Jump to content

Match Thread: Port Vale v Grimsby Town


Recommended Posts

The bloatcakes long running 'Port Vale relegation thread' even got relegated to page 02 after yesterday's result so well done to the 1772 League cup winners for that.......👌👌😂😂

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advert:


  • Replies 645
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I wouldn't overly get carried away as this is our worst team for as long as I can remember. You really didn't have to play well to beat us though and I think you have far more tougher challenges to co

Worrall creates all 3 goals. Get him off, should be scoring.

Shout out too to Adam Yates. Excellent, sensible summary on the game throughout. Well done lads. We can do it when we apply ourselves.

Posted Images

5 hours ago, Vale at home said:

Yes I agree    I am a Happy vale fan tonight . 

Not a "happy clapper" I hope Vah?????????? 😂

My thoughts reflect a lot of the other sensible ones on here. Thought it was a good solid performance, well worth the 3 points....Grimsby were poor but as others have said we've lost these type of games recently. At least, as I said at half time, the players looked like they wanted to play.

One thing I didn't get and hope the "managers" on here can help educate me is;

I spotted Rodders was struggling during the first half and it was no surprise when he went off at half time....but why was Burgess brought on? For me we then allowed them the ball too much because Popey became more and more isolated and I was getting  a bit worried until that brilliant pass from Burgess sent Wozza through and at 3-0 I could breathe easy. What are people's thoughts about why he didn't go with Theo up front with Popey? i have heard that it shored up the overrun midfield but I didn't think we were being overrun and I even thought it led to relinquishing the grip on the game a little.

i await my coaching lessons.........

A happier, not clappy, Vale fan.........FWIW I like the way Pugh has been under the radar as well this week and he has just got on and done the job. I think many of us underestimate his pro career so far so apart from "managerial" experience he is a very experienced professional footballer. I AM NOT ADVOCATING GETTING HIM TO SIGN A CONTRACT TODAY, as some numpty on Faceache did, but he quietly intrigues me as a manager and I just wonder....anyway, we'll see and I'll support/back whoever gets the gig.

UTV

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought we were a little stretched in the middle first half so the full backs were having to step in and cover. The extra midfield player stopped them from playing those diagonal balls over the top which was their main threat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ClntonBoulton said:

One thing I didn't get and hope the "managers" on here can help educate me is;

I spotted Rodders was struggling during the first half and it was no surprise when he went off at half time....but why was Burgess brought on? For me we then allowed them the ball too much because Popey became more and more isolated and I was getting  a bit worried until that brilliant pass from Burgess sent Wozza through and at 3-0 I could breathe easy. What are people's thoughts about why he didn't go with Theo up front with Popey? i have heard that it shored up the overrun midfield but I didn't think we were being overrun and I even thought it led to relinquishing the grip on the game a little.

i await my coaching lessons.........

 

Well, as a "manager" of some nearly 50 years of Port Vale and having "Managed" countless other telivised games from the comfort of my armchair I do believe it was to 'shore up' the midfield.

I was surprised myself that Burgess came on as I thought the 4-4-2 was working well but maybe Danny expected more from Grimsby second half and felt that defending a 2 goal cushion was perhaps more important than trying to get a third and leaving us exposed to a possible (and recently predictable) comeback. 

Thankfully Grimsby, for all their second half possession, never really threatened and Burgess proved his worth with a super pass to Worrall to set up the clincher. 

A very 'Happy Clapper', long way to go with many twists and turns, wins, draws and defeats but as a first game in charge goes, I don't think Mr. Pugh will have done his chances any harm.

In my opinion as a bona fide Happy Clapper of course.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did ok yesterday. There was quite clearly a game plan. Which hasn’t been too apparent in recent weeks. John smiths it anywhere in defence if under pressure (which we should have reverted to weeks ago) and get it down the flank and in the box. Not overly easy on the eye but simple and effective. Second half change either by necessity or design also worked well. I would say it was by design in all fairness to Pugh. He could have swapped like for like but chose to sure up midfield and go one up front. Only one game but I’d rather watch us battle our way out of this situation then reset and see where we can go than tippy tappy our way to relegation.    Big thing yesterday was points and not concede both were achieved. I’ll not congratulate as no one should be forgiven that easily after the garbage that has been served up recently but it’s a step in the right direction. Expectation now is to follow it up some more gutsy performances. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advert:


Actually one thing I will congratulate is Pugh’s big gamble, 442. I personally think we are shocking when we lose a man in the middle. That said I have said for a while that in these games where  we know that teams will come to defend we need to get at them and score. Once you have done that their game plan has to change then you can swap it round. Bold move and as interim manager but it worked. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dantheman said:

Did ok yesterday. There was quite clearly a game plan. Which hasn’t been too apparent in recent weeks. John smiths it anywhere in defence if under pressure (which we should have reverted to weeks ago) and get it down the flank and in the box. Not overly easy on the eye but simple and effective. Second half change either by necessity or design also worked well. I would say it was by design in all fairness to Pugh. He could have swapped like for like but chose to sure up midfield and go one up front. Only one game but I’d rather watch us battle our way out of this situation then reset and see where we can go than tippy tappy our way to relegation.    Big thing yesterday was points and not concede both were achieved. I’ll not congratulate as no one should be forgiven that easily after the garbage that has been served up recently but it’s a step in the right direction. Expectation now is to follow it up some more gutsy performances. 

Agree with everything there. I thought the planets aligned somewhat yesterday, important players back, luck in both boxes at key times which Askey couldn’t buy, coming up against what was a poor team etc, although the attitude was obviously better.

And if nothing else, it proves Holloway should be nowhere near the shortlist if that’s the short of team he puts together!

I’m still not entirely convinced about Burgess if I’m honest (I know he put a nice ball through for the 3rd) and would liked to have seen Worrall moved inside and Amoo come on. We were still very weak in the centre of the pitch for me.

Was Amoo paying the price for Mansfield by being dropped to the bench? Brave call given he’s arguably one of our more creative players.

And Fitz? Not my favourite but not the worst culprit over the last few weeks.

If we get a WIN at FGR then I might be more inclined to consider Pugh as interim manager until the end of the season.

The play-offs are not realistic but we need to make sure we don’t get sucked into a relegation battle. On yesterday’s evidence we shouldn’t do, but told me we are definitely not a top-7 side.

Edited by Biddulph_PV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fosse69 said:
6 hours ago, darren1810 said:
Hear hear.
And in other news a much maligned and sinking Port Vale gave a good account of themselves and won a crucial game 3-0.
The game seems to of been forgotten somewhat

After the run of results we have had we can hardly expect a team brimming with confidence . Most games have 2 different halves, 2-0 at HT then shut up shop is a vast improvement on recent events. What would it have been like losing? Changes take time, we will get there.

I was being sarcastic because two posters just had a constant gripe with each other 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, dantheman said:

Actually one thing I will congratulate is Pugh’s big gamble, 442. I personally think we are shocking when we lose a man in the middle. That said I have said for a while that in these games where  we know that teams will come to defend we need to get at them and score. Once you have done that their game plan has to change then you can swap it round. Bold move and as interim manager but it worked. 

Let’s face it, if 442 wasn’t going to work against them, then it wouldn’t work full-stop.

We have to accept the limitations of it though. If we play this way we will bypass the midfield and simply go long, ball out wide, and get crosses in the box. We then need two very combative, energetic central midfielders a la Manny and Anthony Grant, which we don’t really have given Manny is injured more than he plays.

If I’m not mistaken, this system is what brought our beloved neighbours success under Tony Clueless.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The main reason why 4-4-2 is sometimes an issue for us is because we don't stick with it and don't play it often enough. Teams away from home will generally play 4-5-1 and therefore you'll sometimes look like your outgunned in midfield and not have as much of the ball as you like. But you have to hold your nerve. None of our forwards are good enough to play the lone role (Pope would be if he was younger and more mobile) at the end of the day. But playing 4-4-2 means no Luke Joyce in the side. You need your two central midfielders to have legs and be able to get about the pitch. Oyeleke, if actually fit, and Burgess would be the best pair to do that. Whitehead has an engine, but he's rubbish.

Brown

Gibbons

Smith

Brisley

Fitzpatrick

Montano

Oyeleke/Conlon

Burgess

Worrall

Pope

Rodney

Edited by TylerB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advert:


3 hours ago, ClntonBoulton said:

Not a "happy clapper" I hope Vah?????????? 😂

My thoughts reflect a lot of the other sensible ones on here. Thought it was a good solid performance, well worth the 3 points....Grimsby were poor but as others have said we've lost these type of games recently. At least, as I said at half time, the players looked like they wanted to play.

One thing I didn't get and hope the "managers" on here can help educate me is;

I spotted Rodders was struggling during the first half and it was no surprise when he went off at half time....but why was Burgess brought on? For me we then allowed them the ball too much because Popey became more and more isolated and I was getting  a bit worried until that brilliant pass from Burgess sent Wozza through and at 3-0 I could breathe easy. What are people's thoughts about why he didn't go with Theo up front with Popey? i have heard that it shored up the overrun midfield but I didn't think we were being overrun and I even thought it led to relinquishing the grip on the game a little.

i await my coaching lessons.........

A happier, not clappy, Vale fan.........FWIW I like the way Pugh has been under the radar as well this week and he has just got on and done the job. I think many of us underestimate his pro career so far so apart from "managerial" experience he is a very experienced professional footballer. I AM NOT ADVOCATING GETTING HIM TO SIGN A CONTRACT TODAY, as some numpty on Faceache did, but he quietly intrigues me as a manager and I just wonder....anyway, we'll see and I'll support/back whoever gets the gig.

UTV

I thought exactly the same - I was very concerned after half time until the third goal. If bringing on Burgess to shore up the midfield was the idea..I didn't think that worked - we seemed to give them so much more possession at that point. Perhaps it just took us sometime to adjust? I feel that if we are going one up front, that one needs to be a lot more mobile than Tom. On the other hand Tom and Devante together up front seems to be really promising

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TylerB said:

 

The main reason why 4-4-2 is sometimes an issue for us is because we don't stick with it and don't play it often enough. Teams away from home will generally play 4-5-1 and therefore you'll sometimes look like your outgunned in midfield and not have as much of the ball as you like. But you have to hold your nerve. None of our forwards are good enough to play the lone role (Pope would be if he was younger and more mobile) at the end of the day. But playing 4-4-2 means no Luke Joyce in the side. You need your two central midfielders to have legs and be able to get about the pitch. Oyeleke, if actually fit, and Burgess would be the best pair to do that. Whitehead has an engine, but he's rubbish.

Brown

Gibbons

Smith

Brisley

Fitzpatrick

Montano

Oyeleke/Conlon

Burgess

Worrall

Pope

Rodney

So what you’re saying is at home we should stick with 442, get outgunned in midfield, allow the away team to have more of the ball and hold our nerve.  Sounds like a plan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advert:


18 minutes ago, valefan79 said:

4-4-2 worked ok for Crawley today against Leeds, are our midfielders that bad that we can't play the system.  

And they’ve been brilliant totally outplayed and out battled Leeds even if they aren’t at full strength 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Boslem's Brazil said:

I’d love a midfield destroyer in the mould of Anthony Grant. Do you think Taylor (If it happens) will be our only midfield addition? 

I dont expect a midfield destroyer in,i would say yes Taylor the only one for midfield unless a first teamer leaves like conlon

 

Edited by werstayinup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Moderators don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking (e.g. personal abuse) - use the orange report button above a post to alert them.

    If you can't get on with another forum user you can select the "ignore" option. Simply click on the link below, type in their username and save - Click here




×
×
  • Create New...