|
Post by oufcyellows on Apr 15, 2017 9:50:28 GMT
What did the cov fans say ?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Apr 15, 2017 9:55:39 GMT
What did the cov fans say ? Sorry, I meant Bradford fans.
|
|
|
Post by grenobleroad on Apr 15, 2017 9:56:50 GMT
What did the cov fans say ? Sisu out.
|
|
|
Post by ontheup01 on Apr 15, 2017 10:23:15 GMT
Watching those, on another day McAleny scores at least one of those shots (isn't it refreshing to have a player not afraid to shoot!). For the goal, yes the defenders need to do better in the box but Skarz has to get closer to his man to block the cross coming in. Cross for goal could have been better pressurised. But Nelson got caught watching the ball as his man dropped off him, good cross simply headed in.
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Apr 15, 2017 10:25:36 GMT
Wow! For a non-attendee yesterday, VERY encouraging comments about Ribiero, Raglan, Rothwell and others, and nice remarks from the (EDIT) Bradford fans on Twitter. This hasn't been a bad season, has it? Also very complimentary about us on the message board too. Many saying we are the best team they have played all season and will be in the promotion places next year. Always easier to be complimentary when you've won though!
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Apr 15, 2017 11:01:33 GMT
Wow! For a non-attendee yesterday, VERY encouraging comments about Ribiero, Raglan, Rothwell and others, and nice remarks from the (EDIT) Bradford fans on Twitter. This hasn't been a bad season, has it? Also very complimentary about us on the message board too. Many saying we are the best team they have played all season and will be in the promotion places next year. Always easier to be complimentary when you've won though! Just had a look at the highlights, and what is interesting is the different kind of attacking play by both sides (at least, inasmuch as one can see that from highlights). We play the ball neatly through the middle and hope to get running player 1 on 1. Whereas they look to move the ball forward a bit more quickly, and then spread the ball wide to get crosses into the box. They certainly looked to have a better shape to get in behind our defence. I think that, if one were to have a criticism, is that we do not ask enough questions of defences that, at League 1 level, will often be a bit ponderous and vulnerable to being 'turned around'. Do I worry about Dunks when the ball is coming down the congested middle part of the field? Nope, not really. But I do worry when he gets turned around by a channels ball and has to cover across towards the left back position. I'd tentatively suggest that if MApp is really seriously considering how to get promoted from this division, we are going to need: 1) a mobile target man 2) from time to time we are going to need to move the ball from front to back quicker, using channels balls to turn around physical, but ponderous, defenders. I don't think that it is about missing chances. Having watched the highlights, I'm not really convinced that we even really created a 'chance' as such - certainly not many. Everything was being played in front of their back four, and asking one of our attackers to score a 20 yarder.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Apr 15, 2017 11:04:23 GMT
Also very complimentary about us on the message board too. Many saying we are the best team they have played all season and will be in the promotion places next year. Always easier to be complimentary when you've won though! Just had a look at the highlights, and what is interesting is the different kind of attacking play by both sides (at least, inasmuch as one can see that from highlights). We play the ball neatly through the middle and hope to get running player 1 on 1. Whereas they look to move the ball forward a bit more quickly, and then spread the ball wide to get crosses into the box. They certainly looked to have a better shape to get in behind our defence. I think that, if one were to have a criticism, is that we do not ask enough questions of defences that, at League 1 level, will often be a bit ponderous and vulnerable to being 'turned around'. Do I worry about Dunks when the ball is coming down the congested middle part of the field? Nope, not really. But I do worry when he gets turned around by a channels ball and has to cover across towards the left back position. I'd tentatively suggest that if MApp is really seriously considering how to get promoted from this division, we are going to need: 1) a mobile target man 2) from time to time we are going to need to move the ball from front to back quicker, using channels balls to turn around physical, but ponderous, defenders. I don't think that it is about missing chances. Having watched the highlights, I'm not really convinced that we even really created a 'chance' as such - certainly not many. Everything was being played in front of their back four, and asking one of our attackers to score a 20 yarder. Another point is that I am not sure that we want to become the 'most complimented' team in the division. All that means is that we are easy on the eye, non-cynical and lose! Danny Hylton really put a stop to that kind of culture when he was at the club. When the team was playing poorly, or under pressure, he'd do everything he could to wind the opposition up, make himself difficult to play against, wind up the fans. I suspect that we need a bit of that in the side for next season.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Apr 15, 2017 11:07:47 GMT
What did the cov fans say ? Sorry, I meant Bradford fans. Thought it strange on the day of their relegation they are commenting how well we played 😃 maybe we converted a few at Wembley
|
|
|
Post by yellowsarmy on Apr 15, 2017 11:08:51 GMT
Watching those, on another day McAleny scores at least one of those shots (isn't it refreshing to have a player not afraid to shoot!). For the goal, yes the defenders need to do better in the box but Skarz has to get closer to his man to block the cross coming in. Cross for goal could have been better pressurised. But Nelson got caught watching the ball as his man dropped off him, good cross simply headed in. I think we lack an aerial presence in the box without chey playing. As much as Nelson playing things out is better i really think Chey does the ugly stuff better.
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Apr 15, 2017 12:49:14 GMT
Also very complimentary about us on the message board too. Many saying we are the best team they have played all season and will be in the promotion places next year. Always easier to be complimentary when you've won though! Just had a look at the highlights, and what is interesting is the different kind of attacking play by both sides (at least, inasmuch as one can see that from highlights). We play the ball neatly through the middle and hope to get running player 1 on 1. Whereas they look to move the ball forward a bit more quickly, and then spread the ball wide to get crosses into the box. They certainly looked to have a better shape to get in behind our defence. I think that, if one were to have a criticism, is that we do not ask enough questions of defences that, at League 1 level, will often be a bit ponderous and vulnerable to being 'turned around'. Do I worry about Dunks when the ball is coming down the congested middle part of the field? Nope, not really. But I do worry when he gets turned around by a channels ball and has to cover across towards the left back position. I'd tentatively suggest that if MApp is really seriously considering how to get promoted from this division, we are going to need: 1) a mobile target man 2) from time to time we are going to need to move the ball from front to back quicker, using channels balls to turn around physical, but ponderous, defenders. I don't think that it is about missing chances. Having watched the highlights, I'm not really convinced that we even really created a 'chance' as such - certainly not many. Everything was being played in front of their back four, and asking one of our attackers to score a 20 yarder. One tactic they did employ, was to try to turn our defence at every opportunity by playing balls over the top. This was particularly noticeable in the first half and we coped with it reasonably well. They didn't do it so much in the second half and I suspect it was a pre meditated tactic, having watched us, and in particular something that Chey Dunkley struggles to cope with. I kind of know what you mean about the compliments comment, but I take the positive from it, that we are a good team and others can see that.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Apr 15, 2017 13:36:19 GMT
Just had a look at the highlights, and what is interesting is the different kind of attacking play by both sides (at least, inasmuch as one can see that from highlights). We play the ball neatly through the middle and hope to get running player 1 on 1. Whereas they look to move the ball forward a bit more quickly, and then spread the ball wide to get crosses into the box. They certainly looked to have a better shape to get in behind our defence. I think that, if one were to have a criticism, is that we do not ask enough questions of defences that, at League 1 level, will often be a bit ponderous and vulnerable to being 'turned around'. Do I worry about Dunks when the ball is coming down the congested middle part of the field? Nope, not really. But I do worry when he gets turned around by a channels ball and has to cover across towards the left back position. I'd tentatively suggest that if MApp is really seriously considering how to get promoted from this division, we are going to need: 1) a mobile target man 2) from time to time we are going to need to move the ball from front to back quicker, using channels balls to turn around physical, but ponderous, defenders. I don't think that it is about missing chances. Having watched the highlights, I'm not really convinced that we even really created a 'chance' as such - certainly not many. Everything was being played in front of their back four, and asking one of our attackers to score a 20 yarder. One tactic they did employ, was to try to turn our defence at every opportunity by playing balls over the top. This was particularly noticeable in the first half and we coped with it reasonably well. They didn't do it so much in the second half and I suspect it was a pre meditated tactic, having watched us, and in particular something that Chey Dunkley struggles to cope with. I kind of know what you mean about the compliments comment, but I take the positive from it, that we are a good team and others can see that. Colin, I would ask the somewhat existential question: "what is a 'good team'?" And what is an opposition set of fans looking for to describe a defeated oppo as such. Before anyone jumps on my back, I think that this season we have indeed been a good team, and I am very much in the "We all love MApp" camp. But I have always been a bit uneasy about the idea that the WAY we play defines the QUALITY of what we are. For instance: I think that Neil Ardley does a fantastic job with Wimbledon. They have a budget about a million quid less than ours. So it would be folly for him to try to defeat us by out-impersonating Barcelona.... with a group of players worth considerably less in the market. But if that team matches us, over the course of the season, then surely that makes them a "good team". In some ways, in fact a better TEAM than us, because they are out-performing their wages. I think that when an oppo says that we are a good team, after beating us, they mean that we try to play the ball on the ground, do not foul intentionally, and that our manager does not try to intimidate the referee. Personally, I like all those things about us. But does it makes us a 'good team'? Because when I saw Chelsea earlier in the season they were cynical, moved the ball back to front quickly and were all over the ref, with Conte jumping around in his technical area like a madman. Most people would say that they are the 'best team' in the country. Why? Because they are the most effective at keeping the ball out of the net, on the one hand, and putting it in the opposition's net on the other. The All Blacks are the best rugby team in the world, but they are ugly, cynical cheats when they feel they have to be. I guess, in summary, and having seen Sheff Utd and Bolton this year, that I am saying that I fear it may be hard for us to progress if we don't get a bit nastier. If we're not the kind of team that sometimes oppo fans loathe. We're getting into the Big Boys leagues now - all credit to MApp - and we may all have to re-learn as a club what that actually means. Shotts, Briggsy and Billy Hamilton were all in a great TEAM, but they weren't afraid of letting other sides know that they were in for a tough physical battle at times!
|
|
|
Post by ryaniobirdio on Apr 15, 2017 14:32:57 GMT
We essentially need a slightly better version of what we had last season. That mix of experience (Wright, Mullins), hard working sly pests (Hylton, MacDonald, even Baldock was a bit of a dirty bugger) and then sheer quality (Roofe, O'Dowda, Maguire). You need that mix of players to sustain a 50+ game season when you add in the cups.
We are probably two or three short on extra quality, but we are definitely two or three short on experience and that ability to manage a game by whatever means necessary. I think Maguire was the oldest player on the pitch from the start yesterday at 28, followed by Ribeiro and Eastwood who I think are both 27. We need one or two players around the 30 mark to take charge and show the promising young players we have how to manage a game, change the tempo, take the sting out etc.
I would say we need a left sided centre half who is 28+ as well as a target man / focal point up top who is the same sort of age. Then we probably need a central midfielder who is around that who can sit in and command the pitch and show the likes of Ledson and Lundstram the way. Add those to a mobile and energetic left back and a new winger or two (if Johnson goes it'll definitely require two) and you can see how next season could be a step forward.
|
|
|
Post by holdsteady on Apr 15, 2017 14:37:30 GMT
One tactic they did employ, was to try to turn our defence at every opportunity by playing balls over the top. This was particularly noticeable in the first half and we coped with it reasonably well. They didn't do it so much in the second half and I suspect it was a pre meditated tactic, having watched us, and in particular something that Chey Dunkley struggles to cope with. I kind of know what you mean about the compliments comment, but I take the positive from it, that we are a good team and others can see that. Colin, I would ask the somewhat existential question: "what is a 'good team'?" And what is an opposition set of fans looking for to describe a defeated oppo as such. Before anyone jumps on my back, I think that this season we have indeed been a good team, and I am very much in the "We all love MApp" camp. But I have always been a bit uneasy about the idea that the WAY we play defines the QUALITY of what we are. For instance: I think that Neil Ardley does a fantastic job with Wimbledon. They have a budget about a million quid less than ours. So it would be folly for him to try to defeat us by out-impersonating Barcelona.... with a group of players worth considerably less in the market. But if that team matches us, over the course of the season, then surely that makes them a "good team". In some ways, in fact a better TEAM than us, because they are out-performing their wages. I think that when an oppo says that we are a good team, after beating us, they mean that we try to play the ball on the ground, do not foul intentionally, and that our manager does not try to intimidate the referee. Personally, I like all those things about us. But does it makes us a 'good team'? Because when I saw Chelsea earlier in the season they were cynical, moved the ball back to front quickly and were all over the ref, with Conte jumping around in his technical area like a madman. Most people would say that they are the 'best team' in the country. Why? Because they are the most effective at keeping the ball out of the net, on the one hand, and putting it in the opposition's net on the other. The All Blacks are the best rugby team in the world, but they are ugly, cynical cheats when they feel they have to be. I guess, in summary, and having seen Sheff Utd and Bolton this year, that I am saying that I fear it may be hard for us to progress if we don't get a bit nastier. If we're not the kind of team that sometimes oppo fans loathe. We're getting into the Big Boys leagues now - all credit to MApp - and we may all have to re-learn as a club what that actually means. Shotts, Briggsy and Billy Hamilton were all in a great TEAM, but they weren't afraid of letting other sides know that they were in for a tough physical battle at times! Someone said to me during the Fleetwood game, it was one all at the time, that he would love us to have a bit more of what Roslers team were doing, ie foul us as soon as we looked like breaking, that stopping us getting momentum. We are a pretty, nice team who don't like to do the cynical thing ever, which is why we give a lot of breakaway goals against us.
|
|
|
Post by TheNewManor on Apr 15, 2017 14:49:45 GMT
I was ready to agree with you, and thought i'd look up the stats. I was really suprised to see Oxfords record: www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/discipline/fairplayMaybe we are the most picked on haha I know gamesmanship can win you games but I can't help but detest it. I'm glad we don't have 'Costas' flinging themselves around. Colin, I would ask the somewhat existential question: "what is a 'good team'?" And what is an opposition set of fans looking for to describe a defeated oppo as such. Before anyone jumps on my back, I think that this season we have indeed been a good team, and I am very much in the "We all love MApp" camp. But I have always been a bit uneasy about the idea that the WAY we play defines the QUALITY of what we are. For instance: I think that Neil Ardley does a fantastic job with Wimbledon. They have a budget about a million quid less than ours. So it would be folly for him to try to defeat us by out-impersonating Barcelona.... with a group of players worth considerably less in the market. But if that team matches us, over the course of the season, then surely that makes them a "good team". In some ways, in fact a better TEAM than us, because they are out-performing their wages. I think that when an oppo says that we are a good team, after beating us, they mean that we try to play the ball on the ground, do not foul intentionally, and that our manager does not try to intimidate the referee. Personally, I like all those things about us. But does it makes us a 'good team'? Because when I saw Chelsea earlier in the season they were cynical, moved the ball back to front quickly and were all over the ref, with Conte jumping around in his technical area like a madman. Most people would say that they are the 'best team' in the country. Why? Because they are the most effective at keeping the ball out of the net, on the one hand, and putting it in the opposition's net on the other. The All Blacks are the best rugby team in the world, but they are ugly, cynical cheats when they feel they have to be. I guess, in summary, and having seen Sheff Utd and Bolton this year, that I am saying that I fear it may be hard for us to progress if we don't get a bit nastier. If we're not the kind of team that sometimes oppo fans loathe. We're getting into the Big Boys leagues now - all credit to MApp - and we may all have to re-learn as a club what that actually means. Shotts, Briggsy and Billy Hamilton were all in a great TEAM, but they weren't afraid of letting other sides know that they were in for a tough physical battle at times! Someone said to me during the Fleetwood game, it was one all at the time, that he would love us to have a bit more of what Roslers team were doing, ie foul us as soon as we looked like breaking, that stopping us getting momentum. We are a pretty, nice team who don't like to do the cynical thing ever, which is why we give a lot of breakaway goals against us.
|
|
|
Post by grenobleroad on Apr 15, 2017 15:03:31 GMT
I was ready to agree with you, and thought i'd look up the stats. I was really suprised to see Oxfords record: www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/discipline/fairplayMaybe we are the most picked on haha I know gamesmanship can win you games but I can't help but detest it. I'm glad we don't have 'Costas' flinging themselves around. Someone said to me during the Fleetwood game, it was one all at the time, that he would love us to have a bit more of what Roslers team were doing, ie foul us as soon as we looked like breaking, that stopping us getting momentum. We are a pretty, nice team who don't like to do the cynical thing ever, which is why we give a lot of breakaway goals against us. Staggered by that. Even more so that I can't remember any of our players serving suspensions for accumulated yellows.
|
|
|
Post by holdsteady on Apr 15, 2017 15:08:02 GMT
I was ready to agree with you, and thought i'd look up the stats. I was really suprised to see Oxfords record: www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/discipline/fairplayMaybe we are the most picked on haha I know gamesmanship can win you games but I can't help but detest it. I'm glad we don't have 'Costas' flinging themselves around. Staggered by that. Even more so that I can't remember any of our players serving suspensions for accumulated yellows. We have played more games than anyone else though, and 10 more than some, so it's not really a fair way to judge as they make no allowance for that.
|
|
|
Post by TheNewManor on Apr 15, 2017 15:08:48 GMT
Mind you when you click on league alone the picture improves. I think the amount of games we have played makes our overall record look bad. I was ready to agree with you, and thought i'd look up the stats. I was really suprised to see Oxfords record: www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/discipline/fairplayMaybe we are the most picked on haha I know gamesmanship can win you games but I can't help but detest it. I'm glad we don't have 'Costas' flinging themselves around. Staggered by that. Even more so that I can't remember any of our players serving suspensions for accumulated yellows.
|
|
|
Post by TheNewManor on Apr 15, 2017 15:11:15 GMT
The other interesting point is if you isolate the league only. The worst disciplinary records are for those teams who are struggling. Either 'Winning' teams get away with it more or the hypothesis you need to cheat to win doesnt hold true. www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/discipline/fairplay
|
|
|
Post by foley on Apr 15, 2017 15:13:18 GMT
Just a couple of comments following the good discussion above.
I can see why Bradford said that we were a good side and I am not sure that meant that we were 'nice' They have not lost at home all season and with some breaks we could have won. As their supporters have said on their forum, their keeper made some good saves, there was a (what looked to me) sensational tackle on Rothwell when he looked about to score and Nelson appeared to have a good chance in the first half. I thought that we showed quite a lot of quality especially considering we were playing the 3rd/4th best team in the Division.
Having said that I agree that on the basis that Dunkley is leaving (an assumption based on what I have read), we need an experienced left sided Centre back who can replace Dunkley's aerial domination (which is clearly his strength). We also need a striker who can bully defenders but can score 10-12 league goals a season.
Oh and I am very glad that we don't have cheating players in our side and that generally we play how we should (but I accept that at times we lose to the Wimbledon's who maybe use cheating tactics to beat 'better teams'
|
|
|
Post by holdsteady on Apr 15, 2017 15:21:21 GMT
The other interesting point is if you isolate the league only. The worst disciplinary records are for those teams who are struggling. Either 'Winning' teams get away with it more or the hypothesis you need to cheat to win doesnt hold true. www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/discipline/fairplayFleetwood were the most cynical team i have seen this season, but they were clever with it and did it in areas that avoided bookings. I think it's not so much about kicking the other team off the park as seeing early when the breakaway is on and stopping the game, game management i think its called by the pros. We have a young team, so it's perhaps not a surprise that we are behind other teams in this.
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Apr 15, 2017 15:22:12 GMT
One tactic they did employ, was to try to turn our defence at every opportunity by playing balls over the top. This was particularly noticeable in the first half and we coped with it reasonably well. They didn't do it so much in the second half and I suspect it was a pre meditated tactic, having watched us, and in particular something that Chey Dunkley struggles to cope with. I kind of know what you mean about the compliments comment, but I take the positive from it, that we are a good team and others can see that. Colin, I would ask the somewhat existential question: "what is a 'good team'?" And what is an opposition set of fans looking for to describe a defeated oppo as such. Before anyone jumps on my back, I think that this season we have indeed been a good team, and I am very much in the "We all love MApp" camp. But I have always been a bit uneasy about the idea that the WAY we play defines the QUALITY of what we are. For instance: I think that Neil Ardley does a fantastic job with Wimbledon. They have a budget about a million quid less than ours. So it would be folly for him to try to defeat us by out-impersonating Barcelona.... with a group of players worth considerably less in the market. But if that team matches us, over the course of the season, then surely that makes them a "good team". In some ways, in fact a better TEAM than us, because they are out-performing their wages. I think that when an oppo says that we are a good team, after beating us, they mean that we try to play the ball on the ground, do not foul intentionally, and that our manager does not try to intimidate the referee. Personally, I like all those things about us. But does it makes us a 'good team'? Because when I saw Chelsea earlier in the season they were cynical, moved the ball back to front quickly and were all over the ref, with Conte jumping around in his technical area like a madman. Most people would say that they are the 'best team' in the country. Why? Because they are the most effective at keeping the ball out of the net, on the one hand, and putting it in the opposition's net on the other. The All Blacks are the best rugby team in the world, but they are ugly, cynical cheats when they feel they have to be. I guess, in summary, and having seen Sheff Utd and Bolton this year, that I am saying that I fear it may be hard for us to progress if we don't get a bit nastier. If we're not the kind of team that sometimes oppo fans loathe. We're getting into the Big Boys leagues now - all credit to MApp - and we may all have to re-learn as a club what that actually means. Shotts, Briggsy and Billy Hamilton were all in a great TEAM, but they weren't afraid of letting other sides know that they were in for a tough physical battle at times! I think you're putting two and two together and making five Charlie. This was no tippy tappy slow slow quick quick slow sideways backwards sideways performance. No, this was a performance with energy, bite and hard work, coupled with plenty of skill. We made them work really hard and the game could have gone either way. Read their forum and see what the Bradford fans have to say about us. It's not patronising platitudes, it is admiration and relief that they got the points.
|
|
|
Post by ttg17 on Apr 15, 2017 16:20:33 GMT
Also very complimentary about us on the message board too. Many saying we are the best team they have played all season and will be in the promotion places next year. Always easier to be complimentary when you've won though! Just had a look at the highlights, and what is interesting is the different kind of attacking play by both sides (at least, inasmuch as one can see that from highlights). We play the ball neatly through the middle and hope to get running player 1 on 1. Whereas they look to move the ball forward a bit more quickly, and then spread the ball wide to get crosses into the box. They certainly looked to have a better shape to get in behind our defence. I think that, if one were to have a criticism, is that we do not ask enough questions of defences that, at League 1 level, will often be a bit ponderous and vulnerable to being 'turned around'. Do I worry about Dunks when the ball is coming down the congested middle part of the field? Nope, not really. But I do worry when he gets turned around by a channels ball and has to cover across towards the left back position. I'd tentatively suggest that if MApp is really seriously considering how to get promoted from this division, we are going to need: 1) a mobile target man 2) from time to time we are going to need to move the ball from front to back quicker, using channels balls to turn around physical, but ponderous, defenders. I don't think that it is about missing chances. Having watched the highlights, I'm not really convinced that we even really created a 'chance' as such - certainly not many. Everything was being played in front of their back four, and asking one of our attackers to score a 20 yarder. I, too, have been constantly frustrated by Hemmings' refusal to pass the ball swiftly back to eastwood when through on goal
|
|
|
Post by dabigfella on Apr 16, 2017 15:15:40 GMT
The other interesting point is if you isolate the league only. The worst disciplinary records are for those teams who are struggling. Either 'Winning' teams get away with it more or the hypothesis you need to cheat to win doesnt hold true. www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/discipline/fairplayThey do. I have seen United all the way to the top and all the way back down again (and on the way back up again now). On the way up we used to get away with murder, and the way down we got away with nothing and often got heavily punished for really minor offences. It's as if the referees think no struggling team could possibly be able to play proper football and must be a load of cloggers. There are exception, but as a general rule it's pretty accurate.
|
|