Scunthorpe United (H) League One 10th Jan, 3pm

[NEWPORT SADDLERS DAD]

As someone else posted we need a Miguel Llera in the middle of defence and to threaten up front from set pieces.I'm sure the booing at Fordes substitution was for Smith,there was no way he should have been subbed.As for sawyers yes he is talented but he needs to realise he is not Lionell Messi and maybe play simple balls instead of trying world class flick's and touches that hardly ever work.
The only way we will beat Preston is if we lose to Colchester.

[Big Dave wfc]

I like Sawyers a lot, undeniable talent and vision, but I'm sick to the back teeth of him jumping out of every challenge that comes his way, I don't expect him to be David batty but he's got to show more desire, Andy butler was no we're near a talent Sawyers is but look how much heart the bloke had.

[lichsaddler]

Don't post too much on here but feel obliged to after reading so much rubbish!

I'll probably get slated for this but I thought we played alright today. First 20 mins was some of the best football I've seen us play for a while and if we'd have stuck the ball in the back of the net, I'd have had no doubts we'd have gone on to win comfortably. Staggered reading someone said we got off to a slow start!

I'm not against criticising the team, we made four individual defensive errors today which were very poor, we looked particularly weak defending crosses and balls in the box which was not up to standard. Maybe with someone like Butler at the back this might not have happened. Although I like Downing and J. Chambers individually, I'm not convinced it's working as a pair.

Just to comment on some of the things already said:
1. Appalled by the treatment Sawyers got today. I wouldn't be surprised to see him piss off at the earliest opportunity the way some of our fans treat him. And it makes it even more shocking when today, I felt he had one of his better games for the last few weeks. It was his incisive pass that found Bradshaw to set up our goal. Yeah he ducks out of challenges and never bothers to win things in the air, but he is creative, and without him, we look short of any ideas. Although these 'fans' that were booing him were probably the same ones that were calling them all heroes on Wednesday, and wanting to give them all the keys to the city. Embarrassing

2. The argument about two upfront. More men upfront does not necessarily mean more goals, you're living in the stone age if you think that's the case. When we went two upfront with about 20 mins left, we looked devoid of ideas and although we had consistent pressure, had a lack of options to pass to, causing us to punt balls in the box that were easily defended.

3. Don't agree with the Forde substitution, he was probably our best player yesterday. But Smith took him off because he wanted to change the shape and go two up top - (don't know if you noticed that Sallian?!) - not because he thought he was playing rubbish. I could see what he was trying to do, although I'm not sure it was the best idea Smith has ever had.

I'd also like to give credit to the fans in the lower tier that were singing throughout the second half, that's the support that we want to see.

[yoda]

Don't post too much on here but feel obliged to after reading so much rubbish!

One would think people would respect your opinion more if you didn't precede it by telling them their own opinions are worthless?

[SaigonSaddler]

Don't post too much on here but feel obliged to after reading so much rubbish!

One would think people would respect your opinion more if you didn't precede it by telling them their own opinions are worthless?

Doesn't necessarily follow. He stated that the 'rubbish' prompted him to post.

[yoda]

My point was he feels the need to post to 'correct' the large amounts of 'rubbish' he's been reading and he feels the best way to engage people he believes holds views based on incorrect information is to steam in with and attempt to belittle them with his first sentence?

Is this likely to make the people his post is aimed at take his words very seriously? After being bluntly told his opinion is far more worthwhile than theirs?

[Walsallone]

I largely agree with lichsaddler. We started very well but,as you all know,goals change games.The OG did just that(unlucky I would say Phil) and the poor defending from a corner cost us. We started the second half well and after Cain scored I thought we would,at least,equalise but then came the penalty. A blatant dive by Bishop which conned the ref.who was very poor throughout and that finished us off. It was little surprise we conceded a 4th goal.
I fully agree we need a plan B and I would have brought Manset and Grimes on much earlier and changed the system,but as an old friend of mine,the late Ron Jukes,used to say its the players who win or lose games not systems. I often recall those words when I read some of the contributions on here from Sallian and "Walsall only win by luck" Phil and others who seem to think if only we had someone in charge who could,by magic, find a way forward when individual players have made very unusual individual errors. We lost yesterday because 2 players and a referee made errors. It happens and all we can and should do is support our team who,at times play very good football for this level,and hope the errors are not repeated. If they are then the Manager will have to bring in new faces which I am sure he will.

[sallian]

,the late Ron Jukes,used to say its the players who win or lose games not systems. I often recall those words when I read some of the contributions on here from Sallian and "Walsall only win by luck" Phil and others

It is partly right and partly wrong.... If we say tactical changes and formations can't change a result...then its obviously nonsense as those changes change what your players can do, plays to their strengths and weaknesses and can make them more effective or less so... If you keep giving aerial crosses to someone weak in the air, keep kicking balls miles in to space for the those who are slow runners etc etc. And if we play 8 in midfield and one in defence and one up front? or 10 up front and no midfield, and 1 in defence...If we have Zidane and just play him at left back...and Messi and just play him in goal, have Ronaldo but tell him just to pass the ball immediately and not dribble or run....clearly systems matter. If people are unmarked and not covered they can do what they want.

Yes obviously players decisions, skills, strengths make a difference...but it is a team game and tactical game which also depends on variation of conditions and opposition.....so in reality its a combination of things.

Concerning Phil's issue about luck...I don't believe in luck only cause and effect (luck is just not knowing the details or knowing how to control them). However, it is clear you can win a game through not deserving it based on skills, decisions, plan etc.... But every game is made up many such incidents which can go either way and impact on the result. However, if you play well, create continuous chances, have continuous shots...then you are much likely to come on top more often than not and benefit from many unintended incidents of a fortuitous appearance or in other words 'create your own luck'

[sallian]

Don't post too much on here but feel obliged to after reading so much rubbish!

2. The argument about two upfront. More men upfront does not necessarily mean more goals, you're living in the stone age if you think that's the case. When we went two upfront with about 20 mins left, we looked devoid of ideas and although we had consistent pressure, had a lack of options to pass to, causing us to punt balls in the box that were easily defended.

3. Don't agree with the Forde substitution, he was probably our best player yesterday. But Smith took him off because he wanted to change the shape and go two up top - (don't know if you noticed that Sallian?!) - not because he thought he was playing rubbish. I could see what he was trying to do, although I'm not sure it was the best idea Smith has ever had..

Yes 2 up front doesn't NECESSARILY result in more goals but it gives several advantages that ONE ISOLATED doesn't. e.g. Rebound cover, staggered runs, larger targets, double defence dispossession opportunity, inaccurate pass cover, quick release to better positioned strike partner, larger zone of potential possession etc... HOWEVER it is totally ridiculous not implement 2 strikers for longer periods when we have a long standing goal famine.

It also has to be combined with running into space and quicker crosses/through balls...and taking shots early

I didn't mean that Smith NEVER changes shape...he does it when it is too late and rarely does it and he doesn't persist with changes that are needed....2 up front can't be jettisoned because it didn't result in a goal for a 20min period in one game....on that basis one man up front should have been abandoned a long time ago

[Walsallone]

Well Sallian I think Ron probably knew more about football and more importantly footballers than either you or I. You are a theorist but matches are not won by theories but by eleven men playing as a team. The last two home matches have shown conclusively that you are wrong. We have created more chances and more shots than anytime this season and we lost!! Players my friend not systems! If players cannot get the job done then eventually you have to replace them and thats what will happen. It always does and relegation/promotion issues are often decided by the decisions made at that time.

[sallian]

Well Sallian I think Ron probably knew more about football and more importantly footballers than either you or I. You are a theorist but matches are not won by theories but by eleven men playing as a team. The last two home matches have shown conclusively that you are wrong. We have created more chances and more shots than anytime this season and we lost!! Players my friend not systems! If players cannot get the job done then eventually you have to replace them and thats what will happen. It always does and relegation/promotion issues are often decided by the decisions made at that time.

It doesn't disprove what I'm saying at all. he may well have known more about football and definitely about players...

And I'm not disagreeing with what he said, obviously PLAYERS have to implement any system, tactics, formation etc...If they mess it up, the manager COULD be blameless...but often isn't, thus some justified sackings (although I don't like the idea of sacking anyone to be honest, I always feel for them and think they are always scapegoated at least to a degree). But if systems were totally irrelevant then there would be no formations and no need for managers at all.

But I have no doubt he would agree with what I am saying, and I don't think you would disagree either with what I am saying if you really think about it. I don't know your field of work, but lets say you have a business...you don't put the guy weak with numbers in accounting and the guy weak with words in editing and the non-creative scientist in marketing...they all competent and capable but are being mismanaged/misallocated. We have players at this club who would be excellent if given a chance in the right positions and in the right system....yes they still have to deliver on the pitch....but they need more of a chance.

Sometimes players can be improved by training and motivational man-management too...and Ron Jukes would have known that for sure.

The creation of chances and shots taken doesn't always tell the story as there can be a world of difference between one chance and another...e.g. a mistake from opponent can create a chance, excellent passing can create a genuine clear chance or the chance may be hit and hope or a narrow half chance... Logic dictates that if you keep creating good opportunities by making space, running off ball, quick efficient passing then goals will eventually follow.

Yes if players continuously fail when the right conditions are created for them, and they don't respond to coaching etc...then eventually you have to replace them...but I think very little tactical/formation variety has been tried with this bunch of players so far. I think it will be tragedy for instance to offload Grimes when he was never given a proper chance...maybe we let him go and then see him knocking in 25 for a club in division below before he goes off to a Championship club.

Ron Jukes knew that football is a team game with many complex elements that work together for success...but yes it is people versus people....even management is a person versus another person.

[Ghostofwalsallpast]

IHTC, idiots like the above don't bother me one iota. If that's the sum total of their considered opinion on wfc, then we're intellectually light years apart

as it stands phil the top 6 are as follows
1.bristol, 2 Swindon, 3 mk dons, 4 preston, 5 Bradford, 6 sheff utd

teams with far bigger budgets, bigger attendances etc etc...... you seem to think a manager could come in and make us sweep sides away to break into this,

I seem to remember........

1. Fulham
2. Walsall
3. Man City

So it is achievable

Achieved with a small budget but used wisely by a man who could organise and used those things called Wingers and, god forbid, played two up top.

Smith is Smith, a man who does genuinely care about the club and tries his best but is sadly lacking and will produce mid table security/the odd flirt with relegation. Our requirement of needing another 20 odd points from the remaing 20 odd games will very much depend on Super Tom's availability and form.

Smith will no doubt go down in history as a hero if he gets us to Wembley but given his set up for home games we have a real battle remaining to get there.

To compare everything back to the Graydon era will always result in a feeling of underachieviement. It was the pinnacle of our 127 year history and is unlikely to repeat itself anytime soon.

Was more making the point that it IS possible to compete with bigger budgets/so called bigger clubs. We've done it in the past and so have other clubs. Hate this mentality of we're little old Walsall and cannot possibly compete.

[tinned]

Why can't we perform against mediocre / unfashionable sides? Need to start creating some bloody noise and atmosphere the lads must forget they are playing a competitive game!

A superb Funky post, we play poorly against mediocre sides and it's the fans fault.

If your at the game then why the hell are you posting on UTS anyway? Football has changed....

:lol:

[Ancient Moaner]

The biggest worry is we are giving even more reasons for Preston to come here and have a real go at us in the JPT as we appear to be content to give goals away at home! A two goal cushion is nothing when you are conceding on average 3 in the last 3 home games.

Make a note Saigon, you are obviously very young, but if you have watched Walsall for as long as many like me, you will realise that the likes of us old 'uns are realistic, and know that given a chance at glory, or success of ANY kind, Gurrole Worsul will 'male chicken' it up, its the Worsul way!

[canadiansaddler]

The biggest worry is we are giving even more reasons for Preston to come here and have a real go at us in the JPT as we appear to be content to give goals away at home! A two goal cushion is nothing when you are conceding on average 3 in the last 3 home games.

Make a note Saigon, you are obviously very young, but if you have watched Walsall for as long as many like me, you will realise that the likes of us old 'uns are realistic, and know that given a chance at glory, or success of ANY kind, Gurrole Worsul will 'male chicken' it up, its the Worsul way!

As nearly an olden , Im fairly sure this is an urban myth, we never really got ourselves into the position of success in the league in the 70's and 80's and on the occasions that we did , we generally made good. In the cup we were almost guaranteed a cup run of sorts and I expected it, it was the beauty of supporting Walsall we may end up mid table mediocrity having just as easily won 4-0 as lost 4-0 . The change came with Ramsden , all of sudden there was an expectation of success for a couple of years anyway and I think that is when the myth started in particular with the second leg of the Bristol City play off, this was then perpetuate during the dark ages of the early 90's we couldn't win squat and often seemed to find ways to lose when winning or drawing with a few minutes to go, this is where the legend of screwing things up came from.

If it were 1983 I would have already booked the hotel, planned the parade route and be dancing round the camp fire as there would no way a Buckley lead team would lose at home to Preston from 2-0 up in the cup, now if it were a league match we could very well win 4-0 one week and lose 5-1 the next that was just the way we played then but when it was winner take all we could play anyone off the park and often did.

as the crowd use to sing "Those were the days my friend ......"

[SaigonSaddler]

The biggest worry is we are giving even more reasons for Preston to come here and have a real go at us in the JPT as we appear to be content to give goals away at home! A two goal cushion is nothing when you are conceding on average 3 in the last 3 home games.

Make a note Saigon, you are obviously very young, but if you have watched Walsall for as long as many like me, you will realise that the likes of us old 'uns are realistic, and know that given a chance at glory, or success of ANY kind, Gurrole Worsul will 'male chicken' it up, its the Worsul way!

Notable games where we surrendered a lead include the Chelsea game at home where we let in 2 late goals to draw and the Watford replay (slightly different but a damp squib after the 4-4) where the Dornan og sealed our fate. But these seem quite rare in 'big games'.

I went to all of them, including the 3-0 Stamford Bridge fiasco - we were was never offside! So, I have 'been around a bit' and know a little about supporting the club if we are measuring our Walsall FC plonkers.

Realism is fine. Naked pessimism is something quite different. If you'd been around for as long as you suggest, then you would not have been so utterly amazed at going to MKDons and returning with an great result, as your overly negative prediction confidently stated.

[Super Gabor]

As for the squad itself, today showed how paper thin it is. Even at 4-1 down, it took Smith a few minutes to make any changes - probably because he knew that none of his subs were likely to come on and change the game. Of course, we could go back to the crux of the issue being a poor use of his budget, but that's probably one for another thread.

I'm sorry but you can't lay the blame for the squad at the door of the budget.

In that squad we have the following fullbacks:

Purkiss
Chambers, J
O'Connor
Taylor
Benning
Henry

Plus Kinsella, who is purportedly a midfielder, but all games for the first team have been at right back.

Thats 7 full backs. SEVEN, but we only have one recognised centre half.

3 of those full backs don't need to be on the books - we could quite happily make do with Chambers, Kinsella, Taylor and Henry.

I'd rather see the money we're wasting on Benning, Purkiss, OConnor and Benning spent on a bit more quality for the rest of the team - a centre half and another winger.

I wouldn't mind us blooding the likes of Kinsella and Henry - whats the worst that can happen? We might concede a few goals? Well, we've conceded 10 in the last 3 home games, could it be much worse than that? And it might free up some cash for some better forward players, so the football would be more attractive, we'd have more flexibility in the way we could play, and we'd be no worse off.

Are you serious? Best full back we have!!

Kinsella and Henry have both looked like they could have a bright future (what has happened to Kinsella by the way?) and agree with some of what you say but Taylor and Purkiss are our most experienced and usually reliable full backs and I wouldn't change that right now.

[Ancient Moaner]

As for the squad itself, today showed how paper thin it is. Even at 4-1 down, it took Smith a few minutes to make any changes - probably because he knew that none of his subs were likely to come on and change the game. Of course, we could go back to the crux of the issue being a poor use of his budget, but that's probably one for another thread.

I'm sorry but you can't lay the blame for the squad at the door of the budget.

In that squad we have the following fullbacks:

Purkiss
Chambers, J
O'Connor
Taylor
Benning
Henry

Plus Kinsella, who is purportedly a midfielder, but all games for the first team have been at right back.

Thats 7 full backs. SEVEN, but we only have one recognised centre half.

3 of those full backs don't need to be on the books - we could quite happily make do with Chambers, Kinsella, Taylor and Henry.

I'd rather see the money we're wasting on Benning, Purkiss, OConnor and Benning spent on a bit more quality for the rest of the team - a centre half and another winger.

I wouldn't mind us blooding the likes of Kinsella and Henry - whats the worst that can happen? We might concede a few goals? Well, we've conceded 10 in the last 3 home games, could it be much worse than that? And it might free up some cash for some better forward players, so the football would be more attractive, we'd have more flexibility in the way we could play, and we'd be no worse off.

Are you serious? Best full back we have!!

Kinsella and Henry have both looked like they could have a bright future (what has happened to Kinsella by the way?) and agree with some of what you say but Taylor and Purkiss are our most experienced and usually reliable full backs and I wouldn't change that right now.

Quite agree, including and since our brilliant 1-0 response at Spotland, Pukiss has been one of our most improved players, capable of stopping whizz kid wingers in their tracks and also providing good distribution upfield. Why he was replaced is a complete mystery, and has somehow corresponded to our downturn in home form! Kinsella became the definitive 'little boy lost' and feel Deano has decided to 'rest' him until he rekindles the ability he obviously has, similarly with Henry who was skinned by Swindon and became somewhat of a scapegoat for the whole teams abysmal performance that day.

[Leatherman]

As for the squad itself, today showed how paper thin it is. Even at 4-1 down, it took Smith a few minutes to make any changes - probably because he knew that none of his subs were likely to come on and change the game. Of course, we could go back to the crux of the issue being a poor use of his budget, but that's probably one for another thread.

I'm sorry but you can't lay the blame for the squad at the door of the budget.

In that squad we have the following fullbacks:

Purkiss
Chambers, J
O'Connor
Taylor
Benning
Henry

Plus Kinsella, who is purportedly a midfielder, but all games for the first team have been at right back.

Thats 7 full backs. SEVEN, but we only have one recognised centre half.

3 of those full backs don't need to be on the books - we could quite happily make do with Chambers, Kinsella, Taylor and Henry.

I'd rather see the money we're wasting on Benning, Purkiss, OConnor and Benning spent on a bit more quality for the rest of the team - a centre half and another winger.

I wouldn't mind us blooding the likes of Kinsella and Henry - whats the worst that can happen? We might concede a few goals? Well, we've conceded 10 in the last 3 home games, could it be much worse than that? And it might free up some cash for some better forward players, so the football would be more attractive, we'd have more flexibility in the way we could play, and we'd be no worse off.

Are you serious? Best full back we have!!

Kinsella and Henry have both looked like they could have a bright future (what has happened to Kinsella by the way?) and agree with some of what you say but Taylor and Purkiss are our most experienced and usually reliable full backs and I wouldn't change that right now.

Quite agree, including and since our brilliant 1-0 response at Spotland, Pukiss has been one of our most improved players, capable of stopping whizz kid wingers in their tracks and also providing good distribution upfield. Why he was replaced is a complete mystery, and has somehow corresponded to our downturn in home form! Kinsella became the definitive 'little boy lost' and feel Deano has decided to 'rest' him until he rekindles the ability he obviously has, similarly with Henry who was skinned by Swindon and became somewhat of a scapegoat for the whole teams abysmal performance that day.

I think Purkiss was thought be responsible for at least a couple of the goals during the Swindon match:

The fist goal when he gave the ball away from a throw he took which was then crossed in from their right wing and he let their Forward get across him to took the ball in.

The second goal when he let the chap who eventually scored get away from him during the break upfield. I think he went across to help Henry and possibly Downing.

I still think he is the best Right-back at the club and should be included in the first eleven on Saturday.

[kshammer]

As an aside, I thought Ned did well to stay at the Bescot for a whole two hours without leaving.

[SWS1]

Swindon marmalised Coventry tonight 3 - 0 away, which gives a bit of perspective to their 4 - 1 thrashing of us.
However, it also puts a strangulated twist on our 2 - 0 capitulation to the same team they thrashed tonight.
It's a funny old...
Ah, crep. You finish it.
:evil:

[wfc & chips]

damn we're a capricious team! it tells you something when the lino was our motm!

do the bozos who reckoned butler was a waste of the budget stick to their guns? downing is talented but flimsy.

i think the most entertaining part of this thread was rob tryna make out players leave because of the fans! no, rob, that'll be jeff's legendary frugality. fans are the same everywhere.

i do like what deano's attempting, but he needs to be more flexible when things ain't working out.