Match Thread: Cambridge United v Port Vale

[PV1973]

16 minutes ago, Fosse69 said:

34 minutes ago, PV1973 said:

I suppose the Salford result will probably dictate that we have to go with the same 11. Personally I didn’t think much of the performances from our front 3 of Worrall, Rodney and Monty, (that is until both Worrall and Monty pop up to have a hand in the goal). But our attacking play was in the main poor. It says it all when our best attacking play in the last 4 games has come from our right back and indicates something isn’t right with the rest of the team who just aren’t firing yet. 

We were playing the promotion favourites, I think we had the better chances, it is early days and Clark is an attacking full back and I expect the odd goal off him as well as a few good crosses a game. But hope that Robbo starts.

True, but then again we haven’t really created that much in the other games. On the Salford game I think we had a couple of decent half chances in the first half that we scuffed, but nowhere near as good as the peno and the header that they missed though.
In the last 4 games we saw more off Gibbo and now Clark in terms of making runs and getting balls into the box. That’s a worry to me that the creative work load is being taken up by a full back and the attackers just aren’t offering as much. 

[SFBT]

A lot of hard graft required of the front three tomorrow as it will be a full on game.

Work rate the number one consideration, anything else a bonus.

[Diego Maradona]

Also, I wasn’t sure if any of the other forwards/wingers who have been injured recently are up to match fitness/sharpness.

We’ve been unlucky with injuries (including Smudger isolating) so far and I do understand that fixture demands dictate that we will rotate.

However, I also feel we need to try and get a settled team so that they understand each other better and understand the manager’s instructions etc. Maybe with a settled team and system, we’ll start to create more chances.

I would take a point tomorrow but you never know - we are certainly capable (as long as Whitehead and co. bring their shooting boots) of getting 3. Am looking forward to it.

UTV

[valeparklife]

Trevor Kettle is the ref.

Repeat, Trevor Kettle is the ref.

[ClntonBoulton]

1 minute ago, valeparklife said:

Trevor Kettle is the ref.

Repeat, Trevor Kettle is the ref.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.....Sweet Christ on a Bike! I'll change me bets!

[RailwayRowdy]

26 minutes ago, valeparklife said:

Trevor Kettle is the ref.

Repeat, Trevor Kettle is the ref.

We will obviously either win, lose, or possibly even draw, but whatever happens will not be because of the referee. 

Too much emphasise is placed on a referee's performance. Our result will depend on our own display, not that of the much maligned "man in black" 

[Doha]

Yeah because it's not like referees make game changing decis-

 

 

 

Ask yourself why a 20 year referee hasn’t been selected to ref above L1 level for four years.

[RailwayRowdy]

41 minutes ago, Doha said:

Yeah because it's not like referees make game changing decis-

 

 

 

Ask yourself why a 20 year referee hasn’t been selected to ref above L1 level for four years.

Overall, I don't believe that ref's do indeed make game changing decisions. 

Players make far more mistakes in one game than a ref' makes in a season which may result in a different result. Players miss penalties, 'keepers drop crosses, someone misses an open goal etc etc. 

These types of mistake change the result of the match far more than any perceived indiscretion by the "merry whistle-blower" But are they themselves indicted? 

As I have said on numerous occasions, the referee is the only honest man on the pitch. More emphasis should be placed on players cheating (and I make no apologies for the phrase) than referee's occasional mistakes which, contrary to popular belief, are not as common as is led to believe. 

And even then, it is down to interpretation as whether the man in black was wrong or not. 

 

[philmpv]

FFS. Can feel myself reaching boiling point already......

[stupers]

1 hour ago, RailwayRowdy said:

Overall, I don't believe that ref's do indeed make game changing decisions. 

Players make far more mistakes in one game than a ref' makes in a season which may result in a different result. Players miss penalties, 'keepers drop crosses, someone misses an open goal etc etc. 

These types of mistake change the result of the match far more than any perceived indiscretion by the "merry whistle-blower" But are they themselves indicted? 

As I have said on numerous occasions, the referee is the only honest man on the pitch. More emphasis should be placed on players cheating (and I make no apologies for the phrase) than referee's occasional mistakes which, contrary to popular belief, are not as common as is led to believe. 

And even then, it is down to interpretation as whether the man in black was wrong or not. 

 

Whilst I agree that referees have often been the scapegoat at Vale Park, I can't honestly go down the route than they don't make incorrect game changing decisions. Because they do.

 

Referees get blamed for soft penalties, when in fact the fault should often be with the defender for getting himself in a position where a referee can blow for a penalty (Brisley v Morecambe the other week for example). I get that, but you must have seen Trevor Kettle referee over the years. It's the weird pattern of behaviour that should be looked at. I've been at games he's reffed where we've been at the beneficial end of his decisions and I have no idea what he was doing. His decision-making causes absolute chaos and affects the flow and performances within the game. His matches are often remembered because he reffed (FGR last season) than for anything else. It's not just Vale fans either. He's well-known in football for his bizarre performances at the lower levels. You don't know if you will be the beneficiary of him reffing, as opposed to being on the receiving end. It's one or the other, no middle ground. That's why he's a bad referee. 

[Santa]

Last time Kettle was inflicted on us he managed to behave himself for a good 80 minutes. I've no idea what blew up in his head for the last ten.

Like Stu says, there are games he's reffed when his decisions have gone in our favour, like the first day of the season against Cambridge a couple of years ago.

I look forward to seeing which side of the bed he gets out of tomorrow morning.

[Doha]

32 minutes ago, stupers said:

Referees get blamed for soft penalties, when in fact the fault should often be with the defender for getting himself in a position where a referee can blow for a penalty

I can see where you're coming from but can't agree with this view because it gives referees, by default, carte blanche to be incompetent because from the outset you are expecting them to be. Players shouldn't have to go into games having to play not in accordance with the rules, but actually having to play hamstrung by the apprehension of officials who can't be trusted to apply the rules correctly. Referees should be held to a higher technical standard of not being a perpetual fck up. 

It's like saying fair play to the copper doing you for speeding when he wasn't sure. It was your fault for being in the car.

[LancyTony]

2 hours ago, RailwayRowdy said:

...Players make far more mistakes in one game than a ref' makes in a season which may result in a different result. Players miss penalties, 'keepers drop crosses, someone misses an open goal etc etc. 

 

Not the same thing! Anytime a player makes a mistake it can adversely affect his team, the management / owners and their own paypacket. Anytime a ref...or liner, come to that, gets it wrong it has no effect on themselves...unless they get their wrists slapped and demoted, as they should!

[Jacko51]

The most obvious example of a ref affecting the result of a game is when Andy Madley sent off the wrong Preston player at Vale Park.  Garner committed the foul but the ref sent off Kilkenny.  Garner then scored twice to win the game.

There are numerous occasions each season when red cards are rescinded but the result of a game isn't altered despite a team being wrongly reduced to ten men.

Refs do indeed have a difficult job but to suggest that they never influence a result is completely wrong in my opinion.  I want refs to respond to what has happened, not what they think has happened because they're guessing.

[philmpv]

Just a heads up for people like me who thought the kick off time for tonight's match was 7.45. It's not! 7pm kick off. Don't want anyone missing the first half!