Rovers ace was right to take his red card

First published in Football
Last updated
Lancashire Telegraph: Photograph of the Author by , Sports reporter

AS Lee Williamson made the long trudge to the dressing rooms at the Cricket Field End of Turf Moor, the visiting supporters applauded. Rarely has a man sent off been greeted so warmly.

This was not sympathy, but gratitude.

The man himself did not look particularly chuffed. Williamson had waited months to get back on a football field, but after coming on as a late substitute he was gone in 105 seconds.

It will be back to the sidelines in midweek, as he serves a one-match ban.

Is Williamson a hero or villain? Was his act unsportsmanlike or borne out of necessity?

When preventing your team from losing a vital match requires an act that is clearly against the rules of the game, what would you do?

In 2010, Luis Suarez made his choice.

Uruguay would have lost their World Cup quarter final against Ghana had he not leapt across the goalline to make a goalkeeper’s save to keep out a header in injury time.

Was he right to do it? Probably yes, if not morally.

Did he take it too far by wildly celebrating after Uruguay’s eventual victory? Definitely.

There were no such histrionics from Williamson. He did what he knew he had to do, took his punishment and departed.

Danny Ings was clear on goal. In the form the striker has been in, the chances are he would have scored.

Williamson was the man left to carry the can, the last man after Todd Kane had gifted possession to Ings near the halfway line.

Kane probably thanked his team-mate afterwards, because 34 years of derby dominance depended on Williamson taking one for the team.

Burnley fans were ready to party like it was 1979.

Clarets supporters will have just cause in seeing it all very differently.

What Williamson did was against the spirit of the game, and in their eyes the punishment was not enough for a crime that probably altered the result of the match and the path of East Lancashire football history.

But most will also be realistic. The rules are clear and had the roles been reversed, they would have wanted their player to do the same.

Indeed, Kevin Ball’s tackle on David Dunn in 2000 should not have happened either, but has been celebrated by many ever since.

In bad taste? Certainly. But an East Lancashire derby brings out such tribalism, on both sides of the fence.

After the events of the past two derby games, those at Turf Moor could be forgiven for thinking victory over Blackburn Rovers is just not meant to be.

“You’ll never beat the Rovers,” came the chant from the away end near full time.

Last time Rovers were rescued by a 95th-minute goal from David Dunn, this time it was by the freakiest of freak goals.

It may have been the first time he had faced Blackburn, but Scott Arfield knew the magnitude of what he had done.

It was his misplaced backpass that started the bizarre chain of events that led to Michael Duff smashing a clearance off Jordan Rhodes and into the net.

Sam Vokes has scored a few of those recently. This was the worst possible time for luck to even itself out.

Arfield dropped to his knees, inconsolable. Yards away Kieran Trippier had also collapsed to the ground.

There were still five minutes left, but it was like they had just been beaten in a World Cup final penalty shoot-out.

That’s how much this derby means.

Burnley’s players wanted to be heroes, and for a few minutes after Junior Stanislas’ stunning goal they thought they would be.

Fans had darted out of the lower tier of the Jimmy McIlroy Stand to celebrate with Stanislas and his team-mates.

Seconds later, at the other end of the field another pitch invader – a half-hearted streaker who had opted to retain his pants – was wrestled to the ground.

A titanic struggle ensued, requiring six stewards and police to carry him away.

Smoke bombs set off in the Jimmy Hargreaves Stand had earlier caused the authorities some concern, but for the most part rivalry inside the ground did not get out of hand.

For once at least, no chickens were released in the making of this derby.

For Rovers and their boss Gary Bowyer, who had gestured to his heart and whipped up the away fans as he walked to the dugout at kick-off, a draw meant their unbeaten record against their rivals will now stretch to 35 years before the sides meet again in March.

That will be another close contest.

For Burnley, Williamson’s contribution ensured it was once more a case of what might have been.

Comments (61)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:16am Mon 16 Sep 13

coynie1966 says...

Absolute legend !
Absolute legend ! coynie1966
  • Score: 30

8:20am Mon 16 Sep 13

hasslem hasslem says...

Post match Dyche, quite rightly, said Williamson had taken one for the team and was to be expected and a burnley player would probably have done the same in the exact same circumstances.

enjoyed the game and the atmosphere - only downsides was the crowd - 5k down on last season and burnley fans with their "jack walker is dead" song - good to see some dingles agreeing that it was in very poor taste and crossed a line.
Post match Dyche, quite rightly, said Williamson had taken one for the team and was to be expected and a burnley player would probably have done the same in the exact same circumstances. enjoyed the game and the atmosphere - only downsides was the crowd - 5k down on last season and burnley fans with their "jack walker is dead" song - good to see some dingles agreeing that it was in very poor taste and crossed a line. hasslem hasslem
  • Score: 49

8:30am Mon 16 Sep 13

bring back the good old days says...

Don't really agree with the 'legend' tag being bandied about , I would much prefer the tag 'saviour'. I do not think Lee thinks of himself in that way and would have much prefered not to have been forced into that situation.
Yes, most of the Burnley lot are saying cheat etc. and their man would not stoop so law, but we all know thats utter balderdash. So just let them stay deluded in that mindset and don't lower to their level with 'hailing' this event.
He did what he felt he had to do and was to a large degree our 'saviour'.
There was no guarantee that Ings would have scored and in the event we will never know.
Don't really agree with the 'legend' tag being bandied about , I would much prefer the tag 'saviour'. I do not think Lee thinks of himself in that way and would have much prefered not to have been forced into that situation. Yes, most of the Burnley lot are saying cheat etc. and their man would not stoop so law, but we all know thats utter balderdash. So just let them stay deluded in that mindset and don't lower to their level with 'hailing' this event. He did what he felt he had to do and was to a large degree our 'saviour'. There was no guarantee that Ings would have scored and in the event we will never know. bring back the good old days
  • Score: 13

8:34am Mon 16 Sep 13

we.love.u.venkys says...

Cheat.

A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.
Cheat. A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful. we.love.u.venkys
  • Score: -61

8:34am Mon 16 Sep 13

OnePostThenTheOther says...

One of them should have taken man and ball out when it first broke free deep in Burnley's half. One of rhem would have had to a yellow. It should never have got to the point where Williamson had to commit the foul. Yet more evidence of the lack of experience in midfield.
One of them should have taken man and ball out when it first broke free deep in Burnley's half. One of rhem would have had to a yellow. It should never have got to the point where Williamson had to commit the foul. Yet more evidence of the lack of experience in midfield. OnePostThenTheOther
  • Score: -6

8:40am Mon 16 Sep 13

hasslem hasslem says...

we.love.u.venkys wrote:
Cheat.

A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.
i take it you were one of the low-lifes singing about jack walker being dead.
[quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: Cheat. A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.[/p][/quote]i take it you were one of the low-lifes singing about jack walker being dead. hasslem hasslem
  • Score: 29

8:43am Mon 16 Sep 13

jackmetickler says...

we.love.u.venkys wrote:
Cheat. A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.
oh you make me smile...

Yet another year of jealousy and bitterness to swallow...

Dont you just love it!
[quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: Cheat. A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.[/p][/quote]oh you make me smile... Yet another year of jealousy and bitterness to swallow... Dont you just love it! jackmetickler
  • Score: 18

8:45am Mon 16 Sep 13

Harwoodstblue says...

bring back the good old days wrote:
Don't really agree with the 'legend' tag being bandied about , I would much prefer the tag 'saviour'. I do not think Lee thinks of himself in that way and would have much prefered not to have been forced into that situation.
Yes, most of the Burnley lot are saying cheat etc. and their man would not stoop so law, but we all know thats utter balderdash. So just let them stay deluded in that mindset and don't lower to their level with 'hailing' this event.
He did what he felt he had to do and was to a large degree our 'saviour'.
There was no guarantee that Ings would have scored and in the event we will never know.
I agree, there is no guarantee Ings would have scored a he was to far out. I think Williamson's lack of fitness contributed to the incident but Ings went down easily....... now that's cheating.
Well done to the young lads, keep it up. Their heads never dropped like Burnleys' did and they fought to the end unlike the last couple of years.
[quote][p][bold]bring back the good old days[/bold] wrote: Don't really agree with the 'legend' tag being bandied about , I would much prefer the tag 'saviour'. I do not think Lee thinks of himself in that way and would have much prefered not to have been forced into that situation. Yes, most of the Burnley lot are saying cheat etc. and their man would not stoop so law, but we all know thats utter balderdash. So just let them stay deluded in that mindset and don't lower to their level with 'hailing' this event. He did what he felt he had to do and was to a large degree our 'saviour'. There was no guarantee that Ings would have scored and in the event we will never know.[/p][/quote]I agree, there is no guarantee Ings would have scored a he was to far out. I think Williamson's lack of fitness contributed to the incident but Ings went down easily....... now that's cheating. Well done to the young lads, keep it up. Their heads never dropped like Burnleys' did and they fought to the end unlike the last couple of years. Harwoodstblue
  • Score: 21

8:51am Mon 16 Sep 13

greenscreener says...

hasslem hasslem wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
Cheat.

A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.
i take it you were one of the low-lifes singing about jack walker being dead.
Yes, but only to the laptop in his sisters bedroom.
[quote][p][bold]hasslem hasslem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: Cheat. A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.[/p][/quote]i take it you were one of the low-lifes singing about jack walker being dead.[/p][/quote]Yes, but only to the laptop in his sisters bedroom. greenscreener
  • Score: 10

9:08am Mon 16 Sep 13

bring back the good old days says...

In terms of this cheating 'tag', just how many shirts, shoulders, arms got tugged in those numerous corner kicks of ours? All of which in the penalty area. I myself lost count and they were just the ones identified by the official/s.
You can multiply those several times over in reality.
Whether it is liked, condoned, tolerated etc. or not, it is part of this moden game and all teams players 'contribute' to varying degrees.
In terms of this cheating 'tag', just how many shirts, shoulders, arms got tugged in those numerous corner kicks of ours? All of which in the penalty area. I myself lost count and they were just the ones identified by the official/s. You can multiply those several times over in reality. Whether it is liked, condoned, tolerated etc. or not, it is part of this moden game and all teams players 'contribute' to varying degrees. bring back the good old days
  • Score: 8

9:09am Mon 16 Sep 13

ChrisDeBerg says...

we.love.u.venkys wrote:
Cheat.

A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.
If fouling someone is cheating, then 21 fouls to 17 of ours makes BFC the bigger cheat? Regardless, you are just an uneducated waste of space, unlike some of your fellow Clarets. I'm sure most of your fans will agree the Wiliamson foul is one that any footballer would have done.. Every football fan watching the game anticipated the exact same thing, never has a future action of an individual been predicted by so many people.
[quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: Cheat. A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.[/p][/quote]If fouling someone is cheating, then 21 fouls to 17 of ours makes BFC the bigger cheat? Regardless, you are just an uneducated waste of space, unlike some of your fellow Clarets. I'm sure most of your fans will agree the Wiliamson foul is one that any footballer would have done.. Every football fan watching the game anticipated the exact same thing, never has a future action of an individual been predicted by so many people. ChrisDeBerg
  • Score: 16

9:15am Mon 16 Sep 13

Harwoodstblue says...

bring back the good old days wrote:
In terms of this cheating 'tag', just how many shirts, shoulders, arms got tugged in those numerous corner kicks of ours? All of which in the penalty area. I myself lost count and they were just the ones identified by the official/s.
You can multiply those several times over in reality.
Whether it is liked, condoned, tolerated etc. or not, it is part of this moden game and all teams players 'contribute' to varying degrees.
Absolutely spot on....
Unless you support Burnley and suffer from tunnel vision.
[quote][p][bold]bring back the good old days[/bold] wrote: In terms of this cheating 'tag', just how many shirts, shoulders, arms got tugged in those numerous corner kicks of ours? All of which in the penalty area. I myself lost count and they were just the ones identified by the official/s. You can multiply those several times over in reality. Whether it is liked, condoned, tolerated etc. or not, it is part of this moden game and all teams players 'contribute' to varying degrees.[/p][/quote]Absolutely spot on.... Unless you support Burnley and suffer from tunnel vision. Harwoodstblue
  • Score: 15

9:41am Mon 16 Sep 13

walshy2866 says...

I was talking to 3 dingles (they call themselves that by the way) sat night on Facebook and they were in agreement that Williamsons foul was one for the team and that their players would be expected to do same if say Josh King was away 1 on 1 & in a clear position to get a shot away that would have won the game. I admitted to our lads getting lucky with the Rhodes goal but showing good spirit after falling behind to a goal deserving to win a derby.
There's still plenty of bitter and twisted dingles tho who will bleat on about it till they get rid of the 34 year millstone hanging around their neck.
Nice to see national media have now picked up on it too. It was the opening line of the commentator on BBC1's Football League Show coverage!
I was talking to 3 dingles (they call themselves that by the way) sat night on Facebook and they were in agreement that Williamsons foul was one for the team and that their players would be expected to do same if say Josh King was away 1 on 1 & in a clear position to get a shot away that would have won the game. I admitted to our lads getting lucky with the Rhodes goal but showing good spirit after falling behind to a goal deserving to win a derby. There's still plenty of bitter and twisted dingles tho who will bleat on about it till they get rid of the 34 year millstone hanging around their neck. Nice to see national media have now picked up on it too. It was the opening line of the commentator on BBC1's Football League Show coverage! walshy2866
  • Score: 11

10:34am Mon 16 Sep 13

Dublin Claret says...

No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job!
No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job! Dublin Claret
  • Score: 42

10:44am Mon 16 Sep 13

FakeVilla_MTCabinet says...

we.love.u.venkys wrote:
Cheat.

A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.
Taking it well I see
Mega
[quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: Cheat. A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.[/p][/quote]Taking it well I see Mega FakeVilla_MTCabinet
  • Score: 6

10:53am Mon 16 Sep 13

FakeVilla_MTCabinet says...

Dublin Claret wrote:
No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job!
Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.
[quote][p][bold]Dublin Claret[/bold] wrote: No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job![/p][/quote]Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again. FakeVilla_MTCabinet
  • Score: 9

10:55am Mon 16 Sep 13

coates warder says...

hasslem hasslem wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
Cheat.

A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.
i take it you were one of the low-lifes singing about jack walker being dead.
hasslem i take it no blackburn fan has sung barry kilby die of cancer like last season at deadwood.did they not.both sets of fans have their problems with chants but in no way make it sound like you are innocent in anyway.
[quote][p][bold]hasslem hasslem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: Cheat. A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.[/p][/quote]i take it you were one of the low-lifes singing about jack walker being dead.[/p][/quote]hasslem i take it no blackburn fan has sung barry kilby die of cancer like last season at deadwood.did they not.both sets of fans have their problems with chants but in no way make it sound like you are innocent in anyway. coates warder
  • Score: -8

11:21am Mon 16 Sep 13

houseclaret says...

Yes, I think I would have expected a Burnley player to do the same but it doesn't hurt any less for that. Yet another late equaliser though. Getting a bit fed up with it now. As for the 34 years nonsense, I've noticed the media have picked up on it as well. Someone should tell them that we haven't played a game in anger for 29 of them.
Yes, I think I would have expected a Burnley player to do the same but it doesn't hurt any less for that. Yet another late equaliser though. Getting a bit fed up with it now. As for the 34 years nonsense, I've noticed the media have picked up on it as well. Someone should tell them that we haven't played a game in anger for 29 of them. houseclaret
  • Score: -3

11:32am Mon 16 Sep 13

hasslem hasslem says...

coates warder wrote:
hasslem hasslem wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
Cheat.

A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.
i take it you were one of the low-lifes singing about jack walker being dead.
hasslem i take it no blackburn fan has sung barry kilby die of cancer like last season at deadwood.did they not.both sets of fans have their problems with chants but in no way make it sound like you are innocent in anyway.
coates - where i was on the riverside at ewood for the game last season - i honestly never heard that chant - if they were chanting that somewhere in the ground -- of course i would condemn it.

from where i was sat on saturday it sounded like a whole lot of the james hargreaves was singing about jack.

there is one of your idiots who comes on here many times every day that keeps going on about jack being senile and 6' under etc. his/her posts keep getting removed but he/she keeps on creeping back on.
[quote][p][bold]coates warder[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hasslem hasslem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: Cheat. A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.[/p][/quote]i take it you were one of the low-lifes singing about jack walker being dead.[/p][/quote]hasslem i take it no blackburn fan has sung barry kilby die of cancer like last season at deadwood.did they not.both sets of fans have their problems with chants but in no way make it sound like you are innocent in anyway.[/p][/quote]coates - where i was on the riverside at ewood for the game last season - i honestly never heard that chant - if they were chanting that somewhere in the ground -- of course i would condemn it. from where i was sat on saturday it sounded like a whole lot of the james hargreaves was singing about jack. there is one of your idiots who comes on here many times every day that keeps going on about jack being senile and 6' under etc. his/her posts keep getting removed but he/she keeps on creeping back on. hasslem hasslem
  • Score: 7

11:38am Mon 16 Sep 13

fickle fan says...

houseclaret wrote:
Yes, I think I would have expected a Burnley player to do the same but it doesn't hurt any less for that. Yet another late equaliser though. Getting a bit fed up with it now. As for the 34 years nonsense, I've noticed the media have picked up on it as well. Someone should tell them that we haven't played a game in anger for 29 of them.
Think you have to earn the right to play, it is not BRFC fault you have not played us for its,now jog on after looking at the stats which show where you have been for 35 years.29 years , BFC have spent years avoiding us plying their trade in the lower divisions. Think yourselves lucky you never witnessed the SAS tearing your defence to bits.
[quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: Yes, I think I would have expected a Burnley player to do the same but it doesn't hurt any less for that. Yet another late equaliser though. Getting a bit fed up with it now. As for the 34 years nonsense, I've noticed the media have picked up on it as well. Someone should tell them that we haven't played a game in anger for 29 of them.[/p][/quote]Think you have to earn the right to play, it is not BRFC fault you have not played us for its,now jog on after looking at the stats which show where you have been for 35 years.29 years , BFC have spent years avoiding us plying their trade in the lower divisions. Think yourselves lucky you never witnessed the SAS tearing your defence to bits. fickle fan
  • Score: 15

11:42am Mon 16 Sep 13

we.love.u.venkys says...

FakeVilla_MTCabinet wrote:
Dublin Claret wrote:
No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job!
Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.
If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture.

Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out?

It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you.

Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.
[quote][p][bold]FakeVilla_MTCabinet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dublin Claret[/bold] wrote: No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job![/p][/quote]Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.[/p][/quote]If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture. Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out? It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you. Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it. we.love.u.venkys
  • Score: -13

12:03pm Mon 16 Sep 13

Harwoodstblue says...

we.love.u.venkys wrote:
FakeVilla_MTCabinet wrote:
Dublin Claret wrote:
No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job!
Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.
If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture.

Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out?

It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you.

Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.
You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games...
Wouldn't it?
[quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FakeVilla_MTCabinet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dublin Claret[/bold] wrote: No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job![/p][/quote]Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.[/p][/quote]If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture. Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out? It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you. Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.[/p][/quote]You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games... Wouldn't it? Harwoodstblue
  • Score: 13

12:25pm Mon 16 Sep 13

jack01 says...

Williamson bringing Ings down when he would have been clean through on goal is the equivalent of the referee bringing Rhodes back for no reason when he was one on one with the keeper. Given that Rhodes is a better player than Ings I'd say that the likelihood of both of those being a goal is high.
So Williamson was making up for the referees error earlier in the game.

Had Ings managed to score it would have been lucky, because at that stage Rovers were battering Burnley to try and grab the winner. In their desperation the clear the ball of the line Burnley were fortunate when they hoofed the ball up to Ings and he broke away.

Not sure I can agree that Rovers' goal was the 'freakiest of freak goals' though. Granted it was fortunate, but had Duff not been in the position he was or had he not got to the ball before Rhodes it would have been a certain goal anyway. The only one to blame is Arnfield for setting Jordan up so well. That wasn't bad luck but was the act of a player and a side terrified as history weighed on their shoulders.
Williamson bringing Ings down when he would have been clean through on goal is the equivalent of the referee bringing Rhodes back for no reason when he was one on one with the keeper. Given that Rhodes is a better player than Ings I'd say that the likelihood of both of those being a goal is high. So Williamson was making up for the referees error earlier in the game. Had Ings managed to score it would have been lucky, because at that stage Rovers were battering Burnley to try and grab the winner. In their desperation the clear the ball of the line Burnley were fortunate when they hoofed the ball up to Ings and he broke away. Not sure I can agree that Rovers' goal was the 'freakiest of freak goals' though. Granted it was fortunate, but had Duff not been in the position he was or had he not got to the ball before Rhodes it would have been a certain goal anyway. The only one to blame is Arnfield for setting Jordan up so well. That wasn't bad luck but was the act of a player and a side terrified as history weighed on their shoulders. jack01
  • Score: 7

12:30pm Mon 16 Sep 13

we.love.u.venkys says...

Tatts wrote:
Harwoodstblue wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
FakeVilla_MTCabinet wrote:
Dublin Claret wrote:
No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job!
Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.
If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture.

Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out?

It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you.

Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.
You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games...
Wouldn't it?
11 games without a win in a two horse race is pretty awful whichever way you look at it!

35 years
So is Blackburn's 10 defeats to Burnley in a 14 game period. Shocking.

Ps. are you still looking up. Clampett.
[quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harwoodstblue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FakeVilla_MTCabinet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dublin Claret[/bold] wrote: No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job![/p][/quote]Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.[/p][/quote]If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture. Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out? It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you. Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.[/p][/quote]You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games... Wouldn't it?[/p][/quote]11 games without a win in a two horse race is pretty awful whichever way you look at it! 35 years[/p][/quote]So is Blackburn's 10 defeats to Burnley in a 14 game period. Shocking. Ps. are you still looking up. Clampett. we.love.u.venkys
  • Score: -5

12:33pm Mon 16 Sep 13

Harwoodstblue says...

we.love.u.venkys wrote:
Tatts wrote:
Harwoodstblue wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
FakeVilla_MTCabinet wrote:
Dublin Claret wrote:
No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job!
Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.
If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture.

Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out?

It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you.

Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.
You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games...
Wouldn't it?
11 games without a win in a two horse race is pretty awful whichever way you look at it!

35 years
So is Blackburn's 10 defeats to Burnley in a 14 game period. Shocking.

Ps. are you still looking up. Clampett.
34 years is recent history..... 1962 to 1979 is prehistoric. Now if you want to be talking history just look at the facts.
[quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harwoodstblue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FakeVilla_MTCabinet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dublin Claret[/bold] wrote: No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job![/p][/quote]Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.[/p][/quote]If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture. Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out? It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you. Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.[/p][/quote]You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games... Wouldn't it?[/p][/quote]11 games without a win in a two horse race is pretty awful whichever way you look at it! 35 years[/p][/quote]So is Blackburn's 10 defeats to Burnley in a 14 game period. Shocking. Ps. are you still looking up. Clampett.[/p][/quote]34 years is recent history..... 1962 to 1979 is prehistoric. Now if you want to be talking history just look at the facts. Harwoodstblue
  • Score: 7

12:35pm Mon 16 Sep 13

Harwoodstblue says...

we.love.u.venkys wrote:
Harwoodstblue wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
Harwoodstblue wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
FakeVilla_MTCabinet wrote:
Dublin Claret wrote:
No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job!
Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.
If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture.

Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out?

It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you.

Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.
You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games...
Wouldn't it?
Poor, poor argument. You seem to disregard the £100 Million conned out of a senile old man to buy your way into the top division, buy yourselves a new stadium, and buy yourselves big name players. Take away that vast advantage and we would indeed have played more games. Its 11 games not 68 games, and you drew 4 of them. Move on.
No need to move on we're quite happy. Be careful of calling Jack "a senile old man" or you'll be getting banned again, and hopefully for good.
Who mentioned Jack? You did. You associated the words "senile old man" with Jack Walker, I merely hinted at it. You sir are a disgrace to your club and its history.

Think before you type you moron.
Care to explain then who is the "senile old man" that you mention. Banned and sooner the better. A complaint has gone in.
[quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harwoodstblue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harwoodstblue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FakeVilla_MTCabinet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dublin Claret[/bold] wrote: No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job![/p][/quote]Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.[/p][/quote]If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture. Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out? It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you. Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.[/p][/quote]You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games... Wouldn't it?[/p][/quote]Poor, poor argument. You seem to disregard the £100 Million conned out of a senile old man to buy your way into the top division, buy yourselves a new stadium, and buy yourselves big name players. Take away that vast advantage and we would indeed have played more games. Its 11 games not 68 games, and you drew 4 of them. Move on.[/p][/quote]No need to move on we're quite happy. Be careful of calling Jack "a senile old man" or you'll be getting banned again, and hopefully for good.[/p][/quote]Who mentioned Jack? You did. You associated the words "senile old man" with Jack Walker, I merely hinted at it. You sir are a disgrace to your club and its history. Think before you type you moron.[/p][/quote]Care to explain then who is the "senile old man" that you mention. Banned and sooner the better. A complaint has gone in. Harwoodstblue
  • Score: 7

12:38pm Mon 16 Sep 13

john byrom says...

And the Ginger One is still Bleating On About not winning. Get Used to Looser.
And the Ginger One is still Bleating On About not winning. Get Used to Looser. john byrom
  • Score: 6

12:39pm Mon 16 Sep 13

fitz808 says...

we.love.u.venkys wrote:
FakeVilla_MTCabinet wrote:
Dublin Claret wrote:
No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job!
Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.
If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture.

Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out?

It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you.

Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.
that's all a bit nonsensical. undefeated streaks will happen and ultimatley all will come to an end. that will happen to rovers' current streak and i'm sure we'll all get over it pretty sharpish.
maybe if you don't want to hear rovers fans going on about it you could try not coming onto rovers' forums boldly stating that your side will win triumphantly. let's face it, history is certainly not in your favour!!!
as for balance of play, i would say first half was yours and the second was ours. really great goal from stanislas and a fortunate one for us, but it would be wrong to argue that we had not already done enough to notch by that point anyway. i think that game was more even than the one previously.
and whatever your opinion (that you seem so intent on getting across to us on our forum) each goal is worth 1, so that's why the history books will document it as completely and utterly even.
[quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FakeVilla_MTCabinet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dublin Claret[/bold] wrote: No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job![/p][/quote]Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.[/p][/quote]If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture. Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out? It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you. Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.[/p][/quote]that's all a bit nonsensical. undefeated streaks will happen and ultimatley all will come to an end. that will happen to rovers' current streak and i'm sure we'll all get over it pretty sharpish. maybe if you don't want to hear rovers fans going on about it you could try not coming onto rovers' forums boldly stating that your side will win triumphantly. let's face it, history is certainly not in your favour!!! as for balance of play, i would say first half was yours and the second was ours. really great goal from stanislas and a fortunate one for us, but it would be wrong to argue that we had not already done enough to notch by that point anyway. i think that game was more even than the one previously. and whatever your opinion (that you seem so intent on getting across to us on our forum) each goal is worth 1, so that's why the history books will document it as completely and utterly even. fitz808
  • Score: 3

1:03pm Mon 16 Sep 13

Wild Rover says...

we.love.u.venkys wrote:
FakeVilla_MTCabinet wrote:
Dublin Claret wrote:
No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job!
Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.
If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture.

Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out?

It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you.

Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.
Dream on Fool. So now you are clutching hopefully to the straw that Rhodes wont be there for the return? Ha!
Are you confident that your Mighty Clarts will still all be there? I mean Bacelona will surely be after Ings and Trippier by then if they are as good as you say?
Hang on, were not the Mighty Clarts supposed to sweep our feeble misfits aside in a scintillating display of world class football
Wake up WeLuvU, it didnt happen
And it wont in March either
Trust me, I am a Doctor.
[quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FakeVilla_MTCabinet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dublin Claret[/bold] wrote: No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job![/p][/quote]Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.[/p][/quote]If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture. Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out? It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you. Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.[/p][/quote]Dream on Fool. So now you are clutching hopefully to the straw that Rhodes wont be there for the return? Ha! Are you confident that your Mighty Clarts will still all be there? I mean Bacelona will surely be after Ings and Trippier by then if they are as good as you say? Hang on, were not the Mighty Clarts supposed to sweep our feeble misfits aside in a scintillating display of world class football Wake up WeLuvU, it didnt happen And it wont in March either Trust me, I am a Doctor. Wild Rover
  • Score: 9

1:05pm Mon 16 Sep 13

bluenick says...

we.love.u.venkys wrote:
FakeVilla_MTCabinet wrote:
Dublin Claret wrote:
No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job!
Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.
If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture.

Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out?

It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you.

Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.
Stop trying to convince yourself Venkys!!!!!
35 years!!!! And tell the dingle express that!!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FakeVilla_MTCabinet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dublin Claret[/bold] wrote: No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job![/p][/quote]Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.[/p][/quote]If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture. Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out? It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you. Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.[/p][/quote]Stop trying to convince yourself Venkys!!!!! 35 years!!!! And tell the dingle express that!!!!!!!! bluenick
  • Score: 4

1:26pm Mon 16 Sep 13

SuperBlues says...

Williamson wrote himself into the Rovers records books it will be be remembered like Ollson's dive and Dunny's last minute GOAL, Good effort WILLO !!!!!!!!!
Williamson wrote himself into the Rovers records books it will be be remembered like Ollson's dive and Dunny's last minute GOAL, Good effort WILLO !!!!!!!!! SuperBlues
  • Score: 6

1:27pm Mon 16 Sep 13

SuperBlues says...

Williamson wrote himself into the Rovers records books it will be be remembered like Ollson's dive and Dunny's last minute GOAL, Good effort WILLO !!!!!!!!!
Williamson wrote himself into the Rovers records books it will be be remembered like Ollson's dive and Dunny's last minute GOAL, Good effort WILLO !!!!!!!!! SuperBlues
  • Score: 3

1:47pm Mon 16 Sep 13

we.love.u.venkys says...

SuperBlues wrote:
Williamson wrote himself into the Rovers records books it will be be remembered like Ollson's dive and Dunny's last minute GOAL, Good effort WILLO !!!!!!!!!
Indeed he did, another entry in the Rovers hall of shame. 3 cheats. Nothing to be proud of there. You should be ashamed.

Blackburn Rovers celebrating cheating yet again. You just can't beat us fair and square can you?
[quote][p][bold]SuperBlues[/bold] wrote: Williamson wrote himself into the Rovers records books it will be be remembered like Ollson's dive and Dunny's last minute GOAL, Good effort WILLO !!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Indeed he did, another entry in the Rovers hall of shame. 3 cheats. Nothing to be proud of there. You should be ashamed. Blackburn Rovers celebrating cheating yet again. You just can't beat us fair and square can you? we.love.u.venkys
  • Score: -8

2:09pm Mon 16 Sep 13

Harwoodstblue says...

we.love.u.venkys wrote:
Harwoodstblue wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
Harwoodstblue wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
Harwoodstblue wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
FakeVilla_MTCabinet wrote:
Dublin Claret wrote:
No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job!
Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.
If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture.

Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out?

It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you.

Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.
You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games...
Wouldn't it?
Poor, poor argument. You seem to disregard the £100 Million conned out of a senile old man to buy your way into the top division, buy yourselves a new stadium, and buy yourselves big name players. Take away that vast advantage and we would indeed have played more games. Its 11 games not 68 games, and you drew 4 of them. Move on.
No need to move on we're quite happy. Be careful of calling Jack "a senile old man" or you'll be getting banned again, and hopefully for good.
Who mentioned Jack? You did. You associated the words "senile old man" with Jack Walker, I merely hinted at it. You sir are a disgrace to your club and its history.

Think before you type you moron.
Care to explain then who is the "senile old man" that you mention. Banned and sooner the better. A complaint has gone in.
The fact that I have you in my pocket grates on you somewhat doesn't it.

Squealing to the comments page moderator because that nasty Burnley fan keeps making you look silly. Get a life you big girl, its a bit of banter.
It isn't banter calling Rovers benefactor a "senile old man". It's disgraceful to speak of the dead in that way but not unexpected after the disgusting chanting from the Longside on Saturday. You and the rest of the low life are despicable excuses for people and should be ashamed. I for one will be happy if you are banned AGAIN.
"In your pocket" ? Dream on. Why are you on here 24/ 7 ? Of course you're not obsessed by playing second fiddle, and it's eating you away, isn't it?
As for "look up". Make the most of it , it won't last.
[quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harwoodstblue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harwoodstblue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harwoodstblue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FakeVilla_MTCabinet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dublin Claret[/bold] wrote: No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job![/p][/quote]Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.[/p][/quote]If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture. Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out? It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you. Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.[/p][/quote]You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games... Wouldn't it?[/p][/quote]Poor, poor argument. You seem to disregard the £100 Million conned out of a senile old man to buy your way into the top division, buy yourselves a new stadium, and buy yourselves big name players. Take away that vast advantage and we would indeed have played more games. Its 11 games not 68 games, and you drew 4 of them. Move on.[/p][/quote]No need to move on we're quite happy. Be careful of calling Jack "a senile old man" or you'll be getting banned again, and hopefully for good.[/p][/quote]Who mentioned Jack? You did. You associated the words "senile old man" with Jack Walker, I merely hinted at it. You sir are a disgrace to your club and its history. Think before you type you moron.[/p][/quote]Care to explain then who is the "senile old man" that you mention. Banned and sooner the better. A complaint has gone in.[/p][/quote]The fact that I have you in my pocket grates on you somewhat doesn't it. Squealing to the comments page moderator because that nasty Burnley fan keeps making you look silly. Get a life you big girl, its a bit of banter.[/p][/quote]It isn't banter calling Rovers benefactor a "senile old man". It's disgraceful to speak of the dead in that way but not unexpected after the disgusting chanting from the Longside on Saturday. You and the rest of the low life are despicable excuses for people and should be ashamed. I for one will be happy if you are banned AGAIN. "In your pocket" ? Dream on. Why are you on here 24/ 7 ? Of course you're not obsessed by playing second fiddle, and it's eating you away, isn't it? As for "look up". Make the most of it , it won't last. Harwoodstblue
  • Score: 8

2:09pm Mon 16 Sep 13

inflightmagazine says...

jack01 wrote:
Williamson bringing Ings down when he would have been clean through on goal is the equivalent of the referee bringing Rhodes back for no reason when he was one on one with the keeper. Given that Rhodes is a better player than Ings I'd say that the likelihood of both of those being a goal is high.
So Williamson was making up for the referees error earlier in the game.

Had Ings managed to score it would have been lucky, because at that stage Rovers were battering Burnley to try and grab the winner. In their desperation the clear the ball of the line Burnley were fortunate when they hoofed the ball up to Ings and he broke away.

Not sure I can agree that Rovers' goal was the 'freakiest of freak goals' though. Granted it was fortunate, but had Duff not been in the position he was or had he not got to the ball before Rhodes it would have been a certain goal anyway. The only one to blame is Arnfield for setting Jordan up so well. That wasn't bad luck but was the act of a player and a side terrified as history weighed on their shoulders.
al this cheating is outrageous and has to stop, I even heard of a club last year whos right back handled the ball on the line to stop Palace scoring got sent off and then his manager tried to appeal,
[quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: Williamson bringing Ings down when he would have been clean through on goal is the equivalent of the referee bringing Rhodes back for no reason when he was one on one with the keeper. Given that Rhodes is a better player than Ings I'd say that the likelihood of both of those being a goal is high. So Williamson was making up for the referees error earlier in the game. Had Ings managed to score it would have been lucky, because at that stage Rovers were battering Burnley to try and grab the winner. In their desperation the clear the ball of the line Burnley were fortunate when they hoofed the ball up to Ings and he broke away. Not sure I can agree that Rovers' goal was the 'freakiest of freak goals' though. Granted it was fortunate, but had Duff not been in the position he was or had he not got to the ball before Rhodes it would have been a certain goal anyway. The only one to blame is Arnfield for setting Jordan up so well. That wasn't bad luck but was the act of a player and a side terrified as history weighed on their shoulders.[/p][/quote]al this cheating is outrageous and has to stop, I even heard of a club last year whos right back handled the ball on the line to stop Palace scoring got sent off and then his manager tried to appeal, inflightmagazine
  • Score: 3

2:53pm Mon 16 Sep 13

A Darener says...

OnePostThenTheOther wrote:
One of them should have taken man and ball out when it first broke free deep in Burnley's half. One of rhem would have had to a yellow. It should never have got to the point where Williamson had to commit the foul. Yet more evidence of the lack of experience in midfield.
There were no players within yards to actually do what you said.
[quote][p][bold]OnePostThenTheOther[/bold] wrote: One of them should have taken man and ball out when it first broke free deep in Burnley's half. One of rhem would have had to a yellow. It should never have got to the point where Williamson had to commit the foul. Yet more evidence of the lack of experience in midfield.[/p][/quote]There were no players within yards to actually do what you said. A Darener
  • Score: 0

3:37pm Mon 16 Sep 13

Iiii1111 says...

we.love.u.venkys wrote:
FakeVilla_MTCabinet wrote:
Dublin Claret wrote:
No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job!
Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.
If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture.

Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out?

It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you.

Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that overall Rovers have a better record than Burnley in all-time fixtures......41 to 37 wins in rovers favour.

Rovers have record wins home and away 7-1 on both occasions

Rovers have recorded the highest score in a derby game....8-3

Rovers are the 12th most successful team in England compared to
Burnley's joint 18th place.

1983 ( 30years ago) is the last time Burnley had a higher average attendance than rovers

Just a few FACTs ....think we all know which team is the biggest !
[quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FakeVilla_MTCabinet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dublin Claret[/bold] wrote: No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job![/p][/quote]Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.[/p][/quote]If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture. Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out? It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you. Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.[/p][/quote]You seem to be ignoring the fact that overall Rovers have a better record than Burnley in all-time fixtures......41 to 37 wins in rovers favour. Rovers have record wins home and away 7-1 on both occasions Rovers have recorded the highest score in a derby game....8-3 Rovers are the 12th most successful team in England compared to Burnley's joint 18th place. 1983 ( 30years ago) is the last time Burnley had a higher average attendance than rovers Just a few FACTs ....think we all know which team is the biggest ! Iiii1111
  • Score: 10

4:28pm Mon 16 Sep 13

McClaret says...

Interesting how the article draws comparison with Suarez in the world cup. Take a leaf out of rugby's book and simply award a goal for such offences. Takes away the 'What if' debate and the professionalism and cynicism of the 'dark side' of the sport. Players would not bring down the opponent as a goal would result when there is still the keeper to beat.
The authorities have no interest to make changes as it would stop the debate and mean admitting that another sport has better ideas.
The options are there to keep the game honest, sadly unlike many other sports the will seems to be lacking.
Interesting how the article draws comparison with Suarez in the world cup. Take a leaf out of rugby's book and simply award a goal for such offences. Takes away the 'What if' debate and the professionalism and cynicism of the 'dark side' of the sport. Players would not bring down the opponent as a goal would result when there is still the keeper to beat. The authorities have no interest to make changes as it would stop the debate and mean admitting that another sport has better ideas. The options are there to keep the game honest, sadly unlike many other sports the will seems to be lacking. McClaret
  • Score: -1

5:56pm Mon 16 Sep 13

doctordavros says...

Tatts wrote:
Harwoodstblue wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
FakeVilla_MTCabinet wrote:
Dublin Claret wrote:
No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job!
Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.
If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture.

Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out?

It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you.

Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.
You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games...
Wouldn't it?
11 games without a win in a two horse race is pretty awful whichever way you look at it!

35 years
"Welovethevenkys" what a **** you are on the subject of the 34 years / and the 14 years before that
lets look at the last 125 years between Rovers and Burnley
1. Which team as won the most games between the clubs.
2. Which team as the most honours.
3. Which team as finnished the highest most in a season.
4. Which team as won the FA Cup the most.
5. Which team as won more titles.
6. Which team as had the highest attendances over the 125 years.

When you know the answer come back on here and tell us
[quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harwoodstblue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FakeVilla_MTCabinet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dublin Claret[/bold] wrote: No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job![/p][/quote]Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.[/p][/quote]If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture. Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out? It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you. Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.[/p][/quote]You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games... Wouldn't it?[/p][/quote]11 games without a win in a two horse race is pretty awful whichever way you look at it! 35 years[/p][/quote]"Welovethevenkys" what a **** you are on the subject of the 34 years / and the 14 years before that lets look at the last 125 years between Rovers and Burnley 1. Which team as won the most games between the clubs. 2. Which team as the most honours. 3. Which team as finnished the highest most in a season. 4. Which team as won the FA Cup the most. 5. Which team as won more titles. 6. Which team as had the highest attendances over the 125 years. When you know the answer come back on here and tell us doctordavros
  • Score: 4

5:59pm Mon 16 Sep 13

madmurphy says...

we.love.u.venkys wrote:
Cheat.

A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.
Oh how we love to p1ss you dingles off. I am waiting for Dunn to score the winner with his hand from an offside position that doesn`t cross the line, but the ref gives it. Now that would be quality.
WILLIAMSON ROVERS LEGEND.
[quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: Cheat. A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.[/p][/quote]Oh how we love to p1ss you dingles off. I am waiting for Dunn to score the winner with his hand from an offside position that doesn`t cross the line, but the ref gives it. Now that would be quality. WILLIAMSON ROVERS LEGEND. madmurphy
  • Score: 5

6:08pm Mon 16 Sep 13

madmurphy says...

Dublin Claret wrote:
No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job!
I would agree with you about Dyche. However I would also make the point that BFC have a small squad at the moment and this could be a telling factor when the injuries and suspensions start to crop up. But even as a Rovers fan I have to admit its been a good start for you, with some surprising away results.
[quote][p][bold]Dublin Claret[/bold] wrote: No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job![/p][/quote]I would agree with you about Dyche. However I would also make the point that BFC have a small squad at the moment and this could be a telling factor when the injuries and suspensions start to crop up. But even as a Rovers fan I have to admit its been a good start for you, with some surprising away results. madmurphy
  • Score: 1

6:25pm Mon 16 Sep 13

bluenwhite says...

we.love.u.venkys wrote:
Harwoodstblue wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
FakeVilla_MTCabinet wrote:
Dublin Claret wrote:
No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job!
Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.
If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture.

Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out?

It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you.

Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.
You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games...
Wouldn't it?
Poor, poor argument. You seem to disregard the £100 Million conned out of a senile old man to buy your way into the top division, buy yourselves a new stadium, and buy yourselves big name players. Take away that vast advantage and we would indeed have played more games. Its 11 games not 68 games, and you drew 4 of them. Move on.
Ha Ha 35 years,,,,,,,,,,suck it up and accept it.
[quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harwoodstblue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FakeVilla_MTCabinet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dublin Claret[/bold] wrote: No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job![/p][/quote]Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.[/p][/quote]If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture. Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out? It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you. Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.[/p][/quote]You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games... Wouldn't it?[/p][/quote]Poor, poor argument. You seem to disregard the £100 Million conned out of a senile old man to buy your way into the top division, buy yourselves a new stadium, and buy yourselves big name players. Take away that vast advantage and we would indeed have played more games. Its 11 games not 68 games, and you drew 4 of them. Move on.[/p][/quote]Ha Ha 35 years,,,,,,,,,,suck it up and accept it. bluenwhite
  • Score: 3

7:37pm Mon 16 Sep 13

Navy-Rover says...

we.love.u.venkys wrote:
Cheat. A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.
...... and knowing that you are in so much mental anguish over the events at Turd Moor just makes it all the sweeter for us Rovers fans!

Hahahahahahahahahaha
haha!

Arte et Labore
[quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: Cheat. A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.[/p][/quote]...... and knowing that you are in so much mental anguish over the events at Turd Moor just makes it all the sweeter for us Rovers fans! Hahahahahahahahahaha haha! Arte et Labore Navy-Rover
  • Score: 3

8:01pm Mon 16 Sep 13

srvp28 says...

McClaret wrote:
Interesting how the article draws comparison with Suarez in the world cup. Take a leaf out of rugby's book and simply award a goal for such offences. Takes away the 'What if' debate and the professionalism and cynicism of the 'dark side' of the sport. Players would not bring down the opponent as a goal would result when there is still the keeper to beat.
The authorities have no interest to make changes as it would stop the debate and mean admitting that another sport has better ideas.
The options are there to keep the game honest, sadly unlike many other sports the will seems to be lacking.
Sorry but they're two totally different scenarios. Suarez's handball undoubtedly prevented a guaranteed goal. Williamson put his arm across Ings back by the halfway line to try and slow him down, Ings went to ground like he'd been shot with an elephant gun. If he'd showed the same strength that he did last week he'd have been away.

However, this is where the big difference is. There is no guarantee that Ings would have scored. The reporter who wrote this article says that Ings' recent form means he probably would have. I'd point out that whilst Williamson is probably slower in an even foot race, running with the ball slows a player down. The only way Ings would have got clean away would have been to knock he ball quite a distance away and chased it. There was every chance that the keeper could've got to it before him. Also, the way Ings was playing I wouldn't have been surprised to see him clear the crossbar either.

We'll never know, but to suggest awarding a goal for a foul near the halfway line is a bit much.
[quote][p][bold]McClaret[/bold] wrote: Interesting how the article draws comparison with Suarez in the world cup. Take a leaf out of rugby's book and simply award a goal for such offences. Takes away the 'What if' debate and the professionalism and cynicism of the 'dark side' of the sport. Players would not bring down the opponent as a goal would result when there is still the keeper to beat. The authorities have no interest to make changes as it would stop the debate and mean admitting that another sport has better ideas. The options are there to keep the game honest, sadly unlike many other sports the will seems to be lacking.[/p][/quote]Sorry but they're two totally different scenarios. Suarez's handball undoubtedly prevented a guaranteed goal. Williamson put his arm across Ings back by the halfway line to try and slow him down, Ings went to ground like he'd been shot with an elephant gun. If he'd showed the same strength that he did last week he'd have been away. However, this is where the big difference is. There is no guarantee that Ings would have scored. The reporter who wrote this article says that Ings' recent form means he probably would have. I'd point out that whilst Williamson is probably slower in an even foot race, running with the ball slows a player down. The only way Ings would have got clean away would have been to knock he ball quite a distance away and chased it. There was every chance that the keeper could've got to it before him. Also, the way Ings was playing I wouldn't have been surprised to see him clear the crossbar either. We'll never know, but to suggest awarding a goal for a foul near the halfway line is a bit much. srvp28
  • Score: 4

8:45pm Mon 16 Sep 13

we.love.u.venkys says...

Navy-Rover wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
Cheat. A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.
...... and knowing that you are in so much mental anguish over the events at Turd Moor just makes it all the sweeter for us Rovers fans!

Hahahahahahahahahaha

haha!

Arte et Labore
I think the mental anguish is all yours. Relegated, chickens on the pitch, Steve Kean, Venky's, Shebby Singh, six managers in a season, finishing 17th in the Championship, looking up at Burnley, having to cheat to complete with us on 3 occasions, and no matter what.... you just cannot beat us!
[quote][p][bold]Navy-Rover[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: Cheat. A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.[/p][/quote]...... and knowing that you are in so much mental anguish over the events at Turd Moor just makes it all the sweeter for us Rovers fans! Hahahahahahahahahaha haha! Arte et Labore[/p][/quote]I think the mental anguish is all yours. Relegated, chickens on the pitch, Steve Kean, Venky's, Shebby Singh, six managers in a season, finishing 17th in the Championship, looking up at Burnley, having to cheat to complete with us on 3 occasions, and no matter what.... you just cannot beat us! we.love.u.venkys
  • Score: -4

9:27pm Mon 16 Sep 13

happiness says...

we.love.u.venkys wrote:
Navy-Rover wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
Cheat. A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.
...... and knowing that you are in so much mental anguish over the events at Turd Moor just makes it all the sweeter for us Rovers fans!

Hahahahahahahahahaha


haha!

Arte et Labore
I think the mental anguish is all yours. Relegated, chickens on the pitch, Steve Kean, Venky's, Shebby Singh, six managers in a season, finishing 17th in the Championship, looking up at Burnley, having to cheat to complete with us on 3 occasions, and no matter what.... you just cannot beat us!
Ok, you win the award for bitterest idiot of the day. Hands down. Cheating? I'll give you cheating. Saturday - Rhodes clean through on goal also, only for the 'dingle in the black' to blow his whistle and stop the play for a foul on one of our own players in the center. This after an entire game of letting Burnley play advantage when that particular boot was on the other shoe, then still giving the foul no matter how long it took them to lose the ball...fact. 5 minutes before Olsson's dive for the pen, we had a perfectly legal goal ruled for offside even though it was clearly not so. Elliot deliberately stamping on Chimbonda's head! Where does it say in the rule book that this is allowed? And to talk about lucky goals? Funny that is because you don't seem to mind scoring them yourselves. Four of your eight in the league prior to sat were flukes. Fact!! Your real name isn't Cummings by any chance is it? And as far as implying that Jack was senile. I would never talk this way of any of your clubs recently sadly deceased legends. Unlike a lot of decent Clarets that I know, and the many thousands of others that i'm certain of, you are the opposite. You are a bitter sicko!! 34, oops, sorry, my mistake; 35 years and you've still not DUNN it!!! BRFC having the last laugh since 1979.......Oh and p.s. my report has gone in too.
[quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Navy-Rover[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: Cheat. A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.[/p][/quote]...... and knowing that you are in so much mental anguish over the events at Turd Moor just makes it all the sweeter for us Rovers fans! Hahahahahahahahahaha haha! Arte et Labore[/p][/quote]I think the mental anguish is all yours. Relegated, chickens on the pitch, Steve Kean, Venky's, Shebby Singh, six managers in a season, finishing 17th in the Championship, looking up at Burnley, having to cheat to complete with us on 3 occasions, and no matter what.... you just cannot beat us![/p][/quote]Ok, you win the award for bitterest idiot of the day. Hands down. Cheating? I'll give you cheating. Saturday - Rhodes clean through on goal also, only for the 'dingle in the black' to blow his whistle and stop the play for a foul on one of our own players in the center. This after an entire game of letting Burnley play advantage when that particular boot was on the other shoe, then still giving the foul no matter how long it took them to lose the ball...fact. 5 minutes before Olsson's dive for the pen, we had a perfectly legal goal ruled for offside even though it was clearly not so. Elliot deliberately stamping on Chimbonda's head! Where does it say in the rule book that this is allowed? And to talk about lucky goals? Funny that is because you don't seem to mind scoring them yourselves. Four of your eight in the league prior to sat were flukes. Fact!! Your real name isn't Cummings by any chance is it? And as far as implying that Jack was senile. I would never talk this way of any of your clubs recently sadly deceased legends. Unlike a lot of decent Clarets that I know, and the many thousands of others that i'm certain of, you are the opposite. You are a bitter sicko!! 34, oops, sorry, my mistake; 35 years and you've still not DUNN it!!! BRFC having the last laugh since 1979.......Oh and p.s. my report has gone in too. happiness
  • Score: 4

9:38pm Mon 16 Sep 13

we.love.u.venkys says...

happiness wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
Navy-Rover wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
Cheat. A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.
...... and knowing that you are in so much mental anguish over the events at Turd Moor just makes it all the sweeter for us Rovers fans!

Hahahahahahahahahaha



haha!

Arte et Labore
I think the mental anguish is all yours. Relegated, chickens on the pitch, Steve Kean, Venky's, Shebby Singh, six managers in a season, finishing 17th in the Championship, looking up at Burnley, having to cheat to complete with us on 3 occasions, and no matter what.... you just cannot beat us!
Ok, you win the award for bitterest idiot of the day. Hands down. Cheating? I'll give you cheating. Saturday - Rhodes clean through on goal also, only for the 'dingle in the black' to blow his whistle and stop the play for a foul on one of our own players in the center. This after an entire game of letting Burnley play advantage when that particular boot was on the other shoe, then still giving the foul no matter how long it took them to lose the ball...fact. 5 minutes before Olsson's dive for the pen, we had a perfectly legal goal ruled for offside even though it was clearly not so. Elliot deliberately stamping on Chimbonda's head! Where does it say in the rule book that this is allowed? And to talk about lucky goals? Funny that is because you don't seem to mind scoring them yourselves. Four of your eight in the league prior to sat were flukes. Fact!! Your real name isn't Cummings by any chance is it? And as far as implying that Jack was senile. I would never talk this way of any of your clubs recently sadly deceased legends. Unlike a lot of decent Clarets that I know, and the many thousands of others that i'm certain of, you are the opposite. You are a bitter sicko!! 34, oops, sorry, my mistake; 35 years and you've still not DUNN it!!! BRFC having the last laugh since 1979.......Oh and p.s. my report has gone in too.
Hope you feel better for getting that off your chest. You need to chill out my friend, it's only a game.
[quote][p][bold]happiness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Navy-Rover[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: Cheat. A huge slice of luck and the usual cheating once again rescue's a point for the no-dads. Disgraceful.[/p][/quote]...... and knowing that you are in so much mental anguish over the events at Turd Moor just makes it all the sweeter for us Rovers fans! Hahahahahahahahahaha haha! Arte et Labore[/p][/quote]I think the mental anguish is all yours. Relegated, chickens on the pitch, Steve Kean, Venky's, Shebby Singh, six managers in a season, finishing 17th in the Championship, looking up at Burnley, having to cheat to complete with us on 3 occasions, and no matter what.... you just cannot beat us![/p][/quote]Ok, you win the award for bitterest idiot of the day. Hands down. Cheating? I'll give you cheating. Saturday - Rhodes clean through on goal also, only for the 'dingle in the black' to blow his whistle and stop the play for a foul on one of our own players in the center. This after an entire game of letting Burnley play advantage when that particular boot was on the other shoe, then still giving the foul no matter how long it took them to lose the ball...fact. 5 minutes before Olsson's dive for the pen, we had a perfectly legal goal ruled for offside even though it was clearly not so. Elliot deliberately stamping on Chimbonda's head! Where does it say in the rule book that this is allowed? And to talk about lucky goals? Funny that is because you don't seem to mind scoring them yourselves. Four of your eight in the league prior to sat were flukes. Fact!! Your real name isn't Cummings by any chance is it? And as far as implying that Jack was senile. I would never talk this way of any of your clubs recently sadly deceased legends. Unlike a lot of decent Clarets that I know, and the many thousands of others that i'm certain of, you are the opposite. You are a bitter sicko!! 34, oops, sorry, my mistake; 35 years and you've still not DUNN it!!! BRFC having the last laugh since 1979.......Oh and p.s. my report has gone in too.[/p][/quote]Hope you feel better for getting that off your chest. You need to chill out my friend, it's only a game. we.love.u.venkys
  • Score: -3

10:20pm Mon 16 Sep 13

we.love.u.venkys says...

doctordavros wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
doctordavros wrote:
Tatts wrote:
Harwoodstblue wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
FakeVilla_MTCabinet wrote:
Dublin Claret wrote:
No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job!
Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.
If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture.

Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out?

It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you.

Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.
You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games...
Wouldn't it?
11 games without a win in a two horse race is pretty awful whichever way you look at it!

35 years
"Welovethevenky


s" what a **** you are on the subject of the 34 years / and the 14 years before that
lets look at the last 125 years between Rovers and Burnley
1. Which team as won the most games between the clubs.
2. Which team as the most honours.
3. Which team as finnished the highest most in a season.
4. Which team as won the FA Cup the most.
5. Which team as won more titles.
6. Which team as had the highest attendances over the 125 years.

When you know the answer come back on here and tell us
Dear me son, how far back are we going? The 1800's? When football was played in top hats and each team had about 50 players. That's pretty pathetic.

As I've said before we all engaged in this futile weeing contest, the only statistic that truly matters is the League table. Check last years for clarification if you must, the table never lies, I think you'll see Blackburn somewhere around 17th place. That pretty shocking for a club that's spent the kind of money that buy league titles.

Look you can't have it both ways, if you want to reminisce about the good old days and bleat on about 34 years then at least have the common courtesy to consider the years previous, where you will find that Blackburn Rovers were battered left, right and center by a rampant decade of Claret dominance. 10 wins in a 14 game period, now that will take some beating. Makes your 7 wins in 34 years sound like a bit of a joke. Doesn't it.
You are the one that started it if all that matters is the league table now why did you go back to the 70s dick brain all I put was the facts
and you still did not give the answer hurts to much does it Burnley are and always have been a little team in all there 125 years in the football league.
We have done more / won more / remembered more now than Burney will ever even if they are still going in another 125 years have your look up at Burnley while it lasts you have been looking up at us for the past 34 years. We will not be looking up at you that long.
Also well we are at it all this only meeting 11 times in 34 years what about the behind closed doors friendly matches over the years I know of at least 4 in the 80s and early 90s rovers won all 4 if I remember.
Resorting to friendly matches? How the mighty have fallen.

I was talking League games. 10 Clarets wins in 14 games, 2 of those were draws. Quite a record that.

Look up.
[quote][p][bold]doctordavros[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doctordavros[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harwoodstblue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FakeVilla_MTCabinet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dublin Claret[/bold] wrote: No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job![/p][/quote]Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.[/p][/quote]If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture. Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out? It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you. Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.[/p][/quote]You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games... Wouldn't it?[/p][/quote]11 games without a win in a two horse race is pretty awful whichever way you look at it! 35 years[/p][/quote]"Welovethevenky s" what a **** you are on the subject of the 34 years / and the 14 years before that lets look at the last 125 years between Rovers and Burnley 1. Which team as won the most games between the clubs. 2. Which team as the most honours. 3. Which team as finnished the highest most in a season. 4. Which team as won the FA Cup the most. 5. Which team as won more titles. 6. Which team as had the highest attendances over the 125 years. When you know the answer come back on here and tell us[/p][/quote]Dear me son, how far back are we going? The 1800's? When football was played in top hats and each team had about 50 players. That's pretty pathetic. As I've said before we all engaged in this futile weeing contest, the only statistic that truly matters is the League table. Check last years for clarification if you must, the table never lies, I think you'll see Blackburn somewhere around 17th place. That pretty shocking for a club that's spent the kind of money that buy league titles. Look you can't have it both ways, if you want to reminisce about the good old days and bleat on about 34 years then at least have the common courtesy to consider the years previous, where you will find that Blackburn Rovers were battered left, right and center by a rampant decade of Claret dominance. 10 wins in a 14 game period, now that will take some beating. Makes your 7 wins in 34 years sound like a bit of a joke. Doesn't it.[/p][/quote]You are the one that started it if all that matters is the league table now why did you go back to the 70s dick brain all I put was the facts and you still did not give the answer hurts to much does it Burnley are and always have been a little team in all there 125 years in the football league. We have done more / won more / remembered more now than Burney will ever even if they are still going in another 125 years have your look up at Burnley while it lasts you have been looking up at us for the past 34 years. We will not be looking up at you that long. Also well we are at it all this only meeting 11 times in 34 years what about the behind closed doors friendly matches over the years I know of at least 4 in the 80s and early 90s rovers won all 4 if I remember.[/p][/quote]Resorting to friendly matches? How the mighty have fallen. I was talking League games. 10 Clarets wins in 14 games, 2 of those were draws. Quite a record that. Look up. we.love.u.venkys
  • Score: -5

11:38pm Mon 16 Sep 13

rovers matty says...

jack01 wrote:
Williamson bringing Ings down when he would have been clean through on goal is the equivalent of the referee bringing Rhodes back for no reason when he was one on one with the keeper. Given that Rhodes is a better player than Ings I'd say that the likelihood of both of those being a goal is high.
So Williamson was making up for the referees error earlier in the game.

Had Ings managed to score it would have been lucky, because at that stage Rovers were battering Burnley to try and grab the winner. In their desperation the clear the ball of the line Burnley were fortunate when they hoofed the ball up to Ings and he broke away.

Not sure I can agree that Rovers' goal was the 'freakiest of freak goals' though. Granted it was fortunate, but had Duff not been in the position he was or had he not got to the ball before Rhodes it would have been a certain goal anyway. The only one to blame is Arnfield for setting Jordan up so well. That wasn't bad luck but was the act of a player and a side terrified as history weighed on their shoulders.
liverpool v sunderland and a beachball! now thats a freaky kind of goal
[quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: Williamson bringing Ings down when he would have been clean through on goal is the equivalent of the referee bringing Rhodes back for no reason when he was one on one with the keeper. Given that Rhodes is a better player than Ings I'd say that the likelihood of both of those being a goal is high. So Williamson was making up for the referees error earlier in the game. Had Ings managed to score it would have been lucky, because at that stage Rovers were battering Burnley to try and grab the winner. In their desperation the clear the ball of the line Burnley were fortunate when they hoofed the ball up to Ings and he broke away. Not sure I can agree that Rovers' goal was the 'freakiest of freak goals' though. Granted it was fortunate, but had Duff not been in the position he was or had he not got to the ball before Rhodes it would have been a certain goal anyway. The only one to blame is Arnfield for setting Jordan up so well. That wasn't bad luck but was the act of a player and a side terrified as history weighed on their shoulders.[/p][/quote]liverpool v sunderland and a beachball! now thats a freaky kind of goal rovers matty
  • Score: 3

11:13am Tue 17 Sep 13

houseclaret says...

fickle fan wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
Yes, I think I would have expected a Burnley player to do the same but it doesn't hurt any less for that. Yet another late equaliser though. Getting a bit fed up with it now. As for the 34 years nonsense, I've noticed the media have picked up on it as well. Someone should tell them that we haven't played a game in anger for 29 of them.
Think you have to earn the right to play, it is not BRFC fault you have not played us for its,now jog on after looking at the stats which show where you have been for 35 years.29 years , BFC have spent years avoiding us plying their trade in the lower divisions. Think yourselves lucky you never witnessed the SAS tearing your defence to bits.
My point is that too many people are overstating the case. The only reason we have avoided each other for so long was down to Walker's money (and that is your good fortune). Do you honestly believe that your recent history would have been the same without it? The fact is we have avoided each other for the vast majority of that period and there is nothing anybody can do about that, but the "34 years" rings a bit hollow when it's only been about 5 active years (and that's bad enough) with NOBODY winning in the last 4 or so. .
[quote][p][bold]fickle fan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: Yes, I think I would have expected a Burnley player to do the same but it doesn't hurt any less for that. Yet another late equaliser though. Getting a bit fed up with it now. As for the 34 years nonsense, I've noticed the media have picked up on it as well. Someone should tell them that we haven't played a game in anger for 29 of them.[/p][/quote]Think you have to earn the right to play, it is not BRFC fault you have not played us for its,now jog on after looking at the stats which show where you have been for 35 years.29 years , BFC have spent years avoiding us plying their trade in the lower divisions. Think yourselves lucky you never witnessed the SAS tearing your defence to bits.[/p][/quote]My point is that too many people are overstating the case. The only reason we have avoided each other for so long was down to Walker's money (and that is your good fortune). Do you honestly believe that your recent history would have been the same without it? The fact is we have avoided each other for the vast majority of that period and there is nothing anybody can do about that, but the "34 years" rings a bit hollow when it's only been about 5 active years (and that's bad enough) with NOBODY winning in the last 4 or so. . houseclaret
  • Score: -3

11:38am Tue 17 Sep 13

hasslem hasslem says...

houseclaret wrote:
fickle fan wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
Yes, I think I would have expected a Burnley player to do the same but it doesn't hurt any less for that. Yet another late equaliser though. Getting a bit fed up with it now. As for the 34 years nonsense, I've noticed the media have picked up on it as well. Someone should tell them that we haven't played a game in anger for 29 of them.
Think you have to earn the right to play, it is not BRFC fault you have not played us for its,now jog on after looking at the stats which show where you have been for 35 years.29 years , BFC have spent years avoiding us plying their trade in the lower divisions. Think yourselves lucky you never witnessed the SAS tearing your defence to bits.
My point is that too many people are overstating the case. The only reason we have avoided each other for so long was down to Walker's money (and that is your good fortune). Do you honestly believe that your recent history would have been the same without it? The fact is we have avoided each other for the vast majority of that period and there is nothing anybody can do about that, but the "34 years" rings a bit hollow when it's only been about 5 active years (and that's bad enough) with NOBODY winning in the last 4 or so. .
nonsense - jack walker took over in 91/92 season - you have not beaten us since 1979.

jack died in 2000

so, 12 years before jack and 13 years after jack making up 25 of the 34 years. that ok for you.
[quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fickle fan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: Yes, I think I would have expected a Burnley player to do the same but it doesn't hurt any less for that. Yet another late equaliser though. Getting a bit fed up with it now. As for the 34 years nonsense, I've noticed the media have picked up on it as well. Someone should tell them that we haven't played a game in anger for 29 of them.[/p][/quote]Think you have to earn the right to play, it is not BRFC fault you have not played us for its,now jog on after looking at the stats which show where you have been for 35 years.29 years , BFC have spent years avoiding us plying their trade in the lower divisions. Think yourselves lucky you never witnessed the SAS tearing your defence to bits.[/p][/quote]My point is that too many people are overstating the case. The only reason we have avoided each other for so long was down to Walker's money (and that is your good fortune). Do you honestly believe that your recent history would have been the same without it? The fact is we have avoided each other for the vast majority of that period and there is nothing anybody can do about that, but the "34 years" rings a bit hollow when it's only been about 5 active years (and that's bad enough) with NOBODY winning in the last 4 or so. .[/p][/quote]nonsense - jack walker took over in 91/92 season - you have not beaten us since 1979. jack died in 2000 so, 12 years before jack and 13 years after jack making up 25 of the 34 years. that ok for you. hasslem hasslem
  • Score: 4

1:28pm Tue 17 Sep 13

houseclaret says...

hasslem hasslem wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
fickle fan wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
Yes, I think I would have expected a Burnley player to do the same but it doesn't hurt any less for that. Yet another late equaliser though. Getting a bit fed up with it now. As for the 34 years nonsense, I've noticed the media have picked up on it as well. Someone should tell them that we haven't played a game in anger for 29 of them.
Think you have to earn the right to play, it is not BRFC fault you have not played us for its,now jog on after looking at the stats which show where you have been for 35 years.29 years , BFC have spent years avoiding us plying their trade in the lower divisions. Think yourselves lucky you never witnessed the SAS tearing your defence to bits.
My point is that too many people are overstating the case. The only reason we have avoided each other for so long was down to Walker's money (and that is your good fortune). Do you honestly believe that your recent history would have been the same without it? The fact is we have avoided each other for the vast majority of that period and there is nothing anybody can do about that, but the "34 years" rings a bit hollow when it's only been about 5 active years (and that's bad enough) with NOBODY winning in the last 4 or so. .
nonsense - jack walker took over in 91/92 season - you have not beaten us since 1979.

jack died in 2000

so, 12 years before jack and 13 years after jack making up 25 of the 34 years. that ok for you.
At what point did I say that Walkers money was the reason we haven't beaten you? What I said was his cash is the reason we haven't played each other so much. Incidentally (and I haven't checked so it is a genuine question) how many times did we play each other before Walker after '79. We admittedly had the worst period in our history at the time (4th division, the Orient game and all that), but the bulk of your "34 years" has been post Walker and that is a fact.
[quote][p][bold]hasslem hasslem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fickle fan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: Yes, I think I would have expected a Burnley player to do the same but it doesn't hurt any less for that. Yet another late equaliser though. Getting a bit fed up with it now. As for the 34 years nonsense, I've noticed the media have picked up on it as well. Someone should tell them that we haven't played a game in anger for 29 of them.[/p][/quote]Think you have to earn the right to play, it is not BRFC fault you have not played us for its,now jog on after looking at the stats which show where you have been for 35 years.29 years , BFC have spent years avoiding us plying their trade in the lower divisions. Think yourselves lucky you never witnessed the SAS tearing your defence to bits.[/p][/quote]My point is that too many people are overstating the case. The only reason we have avoided each other for so long was down to Walker's money (and that is your good fortune). Do you honestly believe that your recent history would have been the same without it? The fact is we have avoided each other for the vast majority of that period and there is nothing anybody can do about that, but the "34 years" rings a bit hollow when it's only been about 5 active years (and that's bad enough) with NOBODY winning in the last 4 or so. .[/p][/quote]nonsense - jack walker took over in 91/92 season - you have not beaten us since 1979. jack died in 2000 so, 12 years before jack and 13 years after jack making up 25 of the 34 years. that ok for you.[/p][/quote]At what point did I say that Walkers money was the reason we haven't beaten you? What I said was his cash is the reason we haven't played each other so much. Incidentally (and I haven't checked so it is a genuine question) how many times did we play each other before Walker after '79. We admittedly had the worst period in our history at the time (4th division, the Orient game and all that), but the bulk of your "34 years" has been post Walker and that is a fact. houseclaret
  • Score: -2

1:42pm Tue 17 Sep 13

houseclaret says...

houseclaret wrote:
hasslem hasslem wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
fickle fan wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
Yes, I think I would have expected a Burnley player to do the same but it doesn't hurt any less for that. Yet another late equaliser though. Getting a bit fed up with it now. As for the 34 years nonsense, I've noticed the media have picked up on it as well. Someone should tell them that we haven't played a game in anger for 29 of them.
Think you have to earn the right to play, it is not BRFC fault you have not played us for its,now jog on after looking at the stats which show where you have been for 35 years.29 years , BFC have spent years avoiding us plying their trade in the lower divisions. Think yourselves lucky you never witnessed the SAS tearing your defence to bits.
My point is that too many people are overstating the case. The only reason we have avoided each other for so long was down to Walker's money (and that is your good fortune). Do you honestly believe that your recent history would have been the same without it? The fact is we have avoided each other for the vast majority of that period and there is nothing anybody can do about that, but the "34 years" rings a bit hollow when it's only been about 5 active years (and that's bad enough) with NOBODY winning in the last 4 or so. .
nonsense - jack walker took over in 91/92 season - you have not beaten us since 1979.

jack died in 2000

so, 12 years before jack and 13 years after jack making up 25 of the 34 years. that ok for you.
At what point did I say that Walkers money was the reason we haven't beaten you? What I said was his cash is the reason we haven't played each other so much. Incidentally (and I haven't checked so it is a genuine question) how many times did we play each other before Walker after '79. We admittedly had the worst period in our history at the time (4th division, the Orient game and all that), but the bulk of your "34 years" has been post Walker and that is a fact.
By the way, the period since Walker's death is covered by his legacy which allowed you to punch massively above your weight in the Premier league until a couple of years ago, so your "13 years" since 2000 is a bit an irrelevance.
[quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hasslem hasslem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fickle fan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: Yes, I think I would have expected a Burnley player to do the same but it doesn't hurt any less for that. Yet another late equaliser though. Getting a bit fed up with it now. As for the 34 years nonsense, I've noticed the media have picked up on it as well. Someone should tell them that we haven't played a game in anger for 29 of them.[/p][/quote]Think you have to earn the right to play, it is not BRFC fault you have not played us for its,now jog on after looking at the stats which show where you have been for 35 years.29 years , BFC have spent years avoiding us plying their trade in the lower divisions. Think yourselves lucky you never witnessed the SAS tearing your defence to bits.[/p][/quote]My point is that too many people are overstating the case. The only reason we have avoided each other for so long was down to Walker's money (and that is your good fortune). Do you honestly believe that your recent history would have been the same without it? The fact is we have avoided each other for the vast majority of that period and there is nothing anybody can do about that, but the "34 years" rings a bit hollow when it's only been about 5 active years (and that's bad enough) with NOBODY winning in the last 4 or so. .[/p][/quote]nonsense - jack walker took over in 91/92 season - you have not beaten us since 1979. jack died in 2000 so, 12 years before jack and 13 years after jack making up 25 of the 34 years. that ok for you.[/p][/quote]At what point did I say that Walkers money was the reason we haven't beaten you? What I said was his cash is the reason we haven't played each other so much. Incidentally (and I haven't checked so it is a genuine question) how many times did we play each other before Walker after '79. We admittedly had the worst period in our history at the time (4th division, the Orient game and all that), but the bulk of your "34 years" has been post Walker and that is a fact.[/p][/quote]By the way, the period since Walker's death is covered by his legacy which allowed you to punch massively above your weight in the Premier league until a couple of years ago, so your "13 years" since 2000 is a bit an irrelevance. houseclaret
  • Score: -2

2:02pm Tue 17 Sep 13

MxMave says...

Harwoodstblue wrote:
bring back the good old days wrote:
Don't really agree with the 'legend' tag being bandied about , I would much prefer the tag 'saviour'. I do not think Lee thinks of himself in that way and would have much prefered not to have been forced into that situation.
Yes, most of the Burnley lot are saying cheat etc. and their man would not stoop so law, but we all know thats utter balderdash. So just let them stay deluded in that mindset and don't lower to their level with 'hailing' this event.
He did what he felt he had to do and was to a large degree our 'saviour'.
There was no guarantee that Ings would have scored and in the event we will never know.
I agree, there is no guarantee Ings would have scored a he was to far out. I think Williamson's lack of fitness contributed to the incident but Ings went down easily....... now that's cheating.
Well done to the young lads, keep it up. Their heads never dropped like Burnleys' did and they fought to the end unlike the last couple of years.
Frankly, if I was a Burnley fan i'd be annoyed that Ings took the dive when he quite clearly could have kept going. Williamson had one hand around his midriff and Ing's acted as though he was mowed over on the m65.
To be fair I guess Ings was knackered at this point of the game and didn't have the energy to run the rest of the way at that pace.
[quote][p][bold]Harwoodstblue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bring back the good old days[/bold] wrote: Don't really agree with the 'legend' tag being bandied about , I would much prefer the tag 'saviour'. I do not think Lee thinks of himself in that way and would have much prefered not to have been forced into that situation. Yes, most of the Burnley lot are saying cheat etc. and their man would not stoop so law, but we all know thats utter balderdash. So just let them stay deluded in that mindset and don't lower to their level with 'hailing' this event. He did what he felt he had to do and was to a large degree our 'saviour'. There was no guarantee that Ings would have scored and in the event we will never know.[/p][/quote]I agree, there is no guarantee Ings would have scored a he was to far out. I think Williamson's lack of fitness contributed to the incident but Ings went down easily....... now that's cheating. Well done to the young lads, keep it up. Their heads never dropped like Burnleys' did and they fought to the end unlike the last couple of years.[/p][/quote]Frankly, if I was a Burnley fan i'd be annoyed that Ings took the dive when he quite clearly could have kept going. Williamson had one hand around his midriff and Ing's acted as though he was mowed over on the m65. To be fair I guess Ings was knackered at this point of the game and didn't have the energy to run the rest of the way at that pace. MxMave
  • Score: 1

2:47pm Tue 17 Sep 13

we.love.u.venkys says...

MxMave wrote:
Harwoodstblue wrote:
bring back the good old days wrote:
Don't really agree with the 'legend' tag being bandied about , I would much prefer the tag 'saviour'. I do not think Lee thinks of himself in that way and would have much prefered not to have been forced into that situation.
Yes, most of the Burnley lot are saying cheat etc. and their man would not stoop so law, but we all know thats utter balderdash. So just let them stay deluded in that mindset and don't lower to their level with 'hailing' this event.
He did what he felt he had to do and was to a large degree our 'saviour'.
There was no guarantee that Ings would have scored and in the event we will never know.
I agree, there is no guarantee Ings would have scored a he was to far out. I think Williamson's lack of fitness contributed to the incident but Ings went down easily....... now that's cheating.
Well done to the young lads, keep it up. Their heads never dropped like Burnleys' did and they fought to the end unlike the last couple of years.
Frankly, if I was a Burnley fan i'd be annoyed that Ings took the dive when he quite clearly could have kept going. Williamson had one hand around his midriff and Ing's acted as though he was mowed over on the m65.
To be fair I guess Ings was knackered at this point of the game and didn't have the energy to run the rest of the way at that pace.
Ings went past him like a rocket and Williamson could do nothing but cling on to hold him back. Disgraceful tackle from a low life football player. Just another example of cheating, dirty Blackburn.
[quote][p][bold]MxMave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harwoodstblue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bring back the good old days[/bold] wrote: Don't really agree with the 'legend' tag being bandied about , I would much prefer the tag 'saviour'. I do not think Lee thinks of himself in that way and would have much prefered not to have been forced into that situation. Yes, most of the Burnley lot are saying cheat etc. and their man would not stoop so law, but we all know thats utter balderdash. So just let them stay deluded in that mindset and don't lower to their level with 'hailing' this event. He did what he felt he had to do and was to a large degree our 'saviour'. There was no guarantee that Ings would have scored and in the event we will never know.[/p][/quote]I agree, there is no guarantee Ings would have scored a he was to far out. I think Williamson's lack of fitness contributed to the incident but Ings went down easily....... now that's cheating. Well done to the young lads, keep it up. Their heads never dropped like Burnleys' did and they fought to the end unlike the last couple of years.[/p][/quote]Frankly, if I was a Burnley fan i'd be annoyed that Ings took the dive when he quite clearly could have kept going. Williamson had one hand around his midriff and Ing's acted as though he was mowed over on the m65. To be fair I guess Ings was knackered at this point of the game and didn't have the energy to run the rest of the way at that pace.[/p][/quote]Ings went past him like a rocket and Williamson could do nothing but cling on to hold him back. Disgraceful tackle from a low life football player. Just another example of cheating, dirty Blackburn. we.love.u.venkys
  • Score: -2

3:03pm Tue 17 Sep 13

doctordavros says...

we.love.u.venkys wrote:
doctordavros wrote:
srvp28 wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
doctordavros wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
doctordavros wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
doctordavros wrote:
Tatts wrote:
Harwoodstblue wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
FakeVilla_MTCabinet wrote:
Dublin Claret wrote:
No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job!
Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.
If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture.

Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out?

It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you.

Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.
You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games...
Wouldn't it?
11 games without a win in a two horse race is pretty awful whichever way you look at it!

35 years
"Welovethevenky








s" what a **** you are on the subject of the 34 years / and the 14 years before that
lets look at the last 125 years between Rovers and Burnley
1. Which team as won the most games between the clubs.
2. Which team as the most honours.
3. Which team as finnished the highest most in a season.
4. Which team as won the FA Cup the most.
5. Which team as won more titles.
6. Which team as had the highest attendances over the 125 years.

When you know the answer come back on here and tell us
Dear me son, how far back are we going? The 1800's? When football was played in top hats and each team had about 50 players. That's pretty pathetic.

As I've said before we all engaged in this futile weeing contest, the only statistic that truly matters is the League table. Check last years for clarification if you must, the table never lies, I think you'll see Blackburn somewhere around 17th place. That pretty shocking for a club that's spent the kind of money that buy league titles.

Look you can't have it both ways, if you want to reminisce about the good old days and bleat on about 34 years then at least have the common courtesy to consider the years previous, where you will find that Blackburn Rovers were battered left, right and center by a rampant decade of Claret dominance. 10 wins in a 14 game period, now that will take some beating. Makes your 7 wins in 34 years sound like a bit of a joke. Doesn't it.
You are the one that started it if all that matters is the league table now why did you go back to the 70s dick brain all I put was the facts
and you still did not give the answer hurts to much does it Burnley are and always have been a little team in all there 125 years in the football league.
We have done more / won more / remembered more now than Burney will ever even if they are still going in another 125 years have your look up at Burnley while it lasts you have been looking up at us for the past 34 years. We will not be looking up at you that long.
Also well we are at it all this only meeting 11 times in 34 years what about the behind closed doors friendly matches over the years I know of at least 4 in the 80s and early 90s rovers won all 4 if I remember.
Resorting to friendly matches? How the mighty have fallen.

I was talking League games. 10 Clarets wins in 14 games, 2 of those were draws. Quite a record that.

Look up.
you still not answered the question answer it you moron and if I remember rightly some of Burnleys wins in the 70s where in the anglo Scottish cup ( friendly ) lets face it it was not a real competition they where really pre season friendly ( apart from when you played celtic it was a battlefield - that night burnley **** there selfs more than when they play Rovers HA HA HA )
10 league wins in 14 league games, 2 draws.

Face it Clampett, your team will never beat that record.

Do your homework next time you moron.
Sorry, but 10 wins from 14 games doesn't trump 6 consecutive wins or eleven games without a loss, no matter how you try and dress it up. It was a good run of games for Burnley, granted, but it wasn't without losses. As for never beating that ''record'', it's probably more achievable that you going another eight games against us without defeat.

Whilst everyone can acknowledge that the 60s and 70s were a golden age for Burnley FC, nobody, other than your own club's supporters, will remember or care about you winning 10 games from 14 because - and this is the part you need to pay attention to - it is not a unique achievement. Other clubs have similar records over their nearest rivals.

When you come to Ewood Park in March the media won't be saying, ''Rovers really need to start winning if they're going to beat Burnley's ''record'' of ten wins from fourteen games, although they do have that 'two-loss safety cushion' still intact."

That would be like them saying, "One thing we do know for sure is that Burnley are going to have to wait another season, at least, if they're to gain ground on Rovers in the 'league double' stakes, having bottled it at Turf Moor earlier in the season."
Right lets look at theses 34 years closely and the law of averages over the years and the teams we
both have had over the 34 years. Lets say we where able to play each other twice a season over the
34 years with the teams we had. Now the facts for 29 years we where in a higher league ( ie Prem /
old div 2 ).
Burnley ( old div 2 - 3 - 4 ( 15 mins from being out of football league all together - like to throw that
in ) Now we would of played each other 68 times over 34 years + the 2 FA Cup matches that makes
70 times. Now looking at the fact Rover being in a higher league plus better team for at least 30 years
adding the games we have played the law of averages would say out of the 70 games Rovers would
have probably would of won between 50 / 55 of them , Burnley probably would of won between 3 / 5
rest drawn. theses are drawn on the fact we where in a higher league and better players etc.
Now that puts your run in the 60s / 70s to shame.
Now again are you going to answer my orignal question.
What are you waffling on about mungo?

Burnley: 10 times winners against Blackburn Rovers in 14 games, with 2 games drawn - you'll never beat that record!

Now wipe your chin and get back to your crayons.
You keep saying the 34 years don't count as we have only played 9 matches in 34 years this what would of probably happened if we had played each other in the 34 years on the law of averages well if you don't understand it its your problem then again its a bit much for you to understand being from Burnley.
Now answer my question
[quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doctordavros[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]srvp28[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doctordavros[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doctordavros[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doctordavros[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harwoodstblue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FakeVilla_MTCabinet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dublin Claret[/bold] wrote: No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job![/p][/quote]Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.[/p][/quote]If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture. Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out? It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you. Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.[/p][/quote]You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games... Wouldn't it?[/p][/quote]11 games without a win in a two horse race is pretty awful whichever way you look at it! 35 years[/p][/quote]"Welovethevenky s" what a **** you are on the subject of the 34 years / and the 14 years before that lets look at the last 125 years between Rovers and Burnley 1. Which team as won the most games between the clubs. 2. Which team as the most honours. 3. Which team as finnished the highest most in a season. 4. Which team as won the FA Cup the most. 5. Which team as won more titles. 6. Which team as had the highest attendances over the 125 years. When you know the answer come back on here and tell us[/p][/quote]Dear me son, how far back are we going? The 1800's? When football was played in top hats and each team had about 50 players. That's pretty pathetic. As I've said before we all engaged in this futile weeing contest, the only statistic that truly matters is the League table. Check last years for clarification if you must, the table never lies, I think you'll see Blackburn somewhere around 17th place. That pretty shocking for a club that's spent the kind of money that buy league titles. Look you can't have it both ways, if you want to reminisce about the good old days and bleat on about 34 years then at least have the common courtesy to consider the years previous, where you will find that Blackburn Rovers were battered left, right and center by a rampant decade of Claret dominance. 10 wins in a 14 game period, now that will take some beating. Makes your 7 wins in 34 years sound like a bit of a joke. Doesn't it.[/p][/quote]You are the one that started it if all that matters is the league table now why did you go back to the 70s dick brain all I put was the facts and you still did not give the answer hurts to much does it Burnley are and always have been a little team in all there 125 years in the football league. We have done more / won more / remembered more now than Burney will ever even if they are still going in another 125 years have your look up at Burnley while it lasts you have been looking up at us for the past 34 years. We will not be looking up at you that long. Also well we are at it all this only meeting 11 times in 34 years what about the behind closed doors friendly matches over the years I know of at least 4 in the 80s and early 90s rovers won all 4 if I remember.[/p][/quote]Resorting to friendly matches? How the mighty have fallen. I was talking League games. 10 Clarets wins in 14 games, 2 of those were draws. Quite a record that. Look up.[/p][/quote]you still not answered the question answer it you moron and if I remember rightly some of Burnleys wins in the 70s where in the anglo Scottish cup ( friendly ) lets face it it was not a real competition they where really pre season friendly ( apart from when you played celtic it was a battlefield - that night burnley **** there selfs more than when they play Rovers HA HA HA )[/p][/quote]10 league wins in 14 league games, 2 draws. Face it Clampett, your team will never beat that record. Do your homework next time you moron.[/p][/quote]Sorry, but 10 wins from 14 games doesn't trump 6 consecutive wins or eleven games without a loss, no matter how you try and dress it up. It was a good run of games for Burnley, granted, but it wasn't without losses. As for never beating that ''record'', it's probably more achievable that you going another eight games against us without defeat. Whilst everyone can acknowledge that the 60s and 70s were a golden age for Burnley FC, nobody, other than your own club's supporters, will remember or care about you winning 10 games from 14 because - and this is the part you need to pay attention to - it is not a unique achievement. Other clubs have similar records over their nearest rivals. When you come to Ewood Park in March the media won't be saying, ''Rovers really need to start winning if they're going to beat Burnley's ''record'' of ten wins from fourteen games, although they do have that 'two-loss safety cushion' still intact." That would be like them saying, "One thing we do know for sure is that Burnley are going to have to wait another season, at least, if they're to gain ground on Rovers in the 'league double' stakes, having bottled it at Turf Moor earlier in the season."[/p][/quote]Right lets look at theses 34 years closely and the law of averages over the years and the teams we both have had over the 34 years. Lets say we where able to play each other twice a season over the 34 years with the teams we had. Now the facts for 29 years we where in a higher league ( ie Prem / old div 2 ). Burnley ( old div 2 - 3 - 4 ( 15 mins from being out of football league all together - like to throw that in ) Now we would of played each other 68 times over 34 years + the 2 FA Cup matches that makes 70 times. Now looking at the fact Rover being in a higher league plus better team for at least 30 years adding the games we have played the law of averages would say out of the 70 games Rovers would have probably would of won between 50 / 55 of them , Burnley probably would of won between 3 / 5 rest drawn. theses are drawn on the fact we where in a higher league and better players etc. Now that puts your run in the 60s / 70s to shame. Now again are you going to answer my orignal question.[/p][/quote]What are you waffling on about mungo? Burnley: 10 times winners against Blackburn Rovers in 14 games, with 2 games drawn - you'll never beat that record! Now wipe your chin and get back to your crayons.[/p][/quote]You keep saying the 34 years don't count as we have only played 9 matches in 34 years this what would of probably happened if we had played each other in the 34 years on the law of averages well if you don't understand it its your problem then again its a bit much for you to understand being from Burnley. Now answer my question doctordavros
  • Score: 2

3:37pm Tue 17 Sep 13

hasslem hasslem says...

houseclaret wrote:
hasslem hasslem wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
fickle fan wrote:
houseclaret wrote:
Yes, I think I would have expected a Burnley player to do the same but it doesn't hurt any less for that. Yet another late equaliser though. Getting a bit fed up with it now. As for the 34 years nonsense, I've noticed the media have picked up on it as well. Someone should tell them that we haven't played a game in anger for 29 of them.
Think you have to earn the right to play, it is not BRFC fault you have not played us for its,now jog on after looking at the stats which show where you have been for 35 years.29 years , BFC have spent years avoiding us plying their trade in the lower divisions. Think yourselves lucky you never witnessed the SAS tearing your defence to bits.
My point is that too many people are overstating the case. The only reason we have avoided each other for so long was down to Walker's money (and that is your good fortune). Do you honestly believe that your recent history would have been the same without it? The fact is we have avoided each other for the vast majority of that period and there is nothing anybody can do about that, but the "34 years" rings a bit hollow when it's only been about 5 active years (and that's bad enough) with NOBODY winning in the last 4 or so. .
nonsense - jack walker took over in 91/92 season - you have not beaten us since 1979.

jack died in 2000

so, 12 years before jack and 13 years after jack making up 25 of the 34 years. that ok for you.
At what point did I say that Walkers money was the reason we haven't beaten you? What I said was his cash is the reason we haven't played each other so much. Incidentally (and I haven't checked so it is a genuine question) how many times did we play each other before Walker after '79. We admittedly had the worst period in our history at the time (4th division, the Orient game and all that), but the bulk of your "34 years" has been post Walker and that is a fact.
"the bulk of our 34 years has been post walker and that is a fact" - depends on your definition of bulk. 12yrs before, 9 during and 13 post...so technically speaking the biggest component (38%) is indeed post walker. don't know if that is what you mean by bulk.

i am afraid you are asking the wrong person when it comes to numbers and dates of games - i remember certain games but no recollection of others. I particularly liked the 2 games in championship two seasons after we were relegated winning at your place when your thug tried to break dunny's leg and the reciprocal 5-0 at our place.

but my very favourite was the game late 70s or early 80s when your supporters climbed into the darwen end roof - started dismantling it and chucking the roof on your own supporters.....all hooliganism is to be condemned but the spectacular stupidity of (so called) burnley fans injuring their fellow fans was something i don't think i have ever witnessed before or since. your manager (frank casper?) had to go on the tannoy and plead with your idiots to stop chucking the roof at their mates. this was after the ref had taken the teams off.

oh and by the way i never mentioned cash once - you did, not me
[quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hasslem hasslem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fickle fan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]houseclaret[/bold] wrote: Yes, I think I would have expected a Burnley player to do the same but it doesn't hurt any less for that. Yet another late equaliser though. Getting a bit fed up with it now. As for the 34 years nonsense, I've noticed the media have picked up on it as well. Someone should tell them that we haven't played a game in anger for 29 of them.[/p][/quote]Think you have to earn the right to play, it is not BRFC fault you have not played us for its,now jog on after looking at the stats which show where you have been for 35 years.29 years , BFC have spent years avoiding us plying their trade in the lower divisions. Think yourselves lucky you never witnessed the SAS tearing your defence to bits.[/p][/quote]My point is that too many people are overstating the case. The only reason we have avoided each other for so long was down to Walker's money (and that is your good fortune). Do you honestly believe that your recent history would have been the same without it? The fact is we have avoided each other for the vast majority of that period and there is nothing anybody can do about that, but the "34 years" rings a bit hollow when it's only been about 5 active years (and that's bad enough) with NOBODY winning in the last 4 or so. .[/p][/quote]nonsense - jack walker took over in 91/92 season - you have not beaten us since 1979. jack died in 2000 so, 12 years before jack and 13 years after jack making up 25 of the 34 years. that ok for you.[/p][/quote]At what point did I say that Walkers money was the reason we haven't beaten you? What I said was his cash is the reason we haven't played each other so much. Incidentally (and I haven't checked so it is a genuine question) how many times did we play each other before Walker after '79. We admittedly had the worst period in our history at the time (4th division, the Orient game and all that), but the bulk of your "34 years" has been post Walker and that is a fact.[/p][/quote]"the bulk of our 34 years has been post walker and that is a fact" - depends on your definition of bulk. 12yrs before, 9 during and 13 post...so technically speaking the biggest component (38%) is indeed post walker. don't know if that is what you mean by bulk. i am afraid you are asking the wrong person when it comes to numbers and dates of games - i remember certain games but no recollection of others. I particularly liked the 2 games in championship two seasons after we were relegated winning at your place when your thug tried to break dunny's leg and the reciprocal 5-0 at our place. but my very favourite was the game late 70s or early 80s when your supporters climbed into the darwen end roof - started dismantling it and chucking the roof on your own supporters.....all hooliganism is to be condemned but the spectacular stupidity of (so called) burnley fans injuring their fellow fans was something i don't think i have ever witnessed before or since. your manager (frank casper?) had to go on the tannoy and plead with your idiots to stop chucking the roof at their mates. this was after the ref had taken the teams off. oh and by the way i never mentioned cash once - you did, not me hasslem hasslem
  • Score: 4

4:10pm Tue 17 Sep 13

we.love.u.venkys says...

srvp28 wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
doctordavros wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
doctordavros wrote:
srvp28 wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
doctordavros wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
doctordavros wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
doctordavros wrote:
Tatts wrote:
Harwoodstblue wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
FakeVilla_MTCabinet wrote:
Dublin Claret wrote:
No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job!
Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.
If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture.

Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out?

It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you.

Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.
You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games...
Wouldn't it?
11 games without a win in a two horse race is pretty awful whichever way you look at it!

35 years
"Welovethevenky











s" what a **** you are on the subject of the 34 years / and the 14 years before that
lets look at the last 125 years between Rovers and Burnley
1. Which team as won the most games between the clubs.
2. Which team as the most honours.
3. Which team as finnished the highest most in a season.
4. Which team as won the FA Cup the most.
5. Which team as won more titles.
6. Which team as had the highest attendances over the 125 years.

When you know the answer come back on here and tell us
Dear me son, how far back are we going? The 1800's? When football was played in top hats and each team had about 50 players. That's pretty pathetic.

As I've said before we all engaged in this futile weeing contest, the only statistic that truly matters is the League table. Check last years for clarification if you must, the table never lies, I think you'll see Blackburn somewhere around 17th place. That pretty shocking for a club that's spent the kind of money that buy league titles.

Look you can't have it both ways, if you want to reminisce about the good old days and bleat on about 34 years then at least have the common courtesy to consider the years previous, where you will find that Blackburn Rovers were battered left, right and center by a rampant decade of Claret dominance. 10 wins in a 14 game period, now that will take some beating. Makes your 7 wins in 34 years sound like a bit of a joke. Doesn't it.
You are the one that started it if all that matters is the league table now why did you go back to the 70s dick brain all I put was the facts
and you still did not give the answer hurts to much does it Burnley are and always have been a little team in all there 125 years in the football league.
We have done more / won more / remembered more now than Burney will ever even if they are still going in another 125 years have your look up at Burnley while it lasts you have been looking up at us for the past 34 years. We will not be looking up at you that long.
Also well we are at it all this only meeting 11 times in 34 years what about the behind closed doors friendly matches over the years I know of at least 4 in the 80s and early 90s rovers won all 4 if I remember.
Resorting to friendly matches? How the mighty have fallen.

I was talking League games. 10 Clarets wins in 14 games, 2 of those were draws. Quite a record that.

Look up.
you still not answered the question answer it you moron and if I remember rightly some of Burnleys wins in the 70s where in the anglo Scottish cup ( friendly ) lets face it it was not a real competition they where really pre season friendly ( apart from when you played celtic it was a battlefield - that night burnley **** there selfs more than when they play Rovers HA HA HA )
10 league wins in 14 league games, 2 draws.

Face it Clampett, your team will never beat that record.

Do your homework next time you moron.
Sorry, but 10 wins from 14 games doesn't trump 6 consecutive wins or eleven games without a loss, no matter how you try and dress it up. It was a good run of games for Burnley, granted, but it wasn't without losses. As for never beating that ''record'', it's probably more achievable that you going another eight games against us without defeat.

Whilst everyone can acknowledge that the 60s and 70s were a golden age for Burnley FC, nobody, other than your own club's supporters, will remember or care about you winning 10 games from 14 because - and this is the part you need to pay attention to - it is not a unique achievement. Other clubs have similar records over their nearest rivals.

When you come to Ewood Park in March the media won't be saying, ''Rovers really need to start winning if they're going to beat Burnley's ''record'' of ten wins from fourteen games, although they do have that 'two-loss safety cushion' still intact."

That would be like them saying, "One thing we do know for sure is that Burnley are going to have to wait another season, at least, if they're to gain ground on Rovers in the 'league double' stakes, having bottled it at Turf Moor earlier in the season."
Right lets look at theses 34 years closely and the law of averages over the years and the teams we
both have had over the 34 years. Lets say we where able to play each other twice a season over the
34 years with the teams we had. Now the facts for 29 years we where in a higher league ( ie Prem /
old div 2 ).
Burnley ( old div 2 - 3 - 4 ( 15 mins from being out of football league all together - like to throw that
in ) Now we would of played each other 68 times over 34 years + the 2 FA Cup matches that makes
70 times. Now looking at the fact Rover being in a higher league plus better team for at least 30 years
adding the games we have played the law of averages would say out of the 70 games Rovers would
have probably would of won between 50 / 55 of them , Burnley probably would of won between 3 / 5
rest drawn. theses are drawn on the fact we where in a higher league and better players etc.
Now that puts your run in the 60s / 70s to shame.
Now again are you going to answer my orignal question.
What are you waffling on about mungo?

Burnley: 10 times winners against Blackburn Rovers in 14 games, with 2 games drawn - you'll never beat that record!

Now wipe your chin and get back to your crayons.
You keep saying the 34 years don't count as we have only played 9 matches in 34 years this what would of probably happened if we had played each other in the 34 years on the law of averages well if you don't understand it its your problem then again its a bit much for you to understand being from Burnley.
Now answer my question
I think you need to go and get yourself an education. Since when did the law of averages apply to a competitive sport? It's not tossing a coin you fool.

But lets humour you, if you were to insist on applying the averaging process then by rights you must also average the playing field between the two clubs, hence all things being equal if you take away the vast sums of money pumped into Blackburn Rovers during this successful period that you so lovingly recall then I'm pretty sure that Burnley would have continued their very successful run of 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games, with 2 games drawn. Then we'd never have heard of your piddling 7 wins over a 34 year period during which the two hardly met.
You've just disproved your own argument. When the rivalry was renewed just three years later it was still a very even playing field, yet you lost both games that season.

Still, it's not like it was actually you who desperately needed to wipe their chin the moment you discovered (via Wikipedia, no doubt) that there was a block of games (albeit ten years apart) that you could form into some kind of ''record''. Thank yourself luck that we didn't take what you wrote literally about 1962, or we'd remind you that we beat you twice that year too.

But, hey, it doesn't matter as nobody except you and a few Dingles will be aware of such a 'tremendous' achievement. Although, why you're so adamant that well never beat your ''record'' when we're still in a position to surpass it is beyond me.

Like I've already pointed out to you, it still doesn't trump six consecutive wins or, better still, going eleven games undefeated. In those seventeen glorious seasons you still lost to Rovers.
Of course it does you muppet, 10 Burnley wins in 14 consecutive seasons surpasses 6 Blackburn wins in 17 seasons, you really are struggling with these numbers now aren't you?

The fact remains that Burnley's incredible 10 wins in only 14 seasons against Blackburn Rovers, with 2 games drawn has shut most of you mongrels right up, apart from the more feeble minded who insist on coming back with lies and ineffectual arguments. Blackburn enjoy the 34 year unbeaten run and take great please in chanting about it but fail to acknowledge an even greater feat. Unfortunately it cannot be wiped from your clubs history so you'll just have to accept it.

I suggest some of you consult the history books yourselves before bleating on about 34 years, especially given that the majority of you Blackburn fans were around his time but a twinkle in a taxi driver's eye.
[quote][p][bold]srvp28[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doctordavros[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doctordavros[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]srvp28[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doctordavros[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doctordavros[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doctordavros[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harwoodstblue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FakeVilla_MTCabinet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dublin Claret[/bold] wrote: No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job![/p][/quote]Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.[/p][/quote]If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture. Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out? It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you. Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.[/p][/quote]You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games... Wouldn't it?[/p][/quote]11 games without a win in a two horse race is pretty awful whichever way you look at it! 35 years[/p][/quote]"Welovethevenky s" what a **** you are on the subject of the 34 years / and the 14 years before that lets look at the last 125 years between Rovers and Burnley 1. Which team as won the most games between the clubs. 2. Which team as the most honours. 3. Which team as finnished the highest most in a season. 4. Which team as won the FA Cup the most. 5. Which team as won more titles. 6. Which team as had the highest attendances over the 125 years. When you know the answer come back on here and tell us[/p][/quote]Dear me son, how far back are we going? The 1800's? When football was played in top hats and each team had about 50 players. That's pretty pathetic. As I've said before we all engaged in this futile weeing contest, the only statistic that truly matters is the League table. Check last years for clarification if you must, the table never lies, I think you'll see Blackburn somewhere around 17th place. That pretty shocking for a club that's spent the kind of money that buy league titles. Look you can't have it both ways, if you want to reminisce about the good old days and bleat on about 34 years then at least have the common courtesy to consider the years previous, where you will find that Blackburn Rovers were battered left, right and center by a rampant decade of Claret dominance. 10 wins in a 14 game period, now that will take some beating. Makes your 7 wins in 34 years sound like a bit of a joke. Doesn't it.[/p][/quote]You are the one that started it if all that matters is the league table now why did you go back to the 70s dick brain all I put was the facts and you still did not give the answer hurts to much does it Burnley are and always have been a little team in all there 125 years in the football league. We have done more / won more / remembered more now than Burney will ever even if they are still going in another 125 years have your look up at Burnley while it lasts you have been looking up at us for the past 34 years. We will not be looking up at you that long. Also well we are at it all this only meeting 11 times in 34 years what about the behind closed doors friendly matches over the years I know of at least 4 in the 80s and early 90s rovers won all 4 if I remember.[/p][/quote]Resorting to friendly matches? How the mighty have fallen. I was talking League games. 10 Clarets wins in 14 games, 2 of those were draws. Quite a record that. Look up.[/p][/quote]you still not answered the question answer it you moron and if I remember rightly some of Burnleys wins in the 70s where in the anglo Scottish cup ( friendly ) lets face it it was not a real competition they where really pre season friendly ( apart from when you played celtic it was a battlefield - that night burnley **** there selfs more than when they play Rovers HA HA HA )[/p][/quote]10 league wins in 14 league games, 2 draws. Face it Clampett, your team will never beat that record. Do your homework next time you moron.[/p][/quote]Sorry, but 10 wins from 14 games doesn't trump 6 consecutive wins or eleven games without a loss, no matter how you try and dress it up. It was a good run of games for Burnley, granted, but it wasn't without losses. As for never beating that ''record'', it's probably more achievable that you going another eight games against us without defeat. Whilst everyone can acknowledge that the 60s and 70s were a golden age for Burnley FC, nobody, other than your own club's supporters, will remember or care about you winning 10 games from 14 because - and this is the part you need to pay attention to - it is not a unique achievement. Other clubs have similar records over their nearest rivals. When you come to Ewood Park in March the media won't be saying, ''Rovers really need to start winning if they're going to beat Burnley's ''record'' of ten wins from fourteen games, although they do have that 'two-loss safety cushion' still intact." That would be like them saying, "One thing we do know for sure is that Burnley are going to have to wait another season, at least, if they're to gain ground on Rovers in the 'league double' stakes, having bottled it at Turf Moor earlier in the season."[/p][/quote]Right lets look at theses 34 years closely and the law of averages over the years and the teams we both have had over the 34 years. Lets say we where able to play each other twice a season over the 34 years with the teams we had. Now the facts for 29 years we where in a higher league ( ie Prem / old div 2 ). Burnley ( old div 2 - 3 - 4 ( 15 mins from being out of football league all together - like to throw that in ) Now we would of played each other 68 times over 34 years + the 2 FA Cup matches that makes 70 times. Now looking at the fact Rover being in a higher league plus better team for at least 30 years adding the games we have played the law of averages would say out of the 70 games Rovers would have probably would of won between 50 / 55 of them , Burnley probably would of won between 3 / 5 rest drawn. theses are drawn on the fact we where in a higher league and better players etc. Now that puts your run in the 60s / 70s to shame. Now again are you going to answer my orignal question.[/p][/quote]What are you waffling on about mungo? Burnley: 10 times winners against Blackburn Rovers in 14 games, with 2 games drawn - you'll never beat that record! Now wipe your chin and get back to your crayons.[/p][/quote]You keep saying the 34 years don't count as we have only played 9 matches in 34 years this what would of probably happened if we had played each other in the 34 years on the law of averages well if you don't understand it its your problem then again its a bit much for you to understand being from Burnley. Now answer my question[/p][/quote]I think you need to go and get yourself an education. Since when did the law of averages apply to a competitive sport? It's not tossing a coin you fool. But lets humour you, if you were to insist on applying the averaging process then by rights you must also average the playing field between the two clubs, hence all things being equal if you take away the vast sums of money pumped into Blackburn Rovers during this successful period that you so lovingly recall then I'm pretty sure that Burnley would have continued their very successful run of 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games, with 2 games drawn. Then we'd never have heard of your piddling 7 wins over a 34 year period during which the two hardly met.[/p][/quote]You've just disproved your own argument. When the rivalry was renewed just three years later it was still a very even playing field, yet you lost both games that season. Still, it's not like it was actually you who desperately needed to wipe their chin the moment you discovered (via Wikipedia, no doubt) that there was a block of games (albeit ten years apart) that you could form into some kind of ''record''. Thank yourself luck that we didn't take what you wrote literally about 1962, or we'd remind you that we beat you twice that year too. But, hey, it doesn't matter as nobody except you and a few Dingles will be aware of such a 'tremendous' achievement. Although, why you're so adamant that well never beat your ''record'' when we're still in a position to surpass it is beyond me. Like I've already pointed out to you, it still doesn't trump six consecutive wins or, better still, going eleven games undefeated. In those seventeen glorious seasons you still lost to Rovers.[/p][/quote]Of course it does you muppet, 10 Burnley wins in 14 consecutive seasons surpasses 6 Blackburn wins in 17 seasons, you really are struggling with these numbers now aren't you? The fact remains that Burnley's incredible 10 wins in only 14 seasons against Blackburn Rovers, with 2 games drawn has shut most of you mongrels right up, apart from the more feeble minded who insist on coming back with lies and ineffectual arguments. Blackburn enjoy the 34 year unbeaten run and take great please in chanting about it but fail to acknowledge an even greater feat. Unfortunately it cannot be wiped from your clubs history so you'll just have to accept it. I suggest some of you consult the history books yourselves before bleating on about 34 years, especially given that the majority of you Blackburn fans were around his time but a twinkle in a taxi driver's eye. we.love.u.venkys
  • Score: -6

4:52pm Tue 17 Sep 13

srvp28 says...

we.love.u.venkys wrote:
srvp28 wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
doctordavros wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
doctordavros wrote:
srvp28 wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
doctordavros wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
doctordavros wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
doctordavros wrote:
Tatts wrote:
Harwoodstblue wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
FakeVilla_MTCabinet wrote:
Dublin Claret wrote:
No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job!
Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.
If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture.

Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out?

It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you.

Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.
You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games...
Wouldn't it?
11 games without a win in a two horse race is pretty awful whichever way you look at it!

35 years
"Welovethevenky












s" what a **** you are on the subject of the 34 years / and the 14 years before that
lets look at the last 125 years between Rovers and Burnley
1. Which team as won the most games between the clubs.
2. Which team as the most honours.
3. Which team as finnished the highest most in a season.
4. Which team as won the FA Cup the most.
5. Which team as won more titles.
6. Which team as had the highest attendances over the 125 years.

When you know the answer come back on here and tell us
Dear me son, how far back are we going? The 1800's? When football was played in top hats and each team had about 50 players. That's pretty pathetic.

As I've said before we all engaged in this futile weeing contest, the only statistic that truly matters is the League table. Check last years for clarification if you must, the table never lies, I think you'll see Blackburn somewhere around 17th place. That pretty shocking for a club that's spent the kind of money that buy league titles.

Look you can't have it both ways, if you want to reminisce about the good old days and bleat on about 34 years then at least have the common courtesy to consider the years previous, where you will find that Blackburn Rovers were battered left, right and center by a rampant decade of Claret dominance. 10 wins in a 14 game period, now that will take some beating. Makes your 7 wins in 34 years sound like a bit of a joke. Doesn't it.
You are the one that started it if all that matters is the league table now why did you go back to the 70s dick brain all I put was the facts
and you still did not give the answer hurts to much does it Burnley are and always have been a little team in all there 125 years in the football league.
We have done more / won more / remembered more now than Burney will ever even if they are still going in another 125 years have your look up at Burnley while it lasts you have been looking up at us for the past 34 years. We will not be looking up at you that long.
Also well we are at it all this only meeting 11 times in 34 years what about the behind closed doors friendly matches over the years I know of at least 4 in the 80s and early 90s rovers won all 4 if I remember.
Resorting to friendly matches? How the mighty have fallen.

I was talking League games. 10 Clarets wins in 14 games, 2 of those were draws. Quite a record that.

Look up.
you still not answered the question answer it you moron and if I remember rightly some of Burnleys wins in the 70s where in the anglo Scottish cup ( friendly ) lets face it it was not a real competition they where really pre season friendly ( apart from when you played celtic it was a battlefield - that night burnley **** there selfs more than when they play Rovers HA HA HA )
10 league wins in 14 league games, 2 draws.

Face it Clampett, your team will never beat that record.

Do your homework next time you moron.
Sorry, but 10 wins from 14 games doesn't trump 6 consecutive wins or eleven games without a loss, no matter how you try and dress it up. It was a good run of games for Burnley, granted, but it wasn't without losses. As for never beating that ''record'', it's probably more achievable that you going another eight games against us without defeat.

Whilst everyone can acknowledge that the 60s and 70s were a golden age for Burnley FC, nobody, other than your own club's supporters, will remember or care about you winning 10 games from 14 because - and this is the part you need to pay attention to - it is not a unique achievement. Other clubs have similar records over their nearest rivals.

When you come to Ewood Park in March the media won't be saying, ''Rovers really need to start winning if they're going to beat Burnley's ''record'' of ten wins from fourteen games, although they do have that 'two-loss safety cushion' still intact."

That would be like them saying, "One thing we do know for sure is that Burnley are going to have to wait another season, at least, if they're to gain ground on Rovers in the 'league double' stakes, having bottled it at Turf Moor earlier in the season."
Right lets look at theses 34 years closely and the law of averages over the years and the teams we
both have had over the 34 years. Lets say we where able to play each other twice a season over the
34 years with the teams we had. Now the facts for 29 years we where in a higher league ( ie Prem /
old div 2 ).
Burnley ( old div 2 - 3 - 4 ( 15 mins from being out of football league all together - like to throw that
in ) Now we would of played each other 68 times over 34 years + the 2 FA Cup matches that makes
70 times. Now looking at the fact Rover being in a higher league plus better team for at least 30 years
adding the games we have played the law of averages would say out of the 70 games Rovers would
have probably would of won between 50 / 55 of them , Burnley probably would of won between 3 / 5
rest drawn. theses are drawn on the fact we where in a higher league and better players etc.
Now that puts your run in the 60s / 70s to shame.
Now again are you going to answer my orignal question.
What are you waffling on about mungo?

Burnley: 10 times winners against Blackburn Rovers in 14 games, with 2 games drawn - you'll never beat that record!

Now wipe your chin and get back to your crayons.
You keep saying the 34 years don't count as we have only played 9 matches in 34 years this what would of probably happened if we had played each other in the 34 years on the law of averages well if you don't understand it its your problem then again its a bit much for you to understand being from Burnley.
Now answer my question
I think you need to go and get yourself an education. Since when did the law of averages apply to a competitive sport? It's not tossing a coin you fool.

But lets humour you, if you were to insist on applying the averaging process then by rights you must also average the playing field between the two clubs, hence all things being equal if you take away the vast sums of money pumped into Blackburn Rovers during this successful period that you so lovingly recall then I'm pretty sure that Burnley would have continued their very successful run of 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games, with 2 games drawn. Then we'd never have heard of your piddling 7 wins over a 34 year period during which the two hardly met.
You've just disproved your own argument. When the rivalry was renewed just three years later it was still a very even playing field, yet you lost both games that season.

Still, it's not like it was actually you who desperately needed to wipe their chin the moment you discovered (via Wikipedia, no doubt) that there was a block of games (albeit ten years apart) that you could form into some kind of ''record''. Thank yourself luck that we didn't take what you wrote literally about 1962, or we'd remind you that we beat you twice that year too.

But, hey, it doesn't matter as nobody except you and a few Dingles will be aware of such a 'tremendous' achievement. Although, why you're so adamant that well never beat your ''record'' when we're still in a position to surpass it is beyond me.

Like I've already pointed out to you, it still doesn't trump six consecutive wins or, better still, going eleven games undefeated. In those seventeen glorious seasons you still lost to Rovers.
Of course it does you muppet, 10 Burnley wins in 14 consecutive seasons surpasses 6 Blackburn wins in 17 seasons, you really are struggling with these numbers now aren't you?

The fact remains that Burnley's incredible 10 wins in only 14 seasons against Blackburn Rovers, with 2 games drawn has shut most of you mongrels right up, apart from the more feeble minded who insist on coming back with lies and ineffectual arguments. Blackburn enjoy the 34 year unbeaten run and take great please in chanting about it but fail to acknowledge an even greater feat. Unfortunately it cannot be wiped from your clubs history so you'll just have to accept it.

I suggest some of you consult the history books yourselves before bleating on about 34 years, especially given that the majority of you Blackburn fans were around his time but a twinkle in a taxi driver's eye.
Struggling with numbers? Firstly, it was 10 wins in 17 seasons (including a ten year gap), not 14 consecutive seasons. If you're referring to consecutive seasons that you actually played us, and it seems that you are, it was 6 consecutive wins in three consecutive seasons you moron. Also, an 11 game unbeaten run easily beats your 'won some, drew one, won one, lost one, won some more, etc.' ''record''. Don't believe me, ask any fan who isn't a Rovers fan or a Dingle which they'd prefer to have, I did and the answer doesn't favour you. And guess what, that's something you can't erase from your record books either.

So, would you care to point out exactly what it is I'm lying about? Oh, and when you can't come up with a factual answer to that question, perhaps you'd like to try and answer the other question you seem to keep dodging. Why do you spend all day, every day, on Rovers threads?
[quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]srvp28[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doctordavros[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doctordavros[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]srvp28[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doctordavros[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doctordavros[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doctordavros[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harwoodstblue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FakeVilla_MTCabinet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dublin Claret[/bold] wrote: No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job![/p][/quote]Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.[/p][/quote]If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture. Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out? It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you. Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.[/p][/quote]You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games... Wouldn't it?[/p][/quote]11 games without a win in a two horse race is pretty awful whichever way you look at it! 35 years[/p][/quote]"Welovethevenky s" what a **** you are on the subject of the 34 years / and the 14 years before that lets look at the last 125 years between Rovers and Burnley 1. Which team as won the most games between the clubs. 2. Which team as the most honours. 3. Which team as finnished the highest most in a season. 4. Which team as won the FA Cup the most. 5. Which team as won more titles. 6. Which team as had the highest attendances over the 125 years. When you know the answer come back on here and tell us[/p][/quote]Dear me son, how far back are we going? The 1800's? When football was played in top hats and each team had about 50 players. That's pretty pathetic. As I've said before we all engaged in this futile weeing contest, the only statistic that truly matters is the League table. Check last years for clarification if you must, the table never lies, I think you'll see Blackburn somewhere around 17th place. That pretty shocking for a club that's spent the kind of money that buy league titles. Look you can't have it both ways, if you want to reminisce about the good old days and bleat on about 34 years then at least have the common courtesy to consider the years previous, where you will find that Blackburn Rovers were battered left, right and center by a rampant decade of Claret dominance. 10 wins in a 14 game period, now that will take some beating. Makes your 7 wins in 34 years sound like a bit of a joke. Doesn't it.[/p][/quote]You are the one that started it if all that matters is the league table now why did you go back to the 70s dick brain all I put was the facts and you still did not give the answer hurts to much does it Burnley are and always have been a little team in all there 125 years in the football league. We have done more / won more / remembered more now than Burney will ever even if they are still going in another 125 years have your look up at Burnley while it lasts you have been looking up at us for the past 34 years. We will not be looking up at you that long. Also well we are at it all this only meeting 11 times in 34 years what about the behind closed doors friendly matches over the years I know of at least 4 in the 80s and early 90s rovers won all 4 if I remember.[/p][/quote]Resorting to friendly matches? How the mighty have fallen. I was talking League games. 10 Clarets wins in 14 games, 2 of those were draws. Quite a record that. Look up.[/p][/quote]you still not answered the question answer it you moron and if I remember rightly some of Burnleys wins in the 70s where in the anglo Scottish cup ( friendly ) lets face it it was not a real competition they where really pre season friendly ( apart from when you played celtic it was a battlefield - that night burnley **** there selfs more than when they play Rovers HA HA HA )[/p][/quote]10 league wins in 14 league games, 2 draws. Face it Clampett, your team will never beat that record. Do your homework next time you moron.[/p][/quote]Sorry, but 10 wins from 14 games doesn't trump 6 consecutive wins or eleven games without a loss, no matter how you try and dress it up. It was a good run of games for Burnley, granted, but it wasn't without losses. As for never beating that ''record'', it's probably more achievable that you going another eight games against us without defeat. Whilst everyone can acknowledge that the 60s and 70s were a golden age for Burnley FC, nobody, other than your own club's supporters, will remember or care about you winning 10 games from 14 because - and this is the part you need to pay attention to - it is not a unique achievement. Other clubs have similar records over their nearest rivals. When you come to Ewood Park in March the media won't be saying, ''Rovers really need to start winning if they're going to beat Burnley's ''record'' of ten wins from fourteen games, although they do have that 'two-loss safety cushion' still intact." That would be like them saying, "One thing we do know for sure is that Burnley are going to have to wait another season, at least, if they're to gain ground on Rovers in the 'league double' stakes, having bottled it at Turf Moor earlier in the season."[/p][/quote]Right lets look at theses 34 years closely and the law of averages over the years and the teams we both have had over the 34 years. Lets say we where able to play each other twice a season over the 34 years with the teams we had. Now the facts for 29 years we where in a higher league ( ie Prem / old div 2 ). Burnley ( old div 2 - 3 - 4 ( 15 mins from being out of football league all together - like to throw that in ) Now we would of played each other 68 times over 34 years + the 2 FA Cup matches that makes 70 times. Now looking at the fact Rover being in a higher league plus better team for at least 30 years adding the games we have played the law of averages would say out of the 70 games Rovers would have probably would of won between 50 / 55 of them , Burnley probably would of won between 3 / 5 rest drawn. theses are drawn on the fact we where in a higher league and better players etc. Now that puts your run in the 60s / 70s to shame. Now again are you going to answer my orignal question.[/p][/quote]What are you waffling on about mungo? Burnley: 10 times winners against Blackburn Rovers in 14 games, with 2 games drawn - you'll never beat that record! Now wipe your chin and get back to your crayons.[/p][/quote]You keep saying the 34 years don't count as we have only played 9 matches in 34 years this what would of probably happened if we had played each other in the 34 years on the law of averages well if you don't understand it its your problem then again its a bit much for you to understand being from Burnley. Now answer my question[/p][/quote]I think you need to go and get yourself an education. Since when did the law of averages apply to a competitive sport? It's not tossing a coin you fool. But lets humour you, if you were to insist on applying the averaging process then by rights you must also average the playing field between the two clubs, hence all things being equal if you take away the vast sums of money pumped into Blackburn Rovers during this successful period that you so lovingly recall then I'm pretty sure that Burnley would have continued their very successful run of 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games, with 2 games drawn. Then we'd never have heard of your piddling 7 wins over a 34 year period during which the two hardly met.[/p][/quote]You've just disproved your own argument. When the rivalry was renewed just three years later it was still a very even playing field, yet you lost both games that season. Still, it's not like it was actually you who desperately needed to wipe their chin the moment you discovered (via Wikipedia, no doubt) that there was a block of games (albeit ten years apart) that you could form into some kind of ''record''. Thank yourself luck that we didn't take what you wrote literally about 1962, or we'd remind you that we beat you twice that year too. But, hey, it doesn't matter as nobody except you and a few Dingles will be aware of such a 'tremendous' achievement. Although, why you're so adamant that well never beat your ''record'' when we're still in a position to surpass it is beyond me. Like I've already pointed out to you, it still doesn't trump six consecutive wins or, better still, going eleven games undefeated. In those seventeen glorious seasons you still lost to Rovers.[/p][/quote]Of course it does you muppet, 10 Burnley wins in 14 consecutive seasons surpasses 6 Blackburn wins in 17 seasons, you really are struggling with these numbers now aren't you? The fact remains that Burnley's incredible 10 wins in only 14 seasons against Blackburn Rovers, with 2 games drawn has shut most of you mongrels right up, apart from the more feeble minded who insist on coming back with lies and ineffectual arguments. Blackburn enjoy the 34 year unbeaten run and take great please in chanting about it but fail to acknowledge an even greater feat. Unfortunately it cannot be wiped from your clubs history so you'll just have to accept it. I suggest some of you consult the history books yourselves before bleating on about 34 years, especially given that the majority of you Blackburn fans were around his time but a twinkle in a taxi driver's eye.[/p][/quote]Struggling with numbers? Firstly, it was 10 wins in 17 seasons (including a ten year gap), not 14 consecutive seasons. If you're referring to consecutive seasons that you actually played us, and it seems that you are, it was 6 consecutive wins in three consecutive seasons you moron. Also, an 11 game unbeaten run easily beats your 'won some, drew one, won one, lost one, won some more, etc.' ''record''. Don't believe me, ask any fan who isn't a Rovers fan or a Dingle which they'd prefer to have, I did and the answer doesn't favour you. And guess what, that's something you can't erase from your record books either. So, would you care to point out exactly what it is I'm lying about? Oh, and when you can't come up with a factual answer to that question, perhaps you'd like to try and answer the other question you seem to keep dodging. Why do you spend all day, every day, on Rovers threads? srvp28
  • Score: 6

5:13pm Tue 17 Sep 13

srvp28 says...

srvp28 wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
srvp28 wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
doctordavros wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
doctordavros wrote:
srvp28 wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
doctordavros wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
doctordavros wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
doctordavros wrote:
Tatts wrote:
Harwoodstblue wrote:
we.love.u.venkys wrote:
FakeVilla_MTCabinet wrote:
Dublin Claret wrote:
No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job!
Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.
If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture.

Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out?

It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you.

Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.
You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games...
Wouldn't it?
11 games without a win in a two horse race is pretty awful whichever way you look at it!

35 years
"Welovethevenky













s" what a **** you are on the subject of the 34 years / and the 14 years before that
lets look at the last 125 years between Rovers and Burnley
1. Which team as won the most games between the clubs.
2. Which team as the most honours.
3. Which team as finnished the highest most in a season.
4. Which team as won the FA Cup the most.
5. Which team as won more titles.
6. Which team as had the highest attendances over the 125 years.

When you know the answer come back on here and tell us
Dear me son, how far back are we going? The 1800's? When football was played in top hats and each team had about 50 players. That's pretty pathetic.

As I've said before we all engaged in this futile weeing contest, the only statistic that truly matters is the League table. Check last years for clarification if you must, the table never lies, I think you'll see Blackburn somewhere around 17th place. That pretty shocking for a club that's spent the kind of money that buy league titles.

Look you can't have it both ways, if you want to reminisce about the good old days and bleat on about 34 years then at least have the common courtesy to consider the years previous, where you will find that Blackburn Rovers were battered left, right and center by a rampant decade of Claret dominance. 10 wins in a 14 game period, now that will take some beating. Makes your 7 wins in 34 years sound like a bit of a joke. Doesn't it.
You are the one that started it if all that matters is the league table now why did you go back to the 70s dick brain all I put was the facts
and you still did not give the answer hurts to much does it Burnley are and always have been a little team in all there 125 years in the football league.
We have done more / won more / remembered more now than Burney will ever even if they are still going in another 125 years have your look up at Burnley while it lasts you have been looking up at us for the past 34 years. We will not be looking up at you that long.
Also well we are at it all this only meeting 11 times in 34 years what about the behind closed doors friendly matches over the years I know of at least 4 in the 80s and early 90s rovers won all 4 if I remember.
Resorting to friendly matches? How the mighty have fallen.

I was talking League games. 10 Clarets wins in 14 games, 2 of those were draws. Quite a record that.

Look up.
you still not answered the question answer it you moron and if I remember rightly some of Burnleys wins in the 70s where in the anglo Scottish cup ( friendly ) lets face it it was not a real competition they where really pre season friendly ( apart from when you played celtic it was a battlefield - that night burnley **** there selfs more than when they play Rovers HA HA HA )
10 league wins in 14 league games, 2 draws.

Face it Clampett, your team will never beat that record.

Do your homework next time you moron.
Sorry, but 10 wins from 14 games doesn't trump 6 consecutive wins or eleven games without a loss, no matter how you try and dress it up. It was a good run of games for Burnley, granted, but it wasn't without losses. As for never beating that ''record'', it's probably more achievable that you going another eight games against us without defeat.

Whilst everyone can acknowledge that the 60s and 70s were a golden age for Burnley FC, nobody, other than your own club's supporters, will remember or care about you winning 10 games from 14 because - and this is the part you need to pay attention to - it is not a unique achievement. Other clubs have similar records over their nearest rivals.

When you come to Ewood Park in March the media won't be saying, ''Rovers really need to start winning if they're going to beat Burnley's ''record'' of ten wins from fourteen games, although they do have that 'two-loss safety cushion' still intact."

That would be like them saying, "One thing we do know for sure is that Burnley are going to have to wait another season, at least, if they're to gain ground on Rovers in the 'league double' stakes, having bottled it at Turf Moor earlier in the season."
Right lets look at theses 34 years closely and the law of averages over the years and the teams we
both have had over the 34 years. Lets say we where able to play each other twice a season over the
34 years with the teams we had. Now the facts for 29 years we where in a higher league ( ie Prem /
old div 2 ).
Burnley ( old div 2 - 3 - 4 ( 15 mins from being out of football league all together - like to throw that
in ) Now we would of played each other 68 times over 34 years + the 2 FA Cup matches that makes
70 times. Now looking at the fact Rover being in a higher league plus better team for at least 30 years
adding the games we have played the law of averages would say out of the 70 games Rovers would
have probably would of won between 50 / 55 of them , Burnley probably would of won between 3 / 5
rest drawn. theses are drawn on the fact we where in a higher league and better players etc.
Now that puts your run in the 60s / 70s to shame.
Now again are you going to answer my orignal question.
What are you waffling on about mungo?

Burnley: 10 times winners against Blackburn Rovers in 14 games, with 2 games drawn - you'll never beat that record!

Now wipe your chin and get back to your crayons.
You keep saying the 34 years don't count as we have only played 9 matches in 34 years this what would of probably happened if we had played each other in the 34 years on the law of averages well if you don't understand it its your problem then again its a bit much for you to understand being from Burnley.
Now answer my question
I think you need to go and get yourself an education. Since when did the law of averages apply to a competitive sport? It's not tossing a coin you fool.

But lets humour you, if you were to insist on applying the averaging process then by rights you must also average the playing field between the two clubs, hence all things being equal if you take away the vast sums of money pumped into Blackburn Rovers during this successful period that you so lovingly recall then I'm pretty sure that Burnley would have continued their very successful run of 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games, with 2 games drawn. Then we'd never have heard of your piddling 7 wins over a 34 year period during which the two hardly met.
You've just disproved your own argument. When the rivalry was renewed just three years later it was still a very even playing field, yet you lost both games that season.

Still, it's not like it was actually you who desperately needed to wipe their chin the moment you discovered (via Wikipedia, no doubt) that there was a block of games (albeit ten years apart) that you could form into some kind of ''record''. Thank yourself luck that we didn't take what you wrote literally about 1962, or we'd remind you that we beat you twice that year too.

But, hey, it doesn't matter as nobody except you and a few Dingles will be aware of such a 'tremendous' achievement. Although, why you're so adamant that well never beat your ''record'' when we're still in a position to surpass it is beyond me.

Like I've already pointed out to you, it still doesn't trump six consecutive wins or, better still, going eleven games undefeated. In those seventeen glorious seasons you still lost to Rovers.
Of course it does you muppet, 10 Burnley wins in 14 consecutive seasons surpasses 6 Blackburn wins in 17 seasons, you really are struggling with these numbers now aren't you?

The fact remains that Burnley's incredible 10 wins in only 14 seasons against Blackburn Rovers, with 2 games drawn has shut most of you mongrels right up, apart from the more feeble minded who insist on coming back with lies and ineffectual arguments. Blackburn enjoy the 34 year unbeaten run and take great please in chanting about it but fail to acknowledge an even greater feat. Unfortunately it cannot be wiped from your clubs history so you'll just have to accept it.

I suggest some of you consult the history books yourselves before bleating on about 34 years, especially given that the majority of you Blackburn fans were around his time but a twinkle in a taxi driver's eye.
Struggling with numbers? Firstly, it was 10 wins in 17 seasons (including a ten year gap), not 14 consecutive seasons. If you're referring to consecutive seasons that you actually played us, and it seems that you are, it was 6 consecutive wins in three consecutive seasons you moron. Also, an 11 game unbeaten run easily beats your 'won some, drew one, won one, lost one, won some more, etc.' ''record''. Don't believe me, ask any fan who isn't a Rovers fan or a Dingle which they'd prefer to have, I did and the answer doesn't favour you. And guess what, that's something you can't erase from your record books either.

So, would you care to point out exactly what it is I'm lying about? Oh, and when you can't come up with a factual answer to that question, perhaps you'd like to try and answer the other question you seem to keep dodging. Why do you spend all day, every day, on Rovers threads?
As for having an ineffectual argument, it must be quite effectual if some sad Dingle felt the need to report it so as to get it removed.
[quote][p][bold]srvp28[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]srvp28[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doctordavros[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doctordavros[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]srvp28[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doctordavros[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doctordavros[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doctordavros[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harwoodstblue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we.love.u.venkys[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FakeVilla_MTCabinet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dublin Claret[/bold] wrote: No complaints from me with williamson, we would have done the exact same. Cracking game, rovers are a strong side who could be right in the mix. So the fact l'm disappointed with the result, shows me the progress we've made. To be a match for anyone in this league is an incredible achievement for a club with our budget. I think even the most biased rovers supporters would have to admit that Dyche is doing a pretty good job![/p][/quote]Wow an honest opinion, the game at ewood will be harder for you, it will be tough and it could swing either way, but when you factor in bogey side status. We will remain unbeaten again.[/p][/quote]If anything the game at Ewood will see ALL the pressure on Blackburn to retain their communal 34 year semi, giving Burnley even more freedom away from home to go and attack. By talking up this record (which by the way stands at 7 games won and 4 drawn over a period of 34 years) Blackburn have boxed themselves into a corner and stand to lose more than just a football match come the return fixture. Burnley have been desperately unlucky in the last two games against Blackburn, as acknowledged by several Rovers fans that I know personally and these things do have a habit of evening themselves out over time. Blackburn's luck has run out and as can be seen from the performances the pendulum is well and truly swinging in favour of the Clarets. Factor in the potential departure of Jordan Rhodes in January and failure of your manager to attract a competent replacement and the end of that record could well come on your home patch. Now wouldn't that be a good day out? It was a draw, probably on the balance of play a harsh result on Burnley but lets move on now. Banter aside, you haven't beaten us, and we haven't beaten you. Out of interest, if you look at your 34 year unbeaten run during which you have amassed a total of 7 wins and 4 draws, and compare this with the preceding 17 years from 1962 to 1979 you will see that Burnley managed 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games with 2 games drawn, including a 3-0 home win and a 4-1 spanking at Ewood. Says it all really, 10 wins for the Clarets in half the time. But we won't brag about it.[/p][/quote]You seem to be doing exactly that numpty. Yes it's only eleven games but if you had been good enough to play us more often (which you weren't ) during the 34 years it would have been more than 11 games... Wouldn't it?[/p][/quote]11 games without a win in a two horse race is pretty awful whichever way you look at it! 35 years[/p][/quote]"Welovethevenky s" what a **** you are on the subject of the 34 years / and the 14 years before that lets look at the last 125 years between Rovers and Burnley 1. Which team as won the most games between the clubs. 2. Which team as the most honours. 3. Which team as finnished the highest most in a season. 4. Which team as won the FA Cup the most. 5. Which team as won more titles. 6. Which team as had the highest attendances over the 125 years. When you know the answer come back on here and tell us[/p][/quote]Dear me son, how far back are we going? The 1800's? When football was played in top hats and each team had about 50 players. That's pretty pathetic. As I've said before we all engaged in this futile weeing contest, the only statistic that truly matters is the League table. Check last years for clarification if you must, the table never lies, I think you'll see Blackburn somewhere around 17th place. That pretty shocking for a club that's spent the kind of money that buy league titles. Look you can't have it both ways, if you want to reminisce about the good old days and bleat on about 34 years then at least have the common courtesy to consider the years previous, where you will find that Blackburn Rovers were battered left, right and center by a rampant decade of Claret dominance. 10 wins in a 14 game period, now that will take some beating. Makes your 7 wins in 34 years sound like a bit of a joke. Doesn't it.[/p][/quote]You are the one that started it if all that matters is the league table now why did you go back to the 70s dick brain all I put was the facts and you still did not give the answer hurts to much does it Burnley are and always have been a little team in all there 125 years in the football league. We have done more / won more / remembered more now than Burney will ever even if they are still going in another 125 years have your look up at Burnley while it lasts you have been looking up at us for the past 34 years. We will not be looking up at you that long. Also well we are at it all this only meeting 11 times in 34 years what about the behind closed doors friendly matches over the years I know of at least 4 in the 80s and early 90s rovers won all 4 if I remember.[/p][/quote]Resorting to friendly matches? How the mighty have fallen. I was talking League games. 10 Clarets wins in 14 games, 2 of those were draws. Quite a record that. Look up.[/p][/quote]you still not answered the question answer it you moron and if I remember rightly some of Burnleys wins in the 70s where in the anglo Scottish cup ( friendly ) lets face it it was not a real competition they where really pre season friendly ( apart from when you played celtic it was a battlefield - that night burnley **** there selfs more than when they play Rovers HA HA HA )[/p][/quote]10 league wins in 14 league games, 2 draws. Face it Clampett, your team will never beat that record. Do your homework next time you moron.[/p][/quote]Sorry, but 10 wins from 14 games doesn't trump 6 consecutive wins or eleven games without a loss, no matter how you try and dress it up. It was a good run of games for Burnley, granted, but it wasn't without losses. As for never beating that ''record'', it's probably more achievable that you going another eight games against us without defeat. Whilst everyone can acknowledge that the 60s and 70s were a golden age for Burnley FC, nobody, other than your own club's supporters, will remember or care about you winning 10 games from 14 because - and this is the part you need to pay attention to - it is not a unique achievement. Other clubs have similar records over their nearest rivals. When you come to Ewood Park in March the media won't be saying, ''Rovers really need to start winning if they're going to beat Burnley's ''record'' of ten wins from fourteen games, although they do have that 'two-loss safety cushion' still intact." That would be like them saying, "One thing we do know for sure is that Burnley are going to have to wait another season, at least, if they're to gain ground on Rovers in the 'league double' stakes, having bottled it at Turf Moor earlier in the season."[/p][/quote]Right lets look at theses 34 years closely and the law of averages over the years and the teams we both have had over the 34 years. Lets say we where able to play each other twice a season over the 34 years with the teams we had. Now the facts for 29 years we where in a higher league ( ie Prem / old div 2 ). Burnley ( old div 2 - 3 - 4 ( 15 mins from being out of football league all together - like to throw that in ) Now we would of played each other 68 times over 34 years + the 2 FA Cup matches that makes 70 times. Now looking at the fact Rover being in a higher league plus better team for at least 30 years adding the games we have played the law of averages would say out of the 70 games Rovers would have probably would of won between 50 / 55 of them , Burnley probably would of won between 3 / 5 rest drawn. theses are drawn on the fact we where in a higher league and better players etc. Now that puts your run in the 60s / 70s to shame. Now again are you going to answer my orignal question.[/p][/quote]What are you waffling on about mungo? Burnley: 10 times winners against Blackburn Rovers in 14 games, with 2 games drawn - you'll never beat that record! Now wipe your chin and get back to your crayons.[/p][/quote]You keep saying the 34 years don't count as we have only played 9 matches in 34 years this what would of probably happened if we had played each other in the 34 years on the law of averages well if you don't understand it its your problem then again its a bit much for you to understand being from Burnley. Now answer my question[/p][/quote]I think you need to go and get yourself an education. Since when did the law of averages apply to a competitive sport? It's not tossing a coin you fool. But lets humour you, if you were to insist on applying the averaging process then by rights you must also average the playing field between the two clubs, hence all things being equal if you take away the vast sums of money pumped into Blackburn Rovers during this successful period that you so lovingly recall then I'm pretty sure that Burnley would have continued their very successful run of 10 wins against Blackburn in 14 games, with 2 games drawn. Then we'd never have heard of your piddling 7 wins over a 34 year period during which the two hardly met.[/p][/quote]You've just disproved your own argument. When the rivalry was renewed just three years later it was still a very even playing field, yet you lost both games that season. Still, it's not like it was actually you who desperately needed to wipe their chin the moment you discovered (via Wikipedia, no doubt) that there was a block of games (albeit ten years apart) that you could form into some kind of ''record''. Thank yourself luck that we didn't take what you wrote literally about 1962, or we'd remind you that we beat you twice that year too. But, hey, it doesn't matter as nobody except you and a few Dingles will be aware of such a 'tremendous' achievement. Although, why you're so adamant that well never beat your ''record'' when we're still in a position to surpass it is beyond me. Like I've already pointed out to you, it still doesn't trump six consecutive wins or, better still, going eleven games undefeated. In those seventeen glorious seasons you still lost to Rovers.[/p][/quote]Of course it does you muppet, 10 Burnley wins in 14 consecutive seasons surpasses 6 Blackburn wins in 17 seasons, you really are struggling with these numbers now aren't you? The fact remains that Burnley's incredible 10 wins in only 14 seasons against Blackburn Rovers, with 2 games drawn has shut most of you mongrels right up, apart from the more feeble minded who insist on coming back with lies and ineffectual arguments. Blackburn enjoy the 34 year unbeaten run and take great please in chanting about it but fail to acknowledge an even greater feat. Unfortunately it cannot be wiped from your clubs history so you'll just have to accept it. I suggest some of you consult the history books yourselves before bleating on about 34 years, especially given that the majority of you Blackburn fans were around his time but a twinkle in a taxi driver's eye.[/p][/quote]Struggling with numbers? Firstly, it was 10 wins in 17 seasons (including a ten year gap), not 14 consecutive seasons. If you're referring to consecutive seasons that you actually played us, and it seems that you are, it was 6 consecutive wins in three consecutive seasons you moron. Also, an 11 game unbeaten run easily beats your 'won some, drew one, won one, lost one, won some more, etc.' ''record''. Don't believe me, ask any fan who isn't a Rovers fan or a Dingle which they'd prefer to have, I did and the answer doesn't favour you. And guess what, that's something you can't erase from your record books either. So, would you care to point out exactly what it is I'm lying about? Oh, and when you can't come up with a factual answer to that question, perhaps you'd like to try and answer the other question you seem to keep dodging. Why do you spend all day, every day, on Rovers threads?[/p][/quote]As for having an ineffectual argument, it must be quite effectual if some sad Dingle felt the need to report it so as to get it removed. srvp28
  • Score: 4

10:25pm Tue 17 Sep 13

doctordavros says...

Come on "weloveyouvenkys" answer the original question or are you frightened to admit what the answer is
Come on "weloveyouvenkys" answer the original question or are you frightened to admit what the answer is doctordavros
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree