
RDFC 4 (Louis 14, 46, Farrell 57, Stuart, 63) Barrow 1
-
- Posts: 3693
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:41 pm
- Location: Vancouver
- Has Liked: 34 times
- Been Liked: 6 times
Re: RDFC 4 (Louis 14, 46, Farrell 57, Stuart, 63) Barrow 1
A win on Tuesday would see us up to 7th at least, 6th if K*ttering lost at the 'Heed. Then hopefully Histon could get a result at home to Luton on Wednesday and we'd be looking good to get into the play-off positions with a win at Hayes on Saturday. 

R.I.P Dale. We will never forget you.
AFC R&D - Member No. 46
AFC R&D - Member No. 46
-
- Posts: 2459
- Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 2:51 pm
- Location: Rushden, Northants
- Has Liked: 122 times
- Been Liked: 42 times
- Contact:
Re: RDFC 4 (Louis 14, 46, Farrell 57, Stuart, 63) Barrow 1
Couple of quotes from the Barrow AFC forum
Suffolk Blue wrote:Dont know whether this was a blip or the start of a trend - but will go with "a bad day at the office" and "lets move on".
More to say about R&D than us really. They were bigger, stronger, fitter and faster; they played the ball on the deck, totally dominated midfield - this allowed them to feed balls down the channels and flanks and reduce us to the long ball punt to Jason route more often than not.
First half we played neat if untthreatening football. However we were repeatedly exposed on the flanks; Jelleyman was skinned a number of times including for the opening goal. Diamonds were allowed to play in front of the Barrow back four, were not closed down and got a number of shots of they shouldn't. Opinion at HT was it wasn't going to get better. It didn't.
Second goal came after a Barrow attack broke down right at the beginning of H2; nice move but the winger (Tomlin?) just blew Spender away crossed to Louis at the far post for his second tap in. The move was repeated almost identically a few minutes later - another far post tap in. The fourth was a simple dink from a free kick with the atacker beating Deasy in the air to head into a empty net.
For those who went to Crawley last year it felt the same. Rushden were far far better (how did they lose to Wukkie?) but probably had a red letter day. After an hour they were shredding the defence almost at will. I was wondering whether half a dozen was going to be the oucome - again.
They killed us on the flanks and Logan and Runtherford created little. Rutherford I thought was his usual busy self without creating too much (apart from one glorious cross in the first half). Bond worked hard. As for Logan - well theres no doubt we do miss Goodfellow and Nelthorpe. Our better form has come whenwe've had a potent threat from the flanks - we looked weaker for their absence. As for Chadwick worked hard but was like Walker starved of useful ball so little to say about him - it wasn't his day.
On the positive side there were four of five (short) periods of play when we looked good box to box, kept the ball on the ground and looked (briefly) quite good. The move from which Wiles crossed for Bludell to score was excellent. They did not surrender either in the end and looked better after the substitutions - though this might have been because Diamonds took their best three off.
Miserable weather, cold and damp. Well done the glee club for ensuring R&D were outsung if not exactly outplayed.
The last comment seems like a sore loser type of comment to me.Lancaster Branch wrote: You lads have summed it up for more comprehensively than me...I just thought we were gutless toss for the vast majority of the game. Not good, not good at all.
If we, as a club, ever turn into something like R&D then I don't want anything to do with it. Horrible, soulless, plastic, soulless, crappy crapness.
Good bus.
AFC Rushden & Diamonds - Member No: 73
-
- Posts: 3693
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:41 pm
- Location: Vancouver
- Has Liked: 34 times
- Been Liked: 6 times
Re: RDFC 4 (Louis 14, 46, Farrell 57, Stuart, 63) Barrow 1
Well the last half an hour was a bit quiet...
R.I.P Dale. We will never forget you.
AFC R&D - Member No. 46
AFC R&D - Member No. 46
Re: RDFC 4 (Louis 14, 46, Farrell 57, Stuart, 63) Barrow 1
diamondgeezer1 wrote:Lancaster Branch wrote: You lads have summed it up for more comprehensively than me...I just thought we were gutless toss for the vast majority of the game. Not good, not good at all.
If we, as a club, ever turn into something like R&D then I don't want anything to do with it. Horrible, soulless, plastic, soulless, crappy crapness.
Good bus.
Bless, sounds like someone can't take a 10-2 aggregate defeat for the season.

Diamond down South.
-
- Posts: 2459
- Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 2:51 pm
- Location: Rushden, Northants
- Has Liked: 122 times
- Been Liked: 42 times
- Contact:
Re: RDFC 4 (Louis 14, 46, Farrell 57, Stuart, 63) Barrow 1
We know we're not the loudest of fans, but the acoustics in the debanke don't help (yep back to that excuse again!!) If the debanke was built like the Airwair we would sound louder.
To be honest, I don't really care what other clubs supporters think about our singing or in their words lack of it, our players acknowledge us, so thats good enough for me!!
To be honest, I don't really care what other clubs supporters think about our singing or in their words lack of it, our players acknowledge us, so thats good enough for me!!

AFC Rushden & Diamonds - Member No: 73
Re: RDFC 4 (Louis 14, 46, Farrell 57, Stuart, 63) Barrow 1
Also thought it was Tommo's last show as when he was taken off towards the end, there wasn't the usual obvious annoyance fom him. We were 4-0 up then and no need to risk an injury. Could be gone by Monday but there again probably reading too much into it.Two of Diamonds wrote:I have to say, our team's short passing game was excellent today. Neat, crisp and accurate, it was a joy to watch. Fair play to J-Lo and Downer, they both had fine games today - in fact the whole team did. I did get the nasty feeling it was Tommo's swansong, for some reason. Dunno why.
If the team can maintain those levels of performance it'll make the play-offs.
My MotM was Byrne but no one had a bad game.
Re: RDFC 4 (Louis 14, 46, Farrell 57, Stuart, 63) Barrow 1
still at least he enjoyed the bus! :lol:Harry wrote:diamondgeezer1 wrote:Lancaster Branch wrote: You lads have summed it up for more comprehensively than me...I just thought we were gutless toss for the vast majority of the game. Not good, not good at all.
If we, as a club, ever turn into something like R&D then I don't want anything to do with it. Horrible, soulless, plastic, soulless, crappy crapness.
Good bus.
Bless, sounds like someone can't take a 10-2 aggregate defeat for the season.
WHEN I SANG RUSHDEN TILL I DIE I MENT IT! LONG LIVE THE AFC...
- TheIncognitoKid
- Posts: 3205
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:21 pm
- Location: Higham Ferrers
- Has Liked: 64 times
- Been Liked: 36 times
Re: RDFC 4 (Louis 14, 46, Farrell 57, Stuart, 63) Barrow 1
One player who was underated from the performance yesterday was Terry. I thought he had his best home game, with his passing ability and pressence. The rest of the team seem to play around him now to his ability, as it was if he was too good when he first came here, for the quality of the rest of the team. I would also state he is helping improve the game of players like Byrne and Porter!
-
- Posts: 2307
- Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:40 pm
- Location: Rushden
- Has Liked: 10 times
- Been Liked: 53 times
Re: RDFC 4 (Louis 14, 46, Farrell 57, Stuart, 63) Barrow 1
I wonder if (s)he attended the game at Holker Street earlier in the season when around 50 Diamonds completely outsung the 1000+ Barrow fans who didn't make a sound for almost the entire 90 minutes? We may have been quiet yesterday but we sung considerably more than they did at home.diamondgeezer1 wrote:The last comment seems like a sore loser type of comment to me.Lancaster Branch wrote: If we, as a club, ever turn into something like R&D then I don't want anything to do with it. Horrible, soulless, plastic, soulless, crappy crapness.
Good bus.
You could also add the words 'crumbling', 'grim' and 'derelict' to that list of adjectives to accurately describe Barrow.
AFC Rushden & Diamonds Member No. 297
Re: RDFC 4 (Louis 14, 46, Farrell 57, Stuart, 63) Barrow 1
I thought Terry was class yesterday, he was my MoM. Like you say I think it's the first time he's been that good at home, but when he plays like that I wonder how we managed to sign him. I think he will be vital to our play-off challenge.TheIncognitoKid wrote:One player who was underated from the performance yesterday was Terry. I thought he had his best home game, with his passing ability and pressence. The rest of the team seem to play around him now to his ability, as it was if he was too good when he first came here, for the quality of the rest of the team. I would also state he is helping improve the game of players like Byrne and Porter!