Joe. Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 Hardly a surprising result for me, and a fair one at that. It was one of those games that just didn't get going, with both sides resorting to the long ball game for the majority of the match. We basically relied on Howard all game, and to be fair to him he won just about everything. I thought Tunchev struggled against Lee at the other end. On the poor balance of play it's a fair result, but one we could have won if Howard had been a bit more clinical with his chance.
Rocky Dennis Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 Just a ridiculous result and the last thing we need.I said to start with that no-one would have much chance to make any sort of difference to career here and so it proved. Our promising 4-5-1 didn't sound like it should have been with wingers and central midfield players driving forward into the box. Played with such apparent reserve I couldn't figure the point of it. When we tried to go more attacking I fail to see why we didn't use Porter and go 3-4-3 with Howard, Dickov and Gradel up front. We might have won, we might have lost but I doubt we'd have been pissing about with a replay. As it is Porter, one of our best passers and most creative players, spent another day totally wasting his time. And that on an afternoon when, as so often recently, Dyer hardly had a sniff. We never really went for it and have now landed ourselves with a totally unwanted trip to London. Bloody glad I saw it coming and stayed at home. I doubt we had more than three shots on target. i In Porter's place I be checking out of the replay with a knock in training and simply looking forward to a new start at the end of the season somewhere where there's the chance of a game. Mind you, that said, I have heard that Porter quite fancies playing in London as he clearly did against Chelsea last season. More chance though that he'll gradually become totally forgotten and what a waste that would be. If David Batty and Peter Reid could play for England why the hell Porter sits on a freezing bench I'll never know. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Hilarious!! (No Offence)
Thracian Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 If you didn't go how can you get a fair reflection on what went on and who played well. take it you listened to it on the radio, which is commentated by two people giving THEIR opinion, tit I didn't go because I guessed it would be exactly like it sounded. But by all means tell me you went, that the radio commentators were arseholes and that we actually peppered their goal with shots galore which were either brilliantly saved, cannoned off the woodwork or fizzed narrowly wide. Were there in fact more than three Leicester shots of any consequence? Was there even excitement at the other end apart from Tunchev's brilliant block? Right now I've got a picture of today's game, painted by two experienced commentators who seem to have done a pretty good job this season. And that picture is in a dull shade of grey with only the tiniest flecks of colour. By all means paint your "true" picture in vivid colours pal. Unless it's just you who's the tit.
Benji Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 What the hell, I didn't think we played that badly. The back 5 were solid, palace never had a look-in except a bit of pressure near the end of the game. The midfield missed Oakley, there were no cutting passes which showed when the one time Adams put one across to Gradel we had a decent chance. Howard did a great job, really upset the defenders but my oh my a shocking miss for the one-on-one. Had he scored it would have been a great win Radio Leicester was a joke post-match, where do these people who call in live the other 6 days a week? Wankerland?
JoeyB Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 Thracian pull your head out of Porters arse for once. Face it, if he was as good as you make him out to be, he would be in the team, but he's not. Today was another dull game. Davies & Howard i thought were brill today and Mattock played well. We should of won with howard at the end.
Joe. Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 It was no great performance by any means, but I think we can take away the fact we were the better side against a good Championship side.
Sir Alex Ferguson Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 I didn't go because I guessed it would be exactly like it sounded.But by all means tell me you went, that the radio commentators were arseholes and that we actually peppered their goal with shots galore which were either brilliantly saved, cannoned off the woodwork or fizzed narrowly wide. Were there in fact more than three Leicester shots of any consequence? Was there even excitement at the other end apart from Tunchev's brilliant block? Right now I've got a picture of today's game, painted by two experienced commentators who seem to have done a pretty good job this season. And that picture is in a dull shade of grey with only the tiniest flecks of colour. By all means paint your "true" picture in vivid colours pal. Unless it's just you who's the tit. I'm not saying that we played Palace off the park but they are at the top end of the Championship, a form team, looking for promotion. Having a dig at your team who were without their most potent goal threat, is a bit silly. We packed the midfield to limit Palace's chances and if Howard's chance had instead gone to Fryatt, we would all be talking about how tactically astute Pearson was and i'm sure you would be as well. Last season we lost at home to the likes of Blackpool and Sheffield Wednesday, who were fighting to stay up not go up, so maybe this result isn't as bad as you make out, if you think about it. On a seperate note Levi Porter is dreadful, tit.
Thracian Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 Thracian pull your head out of Porters arse for once.Face it, if he was as good as you make him out to be, he would be in the team, but he's not. Today was another dull game. Davies & Howard i thought were brill today and Mattock played well. We should of won with howard at the end. Speaking to a regular fan today I agreed with his opinion that something unusual must have happened to have queered Porter's situation at the club. No-one seems to know for sure what it is but it's gone on a long time and now, suddenly, a guy who's reportedly been training with the kids, is back in a first team squad but, yet again, not getting a look in despite the indifference of the guy he would naturally understudy. I have not the slightest doubt that Porter is plenty good enough to get in our team or on its bench just as I thought King was good enough and Gradel and Stearman and Wesolowski. There was no question Dyer hit the floor running at the start of the season but Porter was outstanding in some of the friendlies after his year-long injury and should have been the obvious understudy. But he wasn't. And I don't believe that was anything to do with his ability at all.
Daggers Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 Porter may have offered something approaching an attack today. Anyone happy with that sells the club short - we could have taken them but lacked anything ip front. Palace were crap, their support was worse and Warnovk was a bigger cvnt than the teat sitting behind me in B1.
Benji Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 Porter may have offered something approaching an attack today. Anyone happy with that sells the club short - we could have taken them but lacked anything ip front. Palace were crap, their support was worse and Warnovk was a bigger cvnt than the teat sitting behind me in B1. I think mine was worse, he had a little girlie laugh and was one of those idiots that laughs at his own 'jokes', unfortunately for me everything he said he must have thought was a joke.
RowlattsFox Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 Well that was a bit dull, a real stalemate. Both teams set up with the same formation and cancelled each other out. Just a few weeks ago people were saying we should try the 4-3-3 formation and we did that today but it didn't work brilliantly. Howard was isolated, Davies tried his best to support him but he could never quite read what Howard was going to do. Hobbs man of the match for me, won almost everything. Gradel, Davies, Tunchev and Howard did ok.
syston_fox Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 Bugger! I think that was our chance to get the win and will be lucky to get anything out of the replay. How I'm gonna negotiate the time off is another matter...
Thracian Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 I'm not saying that we played Palace off the park but they are at the top end of the Championship, a form team, looking for promotion. Having a dig at your team who were without their most potent goal threat, is a bit silly.We packed the midfield to limit Palace's chances and if Howard's chance had instead gone to Fryatt, we would all be talking about how tactically astute Pearson was and i'm sure you would be as well. Last season we lost at home to the likes of Blackpool and Sheffield Wednesday, who were fighting to stay up not go up, so maybe this result isn't as bad as you make out, if you think about it. On a seperate note Levi Porter is dreadful, tit. a) There was nothing to stop our manager using another striker in the absence of Fryatt. It's not as if all our alternatives are injured or unavailable. b) It's is hard to argue with a victory but there is plenty wrong with 0-0 in any football match, never mind out current circumstances. c) I don't know about you but I reckon I've seen Levi Porter play as much football as any fan of this club over the last four years in first team, reserves and Academy matches - on the wing and in central midfield. And if you think Porter is a dreadful footballer then I suggest you look again and a bit more closely. Unless he's suddenly changed out of all recognition.
Dr The Singh Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 4 - 5 - 1 sums it all. For a side who is in confidence, top of the table, decides to go all cautious!! A draw is the last thing we needed, I would have prefered us going all out attack!!!! I was gonna go to the game with junior, but i'm i'll!!
Mark Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 Warnock said it all in the interview, he played 4-5-1 due to it being the only option available with his squad. We had 4 strikers available despite Fryatts injury but chose to cause a stalemate and hope to pinch a goal. It's this sort of negative attitude that saw 4 years of struggle end in relegation from that league. I'll let him off today but then I didn't sit through it.
Sir Alex Ferguson Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 a) There was nothing to stop our manager using another striker in the absence of Fryatt. It's not as if all our alternatives are injured or unavailable. b) It's is hard to argue with a victory but there is plenty wrong with 0-0 in any football match, never mind out current circumstances. c) I don't know about you but I reckon I've seen Levi Porter play as much football as any fan of this club over the last four years in first team, reserves and Academy matches - on the wing and in central midfield. And if you think Porter is a dreadful footballer then I suggest you look again and a bit more closely. Unless he's suddenly changed out of all recognition. There is nothing wrong with Pearson using another striker however, who would you suggest? because none of them are scoring apart from Fryatt, the only other player who seems to be popping up with goals is Andy King, which is why I believe he played five in midfield, to give King that bit of extra freedom to get forward. Maybe Pearson saw King as a better goal threat than say dj campbell, who has acheived little this season, Dickov who has been injured and the inexperienced Ashley Chambers. King has scored more than the three of them put together and is our second highest goalscorer. I suppose you would suggest playing Porter in that role though, seeing as its worked so succesfully in the past three seasons. And to say that any 0-0 scoreline is a bad result is ridiculous, i take it you would be dissapointed with a 0-0 draw at Arsenal. I'm not delighted with the result but at the same time it's a decent resul and could have been far worse.
Thracian Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 Warnock said it all in the interview, he played 4-5-1 due to it being the only option available with his squad. We had 4 strikers available despite Fryatts injury but chose to cause a stalemate and hope to pinch a goal. It's this sort of negative attitude that saw 4 years of struggle end in relegation from that league.I'll let him off today but then I didn't sit through it. No truer words and something I've just referred to in another thread. You don't get anywhere in football unless you set out to score goals.
Sir Alex Ferguson Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 Warnock said it all in the interview, he played 4-5-1 due to it being the only option available with his squad. We had 4 strikers available despite Fryatts injury but chose to cause a stalemate and hope to pinch a goal. It's this sort of negative attitude that saw 4 years of struggle end in relegation from that league.I'll let him off today but then I didn't sit through it. The four strikers you are talking about are the same four strikers who were all dreadful in-front of goal last season.
Head Honcho Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 I'm annoyed that we have a replay in the sense that we should be focusing on the league but delighted that we get a trip down to Selhurst Park. The last time I went down there was one of the best away days out I've ever had! Exactly! I love my midweek games in London.
Koke Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 I personally thought we played a 4-3-3 Mark Davies spent a lot of time in their half, and both Dyer and Gradel offered something going forward. It was a dull affair, but we were slightly the better team. Porter would have made no difference whatsoever. He's no better than Gradel, Dyer and Adams and all 3 played today. Dickov is finished - We're better off using Dudley, seriously.
lestajigs Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 can any body give a rough guess, what time fox travel coaches will leave for palace away, ko at 8, pluss the price roughly? thanks
dandannieldanok Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 You don't get anywhere in football unless you set out to score goals. I personally thought we played a 4-3-3 4-3-3 seems to tell me we set out to score.
Koke Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 4-3-3 seems to tell me we set out to score. We weren't defensive by any means. We did try going forward but lacked the quality Oakley and Fryatt brings to the table. An in-form Dyer would have run them ragged. Palace were no more than an average Championship side. Palace tested Martin once (as I recall). We had several shots saved by Speroni.
Jimmy Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 Thrac shut up about levi fooking porter, he is crap, about as many good performances in a city shirt as Laczko
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.