I keep seeing comments like "Riley is better than Ormsby", which is funny as most of the time all I hear on the terraces is "bloody hell Riley!" even when he's nowhere near the ball. Ormsby has played 2 games and looked very solid, big and not afraid of taking the line on or going in for a big hit. Riley on the other hand has played how many seasons and people are still bemoaning him not being good enough. If people here are talking about how the odd match here and there is not enough to fairly judge a player and they need a decent run (re: G'OB) then surely the same goes for Ormsby. I don't think he's done anything to derserve losing his place yet and needs a few more games at least before we can start talking about whether or not he's "good enough". If we were judging the longevity of players after two games then we'd have never kept Matt King. Give Ormsby a chance, a bit of bulk on him and he's going to be formidable

Currie's poor form was evident in the Leeds and Hull games but to be fair he is still only a kid and would at best had only been used off the bench had we had a fully fit complement.
still he was a long way behind Atkins in those terms of poor.

I pointed it out back then...so unfortunately I know too much of my stuff. It's not an observation I take pride from, I wish it wasn't so.

Whens Hock signing again?

He ain't obviously isn't is he...?
I told the boards what he said.
Take it how you like.
The Dr moved quick and splashed the dosh good luck to him.

Whether Hock was telling the truth or whether he was trying to spread gossip to hook a transfer I don't know, but what is for sure, which ever reason is correct, the Dr bit the worm.

more like the duck swallowed the bread.

There is some truth in that too