Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 17:30:55 GMT
Can somebody enlighten me, the Lad the y had up front who scored played all the game with his socks rolled down and no shin pads. I thought the rules in all leagues were that a player had to wear shin pads ? i actually looked twice at that but i reckon he did have pads on but his socks down |
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920 
|
Post by Peter Parker on Apr 3, 2015 17:45:01 GMT
Can somebody enlighten me, the Lad the y had up front who scored played all the game with his socks rolled down and no shin pads. I thought the rules in all leagues were that a player had to wear shin pads ? i actually looked twice at that but i reckon he did have pads on but his socks down We didnt think he had pads on, but when he got closer it looked like small ones with the socks tucked in them. Still looled shoddy. |
|
|
|
Post by gashead01 on Apr 3, 2015 17:45:09 GMT
Can somebody enlighten me, the Lad the y had up front who scored played all the game with his socks rolled down and no shin pads. I thought the rules in all leagues were that a player had to wear shin pads ? he was wearing shin pads.... |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Apr 3, 2015 17:45:35 GMT
Can somebody enlighten me, the Lad the y had up front who scored played all the game with his socks rolled down and no shin pads. I thought the rules in all leagues were that a player had to wear shin pads ? Someone next to me noticed the sane thing. And then there was a,comment you can get half pads for shins?? Really don't know, but it was like a,throwback to 70s! |
|
Alveston Gas
Brucie Bannister
Once a Gashead always a Gashead
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 746
|
Post by Alveston Gas on Apr 3, 2015 17:46:16 GMT
A 5.1 home win when the pressure is on to deliver in a dog eat dog promotion battle. Can't sniff at that can you. Great stuff from the gas today. Deserved that little bit of luck!
Come on you Blues
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Apr 3, 2015 17:50:27 GMT
The FGR result at home to Aldershot (1-3), didn't do us too much harm either, as did Macclesfield's draw this afternoon. It means the three at the top battle on.
I'm wondering how tomorrow's results will affect us?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 17:56:26 GMT
Right then, reality check time. 3 points, honestly don't care how we get wins at this stage, so well done to all of the players. First half, 4 shots on target, 3 goals, including one own goal, and one that took a huge deflection. But they all count. Also, many thanks to the ref for his assist with the first goal. Comical miss by one of their players, rounded the keeper, all he had to do was slot the ball in, but deciding that being on a YouTube compiliation video of the world's worst footballers was a better option, he elected to kick the ball along the goal line instead. Second half. Sat back, why? They got one but probably didn't deserve it. Last 10 mins they had to press forward, either they were going to get a second and make a game of it or we would score a 4th. Fortune favoured us today. Chester defence were dreadful, so thank you very much to them. Hope Irish was at today's game to see that having a more mobile centre back didn't change things for the better. Lockyer's distribution was no better but he lacked the physical presence to dominate. Looks like Leadbitter can also play as an attacking winger? I wasn't there but I am going to Kidderminster on Monday and am quite happy with a 5-1 win on balance I think! I did think it was interesting that Clarke went with Lockyer and left McChrystal out. Not exactly normal to change your centre back pairing after recording a clean sheet. I doubt it's to do with him sharing my doubts though - probably just squad management and not wanting to play an older defender for 180 minutes in 4 days if you don't have to. Has Lockyer played as many games at Centre Back this year as McChrystal-Parkes have played together? I don't know but it feels like Clarke mixes it up quite a lot anyway; I've seen 3 at the back etc. I've never made the case for Lockyer as a Centre Back - I think we need someone else if we go up, I think Lockyer will be a right back in the end. Lockyer doesn't have the physical prescence to dominate that position but he does have the mobility to cover in behind Parkes when he goes walk about which is quite regularly so I'll take the balance. His distribution is definitely missing though which I think is necessary for a more mobile centre back to have. But it's primarily what it allows your Centre Midfield and full backs to do; they can attack more and play further up the pitch if they know there's cover back there but you're not going to see that in one game; it's about a pattern of play over a longer term. Either way I don't you learn much about your Centre Backs in a 5-1 home win! Waiting to see their goal again, the attacker got up above somebody, but it was at the far end of the ground and as always on terraces, people arrive late and although they are 6'3'' they decide to stand right in front of you and shuffle around to make sure they obstruct as much of your view as possible, so I'm not sure who got caught out for the goal, but I would be surprised if it was Parkes. If McChrystal is as immobile as you claim, he won't cover that much ground so wouldn't be too knackerd after 90 mins. Interesting to see how effective Leadbitter was running at defenders at pace. As good as Dawson but offers more when tracking back. If Kiddy had a scout at today's game it's hard to know what he would report back as the weaknesses that they should look to exploit? |
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Apr 3, 2015 18:00:29 GMT
The FGR result at home to Aldershot (1-3), didn't do us too much harm either, as did Macclesfield's draw this afternoon. It means the three at the top battle on. I'm wondering how tomorrow's results will affect us? Like I said above I feel we have a better chance of getting our noses ahead on Monday than after tomorrow's games. All 3 sides will be away but we'll have had double the rest time and we haven't really been put through a serious test today. I think it will be a nice bonus if one or both results go our way tomorrow but I hope they're at least close games and Grimsby and Barnet have to work hard to win them. Plus Kidderminster play tomorrow as well so that should be a big advantage for us heading into Monday's games. |
|
willy
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 71
|
Post by willy on Apr 3, 2015 18:07:57 GMT
I really enjoyed it today great fun, we looked good with ball on the floor, leadbitter & mansal were quality, thanks gas onwards and upwards!!
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,565
|
Post by harrybuckle on Apr 3, 2015 18:19:37 GMT
Excellent result and sound performance Best game so far for Mansell and Harrison's finish for fifth goal was memorable.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Apr 3, 2015 18:25:50 GMT
I wasn't there but I am going to Kidderminster on Monday and am quite happy with a 5-1 win on balance I think! I did think it was interesting that Clarke went with Lockyer and left McChrystal out. Not exactly normal to change your centre back pairing after recording a clean sheet. I doubt it's to do with him sharing my doubts though - probably just squad management and not wanting to play an older defender for 180 minutes in 4 days if you don't have to. Has Lockyer played as many games at Centre Back this year as McChrystal-Parkes have played together? I don't know but it feels like Clarke mixes it up quite a lot anyway; I've seen 3 at the back etc. I've never made the case for Lockyer as a Centre Back - I think we need someone else if we go up, I think Lockyer will be a right back in the end. Lockyer doesn't have the physical prescence to dominate that position but he does have the mobility to cover in behind Parkes when he goes walk about which is quite regularly so I'll take the balance. His distribution is definitely missing though which I think is necessary for a more mobile centre back to have. But it's primarily what it allows your Centre Midfield and full backs to do; they can attack more and play further up the pitch if they know there's cover back there but you're not going to see that in one game; it's about a pattern of play over a longer term. Either way I don't you learn much about your Centre Backs in a 5-1 home win! If McChrystal is as immobile as you claim, he won't cover that much ground so wouldn't be too knackerd after 90 mins. That doesn't make any sense. Those 2 things aren't related. The whole reason certain players struggle to cover the ground is because it's harder for them to move and it uses up more of their energy. Is a flyweight more knackered after a boxing match than a middleweight because he moves around more? Some people are just more mobile than others, it has nothing to do with effort or energy expended. The key thing for me is that neither of those 2 Centre Backs have the mobility to cover each others errors or to get across quickly enough when one gets pulled out of position and neither can get across quick enough when the other is exposed to a skillful/pacey runner. MCchrystal is OK at holding a guy up until the cavalry but he has the turning circle of oil tanker; Parkes struggles with both of those things. He needs to be on the front foot as a dominant ball winner to be truly effective and for him to do that you either need a defensive 3 or the guy alongside him has to be able to cover in behind no matter where it is he goes wandering to win the ball. Otherwise you are either asking him to play within himself. MCchrystal would probably be OK alongside another safety first defender like him as he has a very good football brain, I don't think he absolutely has to play alongside a mobile centre half, but he doesn't seem suited to playing next to a Parkes type player. I don't think McChrystal is a bad player. I don't think Parkes is a bad player. I think as a partnership though they are unbalanced and it effects how the rest of the team can play. No players success is more defined by the guy who plays next to him than a Centre Back. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 18:32:29 GMT
If McChrystal is as immobile as you claim, he won't cover that much ground so wouldn't be too knackerd after 90 mins. That doesn't make any sense. Those 2 things aren't related. The whole reason certain players struggle to cover the ground is because it's harder for them to move and it uses up more of their energy. Is a flyweight more knackered after a boxing match than a middleweight because he moves around more? Some people are just more mobile than others, it has nothing to do with effort or energy expended. The key thing for me is that neither of those 2 Centre Backs have the mobility to cover each others errors or to get across quickly enough when one gets pulled out of position and neither can get across quick enough when the other is exposed to a skillful/pacey runner. MCchrystal is OK at holding a guy up until the cavalry but he has the turning circle of oil tanker; Parkes struggles with both of those things. He needs to be on the front foot as a dominant ball winner to be truly effective and for him to do that you either need a defensive 3 or the guy alongside him has to be able to cover in behind no matter where it is he goes wandering to win the ball. Otherwise you are either asking him to play within himself. MCchrystal would probably be OK alongside another safety first defender like him as he has a very good football brain, I don't think he absolutely has to play alongside a mobile centre half, but he doesn't seem suited to playing next to a Parkes type player. I don't think McChrystal is a bad player. I don't think Parkes is a bad player. I think as a partnership though they are unbalanced and it effects how the rest of the team can play. No players success is more defined by the guy who plays next to him than a Centre Back. And in a division as physical as this, you want to big lumps as centre backs, or you are likely to concede the sort of goal we let in today. BTW, size has nothing to do with fatigue, Joe Bugner was huge, but after losing to Ali he was seen swimming in the hotel pool later that day, so 15 rounds with maybe the finest fighter of all time, and still he decided to go for a dip later. |
|
|
|
Post by brisgas123 on Apr 3, 2015 19:25:09 GMT
Would like to point out- We are taking more to Kiddy than Barnet get at home! Not an achievement, just funny. Barnet's support is sh*te.
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Apr 3, 2015 19:29:18 GMT
What was noticeable is how much threat we had when we upped the tempo in the last 15 minutes of this game.
Lines and Mansell showed that if we have the courage to play through them and them to Taylor, we get up the pitch and then anything seems possible.
The attacking part of our game has picked up considerbaly in the last 2 home games, but we need to play at pace aka on the front foot. In both games, we took our foot off the pedal after being well on top. We have superior fitness to any side that I have seen and people to bring off the bench.
Are Grimsby, Barnet playing better than this? I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Apr 3, 2015 19:38:10 GMT
What was noticeable is how much threat we had when we upped the tempo in the last 15 minutes of this game. Lines and Mansell showed that if we have the courage to play through them and them to Taylor, we get up the pitch and then anything seems possible. The attacking part of our game has picked up considerbaly in the last 2 home games, but we need to play at pace aka on the front foot. In both games, we took our foot off the pedal after being well on top. We have superior fitness to any side that I have seen and people to bring off the bench. Are Grimsby, Barnet playing better than this? I doubt it. I think the last 15 minutes was down to the superior fitness that you mention later in para 3. Chester looked absolutely shot at the end. For the first time in the game they stood off, and it was as if they'd given up. We looked like we could score at will and on another day we could have had a couple more goals. Fair play to Chester though; they tried to play football and there were some nice passing moves. They certainly weren't out of it at 3-1 and gave it a good pop after half-time, when we looked a bit anxious at times. |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Apr 3, 2015 19:48:24 GMT
What was noticeable is how much threat we had when we upped the tempo in the last 15 minutes of this game. Lines and Mansell showed that if we have the courage to play through them and them to Taylor, we get up the pitch and then anything seems possible. The attacking part of our game has picked up considerbaly in the last 2 home games, but we need to play at pace aka on the front foot. In both games, we took our foot off the pedal after being well on top. We have superior fitness to any side that I have seen and people to bring off the bench. Are Grimsby, Barnet playing better than this? I doubt it. I think the last 15 minutes was down to the superior fitness that you mention later in para 3. Chester looked absolutely shot at the end. For the first time in the game they stood off, and it was as if they'd given up. We looked like we could score at will and on another day we could have had a couple more goals. Fair play to Chester though; they tried to play football and there were some nice passing moves. They certainly weren't out of it at 3-1 and gave it a good pop after half-time, when we looked a bit anxious at times. Agree, concept. Most teams have played with integrity and endeavour. Respect. FGR and Eastleigh. No respect. Not because we lost at mem....the nature of their victories and all the bad things in football that they represent. We played poor v Eastleigh but no excuse for antics... |
|
|
|
Post by lostinspace on Apr 3, 2015 19:49:30 GMT
What was noticeable is how much threat we had when we upped the tempo in the last 15 minutes of this game. Lines and Mansell showed that if we have the courage to play through them and them to Taylor, we get up the pitch and then anything seems possible. The attacking part of our game has picked up considerbaly in the last 2 home games, but we need to play at pace aka on the front foot. In both games, we took our foot off the pedal after being well on top. We have superior fitness to any side that I have seen and people to bring off the bench. Are Grimsby, Barnet playing better than this? I doubt it. have watched the fishyforum on and off since xmas, the general talk is more upbeat now than it has been since playing the Rovers,when they then believed their season was destined to play-offs....again....i believe they rode their luck quite considerably in their last mid-week game Dover?... the team ..it seems have that "bit" in them to battle for it somewhat more now than previous, hence their rather good run of late,getting that extra bit of luck is also in there..as it was with the rovers early on today...come the final 2-3 games it will be "who has the greater nerve.....and bottle"...hopefully DC can exorcise his nightmare of last season and learn from it to his good |
|
danrory
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 171
|
Post by danrory on Apr 3, 2015 20:00:27 GMT
Very well done rovers today.
on the timing of this weekend's matches... We will get some advantage over kiddy as we have about 24 hours more recovery time than them.
however, Barnet and Grimsby playing tomorrow should not adversely affect them as their respective opponents also play tomorrow...I think
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Apr 3, 2015 22:18:31 GMT
Have to say Monkhouse was best player on the pitch today. Set up the first scored two and was a great head out there..not underated byme.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Apr 4, 2015 14:20:59 GMT
That doesn't make any sense. Those 2 things aren't related. The whole reason certain players struggle to cover the ground is because it's harder for them to move and it uses up more of their energy. Is a flyweight more knackered after a boxing match than a middleweight because he moves around more? Some people are just more mobile than others, it has nothing to do with effort or energy expended. The key thing for me is that neither of those 2 Centre Backs have the mobility to cover each others errors or to get across quickly enough when one gets pulled out of position and neither can get across quick enough when the other is exposed to a skillful/pacey runner. MCchrystal is OK at holding a guy up until the cavalry but he has the turning circle of oil tanker; Parkes struggles with both of those things. He needs to be on the front foot as a dominant ball winner to be truly effective and for him to do that you either need a defensive 3 or the guy alongside him has to be able to cover in behind no matter where it is he goes wandering to win the ball. Otherwise you are either asking him to play within himself. MCchrystal would probably be OK alongside another safety first defender like him as he has a very good football brain, I don't think he absolutely has to play alongside a mobile centre half, but he doesn't seem suited to playing next to a Parkes type player. I don't think McChrystal is a bad player. I don't think Parkes is a bad player. I think as a partnership though they are unbalanced and it effects how the rest of the team can play. No players success is more defined by the guy who plays next to him than a Centre Back. And in a division as physical as this, you want to big lumps as centre backs, or you are likely to concede the sort of goal we let in today. BTW, size has nothing to do with fatigue, Joe Bugner was huge, but after losing to Ali he was seen swimming in the hotel pool later that day, so 15 rounds with maybe the finest fighter of all time, and still he decided to go for a dip later. I wasn't arguing that point. Size definitely doesn't have any relationship with fatigue but it does with mobility more often than not. A flyweight moves around more than a middleweight would but that doesn't mean he expands more energy. I think evidence says you probably can get away with 2 physical Centre Backs (though I don't actually think McChrystal is that physial - not when up against the real targetmen) but I was talking mainly about the division above. But also what it means our midfield could do. If you had a mobile enough defence you can potentially play Lines and Sinclair together in the middle for example, I don't think you can do that with 2 slow centre backs. Also Set Piece defending isn't just about what the Centre Backs do; we lack a physically imposing forward too when Blisset isn't playing. |
|
