The Official West Ham United Thread. Vol 3
Discussion
RichB said:
sjc said:
Bowen withdrawn from England squad with injury,and Coufal sent home in disgrace…
Seriously? You couldn't make it up could you 
What is it with England and our players... 
king typical. Better not be serious.Listening to the reporters talking about the state of the pitch in N Mace I thought 'hope Bowen doesn't play'... and then remembered that w/ GS at the helm he won't get the chance anyway.
Waste of his time being picked for Eng - (if there's a) next time we need to tactically withdraw him.
What did Coufal do?
TCEvo said:
fking typical. Better not be serious.
Listening to the reporters talking about the state of the pitch in N Mace I thought 'hope Bowen doesn't play'... and then remembered that w/ GS at the helm he won't get the chance anyway.
Waste of his time being picked for Eng - (if there's a) next time we need to tactically withdraw him.
What did Coufal do?
Not serious by the sounds.king typical. Better not be serious.Listening to the reporters talking about the state of the pitch in N Mace I thought 'hope Bowen doesn't play'... and then remembered that w/ GS at the helm he won't get the chance anyway.
Waste of his time being picked for Eng - (if there's a) next time we need to tactically withdraw him.
What did Coufal do?
Coufal out on the lash.. so at least he didn't get injured as well
LimmerickLad said:
TCEvo said:
fking typical. Better not be serious.
Listening to the reporters talking about the state of the pitch in N Mace I thought 'hope Bowen doesn't play'... and then remembered that w/ GS at the helm he won't get the chance anyway.
Waste of his time being picked for Eng - (if there's a) next time we need to tactically withdraw him.
What did Coufal do?
Not serious by the sounds.king typical. Better not be serious.Listening to the reporters talking about the state of the pitch in N Mace I thought 'hope Bowen doesn't play'... and then remembered that w/ GS at the helm he won't get the chance anyway.
Waste of his time being picked for Eng - (if there's a) next time we need to tactically withdraw him.
What did Coufal do?
Coufal out on the lash.. so at least he didn't get injured as well
Antonio's also injured - hamstring apparently.
sjc said:
RichB said:
How did Micky get injured doing nothing?
Tripped over his ego …That ridiculous f
king bumper contract he signed a couple of months ago should have included an agreement that he gave up playing internationals (and that fking podcast)Leaves us with Ings & Mubama as our only strikers.
Now, this isn’t strictly a West Ham question, but it has been bugging me for some time. I first went to football matches with my dad in the late 1950s, and I have this notion in my head that in those days should there be a clash of colours, it was the home team that changed. This was seen as a mark of respect by the host to the visitors, and it was considered an honour to see famous colours on your home ground.
I mentioned this to my son yesterday and he thought it was a sportsmanlike thing to do.
Wikipedia informs me that this indeed was the case in the Football League, but only up to 1921. But why have I got this notion of it happening much later than that? Certainly, in the 1966 World Cup Final, it was England, the home team, that changed to their second strip.
Is this yet another thing that I, in my dotage, have imagined to have been the case?
I mentioned this to my son yesterday and he thought it was a sportsmanlike thing to do.
Wikipedia informs me that this indeed was the case in the Football League, but only up to 1921. But why have I got this notion of it happening much later than that? Certainly, in the 1966 World Cup Final, it was England, the home team, that changed to their second strip.
Is this yet another thing that I, in my dotage, have imagined to have been the case?
Roofless Toothless said:
Now, this isn’t strictly a West Ham question, but it has been bugging me for some time. I first went to football matches with my dad in the late 1950s, and I have this notion in my head that in those days should there be a clash of colours, it was the home team that changed. This was seen as a mark of respect by the host to the visitors, and it was considered an honour to see famous colours on your home ground.
I mentioned this to my son yesterday and he thought it was a sportsmanlike thing to do.
Wikipedia informs me that this indeed was the case in the Football League, but only up to 1921. But why have I got this notion of it happening much later than that? Certainly, in the 1966 World Cup Final, it was England, the home team, that changed to their second strip.
Is this yet another thing that I, in my dotage, have imagined to have been the case?
Christ … who’s gonna now admit their age to answer that RT ?!!I mentioned this to my son yesterday and he thought it was a sportsmanlike thing to do.
Wikipedia informs me that this indeed was the case in the Football League, but only up to 1921. But why have I got this notion of it happening much later than that? Certainly, in the 1966 World Cup Final, it was England, the home team, that changed to their second strip.
Is this yet another thing that I, in my dotage, have imagined to have been the case?
Roofless Toothless said:
Now, this isn’t strictly a West Ham question, but it has been bugging me for some time. I first went to football matches with my dad in the late 1950s, and I have this notion in my head that in those days should there be a clash of colours, it was the home team that changed. This was seen as a mark of respect by the host to the visitors, and it was considered an honour to see famous colours on your home ground.
I mentioned this to my son yesterday and he thought it was a sportsmanlike thing to do.
Wikipedia informs me that this indeed was the case in the Football League, but only up to 1921. But why have I got this notion of it happening much later than that? Certainly, in the 1966 World Cup Final, it was England, the home team, that changed to their second strip.
Is this yet another thing that I, in my dotage, have imagined to have been the case?
For the 1966 World Cup, Wembely as the location for the final was deemed to be a neutral ground so the teams tossed to see who got the home dressing room. Germany won and so West Ham got the away dressing room and played in their strip of red shirts and white shorts. I mentioned this to my son yesterday and he thought it was a sportsmanlike thing to do.
Wikipedia informs me that this indeed was the case in the Football League, but only up to 1921. But why have I got this notion of it happening much later than that? Certainly, in the 1966 World Cup Final, it was England, the home team, that changed to their second strip.
Is this yet another thing that I, in my dotage, have imagined to have been the case?
RichB said:
Roofless Toothless said:
Now, this isn’t strictly a West Ham question, but it has been bugging me for some time. I first went to football matches with my dad in the late 1950s, and I have this notion in my head that in those days should there be a clash of colours, it was the home team that changed. This was seen as a mark of respect by the host to the visitors, and it was considered an honour to see famous colours on your home ground.
I mentioned this to my son yesterday and he thought it was a sportsmanlike thing to do.
Wikipedia informs me that this indeed was the case in the Football League, but only up to 1921. But why have I got this notion of it happening much later than that? Certainly, in the 1966 World Cup Final, it was England, the home team, that changed to their second strip.
Is this yet another thing that I, in my dotage, have imagined to have been the case?
For the 1966 World Cup, Wembely as the location for the final was deemed to be a neutral ground so the teams tossed to see who got the home dressing room. Germany won and so West Ham got the away dressing room and played in their strip of red shirts and white shorts. I mentioned this to my son yesterday and he thought it was a sportsmanlike thing to do.
Wikipedia informs me that this indeed was the case in the Football League, but only up to 1921. But why have I got this notion of it happening much later than that? Certainly, in the 1966 World Cup Final, it was England, the home team, that changed to their second strip.
Is this yet another thing that I, in my dotage, have imagined to have been the case?
I
Here's West Ham vs Spurs from the 60's for example...
Roofless Toothless said:
Now, this isn’t strictly a West Ham question, but it has been bugging me for some time. I first went to football matches with my dad in the late 1950s, and I have this notion in my head that in those days should there be a clash of colours, it was the home team that changed. This was seen as a mark of respect by the host to the visitors, and it was considered an honour to see famous colours on your home ground.
I mentioned this to my son yesterday and he thought it was a sportsmanlike thing to do.
Wikipedia informs me that this indeed was the case in the Football League, but only up to 1921. But why have I got this notion of it happening much later than that? Certainly, in the 1966 World Cup Final, it was England, the home team, that changed to their second strip.
Is this yet another thing that I, in my dotage, have imagined to have been the case?
As I recall in the late 60's the away team had to change their strip but this wasn't normal as if the teams didn't clash then both would wear their main strip.I mentioned this to my son yesterday and he thought it was a sportsmanlike thing to do.
Wikipedia informs me that this indeed was the case in the Football League, but only up to 1921. But why have I got this notion of it happening much later than that? Certainly, in the 1966 World Cup Final, it was England, the home team, that changed to their second strip.
Is this yet another thing that I, in my dotage, have imagined to have been the case?
Here's West Ham vs Spurs from the 60's for example...
sjc said:
Roofless Toothless said:
Now, this isn’t strictly a West Ham question, but it has been bugging me for some time. I first went to football matches with my dad in the late 1950s, and I have this notion in my head that in those days should there be a clash of colours, it was the home team that changed. This was seen as a mark of respect by the host to the visitors, and it was considered an honour to see famous colours on your home ground.
I mentioned this to my son yesterday and he thought it was a sportsmanlike thing to do.
Wikipedia informs me that this indeed was the case in the Football League, but only up to 1921. But why have I got this notion of it happening much later than that? Certainly, in the 1966 World Cup Final, it was England, the home team, that changed to their second strip.
Is this yet another thing that I, in my dotage, have imagined to have been the case?
Christ … who’s gonna now admit their age to answer that RT ?!!I mentioned this to my son yesterday and he thought it was a sportsmanlike thing to do.
Wikipedia informs me that this indeed was the case in the Football League, but only up to 1921. But why have I got this notion of it happening much later than that? Certainly, in the 1966 World Cup Final, it was England, the home team, that changed to their second strip.
Is this yet another thing that I, in my dotage, have imagined to have been the case?
Roofless Toothless said:
Gadgetmac said:
Malcom Musgrove?Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff