Part of the reason I hope Bartolo comes good, he's a big lad who can hold the ball up but also has bags of energy which has won him fans at Weymouth, where a lack of service has let him down.
He’s still very young and has a lot of competition ahead of him. Perversely it’s unfortunate that we are doing so well as we are less likely to give him a shot and are less likely to have dead rubbers at the end of the season where we can properly blood youngsters.
And indeed the book ‘Centenary 1884-1984 a history of Wycombe Wanderers’ is on sale second hand for £50 via amazon. No author but probably penned by @micra
Two crucial prices of evidence here. Firstly that the those who met in 1887 believed they were forming a new club, and that the 1884-1887 records were only included retrospectively following the initial error.
For those of us who grew up with the Blues at Loakes Park our formation year will always be 1884 regardless of the (excellent) detective work that explained the reason for that misunderstanding and ‘proved’ that we were actually founded 3 years later than originally believed.
I had extensive discussion with the late (and much missed) Dave Finch about the formation date. Dave’s main argument was that he found no evidence in his research for the book of WWFC existing pre-1887.
As a result the club opted to change their formation date from 1884 to 1887.
My argument back to Dave was that just because he did not find the evidence (and his research was extensive) it doesn’t mean the formation date should have been changed.
On the game itself, I thought that first half, apart for a 15-20 minute spell from around 5 minutes we were struggling a little bit until we were gifted the goal.
The start of the second half with Scowen and Humphries swapping places I thought we looked a lot better up until the Humphries head ‘injury’.
Low should have scored - not seen any replays but I actually thought a Blackpool player played everyone onside at the time.
Hartridge’s first tackle was poor and deserved a booking but the second was just a slightly mistimed tackle and definitely didn’t I thought.
At first after the sending off I thought Blackpool would overrun us but I thought the triple substitution worked well.
Like most on here I really wished we didn’t stop trying to score with about 10 minutes left (but it did bring back happy memories of doing it against Plymouth I think with the immovable object that was Bayo).
Overall and 24 hours later it feels more a point gained than two points lost after the sending off.
Comments
Can't see him leaving at all.
He'll most likely retire in the summer, so moving somewhere now seems utterly thankless and it's unlikely he'll last many 90s.
So being a 20-30min option for a team near the top of the league seems a good final 6months of here career.
Part of the reason I hope Bartolo comes good, he's a big lad who can hold the ball up but also has bags of energy which has won him fans at Weymouth, where a lack of service has let him down.
Downticks, upticks.
Thumbs up thumbs down.
Who cares?
It's a tool with the sole purpose of boosting/deflating ego. If you take it personally then this isn't the place for you.
Yep. I got downvoted for posting that Wycombe were founded in 1887 🤷♂️
They were founded in 1884…
https://www.wwfc.com/club/history
"Wycombe Wanderers were founded in 1887"
He’s still very young and has a lot of competition ahead of him. Perversely it’s unfortunate that we are doing so well as we are less likely to give him a shot and are less likely to have dead rubbers at the end of the season where we can properly blood youngsters.
You must be confusing us with De Koningshoeven Brewery. Easy mistake to make.
Some fans still believe we were founded in 1884, yours truly being one of them.
Some people still believe the earth is flat.
You mean High Wycombe isn't sufficiently convincing proof that it's not?!
1884, @micra was there!
Whilst @micra probably wasn’t in fact there, I imagine the use of excepted rather than accepted in this useful article will have him in a sweat: http://www.chairboys.co.uk/history/history.htm
So, exactly what are you trying to suggest here, that it isn't flat!!..... Outrageous.
And indeed the book ‘Centenary 1884-1984 a history of Wycombe Wanderers’ is on sale second hand for £50 via amazon. No author but probably penned by @micra
The Exeter fans on ny day were disappointed he’d left them ‘.. you left because we are sh..’
and were surprised he wasn’t involved more…
combination perhaps of rustiness and how much we have progressed this season with expectations..
Pert Steve (@Steve_Peart ) having written the book stating 1887 what's your take?
Chairboys on the net reckons 1887 too, having discredited 1884.
Matt Cecil says 1884
From the official history book. I suppose if any of the 1884 believers have evidence to back up that date, the club might reconsider.
I assume those first two pics were too high res for the Gasroom to handle, should open separately
Two crucial prices of evidence here. Firstly that the those who met in 1887 believed they were forming a new club, and that the 1884-1887 records were only included retrospectively following the initial error.
For those of us who grew up with the Blues at Loakes Park our formation year will always be 1884 regardless of the (excellent) detective work that explained the reason for that misunderstanding and ‘proved’ that we were actually founded 3 years later than originally believed.
I had extensive discussion with the late (and much missed) Dave Finch about the formation date. Dave’s main argument was that he found no evidence in his research for the book of WWFC existing pre-1887.
As a result the club opted to change their formation date from 1884 to 1887.
My argument back to Dave was that just because he did not find the evidence (and his research was extensive) it doesn’t mean the formation date should have been changed.
I can't imagine how much newspaper trawling this book entailed. It is incredibly thorough.
By that logic we could say we were founded in 1800 and become the oldest club in the world
On the game itself, I thought that first half, apart for a 15-20 minute spell from around 5 minutes we were struggling a little bit until we were gifted the goal.
The start of the second half with Scowen and Humphries swapping places I thought we looked a lot better up until the Humphries head ‘injury’.
Low should have scored - not seen any replays but I actually thought a Blackpool player played everyone onside at the time.
Hartridge’s first tackle was poor and deserved a booking but the second was just a slightly mistimed tackle and definitely didn’t I thought.
At first after the sending off I thought Blackpool would overrun us but I thought the triple substitution worked well.
Like most on here I really wished we didn’t stop trying to score with about 10 minutes left (but it did bring back happy memories of doing it against Plymouth I think with the immovable object that was Bayo).
Overall and 24 hours later it feels more a point gained than two points lost after the sending off.
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Quite. Hence why the date should have remained 1884 in my opinion.