25 Sep 2014 08:07:37
I had to work last night but was listening on 5live all I heard was such negativity from Danny mills couldn't belive it saying we so negative the difference in class is obvious this was at 0-0 and it was our reserves v there reserves ( there reserves that would walk into most premium teams they had some big names playing) but when I got home it was a different story the commentators said we were brilliant as said on SS what was Danny mills problem? Shouldn't be commentating if not going to evaluate the match on the radio to a degree of fairness


1.) 25 Sep 2014
If you want negativity you should have been in the Spurs end (my wife is a Spurs fan). They said we looked like Brazil in comparison to them. Forest always first to the ball and showed commitment. Spurs lacklustre. Fans around said Spurs would only score from distance. De Vries had no chance with their first - I was behind that goal. Only when their subs come on did they have some ideas and pace and all agreed they would not have unlocked. Us if the Mason goal had not sparked them. It was a shame not to see Britt and Antonio play; we would have nailed them as they were disorganised and had no confidence after West Brom.


2.) 25 Sep 2014
My mate who is a Spurs season ticket holder and gave us his tickets (and set elsewhere with another mate) said he saw the difference being Spurs' bench vs ours and that the subs were the difference and we tired too. I pointed out our true bench was already on the pitch. Thought Tesche did well again when he came on.


3.) 25 Sep 2014
25 Sep 2014 15:19:10
Danny Mills' role as a pundit on last night's game was a complete joke. He had it in for Forest from the start and made no attempt to be objective and impartial. I eventually turned the radio off and watched on my son's Sky stream. And what a difference. SS WAS objective and impartial! Forest's young players were praised (Mills slagged them off for lacking quality and composure), as was our overall performance.
Could all this have anything to do with the fact that Mills fell out with Pearce when he was dropped and then released by him at Man City (he had previously featured under Keegan)? He was publicly critical of him and his management after that.
Surely a wee bit of research on the part of the BBC/5L would have suggested MIlls wasn't a good choice as a pundit for this game. And maybe if Mills had some self-awareness and/or integrity and professionalism he'd have selected himself out of this game.