Torquay Thread. - Page 3

smobile · 13-10-2012, 18:54

Looked decent, crossed for podge and seemed to want to play the ball when he could. Game changed when him and podge came on. Did enough for a start next week.

cashman · 13-10-2012, 19:14

Cheers fer that, quite like the lad meself, what bit ive seen of him, looks promising to me.

Revived Red · 13-10-2012, 20:18

Yes, the penalty was a poor decision and the officials were poor all afternoon - but they cannot take the blame at all for the defeat. Paul Cook was spot on in his interview - we simply were not good enough. Torquay beat us to just about every ball and they were better than us in every department except one. Had it not been for Ian Dunbavin, the score could well have been 7 - 1 in Torquay's favour.

I do have a worry which I have aired before and that is the number of loan players. Sampson did well enough on his debut but I am starting to wonder just how helpful it is to the team constantly to be introducing new loanees.

smobile · 13-10-2012, 22:12

Spot on. Was wondering if the loan players upset the balance of the team. Just not good enough today in all areas. They did a job on us and Rene Howe is awesome at this level. Held the ball up and did his job. Could have been embarrassing bar for bavs. He was outstanding today. Murphy was blowing out of his arse after 60mins. Don't know why he wasnt subbed or if he was injured. Dean was same too.

football19 · 14-10-2012, 17:50

To say I was surprised dean playing would be the understatement of the year,but hear goes my view of the game.The pitch looked like it had taken a lot of rain and was a bit of a pudding,a swirling wind and bright sunshine didn't help our style of play.
Both teams set up very similar,and we got of to the worst possible start..
Although the set ups were similar,they were more direct and Howe bullied our centre backs and was excellent in his hold up play,indeed he should a decent turn of pace as well.
Upto the sixty minute mark I thought acci had more of the ball,but Torquay created all the chances,this was due to Howes ability to hold the ball up and midfield runners not being tracked.
That really was the main difference,indeed cooky put dean at centre back to try and stop Howes influence,but he was too good on the day.
Have to agree five loanees can't help,but on the day,Torquay were very effective in the way they played,were Howe is key o that way

football19 · 15-10-2012, 07:59

Just looked at the match stats and it backs up what I thought on the day,acci had 59% possession,but they had 7 shots on target to our 1

LongLostSon · 15-10-2012, 09:29

just back from a break in Devon and haven't read beyond this particular page but here's my two pennoth. Apart from Bavs, Atkinson, Padraig when he came on and the latest loanee Samson, I thought the rest just didn't want to be there. From down south I read what you lads n'lasses say about our passing game - but has nobody said you're not supposed to pass to the opposition - look before you pass and not to a man-on situation ! Very disappointed. No complaints about the pen - thought Liddle made no attempt to get his arm out of the way. Worried about Paul's bloodpressure trying to get them to understand about getting out of our pen box with little success. And £16 for an old codger to watch !!!

Revived Red · 15-10-2012, 09:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by LongLostSon

but has nobody said you're not supposed to pass to the opposition - look before you pass and not to a man-on situation !

I think you are being a bit harsh there. Because Torquay were so quick to challenge our player in possession, too many of our passes were hurried and careless. It was also noticeable that they put at least two men on Rommy as soon as he got the ball. We wanted more time than they gave us. The more I reflect on it, the more the number of loan players worries me. Sampson, for example, has come to us a "left-sided striker" yet his role on Saturday seemed to be one of the three behind Sheppard/Amond. I'm not sure how he could know what was expected of him nor how he could link up effectively with the others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LongLostSon

No complaints about the pen - thought Liddle made no attempt to get his arm out of the way.

Again, harsh, I feel. I have not seen a replay but I thought at the time that Liddle had turned away and that the ball struck his arm. Maybe the replay proves me wrong.

LongLostSon · 15-10-2012, 10:27

Thanks for your response RR - always nice to get another take on things and do confess to a dose of the miseries on the back of pre-game expectations. Don't believe on-field abuse to Stanley players helps so resorted to yelling abuse at their time wasting keeper as an out for my frustrations. I dunno, nearly 69 and still passionate about a game of footie - perhaps I ought to get a life while I still can (lol) !

smobile · 15-10-2012, 10:35

The defence is the area that really concerns me at the moment. Only a combination of few Bavs “wonder saves” and poor finishing from the Chipnickers kept the score slightly respectable.
We couldn’t have complained if we had shipped FIVE.

Went to both the Rochdale & Torquay games in which we managed to score a total of 3 goals. Earlier in the season when the defence was somewhat tighter, this would have earned us 4, possibly 6 points for the two games.

Still, win our game in hand and we go back into a play-off spot, so I will keep the faith and continue to believe that Cookie & Leam will solve the defensive mistakes and get us back to winning ways.

football19 · 15-10-2012, 11:26

I mentioned it at the start of the season that i couldnt see us drawing many games,and still feel the same way.
Cookys style is very offensive,and encourages defenders to join in.
This can create you chances,but also leave you exposed if you lose possession.
We had enough of the ball on saturday (59%),more than any of our previous games,but they had done there homework,and countered us at pace.
A big fella up front,and willing runners,will cause problems to any team.
What concerned me most was our lack of pace to deal with this,and numerous times they went past us too easily.
Thought we would have pinned them back in the second half,but they were well organised and there centre back was excellent,never missing an header.
There wasnt much in the teams to be honest,they performed,we didnt,simple really.

Exile on Spencer St · 16-10-2012, 07:44

I'm a bit late, I know, but I've been mulling over Saturday's performance (sic). I can only hope it was an aberration. I've never seen so many players on the same team have such a stinker in the same game. With one or two exceptions it was the worst I've seen Stanley play since.....Farnborough, and I recall they got a point there. The omens seemed bad before the start. In the warm up Dunbavin looked like he was in a real grump, few if any of the other lads were smiling, and then Torquay presented Howe with their Player of the Month award; this the guy who last season undid Stanley's efforts withone touch of class.
6-1 would not have flattered Torquay.
On the brighter side, I thought Dixon was a revelation, and must be worthy of more match time. And Sampson was a class above, admittedly probably not being played to full effect.
I also have concerns about loan players but only where they don't seem to add anything to the team. Sampson seems like he will be a good addition, but that can't be said for all the loanees. There seem to be too many getting games that are simply no better than those on the books. But it's a long season.

maccawozzagod · 16-10-2012, 09:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile on Spencer St

... there seem to be too many getting games that are simply no better than those on the books. But it's a long season.

that's always been my worry about loanees. One or two here and there (or as and when required) are fine and add to the team, but our 'strength in depth' is due to the 8 loan players (two gone) abd how up for it are they? They aren't particularly playing for their careers and would still have chance to impress their own bosses when they get back to their clubs ... meanwhile our own players start to get demoralised when they aren't getting a chance. Charlie Barnett is someone that we all know, Cooky knows and Coley knew, has summat about him. He wasn't quite right so didn't get any game time until Chesterfield ..."go out there son and win your shirt back" he played his best game in a long long time but hasn't featured at all since, not even a sub appearance. Apologies if he's injured. Are Whichelow or Mingoia better than Hatfield or Barnett? Is Schofield that much better than Miller? Are we going to play a striker with pedigree on the left wing (Sampson) or is free scoring Podge going to rotate with two loanees?

Doing a great job so far is Cooky and he knows his squad better than we do ... but I hope the loanee numbers don't come back to bite us ove rthe stretch of the season.

football19 · 16-10-2012, 10:49

Agree 100% macca,but there will be a reason Cooky has chosen this route.
Looking at most of the loan players we have or had will probably get released at the end of the season,and the clubs who have had them on loan tend to get first bite at signing them.
Regarding the playing side,i have alway been a 4-3-3 man,with one holding player.
Coley changing to this,and got us on a great run to the playoffs,but then again,your playing staff dictates your shape,and nobody will know better than Cooky and Liam.
Maybe its the start of Cooky building his own team and is looking to the future,now we have had a reasonable start and points on the board,i just dont know,whatever happens hes the manager and he stands/falls by his decisions.( i am still a big fan of his attacking style tho,its defo not boring !!)

Exile on Spencer St · 16-10-2012, 11:49

Whilst on the subject of loan players of debatable added-value.....
Mingoia open to Stanley stay - TEAMtalk | Football | Championship | Watford News