blueatheart Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 For the love of God, can we fudge the fudging shivving drum off please? I'm all for the Athelticos commitment but it completely kills any atmosphere. Unless you're singing a song which is overpowered by a drum no one bothered joining in. And they sing some right tripe songs This. I was bored of "every little thing" by the second run through. Sheridan's blue and white army suffered from the drum back in the day. Same happened today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Coleman also stopped Hanson through 1 on 1, and blocked Devante Cole front post by chucking himself in. He's young and inexperienced, mistakes will be made. His distribution needs massive work but I like the way he's always looking to offload as soon as he gets it and pushing us forward, even if it doesn't always come off. I think that Coleman will end up as a very good keeper indeed. He just has to put up with the same rubbish that Eardley and others had to in years gone by Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngen Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) This. I was bored of "every little thing" by the second run through. Sheridan's blue and white army suffered from the drum back in the day. Same happened today. 3 little birds - great if sung by 4000 Ajax fans who know the words and all sing along (without a drum). Crap when there's 10 to go and you want to get behind your team but the drum plays above everyone else. Whatever happened to chucking out a Ta Na Na? Edited January 17, 2016 by youngen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewBlue Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) They get trotted out because you cannot see these things in a football game and you post incessant rubbish on here 24/7 thereby causing a reply! See you have done it again! I won the Prediction League the other year, surely not everything is :censored:... Edited January 17, 2016 by NewBlue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobOAFC Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 So 4-4-2 then??????????????????????? No. You would still have the left (or right) wing-back and the 3 CB's and 3 CM's. Then again, formations are only really where you stand at kick-off or goal kicks and change depending on what is happening during the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) Here's my take on the overall and individual performances. I've not seen the TV replays yet. 3-5-2 formation was spot on for the personnel selected. Intelligent adjustment to 4-3-2 / 4-4-1 after the sending off and brave not to reduce the attacking options. Bradford were excellent at pinning back our wing backs to reduce our attacking options first half. We really went for it until our substitutions but weren't creative enough when it mattered. The introductions of Forte and Poleon seemed right, but both were pretty ineffective which was disappointing. Attitude and commitment, if maintained, will be enough to get us out of this. Bradford were very "professional" today. Hard in the tackle. Willing to try and con the ref. Not afraid to leave a foot in. While not advocating cheating, I wish our players were as savvy as they are. Coleman 5: Better than Cornell. Much more secure on most crosses but at fault for the goal along with (I think) Lafferty He also has a tendency to rush out of his goal when defenders have stuff covered. His slip when clearing an easy one nearly cost us another goal. He also elected to punch a catchable cross that would have provided much needed relief. Dummingan 7: Looked okay until his injury and was getting forward down the right. Lafferty 5: Unable to give us the attacking width that the front two needed. Jump when defending deep crosses please. J Wilson 6: While the defensive unit felt more solid, his passing out of defence was lacking. Dieng 5: Similar to James Wilson. One great block first half. Wilson B 7: He's becoming the heart of our defence. Reliable. Kelly 7: The vital outlet for the back three, often having to become an additional centre half at time but reliable when doing so. Was quickly outnumbered when on the ball and excellent at not getting caught in possession. Bradford players often left a foot in on him after the ball had gone. He took a beating today. Jones 6: Hard working throughout but rarely effective at linking up with the front two. Not the time for a :censored:e free kick. Winchester 6: Should have shot when running at the early on. Booked either for diving or handball when he slipped which was even more ridiculous than the red card. Worried the opposition when carrying the ball forwards and picked his spot well with one second half effort that was blocked. Although substituted, I thought he was our most likely scorer from midfield. Cassidy 4: I think he neatly scored late in the first half with a neat effort (might have been Murphy) but in a game where service was limited he needed to show better ball retention and run the channels better. The suggestion that we'd have been ok this season had he not been injured is, frankly, nonsense. Murphy 4: Movement was limited compared to his usual running and he maintained his ability to have the ball bounce off his shins when it was easier to control it. During our better second half moments he took up some good positions in the penalty are. I won't score Connor Brown. My instinct on the red card was that it was a lusty challenge but one footed and got the ball. The referee made his decision immediately, not swayed by the Bradford players in his ear or the :censored: number 17 rolling around. While I didn't think it was a foul, if the referee describes it as "endangering the safety of an opponent through excessive force" we will struggle to win an appeal. Forte and Poleon both pissed me off. Bringing on fresh legs with pace seemed the right thing to do. The game was swaying our way and this pair offered nothing. Poleon's footballing instincts, or lack of them, never cease to amaze me. His occasional moments of magic are overshadowed by the other shortcomings in his game. The collective effort I'd score a 7. Greater than the sum of the parts. This leaves me optimistic for survival. Goalkeeper, Big striker. Centre back. I think that's where we lack most. Maybe a winger suitable for a 3-5-2 as well - Forte might do the job although not so sure defensively. Edited January 17, 2016 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Didnt Winchester play his first game at right back, maybe he could fit into the wing back role? Pity the lad in the youths Mantack Isn't quite ready yet, he can bomb forward. Winchester has neither the fitness nor the desire required to play wing back.....he'd be blowing out of his arse after 20 minutes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hands on Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Nice assessment. I would add Winchester got booked not for falling on the ball but for handling the ball after he had fallen on it so the Bradford players couldn't get it - an instinctive but daft reaction. Once again he proved that he does not have the engine to be a professional footballer - if he can't play for 90 minutes he shouldn't start. The Bradford supporters I spoke to saw there goal not as an attempt to score but as a misplaced header back across the box. We should have done better but there you go. I liked the way we started. Our problem was the inability of either Murphy or Cassidy to win or retain the ball. Cassidy worked hard all game but when oh when will he score and just what, apart from working hard, are his strengths supposed to be. I joked before the game that Connor would play. Dummingan is good but lacks strength and appeared to just give up. Enter Connor. He shouldn't play for us again. No doubt he trains hard and wants so much to do well but he is a liability, an accident waiting to happen and we didn't have to wait for long, - the only mistake made by the gaffer - hopefully he will now get rid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
super_blue Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Nice assessment. I would add Winchester got booked not for falling on the ball but for handling the ball after he had fallen on it so the Bradford players couldn't get it - an instinctive but daft reaction. Once again he proved that he does not have the engine to be a professional footballer - if he can't play for 90 minutes he shouldn't start. The Bradford supporters I spoke to saw there goal not as an attempt to score but as a misplaced header back across the box. We should have done better but there you go. I liked the way we started. Our problem was the inability of either Murphy or Cassidy to win or retain the ball. Cassidy worked hard all game but when oh when will he score and just what, apart from working hard, are his strengths supposed to be. I joked before the game that Connor would play. Dummingan is good but lacks strength and appeared to just give up. Enter Connor. He shouldn't play for us again. No doubt he trains hard and wants so much to do well but he is a liability, an accident waiting to happen and we didn't have to wait for long, - the only mistake made by the gaffer - hopefully he will now get rid. Didn't Winchester move to centre midfield last week in the 2nd half against Millwall and have a much more positive impact as well as completing 90mins? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluear Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Connor brown an accident waiting to happen?!? If we don't appeal that decision and win I'll be shocked. A strong committed tackle just they kind I want to see all our players putting in. He's not the :censored: player he's made out to be on here. Referee was dog:censored: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewBlue Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) Player playing centre midfield in a team with 10 men for 50 minutes is tired near the end shocker. They were all blowing out of their arse because they'd all put in a mega shift. Some of the agendas on here... Edited January 17, 2016 by NewBlue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Connor brown an accident waiting to happen?!? If we don't appeal that decision and win I'll be shocked. A strong committed tackle just they kind I want to see all our players putting in. He's not the :censored: player he's made out to be on here. Referee was dog:censored: It has to be a strong, committed tackle at the correct time though. He often throws himself into tackles when a more mindful player would stay on his feet to win it and come away with the ball. Ignoring Reid's playacting, watch the tackle again yesterday. It's the middle of the park. If Brown shows a bit of composure there and stays on his feet, we turn them around and break with the ball. He jumps in which means if we don't win that second ball, we've a gap down our right hand side and are playing catch up. If he plays again, watch how often he gets drawn into attempting a tackle rather than protecting his space and picking his moment. It's the kind of thing you can accept if he offered an attacking threat or something greater to the team but if anything, this flaw is seen by some as his redeeming feature! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzlatic Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Enter Connor. He shouldn't play for us again. No doubt he trains hard and wants so much to do well but he is a liability, an accident waiting to happen and we didn't have to wait for long, - the only mistake made by the gaffer - hopefully he will now get rid. Just to clarify, you don't want our defenders trying to win the ball back through strong tackles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futchers briefs Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 I'm not convinced that being able to 'carry the ball forward' once every 20 minutes are the right ingredients to get us out of this mess, Winchester doesn't looked to have improved his application or desire since first breaking through, for me he's not good enough in this predicament. Cassidy and Murphy gave us nowt first half, lost their first 12 headers between them and when we finally got the ball into them, it pinged off their boot or shin. I thought the back 3 played well considering new formation, wing backs were lacking - no surprise as they're not wing backs. Coleman dealt with most things well enough and barring the goal, it was good to see a tics keeper come and deal with balls into his box - made 2 v good saves second half when coming out to block. Sending off spoiled a certain goalless draw, I'm far from convinced it was a red, but no other player in a blue shirt would have made that challenge in that area of the pitch - so possibly no coincidence either. Felt for Jones and Kelly, whom got through a tremendous amount of work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc_lover Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 It has to be a strong, committed tackle at the correct time though. He often throws himself into tackles when a more mindful player would stay on his feet to win it and come away with the ball. Ignoring Reid's playacting, watch the tackle again yesterday. It's the middle of the park. If Brown shows a bit of composure there and stays on his feet, we turn them around and break with the ball. He jumps in which means if we don't win that second ball, we've a gap down our right hand side and are playing catch up. If he plays again, watch how often he gets drawn into attempting a tackle rather than protecting his space and picking his moment. It's the kind of thing you can accept if he offered an attacking threat or something greater to the team but if anything, this flaw is seen by some as his redeeming feature! What an absolute load of tripe. It has to be at the right time? The ball was there to be won at that specific moment and he did exactly that. The referee has had a shocker it's as simple as that. He's not the most gifted footballer on our books no, but give the lad a break he's nowhere near as bad as your in depth "analysis" makes out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzlatic Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 It has to be a strong, committed tackle at the correct time though. He often throws himself into tackles when a more mindful player would stay on his feet to win it and come away with the ball. Ignoring Reid's playacting, watch the tackle again yesterday. It's the middle of the park. If Brown shows a bit of composure there and stays on his feet, we turn them around and break with the ball. He jumps in which means if we don't win that second ball, we've a gap down our right hand side and are playing catch up. If he plays again, watch how often he gets drawn into attempting a tackle rather than protecting his space and picking his moment. It's the kind of thing you can accept if he offered an attacking threat or something greater to the team but if anything, this flaw is seen by some as his redeeming feature! He doesn't jump in. He slides in, all slides start from a standing position. One footed, wins the ball and gets a gash on his shin presumably from the other guy actually being the one that went over the top. It always surprises me how some of our fans are so quick to turn on their own rather than back them up. Connor has his flaws obviously, that's why he's not first choice but that tackle is not one of them. Unless you want to have a go because it was a bit untidy. If the ref doesn't give a free kick there then Connor gets a round of applause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Thou shalt not criticise the boy from Northern Ireland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Thou shalt not criticise the boy from Northern Ireland. Those who don't rate him seem to overplay their dislike. Those who rate him seem to overplay the love in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Connor brown an accident waiting to happen?!? If we don't appeal that decision and win I'll be shocked. A strong committed tackle just they kind I want to see all our players putting in. He's not the :censored: player he's made out to be on here. Referee was dog:censored: Just seen the tackle on the match highlights. A one footed tackle in which he wins the ball but goes through the man. Not a sending off but it was reckless in my view. Red card was harsh and I hope that the club does appeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) He doesn't jump in. He slides in, all slides start from a standing position. One footed, wins the ball and gets a gash on his shin presumably from the other guy actually being the one that went over the top. It always surprises me how some of our fans are so quick to turn on their own rather than back them up. Connor has his flaws obviously, that's why he's not first choice but that tackle is not one of them. Unless you want to have a go because it was a bit untidy. If the ref doesn't give a free kick there then Connor gets a round of applause. It's more the patterns of foolish behaviour from Brown. You've used the perfect description of his tackling style with 'untidy'. If you compare the going to ground tackling styles of Brown, Jones and Kelly you'll see how controlled the latter two's can be (saying that though, Jones had one or two bizarre attempts at winning the ball as legs tired yesterday). The untidy aspects of his game (lack of subtlety in the dark arts of defending) give the referee a decision to make. At a game I'll get behind any player but having seen it again the next day, it seems like a tackle that could've been avoided by not going to ground has led to a refereeing decision, that has made it significantly harder to get a result. That is why people have used terms like "accident waiting to happen" and "walking red card". Edited January 17, 2016 by Gentleman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Player playing centre midfield in a team with 10 men for 50 minutes is tired near the end shocker. They were all blowing out of their arse because they'd all put in a mega shift. Some of the *agendas on here... An *agenda is where someone has a differing opinion to yours, even if that opinion happens to be correct (*Oxford English Dictionary) Watching a football team is as much about differing views as it is about concrete evidence-just allow others to be entitled to have an opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruitygoo Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 having seen it again the next day, it seems like a tackle that could've been avoided Brown doesn't get to see it again....he has to make a judgement call there and then and in my view he was right to go in for the tackle....it was a good tackle, hard and fair. In hindsighy he probably thinks the same as you and im a critic of his but oj this occasion he has my full backing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewBlue Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 An *agenda is where someone has a differing opinion to yours, even if that opinion happens to be correct (*Oxford English Dictionary) Watching a football team is as much about differing views as it is about concrete evidence-just allow others to be entitled to have an opinion The contradictions... You can think what you want but to contrive yesterday as 'concrete evidence' shows you're trying to find things to fit the narrative, whether you're correct or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmer1 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Connor brown an accident waiting to happen?!? If we don't appeal that decision and win I'll be shocked. A strong committed tackle just they kind I want to see all our players putting in. He's not the :censored: player he's made out to be on here. Referee was dog:censored: I take exception to the last line! He is the :censored: player he is made out to be without a doubt! It wasnt a sending off & the ref got it wrong. He should be commited as its his job and in the 10 minutes or so he was on he only did one thing wrong. When we tried to break at one point Brown as a wing back should have been getting down the line to give an option instead he dropped into space occupied by Dieng, clising down Kellys option with ball forceing him backwards, no football brain and Kelly let him know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 The contradictions... You can think what you want but to contrive yesterday as 'concrete evidence' shows you're trying to find things to fit the narrative, whether you're correct or not. Yet again you contrive to quote my terminology of 'concrete evidence' and refer it to yesteday when I never referred to yesterday and didnt even go to Valley Parade as I expected the result given that Sheridan had only 2 days to work with the players. Can you try reading things twice before posting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.