Exactly. If Wolves had played without a goalkeeper they'd have lost shocker! John Ruddy might have also made those saves (or not - who knows?) so it's a bollocks statement.
 
Crooks is literally chock full of them. If he went to hospital for an operation they'd cut him open and have to stem the flow of bollocks statements.
 
Crooks is literally chock full of them. If he went to hospital for an operation they'd cut him open and have to stem the flow of bollocks statements.

I get the feeling crooks is an anti-vaxer
 
Yeah, because there aren't swathes of clueless white reporters and presenters. Ffs. He's a thick cunt, but being black has nothing to do with it
 
That doesn't paint you in a good light. Glasgo. It's also a pretty nasty insinuation against the BBC.

Feel free to critique their decision to pay Crooks due to his lack of ability. But to link it to some form of racial quota agenda is not on.
 
Cretinous comment.

a)what Del said.
b) unemployment rate for people from a black background currently runs at around 9%. For white people, it's 3.6%
 
Forget Traore and Bananas on Pizza as Glasgow has logged on and nailed home another stonker of a post.
 
He's not racist though, just ask anyone he works with they know he doesn't give a fuck about names on CVs.
 
You've got to laugh haven't you.
 
That's not racist it's a known fact the BBC have quota's female and ethnic.
Crooks is by far the worst out there he is constantly fucking useless.
How the fuck is it racist to say if he was not black he would not be employed to write rubbish.
Every company pretty much has quota' s now women in the boardroom women in the work place diversity as soon.as you employ someone you have HR rejecting candidates that are white males sending ethnic minority candidates that are not as suitable as others they have discounted. It happens everywhere. If you guys don't see it then it's your.problem not mine.

I would rather Eni Aluko did team of the week she has more knowledge in her little finger than Crooks.
There are also plenty of women reporters I would rather did the job than that tool.
Don't.give a flying fuck what you lot say it's a quota decision.
BBC destroyed radio 2 Drivetime to increase their quota in women daytime presenters something they have readily admitted.
So do not tell the BBC do not have quota's
 
Back
Top