- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
@Bradford_TandA
All the latest news and views from the T&A
@tandasport
All the latest sport from the T&A
@TandABusiness
Latest business headlines from the T&A
- Find us on Facebook
The Telegraph & Argus
Like us on Facebook
Officials at centre of Bradford City attention again (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting TANEWS to 80360, or email
Three disallowed ‘goals’ deny Bradford City as James Hanson equaliser also has whiff of controversy
6:30am Monday 26th March 2012 in npower League Two Table & Results
By Simon Parker, Bradford City Reporter
City substitute Nahki Wells hooks home with his first touch, only for his celebrations to be cut short
City 2, Gillingham 2
A ruffle of the hair and hearty pat on the shoulder gave the game away.
The Gillingham defender wasn’t checking on Paulo Gazzaniga’s well being as he lay prone on the ground.
No, he was congratulating him for winning the most generous of the day’s disallowed goal decisions and depriving City of a famous fightback.
Seconds earlier, referee Scott Mathieson had stopped home celebrations in their tracks after Craig Fagan lashed the ball home.
It was the softest of fouls awarded in the keeper’s favour, the type that drive forwards past and present bonkers. No wonder Ian Ormondroyd nearly punched a hole through the TV screen up in the press box.
The atmosphere was that good that it swayed the decision to give that goal. The volume to let the linesman know (he got it wrong) was brilliant
Lee Bullock
City themselves were equally adamant that the goal should have stood. But they were also realistic enough to know that the odds were going to be in Gillingham’s favour following the big call over their equaliser ten minutes earlier.
Then, James Hanson’s initial drive had been ruled out because Nahki Wells stood in an offside position right in front of the keeper. The Bermudian had tried to backheel it in but failed; the shot beat Gazzaniga anyway.
But assistant Chris O’Donnell’s flag went straight up – and not for the first time.
City, still sore at seeing substitute Wells denied a dramatic first-touch goal by the same linesman, were incensed and surrounded O’Donnell. Fagan led the protest towards Mathieson and the crowd howled in dismay.
Mathieson was persuaded by Fagan to have a word with the young official and, after 30 seconds of deliberation, the goal was given.
Cue pandemonium in the Gillingham ranks, with boss Andy Hessenthaler raging that his keeper could not make a save because Wells was directly in the way blocking his vision.
The thorny issue of whether offside players are active or not had reared its head once again. Whichever way Mathieson had pointed, the losing party would feel aggrieved.
But there was also the thought that last Monday’s pow-wow with Football League refereeing head Dave Allison had borne immediate fruit.
The feeling within the club that refs were going out of their way not to be swayed at Valley Parade had been raised among the DVDs. Had that filtered down to the man in the middle on Saturday?
On the evidence of the non-foul in stoppage time, apparently not. But at least the over-ruled second goal was a start.
It was no more than the Bantams deserved for refusing to crack when it seemed that everything was stacked against them. There was nothing fortunate about the comeback which maintained their four-point lifeline over the bottom two.
The recovery was as much down to the fans as the players. Mark Lawn put a few noses out of joint with his pre-match “moaners not welcome” motto but the joint-chairman must have been thrilled by the backing from the stands.
Even when City were two down and seemingly on their way out, the crowd did not start hammering the team – and after three previous defeats, that was a pivotal moment.
“If they’d turned at 2-0, it might have been a different story,” admitted Phil Parkinson. “But I thought the supporters were absolutely tremendous.
“We were getting beaten but they understood what was going on. Their team had given everything and a few things went against them but everyone kept going.”
Lee Bullock reckoned the supporters earned an assist in the “will he, won’t he” pantomime surrounding Hanson’s goal.
The Bantams midfielder said: “The atmosphere was that good that it swayed the decision to give that goal. The volume to let the linesman know (he got it wrong) was brilliant.”
The power of positive thinking and support made its impact. Equally, it was a more positive approach on the field that brought City back from the canvas.
Simon Ramsden was hooked just minutes after scoring the first own goal of his career. On came Wells to join half-time replacement David Syers and there was a new attacking dynamic.
City went three at the back, while Chris Dagnall sat in behind Wells and Hanson in a front threesome intent on testing Gillingham to the limit.
Kyel Reid and Fagan provided the ammo from either side and Syers the willing support, while Bullock just as importantly held anchor. “It was like the red arrows swarming forward,” laughed Parkinson.
They certainly put on a display, with Reid in particular leaving blue shirts flagging in his wake. Not bad for a player who’d only driven up from London that morning after leaving his pregnant girlfriend’s bedside.
Wells surely played his way back into the starting line-up – but where? Whether Parkinson would try such a gung-ho approach from the first whistle is another matter.
He said: “Playing three at the back is something you need time to work on it but we have done it in games before. We’ve got experienced players who tactically know where they should be.
“Bullock was the key to that. Everybody wants to be the one who gets the goal but you’ve got to be careful you don’t concede on the counter-attack.”
The afternoon had started brightly enough for City through the haze as they forced five corners in the first seven minutes. But chances failed to hit the target until Gillingham midfielder Lewis Montrose outjumped Matt Fry to show how it should be done.
That knocked the wind out of the home side but heads were cleared at the break. Again City began the half on top – only to fall further behind when Ramsden lunged to cut out Jo Kuffour’s through-pass for Jordan Obita and diverted it past the stranded Jon McLaughlin.
As the ball rolled into the empty net, almost in slow motion, it looked another step towards the abyss at the bottom of the table.
Wells had been on the pitch less than ten seconds when he hooked home with his first touch. But that man O’Donnell risked universal fury by raising his flag – as he had done against Hanson’s tap-in during the first half.
Undeterred, Wells met Reid’s free-kick with a glancing header for his eighth goal of the season. Valley Parade sparked into overdrive.
Hanson’s disputed drive brought City level, before Syers was denied at the near post as the roof threatened to blow.
Still there was time for one late, great chance. Gazzaniga flapped weakly in traffic at Reid’s cross and Fagan blasted into the unguarded goal. But another decision City’s way was too much to ask for.
Attendance: 9,858
Comments(23)
Rambo
says...
8:37am Mon 26 Mar 12
But its getting nauseating watching so many teams come here and deliberatley waste time, employ gamesmanship tactics etc. Some will say its their game plan to try and get the home crowd annoyed so credit to them when it works. But when an opposing goalkeeper is taking the pi$$ after only 35 minutes, it stinks. On this occassion though, it helped galvanize the crowd -excellent backing we gave them, and played its part in the ref changing his mind for the goal.
prince35
says...
8:56am Mon 26 Mar 12
WE WERE ROBBED YET AGAIN!!!.
Another slap happy performance by an official (linesman).
The goal that Hanson scored you could make a case for wells off-side, interfering with play.
But the fagen strike was a goal and hanson's other opportunity should have stood!!!.
I hope Parky will give the dagnall behind Hanson and wells some thought going into the crawley game.
The shear tempo and power of our string play was a,joy to watch and very effective.
WE SUPPORTERS SENT CHAIRMAN LAWN A MESSAGE, THE SUPPORTERS OF THIS CLUB WERE EXCELLENT SO MUCH SO THE HAIRS ON THE BACK OF MY NECK STOOD ON END.
Nickloza
says...
9:21am Mon 26 Mar 12
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:When were we negative? In the first half we had attack after attack at one stage we had three or four corners straight after each other and also a goal disallowed and some good crosses put in so I don't know what game you were at! They rarely attacked us it City all the way.
The disallowed goal at the end should have stood. The goal given prior should have been disallowed, the two off sides I haven't really seen from thenside so can't really comment.
What was most frustrating is the tactics of trying to defend too much until we went 2-0 down. After that the negative safety first tactics were removed and we looked a different team. I just wish we'd do this more often from the start and give the visiting teams more to worry about.
I bet we'd pick up a hell of a lot more points that way.
Thee Voice of Reason
says...
9:27am Mon 26 Mar 12
Nickloza wrote:Do you watch the same game?
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:When were we negative? In the first half we had attack after attack at one stage we had three or four corners straight after each other and also a goal disallowed and some good crosses put in so I don't know what game you were at! They rarely attacked us it City all the way.
The disallowed goal at the end should have stood. The goal given prior should have been disallowed, the two off sides I haven't really seen from thenside so can't really comment.
What was most frustrating is the tactics of trying to defend too much until we went 2-0 down. After that the negative safety first tactics were removed and we looked a different team. I just wish we'd do this more often from the start and give the visiting teams more to worry about.
I bet we'd pick up a hell of a lot more points that way.
The first half unlike you may believe was not wave after wave of attacking football, the last 30min was.
mjkyorkshire
says...
10:23am Mon 26 Mar 12
Officials can always be counted on to be useless, so let's get round that problem by just playing at such an attacking tempo that we score enough goals that it's not an issue!!
Thee Voice of Reason
says...
11:06am Mon 26 Mar 12
mjkyorkshire wrote:Ah, so you also saw the same game as me and not the on Nickloza appears to have been at.
I just want us to learn from that second half, it was the best I've seen at VP all season. We have four home games left now, let's play every one just like that!!!
Officials can always be counted on to be useless, so let's get round that problem by just playing at such an attacking tempo that we score enough goals that it's not an issue!!
macca1969
says...
11:26am Mon 26 Mar 12
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:Don't think he saw the same game as anyone. Maybe he was at the shay watching Hannah grab a hatrick! In one report i think it says they keeper makes his first safe after 35 minutes.
Nickloza wrote:Do you watch the same game?
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:When were we negative? In the first half we had attack after attack at one stage we had three or four corners straight after each other and also a goal disallowed and some good crosses put in so I don't know what game you were at! They rarely attacked us it City all the way.
The disallowed goal at the end should have stood. The goal given prior should have been disallowed, the two off sides I haven't really seen from thenside so can't really comment.
What was most frustrating is the tactics of trying to defend too much until we went 2-0 down. After that the negative safety first tactics were removed and we looked a different team. I just wish we'd do this more often from the start and give the visiting teams more to worry about.
I bet we'd pick up a hell of a lot more points that way.
The first half unlike you may believe was not wave after wave of attacking football, the last 30min was.
We did though have a lot of the ball and fagan saw plenty too but we did nothing with it. We had no drive or pace and has such lacked any penetration, so i have to agree although the better side in the first half we were not an attacking force.
BigFigure
says...
11:47am Mon 26 Mar 12
I can only recall seeing this once before in decades of watching footy, a stormy game at Blackpool where the lino in front of irate City fans switched sides at half time to take the heat off.
In this case it meant the same guy being involved in disallowing City goals in both halves....mmm
Waynus1971
says...
4:37pm Mon 26 Mar 12
BigFigure wrote:To be honest, I hadn't even noticed it was the same official.
One question seems not to have been posed regarding the linesmen...why did they change sides at half time, so that they were flagging the same attack throughout the game? I can only recall seeing this once before in decades of watching footy, a stormy game at Blackpool where the lino in front of irate City fans switched sides at half time to take the heat off. In this case it meant the same guy being involved in disallowing City goals in both halves....mmm
.
Good spot if this was the case.
Waynus1971
says...
4:42pm Mon 26 Mar 12
Nickloza wrote:If you look at the comments on the main story, you will find that you are on your own in this respect. Yes, we did have a lot of the ball in the first half, but were we ever penetrative? Yes, we had a good start and had a number of consecutive corners, but we really look like scoring? Hanson scored in that period, but it was ruled out for being offside. I, being at the opposite end of the ground, cannot wholeheartedly say it should have stood. However, from their first attack, they scored and it knocked the stuffing out of us.
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: The disallowed goal at the end should have stood. The goal given prior should have been disallowed, the two off sides I haven't really seen from thenside so can't really comment. What was most frustrating is the tactics of trying to defend too much until we went 2-0 down. After that the negative safety first tactics were removed and we looked a different team. I just wish we'd do this more often from the start and give the visiting teams more to worry about. I bet we'd pick up a hell of a lot more points that way.When were we negative? In the first half we had attack after attack at one stage we had three or four corners straight after each other and also a goal disallowed and some good crosses put in so I don't know what game you were at! They rarely attacked us it City all the way.
.
The game changed when we took Ramsden off and brought on Wells. From that point on, it was only a matter of time before we scored 2, 3 or 4 goals. We were ruthless and if you honestly cannot see the difference between our first and second half performances, I think it is time you watched another sport...! LOL
Nickloza
says...
5:47pm Mon 26 Mar 12
Waynus1971 wrote:Agreed but my point which was missed was we were not negative we did try and get forward and yes we were more of a threat after wells came on. But to say we were negative is a bit unfair.
Nickloza wrote:If you look at the comments on the main story, you will find that you are on your own in this respect. Yes, we did have a lot of the ball in the first half, but were we ever penetrative? Yes, we had a good start and had a number of consecutive corners, but we really look like scoring? Hanson scored in that period, but it was ruled out for being offside. I, being at the opposite end of the ground, cannot wholeheartedly say it should have stood. However, from their first attack, they scored and it knocked the stuffing out of us.
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: The disallowed goal at the end should have stood. The goal given prior should have been disallowed, the two off sides I haven't really seen from thenside so can't really comment. What was most frustrating is the tactics of trying to defend too much until we went 2-0 down. After that the negative safety first tactics were removed and we looked a different team. I just wish we'd do this more often from the start and give the visiting teams more to worry about. I bet we'd pick up a hell of a lot more points that way.When were we negative? In the first half we had attack after attack at one stage we had three or four corners straight after each other and also a goal disallowed and some good crosses put in so I don't know what game you were at! They rarely attacked us it City all the way.
.
The game changed when we took Ramsden off and brought on Wells. From that point on, it was only a matter of time before we scored 2, 3 or 4 goals. We were ruthless and if you honestly cannot see the difference between our first and second half performances, I think it is time you watched another sport...! LOL
Nickloza
says...
7:00pm Mon 26 Mar 12
macca1969 wrote:I have may have been a bit enthusiastic but though we did not penetrate we did try. I did not say we were an attacking force but we did try to attack therefore we were not negative.
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:Don't think he saw the same game as anyone. Maybe he was at the shay watching Hannah grab a hatrick! In one report i think it says they keeper makes his first safe after 35 minutes.
Nickloza wrote:Do you watch the same game?
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:When were we negative? In the first half we had attack after attack at one stage we had three or four corners straight after each other and also a goal disallowed and some good crosses put in so I don't know what game you were at! They rarely attacked us it City all the way.
The disallowed goal at the end should have stood. The goal given prior should have been disallowed, the two off sides I haven't really seen from thenside so can't really comment.
What was most frustrating is the tactics of trying to defend too much until we went 2-0 down. After that the negative safety first tactics were removed and we looked a different team. I just wish we'd do this more often from the start and give the visiting teams more to worry about.
I bet we'd pick up a hell of a lot more points that way.
The first half unlike you may believe was not wave after wave of attacking football, the last 30min was.
We did though have a lot of the ball and fagan saw plenty too but we did nothing with it. We had no drive or pace and has such lacked any penetration, so i have to agree although the better side in the first half we were not an attacking force.
Thee Voice of Reason
says...
7:21pm Mon 26 Mar 12
bigang02
says...
8:25pm Mon 26 Mar 12
prince35 wrote:dito
I really don't care what anyone says!!!.
WE WERE ROBBED YET AGAIN!!!.
Another slap happy performance by an official (linesman).
The goal that Hanson scored you could make a case for wells off-side, interfering with play.
But the fagen strike was a goal and hanson's other opportunity should have stood!!!.
I hope Parky will give the dagnall behind Hanson and wells some thought going into the crawley game.
The shear tempo and power of our string play was a,joy to watch and very effective.
WE SUPPORTERS SENT CHAIRMAN LAWN A MESSAGE, THE SUPPORTERS OF THIS CLUB WERE EXCELLENT SO MUCH SO THE HAIRS ON THE BACK OF MY NECK STOOD ON END.
ricky76
says...
10:00pm Mon 26 Mar 12
BigFigure wrote:This has happened a few times over the years apparently there is no rule that the lino should stay the same in both halfs.
One question seems not to have been posed regarding the linesmen...why did they change sides at half time, so that they were flagging the same attack throughout the game?
I can only recall seeing this once before in decades of watching footy, a stormy game at Blackpool where the lino in front of irate City fans switched sides at half time to take the heat off.
In this case it meant the same guy being involved in disallowing City goals in both halves....mmm
lonniejockstrap
says...
10:16pm Mon 26 Mar 12
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:And your stuck in a rut. The rut of negativity. We attacked more that Gillingham -a team that was in 9th place and just 4 points outside a play off place- we had 20 shots to their 8, 10 corners to their 3 and you still have to have a moan. Just listen to yourself sometime. If anyone should feel embarrassed it's you.
Nick your embarassing yourself and back peddling so much you could win the tour de France if it was ran in reverse.
Thee Voice of Reason
says...
10:35pm Mon 26 Mar 12
lonniejockstrap wrote:I've been critical at Wells being dropped from the team for a player just brought in and you will find that prior to Wells entering the action we were average. After he came on we were superb.
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:And your stuck in a rut. The rut of negativity. We attacked more that Gillingham -a team that was in 9th place and just 4 points outside a play off place- we had 20 shots to their 8, 10 corners to their 3 and you still have to have a moan. Just listen to yourself sometime. If anyone should feel embarrassed it's you.
Nick your embarassing yourself and back peddling so much you could win the tour de France if it was ran in reverse.
I'm not really negative I'm realistic and will say what I see. We are under performing for the team we have so why beat around the bush and pretend we aren't. If we attack side like we did on Saturday rather than being scared of losing our unbeaten home run that is yielding lots of draws I bet we would have another 10 points on the board.
lonniejockstrap
says...
11:03pm Mon 26 Mar 12
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:Everyone is aware of PP's tactics, but you and everyone else who watched those players on Saturday saw the players put in yet another non-stop effort against another top team. They didn't curl up and die at two down, they have got that fighting, never say die spirit instilled in them from that very same manager. You could have chosen to focus more on the positive but you see only what you want to see and that tends to be only the things that were faulty -at least 90% of the time anyway. Did you not enjoy the game? Do you not think their was some great performances from a number of players? What about all the goal-mouth action? What about Reid's performance in itself? The atmosphere at the game? Wasn't all that 'realistic'? Why didn't you see it, why couldn't you enjoy it? and if you did, why don't you do us all a favour -and maybe even yourself- and comment on all that was good?
lonniejockstrap wrote:I've been critical at Wells being dropped from the team for a player just brought in and you will find that prior to Wells entering the action we were average. After he came on we were superb.
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:And your stuck in a rut. The rut of negativity. We attacked more that Gillingham -a team that was in 9th place and just 4 points outside a play off place- we had 20 shots to their 8, 10 corners to their 3 and you still have to have a moan. Just listen to yourself sometime. If anyone should feel embarrassed it's you.
Nick your embarassing yourself and back peddling so much you could win the tour de France if it was ran in reverse.
I'm not really negative I'm realistic and will say what I see. We are under performing for the team we have so why beat around the bush and pretend we aren't. If we attack side like we did on Saturday rather than being scared of losing our unbeaten home run that is yielding lots of draws I bet we would have another 10 points on the board.
Thee Voice of Reason
says...
8:12am Tue 27 Mar 12
lonniejockstrap wrote:I don't know where you got I didn't enjoy the game from. I thought I made it pretty clear it was a sterling comeback, my main concern is why we waited till 2-0 down to put them on the rack and why we show way too much respect to teams who come to Valley Parade.
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:Everyone is aware of PP's tactics, but you and everyone else who watched those players on Saturday saw the players put in yet another non-stop effort against another top team. They didn't curl up and die at two down, they have got that fighting, never say die spirit instilled in them from that very same manager. You could have chosen to focus more on the positive but you see only what you want to see and that tends to be only the things that were faulty -at least 90% of the time anyway. Did you not enjoy the game? Do you not think their was some great performances from a number of players? What about all the goal-mouth action? What about Reid's performance in itself? The atmosphere at the game? Wasn't all that 'realistic'? Why didn't you see it, why couldn't you enjoy it? and if you did, why don't you do us all a favour -and maybe even yourself- and comment on all that was good?
lonniejockstrap wrote:I've been critical at Wells being dropped from the team for a player just brought in and you will find that prior to Wells entering the action we were average. After he came on we were superb.
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:And your stuck in a rut. The rut of negativity. We attacked more that Gillingham -a team that was in 9th place and just 4 points outside a play off place- we had 20 shots to their 8, 10 corners to their 3 and you still have to have a moan. Just listen to yourself sometime. If anyone should feel embarrassed it's you.
Nick your embarassing yourself and back peddling so much you could win the tour de France if it was ran in reverse.
I'm not really negative I'm realistic and will say what I see. We are under performing for the team we have so why beat around the bush and pretend we aren't. If we attack side like we did on Saturday rather than being scared of losing our unbeaten home run that is yielding lots of draws I bet we would have another 10 points on the board.
When we attack teams we cause massive problems, I just don't understand why it takes us in most occassions to go a goal down to do so.
BigFigure
says...
11:42am Tue 27 Mar 12
ricky76 wrote:Just found some advice on this from the Refs website. Given how young the lino looked, this might be the reason he swapped...
BigFigure wrote:This has happened a few times over the years apparently there is no rule that the lino should stay the same in both halfs.
One question seems not to have been posed regarding the linesmen...why did they change sides at half time, so that they were flagging the same attack throughout the game?
I can only recall seeing this once before in decades of watching footy, a stormy game at Blackpool where the lino in front of irate City fans switched sides at half time to take the heat off.
In this case it meant the same guy being involved in disallowing City goals in both halves....mmm
"The general method is to keep Assistants on the same touchline throughout the game - the senior more experienced Assistant Referee normally takes the 'Technical Area' side (because he is more experienced in dealing with any unruly 'bench' occupants.)
It can sometimes be useful to allow the junior Assistant Referee to 'have a go' at controlling the technical area side of the field of play. This will allow the Junior Assistant Referee to gain experience with dealing with the Technical Area occupants, and management of the substitutions."
KnightMcCall
says...
12:46pm Tue 27 Mar 12
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:Are you genuinely suggesting that we should start the game tonight with the same team and formation as we finished on Saturday i.e. Fagan, Wells, Hanson, Reid, Syers and Dagnall? Just three defenders; against Crawley? Are you sure?
lonniejockstrap wrote:I don't know where you got I didn't enjoy the game from. I thought I made it pretty clear it was a sterling comeback, my main concern is why we waited till 2-0 down to put them on the rack and why we show way too much respect to teams who come to Valley Parade. When we attack teams we cause massive problems, I just don't understand why it takes us in most occassions to go a goal down to do so.Thee Voice of Reason wrote:Everyone is aware of PP's tactics, but you and everyone else who watched those players on Saturday saw the players put in yet another non-stop effort against another top team. They didn't curl up and die at two down, they have got that fighting, never say die spirit instilled in them from that very same manager. You could have chosen to focus more on the positive but you see only what you want to see and that tends to be only the things that were faulty -at least 90% of the time anyway. Did you not enjoy the game? Do you not think their was some great performances from a number of players? What about all the goal-mouth action? What about Reid's performance in itself? The atmosphere at the game? Wasn't all that 'realistic'? Why didn't you see it, why couldn't you enjoy it? and if you did, why don't you do us all a favour -and maybe even yourself- and comment on all that was good?lonniejockstrap wrote:I've been critical at Wells being dropped from the team for a player just brought in and you will find that prior to Wells entering the action we were average. After he came on we were superb. I'm not really negative I'm realistic and will say what I see. We are under performing for the team we have so why beat around the bush and pretend we aren't. If we attack side like we did on Saturday rather than being scared of losing our unbeaten home run that is yielding lots of draws I bet we would have another 10 points on the board.Thee Voice of Reason wrote: Nick your embarassing yourself and back peddling so much you could win the tour de France if it was ran in reverse.And your stuck in a rut. The rut of negativity. We attacked more that Gillingham -a team that was in 9th place and just 4 points outside a play off place- we had 20 shots to their 8, 10 corners to their 3 and you still have to have a moan. Just listen to yourself sometime. If anyone should feel embarrassed it's you.
For you and others who won't give PP credit for anything and who keep thinking that Bully/Ravenhill is too negative and somehow wrong...the team started the game brightly and forced 6 corners in the first 12 minutes. Please confirm if this was negative. We missed three headed chances in that period with Davies missing the best chance. Fagan put in two excellent low crosses that created havoc but sadly; we didn't get on the end of them. After going behind we had a goal disallowed; still negative?
At half-time; due to Ravenhill taking a knock; we introduced Syers to give what most posters appear to believe is the appropriate mix in centre-mid. We went further behind with this set up and if you look at the goal; it was Syers who failed to cut out the through-ball. What has anyone got to say about this fact? This is the formation you all say will lead to "certain" victory?
In the end; PP did the appropriate thing and went for broke at 2-0 down. Yes; it was exciting and great to behold but it was just a big "all-in" gamble when there was nothing to lose; If he starts like that tonight (or in any game)we will get hammered and he will get sacked.
PP clearly recoginses that with Jones or Syers we are more vulnerable at the back so it is always difficult to get the right balance. We might hope that he plays Syers tonight but I recognise that this brings pros and cons and is not just a magic formula for winning games.
lonniejockstrap
says...
6:04pm Tue 27 Mar 12
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:I agree with you that we are a very much more threatening team and and look pretty good when we go out and put most of our efforts into attacking the oppo. But we didn't wait until 2-0 down before we attacked and played positive football on Saturday. We had 5 corners in the first 7 minutes, a number of good crosses into the box from Fagan, Ramsden, Fry, and Reid and a shots from Bullock and Davis -I think it was- saved by the keeper. So, the evidence doesn't support your negative slant on what you saw.
lonniejockstrap wrote:I don't know where you got I didn't enjoy the game from. I thought I made it pretty clear it was a sterling comeback, my main concern is why we waited till 2-0 down to put them on the rack and why we show way too much respect to teams who come to Valley Parade.
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:Everyone is aware of PP's tactics, but you and everyone else who watched those players on Saturday saw the players put in yet another non-stop effort against another top team. They didn't curl up and die at two down, they have got that fighting, never say die spirit instilled in them from that very same manager. You could have chosen to focus more on the positive but you see only what you want to see and that tends to be only the things that were faulty -at least 90% of the time anyway. Did you not enjoy the game? Do you not think their was some great performances from a number of players? What about all the goal-mouth action? What about Reid's performance in itself? The atmosphere at the game? Wasn't all that 'realistic'? Why didn't you see it, why couldn't you enjoy it? and if you did, why don't you do us all a favour -and maybe even yourself- and comment on all that was good?
lonniejockstrap wrote:I've been critical at Wells being dropped from the team for a player just brought in and you will find that prior to Wells entering the action we were average. After he came on we were superb.
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:And your stuck in a rut. The rut of negativity. We attacked more that Gillingham -a team that was in 9th place and just 4 points outside a play off place- we had 20 shots to their 8, 10 corners to their 3 and you still have to have a moan. Just listen to yourself sometime. If anyone should feel embarrassed it's you.
Nick your embarassing yourself and back peddling so much you could win the tour de France if it was ran in reverse.
I'm not really negative I'm realistic and will say what I see. We are under performing for the team we have so why beat around the bush and pretend we aren't. If we attack side like we did on Saturday rather than being scared of losing our unbeaten home run that is yielding lots of draws I bet we would have another 10 points on the board.
When we attack teams we cause massive problems, I just don't understand why it takes us in most occassions to go a goal down to do so.
We were well on top, and then Gillingham scored. That affected our momentum somewhat as Gillingham did their best to frustrate by killing time. We were still the better team when they went 2-0 up. We were even better when we threw caution to the wind and went 3 at the back.
If you didn't get everything you wanted out of the game, think of the things you didn't get out of the game that you didn't want. That should make you feel a little happier TVOR. :))
Accrington
AFC Wimbledon
Aldershot
Barnet
Bradford
Bristol Rovers
Burton Albion
Cheltenham
Chesterfield
Dag & Redbridge
Exeter City
Fleetwood Town
Gillingham
Morecambe
Northampton
Oxford Utd
Plymouth
Port Vale
Rochdale
Rotherham
Southend
Torquay
Wycombe
York City
Thee Voice of Reason says...
8:19am Mon 26 Mar 12
What was most frustrating is the tactics of trying to defend too much until we went 2-0 down. After that the negative safety first tactics were removed and we looked a different team. I just wish we'd do this more often from the start and give the visiting teams more to worry about.
I bet we'd pick up a hell of a lot more points that way.