Please log in to use all the site's facilities
|Prediction||Prediction Logged by at 13:07:58|
Queens Park Rangers v Preston North End prediction logged
|Antti's Six Knee Jerks: QPR 0 Forest 4|
at 15:54 28 Nov 2019
As Fulham fans once sang as they put three past us before half time for about the sixth game in a row: 'It's happening again, it's happening again, Queens Park Rangers, it's happening again.' I'm still hoping the wheels aren't quite coming off, and that we're just having a bad patch that we will eventually, somehow emerge from. The worry is, although we were good in spells either side of half time, this was not the frustrating story of Fulham on Friday, but a team well beaten on its own patch.
1. SUSCEPTIBILITY: Even a few weeks ago, some posters were saying we'd been 'found out', which I always think is a phrase that means almost nothing. All teams have weak points, it's something else to exploit them. But this idea is irrelevant now because there is nothing to 'find out'. The bald fact is, after 10 games in a row of conceding 2+ goals, we are susceptible to any sort of attack you care to mention. We are vu8lnerable from crosses. We are vulnerable from set piueces and corners. We are vulnerable when players run at us at pace. We are vulnerable to balls played in behind our wing backs, that pull our centre backs out of position. We are vulnerable to our own players continually making stupid mistakes. And we are vulnerable to a basic straight ball played just beyond out centre backs - time and time and time again, this most simple of balls confounds us. It could (maybe should) have brought a red card v Boro. It did bring a red card last night. There is simply no area in which a team could choose to attack us and not feel confident of success. I was thinking we just needed to cut out the silly mistakes, but we're beyond that now. Unlike some, I don't think this is about passing from the back, which I think people are fretting and obsessing about too much, particularly when we simply cannot defend almost any sort of cross. This goes back to the basics, it's not about how we try to keep possession.
2. TAILSPIN: It is six without a win again. In all comps last season we had runs of 5 without a win and 7 without a win. The year before that runs of 7 without a win, and six without a win. The year before that, six without a win on three occasions. It is every season, regardless of manager, regardless of players. You can keep going back and back and it's the same story. This club does not seem able to bounce back from setbacks very well, and hasn't done for some time. And, really thanks to blown chances v Reading, Boro and arguably Fulham, we're in one again. We could and should have taken 5 extra points from those games, leaving us 7th equal with Bristol. But we didn't and now, just a few short weeks from the glorious opening games, the relegation struggle we thought may have been banished for this season at least, is quickly becoming more of a reality. I don't think we'll go down - there are worse sides out there, but this repetitive pattern of losing a couple, of not capitalising on good performances, of never quite being able to turn on a really big performance when it's needed, must be addressed. Eustace spoke about a culture of losing at the club, so an entire squad was shipped out. but has that culture changed? Do we feel like winners yet? It's still early days for Warburton, and I still believe he is the best man we could get for this job, but we're starting to look ragged. The last 10 last night were diabolical. And if we start losing confidence, confidence that we still had less than a week ago in a mostly good display undone as usual by horrific defending, and we lose that ability and strength and willingness to pass, we will not be left with very much. I know Warburton will not play 6 at the back at Derby, shut up shop, and defend for our lives, he won't abandon his principles. I also know that with no Kelly, no Barbet, no Wallace and no Angel he has very little he can actually change. But on Saturday the players need to stand the fk up and show some fight and try, by whatever means, to get a result, before it turns into something like McClaren's months of hell.
3. 3RD GOAL: First goal was awful, as per. 2nd goal I can sort of forgive because with 10 men and a goal down there's always the chance you'll get caught out-numbered. But the third was really terrible. Kane, who I think perhaps people have been a little harsh on today, was badly at fault here. the 'defend as a team' stuff is fair enough, but not with stuff like this. Before he even got the ball he was telling Lumpey where he wanted to put it even though really he had no need to go back. And then compounded that with a horrendous slice, before then being beaten easily for the inevitable goal. We have no chance when stuff like this is going on.
4. 4th GOAL: I like Lumley, I really do, and before Christmas last year I thimk he was playing well. But now he's struggling so badly, he really is. Confidence shot. The loud, bulletproof keeper we were watching this time last year has long since disappeared into his shell and while of course his defence are doing him almost no favours, he's not exactly helping. The Fulham debacle, followed by this fourth goal, which really he should have been holding. Even then, it spoke volumes that two Forest players were there before any of our defenders. Another cheap goal in a season that's already had 5 seasons-worth of them.
5. AMOS: Thought there were real signs of improvement last week, but his first half last night was shambolic. I am not sure he touched the ball. He seemed to play almost inside right, but almost never showed for the ball, constantly hiding, not demanding the ball. And if he's not showing, and Eze is marked tightly, and Wells is on his own up front, options rapidly become very limited. It's such a key position and I'm not sure what he was doing first half last night. No surprise at all when he was substituted.
6. MANNING: Love him, never stops working, but I'm starting to wonder if we're better off switching to a back 4 with Rangel and Wallace (when fit and unsuspended) as full backs and whoever is fit in the middle and just go for an experienced back four with Manning into Amos's position. At least he would show for the ball and also show some fight in winning it, and also we might solve the issue of how many goals come from our left side. Last night nothing went right for him. He had numerous chances to cross and his normally reliable left foot let him down badly - overhit, underhit, hitting first defender, going straight out of play... his delivery just wasn't there. A poor night for him on a night of poor nights.
|Prediction||Prediction Logged by at 12:21:30|
Derby County v Queens Park Rangers prediction logged
|Prediction||Prediction Logged by at 12:11:38|
Queens Park Rangers v Nottingham Forest prediction logged
|Antti's Six Knee Jerks: Fulham 2 QPR 1|
at 14:36 23 Nov 2019
Another trip to the Cottage, another defeat. Not as depressing as most, but annoying. Very annoying indeed.
1. GIFTS: There are some fans who a couple of years ago were pining longingly for the days when we were everyone's second team. This was even mentioned on the podcast the other day. I have no idea why people care about this, if anyone tells me this I sniff and think, 'So? You either support us or not, don't demean me with your pathetic, patronising smile and condesending pat on the head.'
But it seems the club itself also wishes for those days to come back, and they're going about it in a radical new way: Gifting (not that kind of gifting you filthy people. Don't google it either, ffs). Yes, the spreading of cheer via the medium of unsolicited gifts. Here's one wrapped beautifully by Nahki Wells, woth a red bow! Here's one Joe Lumley done with crepe paper. Here's one all our defenders have done together, separately, in different rooms - this exact same present was given to both Fulham AND Brentford, so there's no hard feelings among our neighbours. Here's one that's been wrapped hastily and not very well and has arrived late from Barbet, but it's still a good one, so good, it's been given to a lot of clubs. Gifts for all! Please be our friends again now we're not rich c**** with a man who makes Boris Johnson look truthful as our manager!
This is all very novel, but it's time to have some pride. Let people like us if they want, and try to rise above it if they don't. Us against the world! The penance is over. Charoty starts at home, people.
2. DEFENCE: I've seen Bosh advocating more man-to-man marking, but I don't really think that will solve the problem. He suggested going man-to-man on Cairney, for example, which to me, means you basically go 10 v 10. You can't man mark someone in midfield and effectively sacrifice a central midfielder. I remember when Derby went for this and Savage marked Taarabt (you may know about this, he mentioned it about 400 times afterwards). In Savage's world, 1-1 was a good result and he'd done it by marking Taarabt all day. The truth was, Taarabt made our one goal and Savage contributed nothing else. So what was the point? I actually think Leistner was man-to-man with the impressive Kamara, pretty much, but our back three is still not cohesive. Nominally, Leistner should have had Kamara for the first goal, but a second watch shows Hall miles away and too slow to react to an obvious danger (Leistner's boy shape for the cross was also all wrong).
And this was a key problem all night for us. With our two wing backs high up the pitch, our two wide centre backs were drawn further and further out towards the wings. This not only left Leistner isolated, almost playing as a lone centre back at times, there were, crucially, enormous gaps between the three of the that Fulham constantly exploited. For this to work, these three need to be much, much tighter, much more of a unit - at the moment they are comically stretched out. It's all right blaming zonal marking, but when there's that much space either side of Leistner, it doesn't matter who is marking who - those gaps are so easy to attack, especially for a team like Fulham. Not sure what the answer is here - Manning and Kane are so effective going forward, but the gapes behind them are in turn creating gaps in central defence and we're not plugging them.
3. AMOS: It's slowly comng. I thought he looked good last night and maybe was brought off 10 minutes too early - perhaps he was blowing a bit, or they're nursing him a little, but we started to see a player there. He was stronger last night, more forceful, more confident, and his passing, particularly on the ground to the wings was crisp and intelligent. It may be that if he can stay fit then half our midfield problems will be solved over the next few weeks as he grows into the team. There's no doubt he has quality, and after he went off it took us 10 minutes to recover as Fulham ruthlessly sliced us open through the hole he left. Good energy too - one of his best games for us.
4. KANE: I also thought this was one of Kane's best games too. Back to back assists now for him and his crossing is very decent. As I say, the problem is that he's leaving gaps behind that Hall had to move across for, leaving a huge space between him and Leistner. Warbs may say this is a gamble worth taking and I think it's also fair to say we seem to get punished for every mistake at the moment, but it isn't quite right. Still, Kane looked good in possession, passed well and caused them a lot of problems going forward.
5. FINISHING: I think it's harsh to say our finishing was poor yesterday, but it is fair to say that our conversion of chances in most games is not high enough. That seems really harsh when you look at the goal totals of Eze, Hugill and Wells, but it's true. We battered Fulham for the first 20 yesterday, played the game almost exclusively in their half and really should have had three goals - unlucky in some cases not to score, should have been more clinical in others. This is a growing theme for the season though. If we can score the goals we should when on top, perhaps we would be able to be a little more pragmatic and play a smarter game. As it is, we don't take the chances, and consantly find ourselves in tight situations with regards to the score. We seem to be constantly chasing a goal in games, rarely the two goals ahead we seem to need to allow us to be more controlling in our play. I keep thinking there's going to be a game where everything goes in, but I don't want everything to go in: just a higher percentage - enough for us to win again.
6. KEEPERS: We do have a problem here I think. You can't be too harsh on keepers, because their mistakes are always magnified, but Lumley's kicking throughout last night was not great and for the goal was poor. I think people criticising us for 'playing it out' are wrong: to me, last night, we actually played longer balls a lot more often and took far fewer chances than we have been. The ball back to Lumley was not a bad ball, nor was it unreasonable, but, yes, he should in that situation and with clearly nothing obvious on, have put his foot through it as, to be fair, he had done earlier in the game. These errors - this one, Manning and Wells 2 weeks ago - are not 'playing out from the back' errors. They are poor passing or poor thinking in reasonable positions when a better option was available. Kelly is slightly better, more at ease, with the ball at his feet than Lumley, but there's very little to choose between them overall and sadly I'm starting to think, even allowing for their age, neither are quite what we need. Smithies back would be so lovely were a miracle to happen, although we should remember he barely kept a clean sheet in his final season with us either. This is not a new problem for this team - it is seasons old but has become more acute this season with the change in style. As it is, I suspect if fit Kelly will be back in soon and we're just going to have to bear with them and hope one or the other can find some consistency.
|Prediction||Prediction Logged by at 18:03:14|
Fulham v Queens Park Rangers prediction logged
|New Cardiff manager!|
at 14:17 16 Nov 2019
I tell you what, I think if I gave you all 10 guesses each no one would get it.
I mean, it's not Dave Hockaday landing the Leeds job, but jesus christ, how the hell did he get that gig?
|Antti's Six Knee Jerks: QPR 2 Boro 2|
at 14:00 11 Nov 2019
The gloomy inevitability of another two goals left me resigned, reduced to a grim empty vessel, floating along in the misery of the South Africa Road stand, buffeted by shouts of 'forward', 'wake up' and 'anything other than total domination and a 46-game winning streak is not good enough for me' until I exited the ground to a torrent of grimy p!ss, streaming down from the grey west London skies, the cold, needle-like droplets skinning my fair cheeks and forcing me to wonder: has Adam Clayton been playing for Middlesbrough since 1973, oris that my imagination?
1. DEFENCE: I don't know. I have nothing new to say on the matter. Can we defend? I'm not sure. I think blaming us for not being able to defend doesn't quite stand up when the two goals we conceded, like so many goals this season, were not down to a defence unable to withstand quick passing or lots of pressure or high balls into the box, but by a wing back winning the ball then deciding not to collect the ball, and a striker deciding to play the ultimate assist, just to the wrong man in the wrong team at the wrong end. That's not about defending. Is it? Or is it the inevitable consequence of us trying to play football at all times? Even though in both those circumstances, pressure was not strong on the man making the mistake, is 96 minutes of high-risk football so much that, while we're actually far more comfortable doing it than what sounds like 95% of an extraordinarily screechy, jittery crowd who can't stand anything other than a big ol' hoof up the pitch, unless that is an actual tactic employed, in which case they'll tell you they love intricta epassing football, the law of averages means we'll always make two catastrophic errors that almost inevitably result in goals? I have no clue.
The only thing I will say is this: already the usual suspects are out. The Twitters are explodng. The Insta is imploding. The Facebook (is anyone still on that? How? Why?) is probably self-mutiilating. The same old posters who are fed up of any manager within three months are already beginning their lengthy campaign, as endless as the US political cycle, for change. For change may bring the one who will change it all and magically develop us into the club that we were. Once. For about 12 months. Rather than the one we are now, which is the one we have, on average, been for most of any of our lifetimes. But as we watch Liverpool conquer Europe and smash the double-champions and triple-crown winners into funny little light blue pieces, we all forget, don't we, how it was before the Coming of Virgil. When Liverpool, like us, tore everyone apart but constantly shipped goals. Their incredible yacht, so beautiful, yet a hull made of patched-up cling film. Are we going to be the new Liverpool? No. Are our defenwsive problems magically going to end? No. But as we have a manager who knows what he is doing, has made a side that created about one chance in a game into one that creates about 10 per game, can we just try not to go too hard on recriminations? Can we not get too upset about what he says in an interview when it doesn't tally precisely to what exactly we think he should say, even if saying that would be rank stupidity? Can we all calm down at games a bit? Can we all try enjoying it a bit more? Please?
2. HUGILL: There's been some great posts on here since Saturday, from Brian Mc, plus measured, sensible ones from jonno and gazza, and some great thoughts from Hunter. I'm usually on Hunter's side, but I wouldn't go quite as far as he did. I don't think, for example, that you should radically alter your game because it's rainy. I also don't think we should radically alter our game because we have a new back three - it's not like they're strangers, they see each other every day. But I was surprised that Hugill did not start for a whole load of reasons. I think he's playing well. I think Boro have a huge team, although not quite as ludicrously huge as they were last year, and we could've done with Hugill doing some bullying and some hold-up play. And there's also the fact it's his old club, his home town club, and superstition tells us he'll probably score if given most of the game (as it was, he could, maybe should, have had two). I don't think we should start abandoning the way we play - it needs to be tweaked of course, and practised, but to get better at a style you don't abandon it when things get tough. It works. We score a lot of goals. Teams are afraid of us. But it does seem odd to me that Hugill didn't start this one. His strength and power and ability to at least win a few balls in the air would have been invaluable. Still, I like to look at reasons why. Wells is on fire, scoring most weeks. So if you keep him, a midfielder has to go. You need Ball or a Ball-type. He wants to get Amos back in, I think, to help the back three or four have someone in the middle who will show for it and take it under pressure. I get that. It can't be Eze. So it's Chair. But take Chair out and we're left with one creative midfielder, who the oppo will then likely double mark, knowing his options are few. So I disagreed with it - but it's worth looking for reasons why, sometimes.
3. PLAN B: In my experience, people who talk about a Plan B mean a willingness to boot it randomly up the pitch and hope something happens. I've seen a few comments with Plan B coming up, the odd bit of pining for last year's Matt Smith. But it's a waste of time. MW will never play like this except maybe in utter desperation in the last minutes of a do or die game. That he doesn't do this does not make him inflexible, in my opinion. He's a man who understands the game and what is *most likely* to work. So strap in.
4. BALL: Really impressed with Bally on Saturday. I thought Amos was perhaps the only one in the chaotic opening minutes to show some real bite - two big, crunching tackles from him set the sort of tone we like to see. But it was Ball who played in that manner for longer. The big improvement for me was his touch on the ball - he controlled it well, shielded it well, and looked for the right pass every time. He may not be the best player we have, but he looks bulletproof in terms of belief and confidence. Never hides, always fights. Good to have around.
5. EZE: Customary Eze jerk. Thought he was great again. That late run, from the edge of his box, where he rode an assassination attempt from someone who didn't seem to get booked, and was only ended by a desperate foul just outside the box, was superb. He's becoming a leader, now, like Freeman did. Tiring of everyone else's failures, he finally just decided it was encumbent upon him to sort this mess out - and he very nearly did. Now basically playing centre midfield, working hard, yet as cool as a glacier throughout, never rushed, always seeing the bigger picture. Absolute gem.
6. LUMLEY: I think Kelly looks a decent keeper. I think Lummers is a decent keeper. Not really sure if there's much between them, but I wasn't sad when I saw his name on the teamsheet, and I thought he played very well in tough conditins. He punched when he had to, could do nothing about the goals and shambles in front of him, and his kicking was assured, despite the panic in the stands. Real fight on for that spot in goal.
|Chance for Masterson?|
at 12:38 8 Nov 2019
With Toni ranked as 50/50 for tomorrow and no Beardy, we are light on Cbs tomorrow. Hall will play obviously, but then options are sketchy. three at tha back could mean a permutation from Hall, Rangel, Wallace, Cameron and Masterson. A flat back 4 would possibly favour Masterson as a specialist CB. Tough one for Warbs, but I suspect he'll go with Rangel and Manning as wing backs with a back three of Cameron, Hall and Wallace.
|Prediction||Prediction Logged by at 12:13:21|
Queens Park Rangers v Middlesbrough prediction logged
|Had an awful nightmare. Need help|
at 10:14 5 Nov 2019
Dreamt Clive finally decided his life was worth more and gave up doing LFW. It was fkn traumatic. Send help. Genuinely, if he sets up a Patreon I'd be willing to donate a bit every month to make sure this catastrophe never happens in my lifetime.
|Prediction||Prediction Logged by at 15:33:11|
Leeds United v Queens Park Rangers prediction logged
|Prediction||Prediction Logged by at 13:09:04|
Queens Park Rangers v Brentford prediction logged
|Antti's Six Knee Jerks: QPR 2 Reading 2|
at 22:21 23 Oct 2019
A game heavily marred by the actions of one man, who seemingly just wanted to be noticed. Not the ref, I'm not animal. Bloke behind me. Constant 'coaching' throughout the whole game, his head ready to explode at every misplaced pass from minute 1 to 90. CHANNELS! HIT THE CHANNELS! Gave me an earache.
1. DEFENCE: Had an interesting debate on the way out. Why exactly are we conceding two goals per game? Is it that we are poor at defending? Is it that we are too gung-ho? Are we poor positionally? Or are we actually pretty ok at all the above, but have two or three mind-blowing moments of defensive weakness per game that basically gift goals? I honestly don't know. Asking for a friend. And for me.
First goal we were caught cold, we were high up the pitch and Puscas timed his run beautifully after a great ball from the outstanding Ejaria. It was a really good goal. I've seen some criticism that we were defending too high there, but BFG was on the halfway line and we were in possession - I'm not sure that was particularly wrong, although I'm no expert on defence, trust me. However, as with Hull on Saturday, I did feel Kelly, who had made one superb save earlier for what should have been a goal, was a long way out. Had he been further back, Puscas couldn't have shot and Leistner would have likely headed him off as he cut in. Still, harsh to be too critical there. Second goal, I'm with Warbs on. It wasn't so much the unmarked players as the three players who failed to close down Swift getting the cross in. And that is certainly a real problem on our part at the moment - we do not stop crosses very often, particularly from down our left hand side.
But are we a poor defensive side? Or one that lacks concentration? I just don't know. Hard to be too critical because we are in the play-off spots and it's exciting to watch, but we can't keep shipping two a game, surely?
2. FORMATION: It was an odd line-up when I saw it. I expected Hugill to come in at the expense of Wells, but didn't expect a change of formation. Whether that was to surprise Reading, or perhaps to give ourselves more protection down the flanks, or because he felt two strikers would really hurt them, I'm not sure. But it didn't work - although when you give the ball away as frequently as we did in that first half, you'll find most formations won't work. Still, it was an odd one, and it must've been a boost to Reading following Saturday's performance to see Eze placed out wide, where surely he would have less influence. And so it proved. They were able to box him in out there and pretty much the only time he got away in the first half was when he nutmegged a defender to set up Wells's sweet finish. It didn't really work anywhere. We lost the midfield battle, no one got hold of Ejaria or Swift, we were out-paced by their forwards and generally, it has to be said, were second best throughout. The move to 3-5-2 did help for sure, but it's always difficult to drag yourselves back when you've started so slowly.
3. SUBS: Warbs's subs have been overwhelmingly good this season. Last night, they didn't have much effect - at least not a positive effect. Kane for Rangel was the right call, even if it was possibly enforced by injury, but while the change in shape helped to some degree, Kane himself had a bit of a shocker, giving the ball away too many times under little or no pressure, and worse still giving it away in key areas by opting for a pass back towards goal - usually to a Reading forward. The shape change did at least help us get a better grip on Ejaria, as Scowen looked to be detailed to sit on him, but did little to halt Swift, who sat deep and was almost always available to receive the ball and very, very rarely wasted it as he showed an impressive range of passing.
Contrary to some opinon on here, I didn't mind Amos for Wells as I thought it might help us tighten space in midfield, where we were struggling somewhat, but sadly Amos couldn't get to grips with the pace of the game. I don't think there's much doubt he's a very decent player, but at the moment, possibly thanks to a stop-start season for him, he's looking a little lost. It's not for want of trying - last night he berated himelf several times for errors, but that in itself shows he's frustrated at his own form. The problem is, we haven't really got the luxury of him playing himself into form, so somehow, if he is to make the impact we expected this season, the sort of impact Ejaria was making, he needs to find a way of finding form quickly when his opportunities do come.
Then finally Pugh, who I really like, was again unable to really change things very much. He charged round looking for the ball, but never really got on it - only once, when he nearly went through did he threaten to make a real positive contribution. I think the ideas behind all subs were sound, but as a team we weren't quite there last night.
4. PERSISTENT FOULING: King Pep himself instructs his slick City team to foul, foul and foul again. Stop attacks, take turns, don't be afraid to make niggly fouls. It's not something we do (according to the BBC, our first actual foul we committed was, astonishingly, in the 54th minute, before the dam broke somewhat (Hugill being the main culprit). Reading, however, were all about the fouling and that was a big secret to how they managed to contain Eze and the rest of our team fairly well. They were helped by a referee trying to be lenient. But if you are as lenient as he was, teams continue to take more and more rope. The idea he was being bullied a bit was not helped by the fact that three or four Reading players were in his face for many decisions - acts he did little or nothing to dissuade.
The stats do not make great reading for the ref. Reading's persistent fouling was pointed out on TV, I'm told, and yet it took him until the 56th minute to finally show a yellow. This was Reading's 13th foul of the match, and it took Rinhomota four fouls to finally pick up that one yellow. Overall, they committed 23 fouls and just two bookings were issued. One fot Rinhomota and one for Miazga for bodily throwing Hugill to the ground - an offence which could have easily counted as violent conduct and a red card. Miazga, incidentally, was not booked for any of his four spoiling tackles, and his elbow in Rangel's face was ignored. Lucky boy. McCleary managed three fouls in just 23 minutes after coming on, but despite all three arguably being bookable, got away scot free. Puscas managed four without a yellow. And perhaps worst of all was Yiadom, who five times committed fouls, twice with clear and deliberate handballs, and yet was never booked. And that leaves aside his other clear and deliberate handdball that should have led to a penalty and a yellow card, but was ignored.
Fair play to Reading - their tactic to disrupt worked very well, even if it couldn't stop two moments of very good football for two good goals. But they were aided by a weak referee who compounded his lenience with the booking of Eze - his first foul of the night, and while I agree it was a yellow, the fact he was continually fouled deliberately and cynically, just as his attempted trip was, but the perpetrators were never once carded, only shows the poverty of the refereeing display we had to endure.
5. HUGILL: Quick word on Hugill, who I thought grew more and more into the game. I love his attitude, I love he's a bit nasty and doesn't mind getting in where it hurts, and I love that he doesn't hide. In most games he's missed decent chances (again here he spooned a presentable chance over the bar), but he keeps going and also, generally, gets his reward, as he did last night with a very fine, if deflected, goal. I thought he did particularly well on the air, and he shielded the ball well too. A really dangerous player who has already surpassed his total goals for last season with his goal last night. Hardly surprising - chances don't come often in a Pulis team, but they are rarely rare in a Warburton side.
6. DANCING: That was the groundsman was it? More of this, please. Was like some kind of fever dream to watch at half time. The cat v the groundsman dancing to the music of a noted paedophile.
|Prediction||Prediction Logged by at 14:53:50|
Queens Park Rangers v Reading prediction logged
|Prediction||Prediction Logged by at 13:42:52|
Hull City v Queens Park Rangers prediction logged
|Forum Votes: ||4231|
|Comment Votes: ||47|
|Prediction League: ||32|