Pangloss Saddler wrote:...the Saddlers were unfortunate to lose yet another game by the odd goal.
I really want to believe Hutch in his post match report when he says we need to believe in ourselves.
Pangloss Saddler wrote:...the Saddlers were unfortunate to lose yet another game by the odd goal.
yoda wrote:Bevan must be wondering what he has to do to get a game. Poor fella.
Pangloss Saddler wrote:An excellent game which was appreciated by a pleasingly higher turnout of Saddlers fans.
Richards covered every blade of grass on the pitch and fully deserved his MOTM award.
As I have said many times, the Saddlers were unfortunate to lose yet another game by the odd goal.
its not premature.the cracks last season were papered over by a few wins at the end of the season.we simply have not signed enough quality.dont tell me the deeney money has been spent on a couple of loans and freebies.i like macken and reid but the rest are inferior to what we had last season.we wont win five in a row with this squad i will bet my house on it if you want. :twisted:Zippy wrote:Zece_WFC wrote:No one expects us to be in first place winning every game... but people don't pay hard earned money on a season ticket to see us lose 5 in a row... get a grip.
I am gutted, just like the rest of us, when we lose.
Ok, we have lost 5 in a row, no doubt, we will win 5 in a row before the end of the season if not more.
I just do not subscribe to the premature panic senario.
King Crimson wrote:wfc_rob has it spot on. Smith needs an eternity to make a decision when he has the ball, and usually makes a bad one. McDonald doesn't decide anything. He just instinctively clears his lines any way he can.
And a brief message for the long-haired, bespectacled young man in the Floors2Go middle two rows back from me who saw fit to boo the announcement of Richards as MoM: you're a t***.
mel58 wrote:We didn't get our act together until 60 minutes into the game. I think the only decent chance we had in the first half was when Macken headed over from a good left-wing cross.
PT wrote:mel58 wrote:We didn't get our act together until 60 minutes into the game. I think the only decent chance we had in the first half was when Macken headed over from a good left-wing cross.
I think that sentence sums up some people's determination to watch our team through crud tinted spectacles.
In the first half their keeper made brilliant saves, firstly from Davies after a fantastic move down the right. He then bettered that saving low at his near post from a Mannie Smith header. Mcgivern also had an effort from 5 yards well blocked by a defender.
The selective labotomy service that obliterates anything positive the team did seems to be doing a roaring trade.
PT wrote:mel58 wrote:We didn't get our act together until 60 minutes into the game. I think the only decent chance we had in the first half was when Macken headed over from a good left-wing cross.
I think that sentence sums up some people's determination to watch our team through crud tinted spectacles.
In the first half their keeper made brilliant saves, firstly from Davies after a fantastic move down the right. He then bettered that saving low at his near post from a Mannie Smith header. Mcgivern also had an effort from 5 yards well blocked by a defender.
The selective labotomy service that obliterates anything positive the team did seems to be doing a roaring trade.
tinned wrote:We were a lot better in the second half but that is in comparison to the utter tat we were in the first. Any argument against the fact that we should (and deserved) to be 3 or 4 down by half time is just a determination to see things through rose tinited spectacles (IMHO).
Neil Ravenscroft wrote: In a 4 3 3, with no wingers, you do not bomb forward the way he was doing, as all he achieved was to leave huge gaps I could have exploited. To make things worse, he then hit the first man with almost every cross.
King Crimson wrote:Neil Ravenscroft wrote: In a 4 3 3, with no wingers, you do not bomb forward the way he was doing, as all he achieved was to leave huge gaps I could have exploited. To make things worse, he then hit the first man with almost every cross.
Agree about not getting the cross in, but as for "not bombing forward", that's exactly what full backs should be doing. Otherwise you've no width at all. Look at why full backs are such a premium these days - Ashley Cole, Glen Johnson, Balletti - because more teams are playing 4-3-4. Chelsea being perhaps the best case in point.
PeruSaddler wrote:King Crimson wrote:Neil Ravenscroft wrote: In a 4 3 3, with no wingers, you do not bomb forward the way he was doing, as all he achieved was to leave huge gaps I could have exploited. To make things worse, he then hit the first man with almost every cross.
Agree about not getting the cross in, but as for "not bombing forward", that's exactly what full backs should be doing. Otherwise you've no width at all. Look at why full backs are such a premium these days - Ashley Cole, Glen Johnson, Balletti - because more teams are playing 4-3-4. Chelsea being perhaps the best case in point.
No wonder Chelsea win so often if they've got 11 outfield players!
King Crimson wrote:Neil Ravenscroft wrote: In a 4 3 3, with no wingers, you do not bomb forward the way he was doing, as all he achieved was to leave huge gaps I could have exploited. To make things worse, he then hit the first man with almost every cross.
Agree about not getting the cross in, but as for "not bombing forward", that's exactly what full backs should be doing. Otherwise you've no width at all. Look at why full backs are such a premium these days - Ashley Cole, Glen Johnson, Balletti - because more teams are playing 4-3-4. Chelsea being perhaps the best case in point.
Zippy wrote:Zece_WFC wrote:No one expects us to be in first place winning every game... but people don't pay hard earned money on a season ticket to see us lose 5 in a row... get a grip.
I am gutted, just like the rest of us, when we lose.
Ok, we have lost 5 in a row, no doubt, we will win 5 in a row before the end of the season if not more.
I just do not subscribe to the premature panic senario.
Neil Ravenscroft wrote:King Crimson wrote:Neil Ravenscroft wrote: In a 4 3 3, with no wingers, you do not bomb forward the way he was doing, as all he achieved was to leave huge gaps I could have exploited. To make things worse, he then hit the first man with almost every cross.
Agree about not getting the cross in, but as for "not bombing forward", that's exactly what full backs should be doing. Otherwise you've no width at all. Look at why full backs are such a premium these days - Ashley Cole, Glen Johnson, Balletti - because more teams are playing 4-3-4. Chelsea being perhaps the best case in point.
Yes, but they play with 1 or 2 defensive midfielders to cover for the full backs. We don't even have one.
King Crimson wrote:Neil Ravenscroft wrote:King Crimson wrote:Neil Ravenscroft wrote: In a 4 3 3, with no wingers, you do not bomb forward the way he was doing, as all he achieved was to leave huge gaps I could have exploited. To make things worse, he then hit the first man with almost every cross.
Agree about not getting the cross in, but as for "not bombing forward", that's exactly what full backs should be doing. Otherwise you've no width at all. Look at why full backs are such a premium these days - Ashley Cole, Glen Johnson, Balletti - because more teams are playing 4-3-4. Chelsea being perhaps the best case in point.
Yes, but they play with 1 or 2 defensive midfielders to cover for the full backs. We don't even have one.
That's not McGivern's fault. He's been coached and trained well for the Prem and served his apprenticeship in The Championship. If team orders mean we need a full back who doesn't provide an attacking option, we (a) will have to resign ourselves to the fact that we will have zero width whatsoever, and (b) may as well play someone like Lancashire there.
Neil Ravenscroft wrote:King Crimson wrote:Neil Ravenscroft wrote:King Crimson wrote:Neil Ravenscroft wrote: In a 4 3 3, with no wingers, you do not bomb forward the way he was doing, as all he achieved was to leave huge gaps I could have exploited. To make things worse, he then hit the first man with almost every cross.
Agree about not getting the cross in, but as for "not bombing forward", that's exactly what full backs should be doing. Otherwise you've no width at all. Look at why full backs are such a premium these days - Ashley Cole, Glen Johnson, Balletti - because more teams are playing 4-3-4. Chelsea being perhaps the best case in point.
Yes, but they play with 1 or 2 defensive midfielders to cover for the full backs. We don't even have one.
That's not McGivern's fault. He's been coached and trained well for the Prem and served his apprenticeship in The Championship. If team orders mean we need a full back who doesn't provide an attacking option, we (a) will have to resign ourselves to the fact that we will have zero width whatsoever, and (b) may as well play someone like Lancashire there.
You're arguing the wrong point - Hutchings should have given him proper instructions about what he should/should not be doing.
PT wrote:mel58 wrote:We didn't get our act together until 60 minutes into the game. I think the only decent chance we had in the first half was when Macken headed over from a good left-wing cross.
I think that sentence sums up some people's determination to watch our team through crud tinted spectacles.
In the first half their keeper made brilliant saves, firstly from Davies after a fantastic move down the right. He then bettered that saving low at his near post from a Mannie Smith header. Mcgivern also had an effort from 5 yards well blocked by a defender.
The selective labotomy service that obliterates anything positive the team did seems to be doing a roaring trade.
Neil Ravenscroft wrote:Oh for the assistant manager 20 years younger.
mel58 wrote:PT wrote:mel58 wrote:We didn't get our act together until 60 minutes into the game. I think the only decent chance we had in the first half was when Macken headed over from a good left-wing cross.
I think that sentence sums up some people's determination to watch our team through crud tinted spectacles.
In the first half their keeper made brilliant saves, firstly from Davies after a fantastic move down the right. He then bettered that saving low at his near post from a Mannie Smith header. Mcgivern also had an effort from 5 yards well blocked by a defender.
The selective labotomy service that obliterates anything positive the team did seems to be doing a roaring trade.
Yes, you are right. I was wrong. We did put Swindon under pressure a number of times during the first half in addition to the chance Macken had.
If I was going to have frontal lobe surgery perhaps I should have had it done 40-odd years ago and maybe then I would never have started following WFC in the first place!
I don't have a "Determination to watch our team through crud-tinted spectacles" - there's enough of the real stuff around to make the use of such a device unnecessary.
WFC_Rob wrote:Neil Ravenscroft wrote:Oh for the assistant manager 20 years younger.
Neil, you've just reminded me of a point I've been meaning to raise for a while with that line.
For the best part of three years now, we've had a midfield/group of midfielders who get overrun in more matches than they don't. Given that a certain Mr O'Connor is on the coaching staff, you'd have thought this would have been picked up on by now, wouldn't you?
O'Connor can't honestly think that the standard of midfield play at the Banks's is good enough, surely?
It's all very well justifying our ineffectual performances in the middle of the park by saying that the likes of Taundry and Marshall are young and still learning their trade, but the facts speak for themselves more often than not. We're not good enough and the management team have to realise that inexperience is a reason, but not an excuse.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests