Match Thread V Chesterfield - Page 13

nige b · 02-11-2010, 23:39

totally don't understand how we were,(and rightfully so that we had the only zero defensive record in all leagues including that other one that includes chelsea) to what we are now. To what we are now.........I seriously don't get it and it must kill Coley and Jimmy............has anyone got an idea or plural because i am lost!!!!

cashman · 02-11-2010, 23:56

Its a puzzler nige, early doors we were not conceding n scoring sod all, now were scoring plenty n conceding fer fun,

beats the crap outa me n probably coley also.

Redraine · 03-11-2010, 00:21

Charlie Barnett did fine. The wrong man was subbed. Some of our football tonight was great, particularly with Charlie, Proccy and Jimmy doing the business. Some Chesterfield fans were full of praise for our performance after the game and I must say I found it an enjoyable game, strangely enough. Our central defensive failings are costing us big time, obviously. Long is not ready for this level of first team football and was often pulled out of position by their clever front men, and Cisak was a bag of nerves. Slow to close down the attackers bursting through, he didn't give me any confidence at all, and so I'm afraid I would have to revert back to the smallest keeper in league football (probably?). At least he makes some saves. Once again our no.11 was a total waste of space, and how he keeps Putterill, Turner and almost anyone else on the bench is nothing short of scandalous.

. Goodnight.

Mr Matthew · 03-11-2010, 10:03

Ineffective you may say, but has so many assists and goals to his name. Flashes of genius???

DAV007 · 03-11-2010, 12:14

well, it was an unpleasant night to go to Chesterfield, but the new stadium is an ideal size for them

First half I thouh we played some decent football, the crossing from McConville left alot to be desired, but the midfield and forward line did ok, it was our defence which was lacking.
The first goal was poor from Long's point of view, his positioning and reading of the game where lacking.
The defence is suspetible to pace which is suprising as we dont play a high line anymore, not as high as in the past.
Second half we still played well in patches but again the defence just wasnt up to it.
The midfield is in need of some steel, an experienced ball winner who can stop the other teams play, neither Joyce or Proctor managed to do it last night.
I can see Coleman going back to 3-5-2 on saturday with the floating wing backs.

cashman · 03-11-2010, 12:17

way the defence is shaping davo perhaps 7-2-2 would be more effective/

VALAIRIAN · 03-11-2010, 12:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

way the defence is shaping davo perhaps 7-2-2 would be more effective/

Don't be silly Cashy, more like 1-9-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sparkie · 03-11-2010, 12:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAV007

The midfield is in need of some steel, an experienced ball winner who can stop the other teams play, neither Joyce or Proctor managed to do it last night.

I can see what youre saying DAV and I agree we need someone to break up play, but to blame Joyce for not being able to do it last night when he didn't even get on the pitch is a bit harsh!!!

shakermaker · 03-11-2010, 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redraine

Charlie Barnett did fine. The wrong man was subbed. Some of our football tonight was great, particularly with Charlie, Proccy and Jimmy doing the business. Some Chesterfield fans were full of praise for our performance after the game and I must say I found it an enjoyable game, strangely enough. Our central defensive failings are costing us big time, obviously. Long is not ready for this level of first team football and was often pulled out of position by their clever front men, and Cisak was a bag of nerves. Slow to close down the attackers bursting through, he didn't give me any confidence at all, and so I'm afraid I would have to revert back to the smallest keeper in league football (probably?). At least he makes some saves. Once again our no.11 was a total waste of space, and how he keeps Putterill, Turner and almost anyone else on the bench is nothing short of scandalous.

. Goodnight.

Thanks Redraine. I wondered how Barnett got on as I recalled a Tranmere fan informing us that he would probably operate in a wide attacking role, yet he has played most of his games for us as a holding midfielder (and very well for the most part, IMO). Certainly one of the better footballing brains in the team, methinks.

redhead · 04-11-2010, 20:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

Thanks Redraine. I wondered how Barnett got on as I recalled a Tranmere fan informing us that he would probably operate in a wide attacking role, yet he has played most of his games for us as a holding midfielder (and very well for the most part, IMO). Certainly one of the better footballing brains in the team, methinks.

yeah charlie's best in the middle where he played his whole time at liverpool. les parry's reasons for not using him there at tranmere was because he thought he couldnt put the graft in.

Redraine · 04-11-2010, 22:01

I must admit the first time I saw him play for Stanley he hardly seemed to break sweat in the first half. Coley must have got in his ear at half time and given him the hairdryer treatment. Ever since then he's impressed me with his workrate and he seems to me a good foil for Jimmy in midfield.