Devils Vs Storm - CC - 27th Sept 24 - FO 19:30

E.D.S.

Well-Known Member
The whole block 13 thing and megaphone is just cringey.

Someone mentioned they’re like hooligans; I wish they were more like that if I’m honest. It’s more like Slimming World in a church hall than Soul Crew in the Grange End. It doesn’t generate any atmosphere for the rest of the rink, maybe within the block but that’s it. Every new person I’ve brought to a game has commented on it in a negative way and ended up thinking hockey games in the UK are full of weirdos.
That made me laugh out loud. I don’t agree but Ocko that was brilliant.
 

E.D.S.

Well-Known Member
Don't you think it's a bit contradictory that you want one of our players to do a similar dog act that he did? Barrow hurt one of their guys last game, which probably was the motivation for Ullett this time, we can't condemn his actions last night then wish one of ours do the same.
Just pantomime and a bit of fun.
Whatever Barrow did, a deliberate slash whilst he’s lying defenceless is not fair game. Its poor. No room for that in this game. Answer the bell fairly and squarely
 

Rempel16

Well-Known Member
Don't you think it's a bit contradictory that you want one of our players to do a similar dog act that he did? Barrow hurt one of their guys last game, which probably was the motivation for Ullett this time, we can't condemn his actions last night then wish one of ours do the same.
Surely there’s a difference between slashing, cross checking, mugging a player while he’s down on the ice and offering a player to fight off a face off.

I thought you’d have seen that opinion as fair, didn’t you used to be a fan of the tough guys? I’m sure not one of them would let Ulett get away with that without making him answer the bell.
 

jimmy snels

Well-Known Member
Don't you think it's a bit contradictory that you want one of our players to do a similar dog act that he did? Barrow hurt one of their guys last game, which probably was the motivation for Ullett this time, we can't condemn his actions last night then wish one of ours do the same.
Barrow answered the bell previously.

That slash was intent to injure and he pumped him on the floor defenceless.

Absolutely non contradictory to want our guys to stand up for a team mate and show some balls. If they don't I stand by get someone in who will.
 

Devil94

Well-Known Member
Surely there’s a difference between slashing, cross checking, mugging a player while he’s down on the ice and offering a player to fight off a face off.

I thought you’d have seen that opinion as fair, didn’t you used to be a fan of the tough guys? I’m sure not one of them would let Ulett get away with that without making him answer the bell.
I've read the post again and I admit I misread, I thought he said go his gonads (!), rather than with someone with gonads. Which does change the tone quite dramatically.

Not sure I was ever a big fan of tough guys? I like aggressive hockey, hard hitting and games with a bit of needle, but fighting I'm a bit meh about, don't have much enthusiasm for it. If it happens organically during a play then fine, the premeditated stuff I'm not a big fan.

I think with players like Ullett, its exactly what he would want is to get in a scrap and under our skin next time too. And it would probably make the Storm a better side too. In my opinion we would be best in not reacting to his antics, get under his skin and let him take silly penalties, then we can capitalise on the scoreboard like we did yesterday.
 

jimmy snels

Well-Known Member
Surely there’s a difference between slashing, cross checking, mugging a player while he’s down on the ice and offering a player to fight off a face off.

I thought you’d have seen that opinion as fair, didn’t you used to be a fan of the tough guys? I’m sure not one of them would let Ulett get away with that without making him answer the bell.
Honestly I miss us having the big dog.
Vother, McWilliam, Hendrix, Lou, take your pick. But for me vother was the one who the opposition were scared of because he gave no fucks who did the play, he'd happily go smash their captain into row z an hour late to make a point.
 

Devil94

Well-Known Member
Barrow answered the bell previously.

That slash was intent to injure and he pumped him on the floor defenceless.

Absolutely non contradictory to want our guys to stand up for a team mate and show some balls. If they don't I stand by get someone in who will.
See above post, misread it slightly and you make a fair argument. Still disagree slightly though, I think those days are mostly gone.
 

Rempel16

Well-Known Member
I've read the post again and I admit I misread, I thought he said go his gonads (!), rather than with someone with gonads. Which does change the tone quite dramatically.

Not sure I was ever a big fan of tough guys? I like aggressive hockey, hard hitting and games with a bit of needle, but fighting I'm a bit meh about, don't have much enthusiasm for it. If it happens organically during a play then fine, the premeditated stuff I'm not a big fan.

I think with players like Ullett, it’s exactly what he would want is to get in a scrap and under our skin next time too. And it would probably make the Storm a better side too. In my opinion we would be best in not reacting to his antics, get under his skin and let him take silly penalties, then we can capitalise on the scoreboard like we did yesterday.
Cheers for the reply.

I think people are underestimating Ulett. He’s probably in the league top 3 for toughness.
 

august04 2.0

Well-Known Member
Don't you think it's a bit contradictory that you want one of our players to do a similar dog act that he did? Barrow hurt one of their guys last game, which probably was the motivation for Ullett this time, we can't condemn his actions last night then wish one of ours do the same.
Did Barrow subject Critchlow to a double handed assault with a hockey stick when he was prone on the ice, with his back turned and defenceless, followed by a cross check when still lying on the ice plus rain down punches on said still defenceless player? No, I thought not. Ulett needs payback, and big time during the next game.
 
Last edited:

august04 2.0

Well-Known Member
Honestly I miss us having the big dog.
Vother, McWilliam, Hendrix, Lou, take your pick. But for me vother was the one who the opposition were scared of because he gave no fucks who did the play, he'd happily go smash their captain into row z an hour late to make a point.
Vother had the right attitude - if you come after one of our skilled players, I’m coming after one of yours! Then you can take it up with them, see if they do it again! And he hit harder!!!
 

Ocko

Well-Known Member
Cheers for the reply.

I think people are underestimating Ulett. He’s probably in the league top 3 for toughness.
Exactly that. He’s tough and no one on our roster will keep him up at night even in the unlikely event someone actually does something.

This is where the team toughness thing is bollocks; you need the biggest dog in the yard. No doubt Brandt will be willing when he’s fit. But he’s never going to teach anyone a lesson.
 

hip check

Well-Known Member
Barrow answered the bell previously.

That slash was intent to injure and he pumped him on the floor defenceless.

Absolutely non contradictory to want our guys to stand up for a team mate and show some balls. If they don't I stand by get someone in who will.[/QUOT

As much as that seems like a sound idea and one that I agree with our recruitment for the last two or three seasons has not included a player of that nature, team toughness is the buzz word now. There is no denying though that a player who has a reputation as a no nonsense not to be messed with player does normally have a calming effect on opposition players who would otherwise try and take liberties.
 

Wannabe2

Well-Known Member
Thing that most forget is that Vother wasn’t a fighter. He always stepped up but he wasn’t a goon. He was a player. He wasn’t even the best fighter but he was a deterrent.
Just can’t abide the argument that there’s no place in this team or this league for that kind of player. Its badly needed IMO.
Big time.
 

jimmy snels

Well-Known Member
Thing that most forget is that Vother wasn’t a fighter. He always stepped up but he wasn’t a goon. He was a player. He wasn’t even the best fighter but he was a deterrent.
Just can’t abide the argument that there’s no place in this team or this league for that kind of player. Its badly needed IMO.
100% agree.
As I mentioned earlier he'd stand up for his team but he was a nightmare for hitting ridiculously hard and high if a team dished it out.
I really miss him and his devils attitude.
TK and PR can love this "team tough" shit all they want but I truly believe the majority of fans would rather the toughest man In the league
 

Mooney#16

Well-Known Member
In fairness from what I’ve seen the slash was to Barrow’s stick and not body so whilst intimidating it wasn’t going to hurt Barrow. The cross check again not really going to hurt but a couple of punches maybe. Whilst I think 5 games is probably more like it in terms of ban it’s not the worst thing I’ve seen on ice and getting involved with Ulett over a prolonged period is an unwanted distraction given Barrow wasn’t actually injured on the play. I understand Ulett reacting as the Storm’s tough guy. Captain injured, Devils getting close to Nettie. If table flipped Devils fans would call for a reaction. I liken Ulett as a bit of a Faryna type player and I actually thought Devils might take a look at him in the summer but he’s possibly to much of a lose cannon. He nearly cost his team a W.

I actually think Devils need to deal with Ulett on a needs basis and not go looking for a retaliation. If he runs around then as pointed out you send Brandt to head hunt their good players until he stops or square of with him but the goals around silverware this season mean you try and rise above getting into a street fight with a lower half of the table team.
 
Top