Devils Vs Storm - Sat 6 Oct - League

Devil_Abroad

Well-Known Member
#21
Watching the webcast I thought the Storm played well and gave us plenty of problems. If it wasn’t for 3 exceptional goals by Pope we’d be going well into the 3rd 1-0 down thanks mainly to some fabulous saves again from Bowns. Great 2 pts.
 

matbur

Active Member
#22
Agreed that Blood is a level above most D men in the EIHL and needs to (at times) focus on the simple things - if he then (when appropriate) wants to show what he can do in the attacking third or drop the gloves then fine. But D duties first.

As for Linglet...no. Chuck would never just give it away as you suggest - it’s just his mind is wired differently and it’s taking a while for him to get used to us and for us to get up to his level.

One thing however is that Chuck does need to start realising how much better he is - and that he can score a shed load in the EIHL.

Onwards boys! Good stuff
Just seen this posted on Twitter, this is one for the Inferno Hall of Fame, it really is. Each to their own and everything and it's an open forum for everyone to share views but seriously, it's posts like this that give the Inferno a bad name. Nothing personal against you but sorry, this is just absolute rubbish. Embarrassing really... just hope the players and anyone of influence steer well clear.
 

Devils86

Active Member
#24
I think matbur is having a go at me not Devils Abroad.

I’m not sure which of the 3 points I made is in issue or if it’s just generally these seem so appalling. What I am sure however is that whether people disagree with me or not I won’t be embarrassed by my opinion - I’m mature enough to change my mind on things but I always form my opinions on hockey with reason.

Odd because I haven’t posted those comments on twitter.
 
Last edited:
#26
Not that it really mattered in the end, but what was people's views of the disallowed goal? I was sat directly behind the net in block 4. Unless my eyes were playing tricks on me, I thought the puck went in and hit the lower pipe at the back and then sprung straight back out again?
I thought it was a bit odd that the goal judge lit her lamp, and then was shaking her head straight afterwards.
 

Devils86

Active Member
#27
So what’s wrong with your view, don’t see the problem myself. It’s a very sensible view.
I suppose my thoughts on D men being predominantly defensive first and foremost may be seen to be a bit old fashioned maybe.

The Linglet stuff - maybe a touch arrogant to say he is a higher level than the majority of the EIHL. Or maybe it’s naive to think that he seems like an unselfish player who could do well at times to pull the trigger and be a bit more ruthless in front of net.

But let’s see...
 
Last edited:
#28
Not that it really mattered in the end, but what was people's views of the disallowed goal? I was sat directly behind the net in block 4. Unless my eyes were playing tricks on me, I thought the puck went in and hit the lower pipe at the back and then sprung straight back out again?
I thought it was a bit odd that the goal judge lit her lamp, and then was shaking her head straight afterwards.
I heard it hit the post and go out. Defo wasn’t a goal imo.
 

tim78

Active Member
#30
I wsa in block 4 and thought the same hit the bottom and came back out... unless we were decieved by the water botle moving on top but it looked like a goal.
 

Gazza272

Well-Known Member
#33
I wsa in block 4 and thought the same hit the bottom and came back out... unless we were decieved by the water botle moving on top but it looked like a goal.

This is one of those fascinating times where the puck is moving so fast it plays tricks with your eyes, I was about to call a goal on the coverage, and I was convinced it had pinged back from the back of the goal, but in truth on replay it was no where near.

Crazy puck physics strike again.
 
Top