Back from the Game - Stoke City (H)

[Blue Blood]

And Gorkss being pulled out to LB several times to cover Harte being nowhere

Being at the game, it seemed to me that our pitch had been narrowed, suggesting this was a deliberate ploy and one that appeared to work extremely well.

On the one occasion I made a point of noting how it worked, Harte was near the half way line as a ball over his head was comfortably dealt with by Gorkks going wide whilst Harte had plenty of time to get back and cover in the centre...............simple and effective and probably good enough to cover most eventualities.

And, if this keeps the lesser talented, and not much quicker, Shorey in the stand/sweeping the car park, that's fine by me.

We are certain the pitch had been lengthened as well. Look at where the goals are now next time you are there.

[ZacNaloen]

All Pitches have been standardised in the premier league this year

[wolsey]

And Gorkss being pulled out to LB several times to cover Harte being nowhere

Being at the game, it seemed to me that our pitch had been narrowed, suggesting this was a deliberate ploy and one that appeared to work extremely well.

.

Haven't all pitches been standardised this season? - thought I saw a bit on Sky about it

[Ian Royal]

Just based on an atrocious Stoke attack, which still made us look a little vulnerable and brittle at times. And Gorkss being pulled out to LB several times to cover Harte being nowhere. It's a score as much to reflect what a decent attack could have done to us as anything.

I didn't see anything that negated my pre-season worry that Pearce isn't agile enough and Pearce and Gorkss lack enough pace to cope at this level as a pair, especially with no pace at LB. But we'll see.

youre marking them on this game, by taking into account made up stuff that may /may not happen in the future?
gorkss covers harte- is what theyure supposed to do, to stop hartes pace being exposed. why would you mark down on this?it worked

Correct I'm marking them on this game, but I'm also taking into acount the quality of the opposition they were facing and don't think I should give them higher marks for their performance, just because the opposition were too poor to capitilise on their performance. I mark down on Gorkss being pulled out of position to cover Harte, because it leaves a gaping hole in the centre of our defence for someone to run into and score. Because at least one of the times Gorkss had to do it, Harte was nowhere, so couldn't slot into Gorkss' position.

tbf its important to know, in order to judge your comments, whether you were at the game or not

Find me a match review in the back from the game threads that I've written in the last 4 years when I haven't watched the game, at the ground or live on TV / internet. Questions and minor comments are not a review of the match.

[Woodcote Royal]

All Pitches have been standardised in the premier league this year

Fair enough, I wasn't aware of this but I'm guessing the club can live with a narrower pitch.

Surely it's not possible for every pitch to be exactly the same size due to lack of space at some grounds?

[melonhead]

Find me a match review in the back from the game threads that I've written in the last 4 years when I haven't watched the game, at the ground or live on TV / internet. Questions and minor comments are not a review of the match.

why would i do that?

so you did attend?
in which case:

your comments of pearce and gorkss are nonsense, and your view that gorkss covering harte is a bad thing are too.
the gaps were covered. gorkss and harte had a rock solid game.

[CayeneMatt]

I think we looked good for the first half hour, in control of the game but without any real penetrating threat. Not surprising for a team with two new first choice strikers, a second choice winger and a first choice winger on the wrong flank. The set pieces were poor although Gorkss still should have scored from a corner first half.

Then we seemed to fade and stop pressing them so well, leaving space in midfield for them to start putting together passes. Hey presto, a weak defensive header from Pearce, combined with no marking from one of Jobi, Hal, Ledge or Guthrie and an absolute hwler from Fed and we're 1-0 down just before half time. That knocked the stuffing out of us and it was all Stoke until McCleary came on to stretch the game. Which he did superbly with pacey and direct running.

I thought we had two penalty shouts, but the one we were given (from MOTD - I was at the wrong end) was stonewall. I didn't even realise their player had been sent off I was so nervous about the penalty we were about to take. Up steps ALF the Great and we have a thoroughly deserved parity against a side that never seriously threatened our goal. Harte's freekick was better but the keeper was well positioned and I don't think he was ever getting it in.

Federici - 4 didn't have a lot of import to do, but made the worst mistake he's done in years. I am confident we won't see more of that this season.
Gunter - 6 didn't notice him a lot, was hoping he'd get forward more.
Harte - 5 positioning, set pieces and pace were all weak. Stoke caused us problems down that flank. In defence, I'm not sure how much HRK helped.
Pearce - 6 clumsy but solid. I am concerned about whether he's good enough at this level. It's a big step up.
Gorkss - 5.5 missed a good chance and didn't seem to play well, but was pulled all over the place by Harte's poor game.
Ledge - 7.5 quality interceptions and tackles, good use of the ball in midfield
Guthrie - 6.5 excellent on the ball and offers a lot more in the middle, but a bit too casual sometimes
McAnuff - 5.5 quiet game, some nice touches but not a lot, should have started on the left
HRK - 5.5 beat his man a few times only to be scythed down, but was too quiet and should have started on the right or on the bench.
Pog - 6 big man with good feet, I could see what he was trying to do a lot of the time, but he was trying to do it through one player too many.
ALF - 7 wayward shooting, but getting himself oportunities, and scored the penalty well

McCleary - 8 tricks, pace and direct runign, exactly what we needed
Hunt - 6.5 got involved and made himself a nuisance.

Team Perfroamance - 7
McDermott - 6.5

May want to drop ALF and HRK for Chelsea and bring in McCleary and Karacan. I think Mariappa may well be in the side within the next three to five games.

All in all a decent start with a game we should probably have won but for the howler and that we did well to get back into and get a point. Play to the whistle like that and we should rescue too many points to go down.

Blah blah, tired and predictable cheap shot, blah blah radio, blah no actual attempt to say what's wrong with it blah.

You've been a good boy recently, but unfortuntely with the 1st game of the season passed, you've descended in to cock mode again...

1. Back to regulation Harte bashing. This harks back to your Joe Mills arse kissing days and look what happened there. You were wrong then (massively and embarrassingly wrong), and you're in the minority here.
2. Pearce? You're being plain thick.
3. Guthrie... casual? Oh dear. Maybe if headless chickens are your thing. Don't tell me, now Mills has moved on, Karacan's giving you some trouser movement?
4. Pog - you could see what he was trying to do. Really? You could, and 23,193 others couldn't.
5. McDermott 6.5. Yeah, BM's only average at best. His half time team talk was obviously shite and his substitutions were completely ineffectual. He didn't spot that Pog wasn;t runnning the channels which Hunt can do.

There you go, you asked for it.

[RoyalBlue]

And Gorkss being pulled out to LB several times to cover Harte being nowhere

Being at the game, it seemed to me that our pitch had been narrowed, suggesting this was a deliberate ploy and one that appeared to work extremely well.

On the one occasion I made a point of noting how it worked, Harte was near the half way line as a ball over his head was comfortably dealt with by Gorkks going wide whilst Harte had plenty of time to get back and cover in the centre...............simple and effective and probably good enough to cover most eventualities.

And, if this keeps the lesser talented, and not much quicker, Shorey in the stand/sweeping the car park, that's fine by me.

But presumably it also makes it easier for the opposing centre backs to cover their full backs, thus reducing some of the threat of our wide men. Given that both Coppell and McDermott are big fans of wingers/wide men, I was always a bit surprised that they opted for a narrower pitch. That having been said, same size pitch for everyone this season, probably reducing some of the home advantage for many teams.

Incidentally, talking of rule changes, FIFA's latest contribution to the great game is that players (at all levels) can now only use sock tape/tie ups in the same colour as their socks! In the case of socks of with more than one colour, I guess colour of sock tape will now depend on the height at which it is worn!

[Woodcote Royal]

I know we like to play with width but it seems to me McDermott really wants Harte in the team and anything that makes his lack of pace harder to expose in a league full of pacy forwards is worth having, even if it means losing out in other areas.

[Ian Royal]

Find me a match review in the back from the game threads that I've written in the last 4 years when I haven't watched the game, at the ground or live on TV / internet. Questions and minor comments are not a review of the match.

why would i do that?

so you did attend?
in which case:

your comments of pearce and gorkss are nonsense, and your view that gorkss covering harte is a bad thing are too.
the gaps were covered. gorkss and harte had a rock solid game.

There is a big difference between a team retaining it's shape whilst one player is out of position and being covered for, and a team that doesn't retain its shape and is stretched with gaps appearing whilst a player is caught out of position.

The problem is not Gorkss covering for Harte - that would be retarded, and I get the feeling you're being deliberately obtuse to have a go at some relatively minor criticism - it's Gorkss having to cover for Harte as part of an error, rather than planned play.

[CayeneMatt]

Find me a match review in the back from the game threads that I've written in the last 4 years when I haven't watched the game, at the ground or live on TV / internet. Questions and minor comments are not a review of the match.

why would i do that?

so you did attend?
in which case:

your comments of pearce and gorkss are nonsense, and your view that gorkss covering harte is a bad thing are too.
the gaps were covered. gorkss and harte had a rock solid game.

There is a big difference between a team retaining it's shape whilst one player is out of position and being covered for, and a team that doesn't retain its shape and is stretched with gaps appearing whilst a player is caught out of position.

The problem is not Gorkss covering for Harte - that would be retarded, and I get the feeling you're being deliberately obtuse to have a go at some relatively minor criticism - it's Gorkss having to cover for Harte as part of an error, rather than planned play.

I recall Gorkss covering for Harte once, when Harte went on the overlap, Jobi got caught by Etherington who then steamed down the right wing and was caught by Gorkss. Yes,harte was out of position because Jobi screwed up the move.

But of course, blame that on Harte for being out of position as it suits your persistent, and ill founded criticism of him.

You're obviously an educated man, like myself, but you really do come across as a total plank at times.

[melonhead]

every time gorkss covers harte, is planned, cos thats how we are set up to play.
if harte doesnt get back and cover him, guthrie or ledge does.

not being pedantic. its a pretty key point in my assessment of your assessment

[Ian Royal]

Blah blah, tired and predictable cheap shot, blah blah radio, blah no actual attempt to say what's wrong with it blah.

You've been a good boy recently, but unfortuntely with the 1st game of the season passed, you've descended in to cock mode again...

1. Back to regulation Harte bashing. This harks back to your Joe Mills arse kissing days and look what happened there. You were wrong then (massively and embarrassingly wrong), and you're in the minority here.
2. Pearce? You're being plain thick.
3. Guthrie... casual? Oh dear. Maybe if headless chickens are your thing. Don't tell me, now Mills has moved on, Karacan's giving you some trouser movement?
4. Pog - you could see what he was trying to do. Really? You could, and 23,193 others couldn't.
5. McDermott 6.5. Yeah, BM's only average at best. His half time team talk was obviously shite and his substitutions were completely ineffectual. He didn't spot that Pog wasn;t runnning the channels which Hunt can do.

There you go, you asked for it.

Blimey, you're in a pissy mood.

1) When Harte plays well, I praise him, when I don't think he does, I criticise him. He needs to perform better all-round, he was sub-par for last season, but certainly not particularly bad. If Mills is such a poor player, why has a Championship team picked him up? I only thought he showed a lot of promise and was a better long term option than a Harte who'd started the season badly and was in / approaching his mid-30s. Of course nothing here actually tackles the content of my post other than telling me I'm wrong. Wow, insightful.

2) Yet more insightful analysis - I'm being thick because I'm concerned that someone who's had one full good season in teh championship may struggle in the Prem!? He was solid, but he is ponderous and can be too easily turned, if he's ready his good brain makes up for that, but he can be caught flatfooted - hence clumsy. And his headed clearance for their goal was poor and straight to an unmarked Stoke shit - I find it difficult to justify a better score than 6 for that.

3) Yes, casual sometimes, he played some sloppy passes, but in general was "excellent on the ball and offers a lot more in the middle".

4) Yes, I could, he was trying to bring the ball into close control to turn the defender, but his control wasn't quite good enough and he was covered by too many defenders. His heading was poor and he was generally struggling, but I saw plenty to suggest he'll be an asset. I don't think you can speak for the majority any more than I can. And I don't care whether I can see something others can't, that doesn't automatically make it wrong.

5) Just so you know, as far as I'm concerned 6 is an acceptable but slightly disappointing average score. So 6.5 is better than average. His HT talk can't have been that effective, we didn't affect the game for about 20 minutes after HT until he brought on McCleary. And I don't think he got his set up with our wingers right at KO.

You seem to have an issue with me and be looking for anything you can twist into an argument or dig at me. Because most of those points are verging on ridiculous. I don't intend to get into a long slanging match with you though, so now you've had a (half-hearted) attempt to actually put some content to your criticism, and I've answered it, I'm done.

[Ian Royal]

every time gorkss covers harte, is planned, cos thats how we are set up to play.
if harte doesnt get back and cover him, guthrie or ledge does.

not being pedantic. its a pretty key point in my assessment of your assessment

I'll remind you it's all part of our planned defence the next time we get caught out by it as a problem then. Just because we have a plan for how to deal with a situation, doesn't mean that plan will work all the time. Otherwise we wouldn't need contingencies for when a player gets caught out of position, because they'd never get caught out in the first place.

[pea]

Ian, we've been playing like that for years, although you'd have to have been there to see it in action. Our full backs push up high up the pitch to either put pressure on the opposition winger as soon as they recieve the ball to feet or to pre-empt that pass and cut out that option for the opposition and force them to hit it over our full back. Our centre back is prepared for that eventuality and deals with the hopeful long ball. Our central midfielders are aware of it and one of them will drop back slightly and pick up any runners and the full back on the opposite wing will tuck in more so that the remaining centre back isn't stretched.

[melonhead]

every time gorkss covers harte, is planned, cos thats how we are set up to play.
if harte doesnt get back and cover him, guthrie or ledge does.

not being pedantic. its a pretty key point in my assessment of your assessment

I'll remind you it's all part of our planned defence the next time we get caught out by it as a problem then. Just because we have a plan for how to deal with a situation, doesn't mean that plan will work all the time. Otherwise we wouldn't need contingencies for when a player gets caught out of position, because they'd never get caught out in the first place.

its hopw we set up in THIS match
it worked in THIS match

what happens next match is irrelevant when assessing this match


if her gets rinsed for pace, and we concede goals cos gorkss is dragged wide ill pick up on it and say so as i have when its happend in the past.
but it didnt happen in this game

[Ian Royal]

Obviously we look at things differently Brenders.

[melonhead]

yes.

me: correctly,
and you less so

[Ian Royal]

yes.

me: correctly,
and you less so

[melonhead]