ousefox Posted 13 February 2010 Posted 13 February 2010 Really enjoyed the game today and Gallagher was superb. My cousin had been slating his recent performances and i told him that he would come good sooner rather than later. Delighted that we scored 3 of our goals from set plays as we need to do this more consistently so that we can gain higher goal difference. Pearson's subs were perfect, especially bringing on Solano as a cool head at the back after their goal as we didn't want a result like Cardiff - Posh. I hadn't managed to get to a game since Forest away (my longest game drought in recent years). So i have now seen two 5-1's in a row, thankfully this time it was to us.
dandannieldanok Posted 13 February 2010 Posted 13 February 2010 Why do all these clubs feel we're so great from set pieces? I really don't know , 12/13 years ago maybe but I've not noticed that it's a big part of our game nowadays.
Thracian Posted 13 February 2010 Posted 13 February 2010 A number of people mention how poor S****horpe were but I'm not so sure about that. First half I don't think we gave them an inch of space to dwell on the ball or to look up and see the pictures. We've done it before in patches this season and not even Newcastle looked comfortable. It is one of the reasons I've honestly felt we've played below our collective ability for much of this season. We've been far too cautious and unwilling to commit ourselves going forward, especially after we've taken a lead. The moment our urgency and industry faltered at the start of the second half today, S****horpe started to look perfectly respectable and I'm just glad we responded properly to their goal and the warning it issued. All I look forward to now is more of the same. Let other teams start worrying about us rather than the other way around.
marbelladave Posted 13 February 2010 Posted 13 February 2010 OK let's get this over with. S****horpe were dreadful, really, really bad and we gave then a hiding, fantastic result, very decent performance. A few nights ago, virtually the same team could not break down a stubborn and determined Doncaster... :dunno: But more importantly what did we do so right today? I accept that, on Tuesday, Fryatt's awful injury caused us, as a team to lose focus, but the differences in our play were enormous so why was that? The system worked pretty well from the start and we scored an early goal, Pearson was not required to make any changes to system or personnel and I think that was a big help. Whether it was Pearson's instruction or the early goal, we started 4-3-3 and pretty much maintained it through out, very little sign of the 4-5-1 nonsense that made us so ineffective against Doncaster. We sat back a bit just after half time but fortunately it didn't last and for once Pearson's substitutions made reasonable sense. The midfield trio were excellent, they played as a unit and were totally dominant, having 3 strikers making runs in forward position gave them the range of options they simply did not have midweek, made all the difference to their play. I have suggested that Oakley, King and Wellens are too 'samey' to play together, hopefully they are going to prove me wrong. The strikers were all very good, Waghorn led the line with considerable energy and was more productive than we have seen for some time, Dyer proved, yet again, that he is a different player when deployed well forward. He is a striker, not a wide midfield player, give him the ball 30 yds out and watch the fun. Gallagher too was first class, showed enough defensively in the wide right position and roamed to great effect when we were in possession. Strangely he still looks more likely to score from 20 yds than from 6 yds, getting the best from him clearly requires more work. All in all a great performance and good to watch. Please, Mr Pearson, learn from this and move us forward.
marbelladave Posted 13 February 2010 Posted 13 February 2010 A number of people mention how poor S****horpe were but I'm not so sure about that. First half I don't think we gave them an inch of space to dwell on the ball or to look up and see the pictures. We've done it before in patches this season and not even Newcastle looked comfortable.It is one of the reasons I've honestly felt we've played below our collective ability for much of this season. We've been far too cautious and unwilling to commit ourselves going forward, especially after we've taken a lead. The moment our urgency and industry faltered at the start of the second half today, S****horpe started to look perfectly respectable and I'm just glad we responded properly to their goal and the warning it issued. All I look forward to now is more of the same. Let other teams start worrying about us rather than the other way around. No, for once I disagree, first half particularly S****horpe were woeful. They failed to get close to our midfield and made a complete hash of marking our runners, we had a field day! Our complacency let them back into things after the break but once we upped the tempo they simply folded. Don't take this the wrong way, we did play well but I think we can over react too much to a decent performance against poor opposition and whilst I genuinely believe that we have "played below our collective capability" for some time, I am yet to be convinced that we fully confronted that issue.
Finnegan Posted 13 February 2010 Author Posted 13 February 2010 S****horpe were dreadful, really, really bad and we gave then a hiding, fantastic result, very decent performance. A few nights ago, virtually the same team could not break down a stubborn and determined Doncaster... :dunno: REMEMBER KIDS. MARBELLADAVE ISN'T ALWAYS ABOUT THE NEGATIVITY!
AoWW Posted 13 February 2010 Posted 13 February 2010 lol Live Chat. Great invention. Typical, the one time I'm not in Live Chat and I miss out on summat.
Thracian Posted 13 February 2010 Posted 13 February 2010 No, for once I disagree, first half particularly S****horpe were woeful. They failed to get close to our midfield and made a complete hash of marking our runners, we had a field day! Our complacency let them back into things after the break but once we upped the tempo they simply folded.Don't take this the wrong way, we did play well but I think we can over react too much to a decent performance against poor opposition and whilst I genuinely believe that we have "played below our collective capability" for some time, I am yet to be convinced that we fully confronted that issue. Their problems in central midfield were partly down to the excellent performance of Wellens and King from the off. Wellens seemed to have something to prove and King just seemed to be on top of his game, winning everything in the air as well as everywhere else. Our runners that you mentioned also offered extra passing opportunities that might well not have been apparent in preparatory videos of City that S****horpe might have watched, especially as we've rarely had so many runners heading for the danger zones in previous matches - and certainly not for very long. I'm not trying to portray S****horpe as anything special but then I don't subscribe to the view that there are any special teams in this League, not even Forest judging by their recent inconsistency. But I've seen plenty worse in this division. Happily, in contrast to our previous approach, I believe we ought to be much harder to combat using today's approach. Fast and robust closing down is never easy to cope especially with so many runners available when we get the ball and the pressure almost inevitably leads to mistakes as Manchester United have demonstrated for so long. Whether Pearson will develop this approach and draw the best from our potential is another question altogether but I am far more encouraged now than even when we've been higher placed in the league but demonstrating so many obvious weaknesses.
marbelladave Posted 13 February 2010 Posted 13 February 2010 REMEMBER KIDS.MARBELLADAVE ISN'T ALWAYS ABOUT THE NEGATIVITY! QUE? Caps lock key, don'tcha just love it!
marbelladave Posted 13 February 2010 Posted 13 February 2010 Their problems in central midfield were partly down to the excellent performance of Wellens and King from the off. Wellens seemed to have something to prove and King just seemed to be on top of his game, winning everything in the air as well as everywhere else. Our runners that you mentioned also offered extra passing opportunities that might well not have been apparent in preparatory videos of City that S****horpe might have watched, especially as we've rarely had so many runners heading for the danger zones in previous matches - and certainly not for very long. I'm not trying to portray S****horpe as anything special but then I don't subscribe to the view that there are any special teams in this League, not even Forest judging by their recent inconsistency. But I've seen plenty worse in this division. Happily, in contrast to our previous approach, I believe we ought to be much harder to combat using today's approach. Fast and robust closing down is never easy to cope especially with so many runners available when we get the ball and the pressure almost inevitably leads to mistakes as Manchester United have demonstrated for so long. Whether Pearson will develop this approach and draw the best from our potential is another question altogether but I am far more encouraged now than even when we've been higher placed in the league but demonstrating so many obvious weaknesses. This, very much so! I still have grave concerns about Pearson's innate conservatism so I await our next games with imterest. For the moment I am pleased as punch.... :D
Finnegan Posted 13 February 2010 Author Posted 13 February 2010 QUE?Caps lock key, don'tcha just love it! It's a wee fetish of mine. ... wait...
lildave3 Posted 13 February 2010 Posted 13 February 2010 Tbf, Scunny were absolutely awful defensively. We just had too much for them. And when they did sort of threaten offensively, someone was always on them forcing an error (usually King).
Babylon Posted 13 February 2010 Posted 13 February 2010 REMEMBER KIDS.MARBELLADAVE ISN'T ALWAYS ABOUT THE NEGATIVITY! I'm saying nothing... the fickleness (is that a word) in this thread makes me laugh.
Thracian Posted 13 February 2010 Posted 13 February 2010 I'm saying nothing... the fickleness (is that a word) in this thread makes me laugh. Fickleness is a wonderful word - and I'm glad you've got a smile on your face. Didn't Kingy play well!
Billy_Velvetone Posted 13 February 2010 Posted 13 February 2010 Just got in after much beer and much celebration. Quality performance and result, S###thorpe were poor, especially in defence. You can only beat who are put in front of you though, and as Tuesday proved, it's not as easy as it should be. Chuffed for Gallagher, big fan of his and hopefully this will kick him on for the last third of the season, his third goal was pure class. Watch out Forest. 5 points out of the next 3 games and we'll be right up there. Roll on 27th, can't wait. :scarf:
MC Prussian Posted 13 February 2010 Posted 13 February 2010 I wonder what Thracian had for breakfast - I'm still undecided. Mushrooms or Happy Pie? This newly-found optimism is unheard of. At least he's still riding the Andy King Love Train. Fickle, fickle the lot of you!!!
Babylon Posted 13 February 2010 Posted 13 February 2010 Fickleness is a wonderful word - and I'm glad you've got a smile on your face. Didn't Kingy play well! Was he playing?
Babylon Posted 13 February 2010 Posted 13 February 2010 I've always considered Fryatt a difficult and unpredictable player to be alongside.Times I've seen people make runs and get frustrated by not getting the ball. It's not that Fryatt cannot play the sort of one-twos that open defences. It's just that he's so focused on what he might make happen himself that he sometimes just doesn't play them. Today when players did run into space they seemed to get the ball on a fair number of occasions. We also seemed to have more people making a real effort to get into the box. Perhaps they were subconsciously making up for the absence of Fryatt, Idon't know, but it did increase the passing opportunities and the chances of someone, anyone, getting on the end of things. Long may it continue whatever. Wish you'd told us before... now you just look reactionary!!
glennthefox Posted 14 February 2010 Posted 14 February 2010 Back from the public house, I think we did rather well today chaps ....... GET THE F*** in, its about bloody time we gave someone a proper pasting. Pleased for Gally, another class. Hopefully this will spur him on to lead our scoring line now that matty is out. Six on tuesday anyone? (i write drunk when i'm well)
ozleicester Posted 14 February 2010 Posted 14 February 2010 What a Season!Brilliant bloody news to wake up to. Gallagher showed in the Newcastle game to me that a big game wasn't far away good to see him getting his chance up front and taking it.. Geez that Emergency loan striker thread makes for good reading. What a result, sounded as though we totally controlled the entire game, bar 15 mions after the break. At last Gallagher got the opportunityhe needed and we benefited indeed. Will be very interesting to see if the the lift in confidence the boys have in the next couple of games, probably no betrter time for this result. For the 2nd time in 3 weeks.. It is indeed great to be a city fan, very proud of the boys and NP.
demon_dog Posted 14 February 2010 Posted 14 February 2010 A bit reluctant to say it given Fryatt's situation and the considerable contribution he has made to our achievements so far this season but I wasn't altogether surprised that we seemed to gel better in our attacking today.Itmay be pure conincidence but, not withsanding his goals, I've always considered Fryatt a difficult and unpredictable player to be alongside. Times I've seen people make runs and get frustrated by not getting the ball. It's not that Fryatt cannot play the sort of one-twos that open defences. It's just that he's so focused on what he might make happen himself that he sometimes just doesn't play them. Today when players did run into space they seemed to get the ball on a fair number of occasions. We also seemed to have more people making a real effort to get into the box. Perhaps they were subconsciously making up for the absence of Fryatt, Idon't know, but it did increase the passing opportunities and the chances of someone, anyone, getting on the end of things. Long may it continue whatever. Fully agree, I felt that the team as a whole played better without Fryatt. When he is on the pitch we seem to constantly try to give him the ball, as such we tend to be one dimensional. Without him as you say Tony we seem to create more attacking options. I know it's only one game against a very poor side, however we seemed a more balanced side. Hope that we can prove this in the next few games.
marbelladave Posted 14 February 2010 Posted 14 February 2010 Fully agree, I felt that the team as a whole played better without Fryatt.When he is on the pitch we seem to constantly try to give him the ball, as such we tend to be one dimensional. Without him as you say Tony we seem to create more attacking options. I know it's only one game against a very poor side, however we seemed a more balanced side. Hope that we can prove this in the next few games. That may be going a bit far, but it has often been pointed out, by myself and others, that Matty is a certain type of player, he does not get that involved in the buildup and in the box he rarely passes, even if a team mate is better placed. Having said all that, he does score goals. he is our best goal 'poacher' since Tony Cottee. Fratt is a very clearly defined player, so you know what you are going to get with him, it is simply a choice for the manager (and the team) whether you play him because he will get you goals or leave him out in the hope that better team play upfront will do the job for you. I think it is fair to say that we know where Pearson stands on this issue. It is also worth bearing in mind that, well as Gallagher played, his goals came from distance and he failed to make the most of several opportunities from close in, on another day.... ?
Blue Bob Posted 14 February 2010 Posted 14 February 2010 Great result. I was pleased Howard did not make it on to the pitch as this forced us to play another way instead of the long ball hoof that we tend to play. It was great to see the players pass and move so much, always running into space with some fantastic one touch football, I would not say that s****horpe were that bad , we just played around them and didnt give them a chance. Our possession of the ball was far better, but that was because we did not play the long ball game. The whole team upped their game and I hope they keep it going, as many sides will just crumble like S****horpe did.
marbelladave Posted 14 February 2010 Posted 14 February 2010 Great result. I was pleased Howard did not make it on to the pitch as this forced us to play another way instead of the long ball hoof that we tend to play.It was great to see the players pass and move so much, always running into space with some fantastic one touch football, I would not say that s****horpe were that bad , we just played around them and didnt give them a chance. Our possession of the ball was far better, but that was because we did not play the long ball game. The whole team upped their game and I hope they keep it going, as many sides will just crumble like S****horpe did. Take it easy!... Pretty much the same team failed to make any impression on Doncaster just 4 days earlier! I believe the Fryatt injury gave us real problems, both mentally (the severity of the injury) and football wise, we never come close to re-organising effectively and simply did not take the game to Donny. Yesterday we started great, got an early goal and took S****horpe apart, we need to do that against more resilient teams if we are really going to make a proper run at the playoffs.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.