|
Post by hadouken on Jan 25, 2011 22:00:16 GMT
Wasn't at the game due to illness again grrr hate being ill but would love to see some player ratings!
|
|
|
Post by followtheox (the original) on Jan 25, 2011 22:15:45 GMT
Clark-6 solid enough, flapped at a couple of corners, not at fault for goal Tonkin-7 Solid and got forward well (looks on form) worley-7 Again was solid with some good tackles, poor delivery from time to time wright-7 Good positioning, good passing Batt-8 Good going foward and defending, looks sharp Maclaren-7 Plays the simple stuff well and held up play more so in the second half Clist-6 kept things ticking over, great shot second half but weak sometimes and lacks creativity at times Hall-7 Started off well but faded a bit would have been a six without the goal as over run in the first half a bit Craddock-7 looks composed and sharp Maclean-8 Great hold up player, brings other into the game Beano-9 Amazing work rate and two brilliant strikes
Subs Potter-7 Great to bring on, caused their tired legs some problems, let the ball run away a couple of times
other subs- not on long enough
A decent performance. We try to play the right stuff even if it does not always come off. I thought we looked solid at the back. For a period in the first half Shrewsbury looked like they would trouble us with every break but this was more to do with our midfield than defence.
|
|
|
Post by longliveclarkey on Jan 25, 2011 22:20:16 GMT
Clark-6 solid enough, flapped at a couple of corners, not at fault for goal Tonkin-7 Solid and got forward well (looks on form) worley-7 Again was solid with some good tackles, poor delivery from time to time wright-7 Good positioning, good passing Batt-8 Good going foward and defending, looks sharp Maclaren-7 Plays the simple stuff well and held up play more so in the second half Clist-6 kept things ticking over, great shot second half but weak sometimes and lacks creativity at times Hall-7 Started off well but faded a bit would have been a six without the goal as over run in the first half a bit Craddock-7 looks composed and sharp Maclaren-8 Great hold up player, brings other into the game Beano-9 Amazing work rate and two brilliant strikes Subs Potter-7 Great to bring on, caused their tired legs some problems, let the ball run away a couple of times other subs- not on long enough A decent performance. We try to play the right stuff even if it does not always come off. I thought we looked solid at the back. For a period in the first half Shrewsbury looked like they would trouble us with every break but this was more to do with our midfield than defence. So negative after a 3-1 win against shrewsbury? Giving 2 of our players a 6? Really?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2011 22:27:37 GMT
Giving two players 6 isn't negative at all. 6 is average not poor. I think he's got it pretty spot on although I'd be tempted to up Maclaren, I just think he protects our defence really well and slows down opposition breaks allowing us to get men behind the ball.
Clarke was VERY lucky today with his kickout which was charged down.
|
|
|
Post by followtheox (the original) on Jan 25, 2011 22:27:40 GMT
Clark-6 solid enough, flapped at a couple of corners, not at fault for goal Tonkin-7 Solid and got forward well (looks on form) worley-7 Again was solid with some good tackles, poor delivery from time to time wright-7 Good positioning, good passing Batt-8 Good going foward and defending, looks sharp Maclaren-7 Plays the simple stuff well and held up play more so in the second half Clist-6 kept things ticking over, great shot second half but weak sometimes and lacks creativity at times Hall-7 Started off well but faded a bit would have been a six without the goal as over run in the first half a bit Craddock-7 looks composed and sharp Maclaren-8 Great hold up player, brings other into the game Beano-9 Amazing work rate and two brilliant strikes Subs Potter-7 Great to bring on, caused their tired legs some problems, let the ball run away a couple of times other subs- not on long enough A decent performance. We try to play the right stuff even if it does not always come off. I thought we looked solid at the back. For a period in the first half Shrewsbury looked like they would trouble us with every break but this was more to do with our midfield than defence. So negative after a 3-1 win against shrewsbury? Giving 2 of our players a 6? Really? I have given positives for each player and said that it was a decent performance so not sure where you get the negative stuff from? I guess you must be one of those people who always put a downer on things, i think most people can see who is the negative one from our posts! By the way 6 is above average or average depending how you look at it. I know we have a few negative fans and i guess you fit into that category but cheer up we won and on the whole played good football!
|
|
|
Post by longliveclarkey on Jan 25, 2011 22:29:21 GMT
Ah, sorry, my mistake. I generally see 6 as average. But 'decent performance' after we've just won 3-1 against shrewsbury strikes me as very understated. No harm done But interesting to hear myself called negative for the first time since... well, since the last forum started up really. And no, I really don't fit into that category and have been criticised in the past for being too positive. Excellent performance in my book, not decent.
|
|
|
Post by followtheox (the original) on Jan 25, 2011 22:31:49 GMT
Ah, sorry, my mistake. I generally see 6 as average. No harm done But interesting to hear myself called negative for the first time since... well, since the last forum started up really. And IMO Clarkey and Clist were about average or there abouts but still don't see how thats me being negative!
|
|
|
Post by longliveclarkey on Jan 25, 2011 22:33:46 GMT
Ah, sorry, my mistake. I generally see 6 as average. No harm done But interesting to hear myself called negative for the first time since... well, since the last forum started up really. And IMO Clarkey and Clist were about average or there abouts but still don't see how thats me being negative! Because I've never seen anyone give a player a 6, Wembley aside, for a win as good as this and claim to be positive. It's more you saying 'decent' as opposed to 'good' or even 'great' performance that I quarrel with. I don't quite see how you arrived at the conclusion that I was negative though, and wouldn't want to be seen like that, so I'll stop this'un now. Really enjoyed that game
|
|
|
Post by carefreeoufc on Jan 25, 2011 22:35:37 GMT
Completely agree with the ratings above. I certainly don't think there is any negative scoring on that, realistic i'd say. Personally I felt Clist had a slightly below par game. I think we did a good job and really went at them in the second half. I also felt at times the midfield made a few more errors than normal since Mclaren has stepped in.
Overall pleased with the display a few bits to tighten up before sat but feel the boys could get another 3 points. Clarke looked much more assured in the box and was unlucky with the goal. And jimmy sangere well he looks like the York fans said gives 110% and with time I reckon he will be a quality addition. Looked like he was desperate to get a start and played hard. Good on him and if he breaks up play even better
|
|
|
Post by pugs on Jan 25, 2011 22:44:17 GMT
I thought Clist was superb tonight! I guess we all have our opinions....
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Jan 25, 2011 22:44:48 GMT
Clarke 6 - One or two dodgy moments but over all OK Batt 8 - Surged forward. Shrewsbury had no answer. Worley 7 - Another competent display. Wright 7 - Never looked troubled. Tonkin 7 - Continued his good form. Attacked with real purpose. McLaren 8 - He's a calming influence in middle. Clist 7 - Much better in second half. Hall 6 - Well taken goal but still needs to show more. Craddock 7 - Missed a great chance but his general play was very good. Constable 9 - Thats better ! Not just his goals, that was a class performance. McLean 8 - Ran the show once we turned the screw in second half.
Potter 8 - Caused real panic in the Shrewsbury defence. Sangere 6 - Not much time to make an impact. Midson 6 - Ditto.
|
|
|
Post by followtheox (the original) on Jan 25, 2011 22:45:33 GMT
And IMO Clarkey and Clist were about average or there abouts but still don't see how thats me being negative! Because I've never seen anyone give a player a 6, Wembley aside, for a win as good as this and claim to be positive. It's more you saying 'decent' as opposed to 'good' or even 'great' performance that I quarrel with. I don't quite see how you arrived at the conclusion that I was negative though, and wouldn't want to be seen like that, so I'll stop this'un now. Really enjoyed that game Well IMO it was a decent performance. We try and play the right way although things don't always come off, most players played well and all had positives. Still can't see how using the word decent=negative but then again calling me negative while making no attempt to discuss the game says more about you than me! As you see in Baldy's post ther are now two people who have given 6, you must be in shock!
|
|
|
Post by longliveclarkey on Jan 25, 2011 22:52:07 GMT
Because I've never seen anyone give a player a 6, Wembley aside, for a win as good as this and claim to be positive. It's more you saying 'decent' as opposed to 'good' or even 'great' performance that I quarrel with. I don't quite see how you arrived at the conclusion that I was negative though, and wouldn't want to be seen like that, so I'll stop this'un now. Really enjoyed that game Well IMO it was a decent performance. We try and play the right way although things don't always come off, most players played well and all had positives. Still can't see how using the word decent=negative but then again calling me negative while making no attempt to discuss the game says more about you than me! Did I not just retract that? If I didn't, let me make it clear: you are not negative. And sorry, but you also called me negative while making no significant more attempt to discuss the game than me, and were a little more brutal about it than I was. But sorry about my original comment, I came across too strongly there. I don't want to debate whether you/me are negative or not though, that's irrelevant. Agree to drop it there? In the interests of actually talking about the game, I thought it was a very good performance. Our attacking play is generally excellent and we seem to look like we're about to score all the time. No team has everything come off all the time. Even the goal we conceded today looked lucky, Shrewsbury were a real step up in quality and they didn't cause us too many problems apart from a few short periods throughout.
|
|
|
Post by followtheox (the original) on Jan 25, 2011 22:55:45 GMT
Well IMO it was a decent performance. We try and play the right way although things don't always come off, most players played well and all had positives. Still can't see how using the word decent=negative but then again calling me negative while making no attempt to discuss the game says more about you than me! Did I not just retract that? If I didn't, let me make it clear: you are not negative. And sorry, but you also called me negative while making no significant more attempt to discuss the game than me, and were a little more brutal about it than I was. But sorry about my original comment, I came across too strongly there. I don't want to debate whether you/me are negative or not though, that's irrelevant. Agree to drop it there? In the interests of actually talking about the game, I thought it was a very good performance. Our attacking play is generally excellent and we seem to look like we're about to score all the time. No team has everything come off all the time. Even the goal we conceded today looked lucky, Shrewsbury were a real step up in quality and they didn't cause us too many problems apart from a short period in the second half. Agree on the whole although thought they caused us more problems in the first half. What is pleasing is the quality on our bench and the fact we seem to perform against the better teams as we are playing a few now!
|
|
|
Post by carefreeoufc on Jan 25, 2011 22:56:49 GMT
I thought Clist was superb tonight! I guess we all have our opinions.... Very true, each to their own and all that. I think my opinion may have been infiltrated by the two morons I had the pleasure of standing next to tonight.
|
|
|
Post by longliveclarkey on Jan 25, 2011 22:58:50 GMT
Did I not just retract that? If I didn't, let me make it clear: you are not negative. And sorry, but you also called me negative while making no significant more attempt to discuss the game than me, and were a little more brutal about it than I was. But sorry about my original comment, I came across too strongly there. I don't want to debate whether you/me are negative or not though, that's irrelevant. Agree to drop it there? In the interests of actually talking about the game, I thought it was a very good performance. Our attacking play is generally excellent and we seem to look like we're about to score all the time. No team has everything come off all the time. Even the goal we conceded today looked lucky, Shrewsbury were a real step up in quality and they didn't cause us too many problems apart from a short period in the second half. Agree on the whole although thought they caused us more problems in the first half. What is pleasing is the quality on our bench and the fact we seem to perform against the better teams as we are playing a few now! I thought Shrewsbury didn't look all that good in the first half, just solid. I thought (maybe it was just nerves) that they were always more likely to score in the second half, whereas in the first half they just managed to cancel us out rather than provide too much threat themselves.
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Jan 25, 2011 22:59:52 GMT
I thought Clisty had a good second half but don't forget it was his careless play that ultimately led to their goal.
|
|
|
Post by followtheox (the original) on Jan 25, 2011 23:01:36 GMT
Agree on the whole although thought they caused us more problems in the first half. What is pleasing is the quality on our bench and the fact we seem to perform against the better teams as we are playing a few now! I thought Shrewsbury didn't look all that good in the first half, just solid. I thought (maybe it was just nerves) that they were always more likely to score in the second half, whereas in the first half they just managed to cancel us out rather than provide too much threat themselves. Funny how there are two completly different views from the same game but i guess thats football. I thought they troubled uson the break in the fisrt half and from corners.
|
|
|
Post by followtheox (the original) on Jan 25, 2011 23:02:38 GMT
I thought Clisty had a good second half but don't forget it was his careless play that ultimately led to their goal. I agree he was better in the second half.
|
|
|
Post by longliveclarkey on Jan 25, 2011 23:06:36 GMT
I thought Shrewsbury didn't look all that good in the first half, just solid. I thought (maybe it was just nerves) that they were always more likely to score in the second half, whereas in the first half they just managed to cancel us out rather than provide too much threat themselves. Funny how there are two completly different views from the same game but i guess thats football. I thought they troubled uson the break in the fisrt half and from corners. Seems I'm alone on this one anyway. Not completely different views, but I just never found myself too nervous in the first half (we never seem to concede from breaks) whereas even after our third goal I kept worrying 'they're gonna score now' right up until injury time.
|
|
|
Post by Worcester Yellow on Jan 25, 2011 23:24:41 GMT
Strange how everyone sees the game differently isnt it.
I thought right up until he scored, that Beano was the worst of the three strikers. Still brilliant that we have strikers at the club who can score goals from nothing.
Thought Batt was the man of the match tonight, was skinning his opponent all night. Sometimes as Oxford fans i think we always want to award the accolade to the guys who keep it simple like Mclaren/Clist/Payne but we shouldn't be afraid to praise real flair and pace when it happens, and i thought thats exactly what Batt did.
|
|
|
Post by pugs on Jan 25, 2011 23:46:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Jan 25, 2011 23:52:09 GMT
I thought Clist was superb tonight! I guess we all have our opinions.... I agree gramps. Played lots of simple balls, had an effort or two on goal and broke up some of their decent play. Agree with the other scores from followtheox but would have given Clist at least a 7! Overall though a great team effort against the wealthiest club in this division (probably).
|
|
|
Post by Beav on Jan 25, 2011 23:52:41 GMT
Our midfield 3 were our best players imo tonight
|
|
|
Post by junior1 on Jan 26, 2011 0:45:48 GMT
Impressed with clist and tonks tonight
|
|
|
Post by jimmycarterxi on Jan 26, 2011 0:53:25 GMT
We played a very good football team off the park, but also got the goals our football deserved, don't think we are getting the credit our passing deserves, even tonight I still heard the moaners when we lost the ball, when u pass from back to front u will lose the ball, but was happy we kept playing that way and worked our nuts off to win it back when we lost it
|
|
|
Post by oxyellow on Jan 26, 2011 10:13:03 GMT
Was very impressed with Batt and Potter last night, thought batt had a great game, and Alfie really livened things up when he came on.
Constable was outstanding, and was great to see him back to his best.
Also thought Maclean was brilliant again.
|
|
|
Post by hairy on Jan 26, 2011 10:52:36 GMT
Thought Clist played well tonight and his work rate was incredible, since he has returned to the side our results have improved dramatically so he must be doing something right.
Would give these ratings
Clarke 7, Goal took a big deflection and he was otherwise solid. Tonkin 7, got forward well. Batt 8, caused them huge problems. Wright 7, got caught on the ball once or twice but otherwise looked comfortable. Worley 7, Solid. McClaren 8, was always avalible and never gave the ball away, looks just what we needed. Clist 8, the amount of running he got through helped us to dominate the midfield. Hall 8, first goal and along with the other two midfielders worked them off the park. Craddock 7, Some nice touch's and put a shift in. McClean 8, looked class. Constable 9, Two great finish's and worked their defenders in to the ground, possibly best performace by any Oxford player this season. Subs Potter 7, good running but looked a little rusty with the ball after his lay off. Sangarre 6, gave away free kicks and did little else but hard to judge him on the little that have seen so far. Midson 6, only on for a minute so not really fair to rate him.
Thought 3-1 flattered them and some others ratings are low considering that was one of the best performances by an Oxford team in a long time.
|
|
|
Post by dabigfella on Jan 26, 2011 11:05:05 GMT
Impressed with clist and tonks tonight Those two are starting to work up the same kind of understanding that Green and Batt used to have. It was noticeable that Tonkin was able to get forward in the certain knowledge that he was covered if the move broke down. There wasn't the same understanding between Batt and Maclean in the first half and Batt was often faced with two attackers to mark, However in the second half this changed (Wilder's rocket maybe?) and they worked well together. Generally I reckon the scores given were pretty close.
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jan 26, 2011 12:50:50 GMT
Strange how everyone sees the game differently isnt it. I thought right up until he scored, that Beano was the worst of the three strikers. Still brilliant that we have strikers at the club who can score goals from nothing. Thought Batt was the man of the match tonight, was skinning his opponent all night. Sometimes as Oxford fans i think we always want to award the accolade to the guys who keep it simple like Mclaren/Clist/Payne but we shouldn't be afraid to praise real flair and pace when it happens, and i thought thats exactly what Batt did. I thought the same about Beano. His first touch let him down on a number of occasions, he tried to go past players and it didn't work for him. He worked his socks off (as always) but it didn't seem to be happening for him. He mentioned in the RadOx interview after the game that he was still feeling the effects of his illness. As you say he still managed to score 2 goals. I guess that his standards have been so high that if he has an off game (according to some) it's noticeable. He was still effective in the end though.
|
|