|
|
Post by norther on Nov 29, 2008 18:12:39 GMT
Today’s performance was no more than average. Consistently in the first half we played well below par; misplacing passes, losing out on the second ball, not getting into Hull’s box as fast as we should be. In contrast there were some brief glimpses of what Stoke can actually perform like. I hate to say it but the goal Hull scored is the type of goal we seem to concede, there was three opportunities for the stoke players to get a foot in a clear their lines but everybody stood still, and the result King with a classy finish.
In the second half we picked up the game and had chances to win and I feel that from those chance ,we should have (Fuller/Tonge should have finished easily, and a few headed chances to boot.) Here is my main point though, in the first half we were uncomfortable but during periods of the second half we kept our heads and knocked it around a bit (second half performance a la Tottenham), hence the atmosphere and tempo of the game began to rise. Stoke always play well when the game has a bite to it and I don’t understand why they cannot repeat this on a regular basis.
Also people have a right to voice there opinions on this board whenever they wish. I have been reading the Oatcake for years now and although there are a lot of helpful people who form CONSTRUCTIVE arguments and points of reference there are many who use irrational uneducated logic to shoot people down. It is tedious and people really do need to put things into perspective and grow up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2008 18:33:36 GMT
Nice analysis mate kind of works with my look on the game. I think they have pace in the team and that has worked for them this season something we need. Other than that I thought they were poor.
I wunna comment on the second point though I will just put me tin hat on ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2008 18:34:22 GMT
Good post norther. Agree 100%.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokie25 on Nov 29, 2008 18:40:19 GMT
back that up completely! However, if a defence should be given, the conditions and temperature were awful! I agree about the board, to some extent. I've noticed that an analytical argument or opinion hits the bottom of the page quicker than the titanic to the ocean bed, but a genuine mistake is top of the page for days with thousands of useless, misspelt, grammatically poor posts  Tin hat on to have my point proved....................................................................... |
|
|
|
Post by norther on Nov 29, 2008 18:42:36 GMT
Im glad people agree, there just seems to be so much blind analysis which occurs on here. Also agree about undefined points which bare no meaning and have to be read by a 5 year old to be made any sense of. Army of tin hats ordered  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2008 18:46:05 GMT
my mate oveheard someone today say about Hull's goal that they had 9 men up for there goal when do we ever have that...... They were attacking a point in the game when they knew damn well we couldn't get back...honestly  |
|
|
|
Post by mermaidsal on Nov 29, 2008 19:05:10 GMT
Good analysis norther, I agree on both points.
Coming away from the match I couldn't decide whether to feel positive because, like you say, when there was a bite to the game and we knocked it around we look a team of survivors, or because we were no better first half than v Brazil, in which case I'm seeing a long hard winter ahead. Either way we very badly need a dominant attacking midfielder who knows where the goal is, preferably by first week of January, and Liam coming back will be a bonus but not the answer.
Anyone else want to join the Tin Hatters, those prepared to have a serious/constructive debate every now and again (honorary president ted1965)?
|
|
|
|
Post by stokie25 on Nov 29, 2008 19:10:55 GMT
Get it going, sal I'll be in the Tin Hatters! Obnoxious, negative, piss takers need not join ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2008 19:12:51 GMT
Get it going, sal I'll be in the Tin Hatters! Obnoxious, negative, piss takers need not join ;D I am not negative out of that list does that mean I can still get in ;D |
|
|
|
Post by norther on Nov 29, 2008 19:22:35 GMT
I felt exactly the same, agreed about the attacking midfielder because the people who could potentially play that role (Olifinjana, Tonge, Whelan, Soares) are never going to be utilised in that way, rightly or wrongly so. Who realisticly do you think could provide the answer? (The true test of rational response)
I just feel today if Diao was replaced with Tonge instead of Soares coming off, it may have added the bit of quality to open them up and leave more room for Soares to roam on the wing.
Tin Hatters established!
Get Ted involved
|
|
|
|
Post by mermaidsal on Nov 29, 2008 19:24:56 GMT
As a halfway house between now and January I'd start Whelan, just maybe we've got the player there already but I think it's going to need someone a bit more dominant. Who'd be on your shopping list?
|
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Nov 29, 2008 19:28:32 GMT
back that up completely! However, if a defence should be given, the conditions and temperature were awful! I agree about the board, to some extent. I've noticed that an analytical argument or opinion hits the bottom of the page quicker than the titanic to the ocean bed, but a genuine mistake is top of the page for days with thousands of useless, misspelt, grammatically poor posts Tin hat on to have my point proved....................................................................... No real interest in a person's opinion unless they can keep it to the 'game' thread. If you are unable to post it there simply because your name won't appear at the top then it deserves to disappear off the page. |
|
|
|
Post by mermaidsal on Nov 29, 2008 19:32:03 GMT
Starkiller, I agree with you during a game but I think it's ok for discussion to open up like this AFTERWARDS (so long as people bother to scroll down the first and probably second page to stop duplicating a thread that's already running)
|
|
|
|
Post by norther on Nov 29, 2008 19:35:19 GMT
Well to be honest StarKiller the thread is not soley to do with 'the game' so it is in the correct place. Also threads evolve as people add to them so you cannot keep it to one subject, well you could but it would be boring unless valid opinions were expressed.
To answer the attacking midfielder question I would like to see us in for the likes of: Surman, Bullard (too exotic maybe?), kightly (wing and put Tonge in the middle) or a geovani type plucked from obscurity (however, this is risky and will almost definately not happen)
|
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Nov 29, 2008 19:37:19 GMT
Not wanting to offend but GOOD points will get lost if a hundred new threads are opened about different aspects of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by norther on Nov 29, 2008 20:27:19 GMT
True
|
|
|
|
Post by lancer on Nov 29, 2008 22:12:57 GMT
Pace..we badly lack pace.We have the players (or at lear player-Fuller) to do damage in the box, but need the ball there. It is so obvious, so often. We so often get the ball, but then don't know what to do with it. We have no pacy wide men to get the ball and attack defences. Easy to see I know, but that should be our priority areas TP should looking at.
I don't suggest that I know what TP doesn't, and so I look to him to solve the problem in the Jan window. Not easy I know, all teams are looking for the same players, but here's hoping.
Whelan should be given a run in midfields. He has the ability and I feel he should be allowed to express it.
|
|
