Match Thread: FLC R1 Port Vale v Sunderland

[blackdog]

I've just watched the replay of Wilsons disallowed goal, why the referee thought it was a foul is a mystery, I thought so at the time but having seen it from a different angle, the referee got the decision hopelessly wrong, the keeper committed and failed to collect, no body impeded him in fact there was foul on Smith .................So frustrating. #stillfuming 

[werstayinup]

I thought Cass played well when he came on,Gibbo could have a bit of competition this season now which is a good thing

[Platty's Tassels]

24 minutes ago, blackdog said:

I've just watched the replay of Wilsons disallowed goal, why the referee thought it was a foul is a mystery, I thought so at the time but having seen it from a different angle, the referee got the decision hopelessly wrong, the keeper committed and failed to collect, no body impeded him in fact there was foul on Smith .................So frustrating. #stillfuming 

Just seen that myself, absolute joke of a decision. 

like you say if anything it was a foul on Smith.

[PV1973]

1 hour ago, philmpv said:

1 hour ago, Paul6754 said:

If I'm not completely mistaken their first goal came as a result of playing 3 at the back. Their guy who scored received the ball in space on the left wing beyond the RWB's, the 3 Vale central defenders were in the middle. Their guy advances to the edge of the penalty area unchallenged and has time to set his sights and let fly into Stone's far left corner.
The is no Vale player to challenge their player and shepherd him down the touchline, when their player receives the ball he has time and space to do what he wants.
I hope DC looks at this as 3 at the back is fast becoming a real Achilles heel, easily exploitable by the opposition.

You're not wrong. I though the whole point of 3 at the back was that the cbs on either side of the 3 would cover the wing back but we're so narrow with it. Perhaps I'm wrong but it certainly cost us last night with that first goal

I thought Jones did well on his side, covered the space behind Benning well, whilst the midfielders dropped in to cover for the majority of the game. Smith did for the majority of the game too. The exception was the goal which came straight down the middle. I thinks it’s Walker who’s been beaten in the middle a bit too easily, worrall is high up the pitch leaving a man behind him, as we’ve gambled and gone man for me. But smith has to come to the danger which is the man with the ball coming down the middle of the pitch because Legge and Jones had men already. He plays it wide to the free man who was behind worrall and he scores. Smith does nothing wrong there for me. 

[PV1973]

20 minutes ago, werstayinup said:

I thought Cass played well when he came on,Gibbo could have a bit of competition this season now which is a good thing

If Gibbo fully shakes off last seasons injury I don’t see Cass as being a starter over him, certainly not as an out and out right back anyway. Maybe as a right sided centre half if smith is ever rested. It was interesting to hear Yates on the radio as I was on the way to the ground, he felt that Gibbo was rushed back which didn’t help him last season. 

[philmpv]

I thought Jones did well on his side, covered the space behind Benning well, whilst the midfielders dropped in to cover for the majority of the game. Smith did for the majority of the game too. The exception was the goal which came straight down the middle. I thinks it’s Walker who’s been beaten in the middle a bit too easily, worrall is high up the pitch leaving a man behind him, as we’ve gambled and gone man for me. But smith has to come to the danger which is the man with the ball coming down the middle of the pitch because Legge and Jones had men already. He plays it wide to the free man who was behind worrall and he scores. Smith does nothing wrong there for me. 

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't knocking Smith. Just the system which as I saw it allowed their left sider the freedom of Burslem. If we'd had a full back, that wouldn't have happened. Not saying abandon the system yet, but tweak it

[philmpv]

If Gibbo fully shakes off last seasons injury I don’t see Cass as being a starter over him, certainly not as an out and out right back anyway. Maybe as a right sided centre half if smith is ever rested. It was interesting to hear Yates on the radio as I was on the way to the ground, he felt that Gibbo was rushed back which didn’t help him last season. 

That's no surprise with Mills being his backup. I'd fancy Gibbons with his leg in plaster to do better than Mills

[PV1973]

15 minutes ago, philmpv said:

29 minutes ago, PV1973 said:

I thought Jones did well on his side, covered the space behind Benning well, whilst the midfielders dropped in to cover for the majority of the game. Smith did for the majority of the game too. The exception was the goal which came straight down the middle. I thinks it’s Walker who’s been beaten in the middle a bit too easily, worrall is high up the pitch leaving a man behind him, as we’ve gambled and gone man for me. But smith has to come to the danger which is the man with the ball coming down the middle of the pitch because Legge and Jones had men already. He plays it wide to the free man who was behind worrall and he scores. Smith does nothing wrong there for me. 

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't knocking Smith. Just the system which as I saw it allowed their left sider the freedom of Burslem. If we'd had a full back, that wouldn't have happened. Not saying abandon the system yet, but tweak it

I think for the goal we over committed when they had the ball in their own box. One pass and we were cut open. Worrall was pressing their left back in their own half. Maybe an extra central midfielder being back with Walker could have prevented it too. 

[Walter]

I think for the goal we over committed when they had the ball in their own box. One pass and we were cut open. Worrall was pressing their left back in their own half. Maybe an extra central midfielder being back with Walker could have prevented it too. 

Midfielder should of just brought their player down. Take a booking and regroup. Every other team would.

[Powerline]

Just watched the highlights and I’m even angrier at the referee than I was last night, as it’s confirmed what I already thought.

So we had a perfectly legitimate goal ruled out. We had a blatant penalty not given for handball. And they got a penalty when we won the ball. And we lost 2-1. So even if you don’t account for the penalty we should’ve had, it’s a 2-1 win for us. If we put away that penalty, it’s 3-1. I can’t ever remember a refereeing performance where they got 3 major decisions (and easy ones at that) so wrong, that all resulted in a goal being scored or not given.

Does anyone know how to find out what game the ref is on next? I’d like to see if he gets demoted to non league, because if he doesn’t, that is truly laughable, and proves that the FA and EFL truly don’t give one about the standard of their referees.

[Diego Maradona]

1 minute ago, Powerline said:

Just watched the highlights and I’m even angrier at the referee than I was last night, as it’s confirmed what I already thought.

So we had a perfectly legitimate goal ruled out. We had a blatant penalty not given for handball. And they got a penalty when we won the ball. And we lost 2-1. So even if you don’t account for the penalty we should’ve had, it’s a 2-1 win for us. If we put away that penalty, it’s 3-1. I can’t ever remember a refereeing performance where they got 3 major decisions (and easy ones at that) so wrong, that all resulted in a goal being scored or not given.

Does anyone know how to find out what game the ref is on next? I’d like to see if he gets demoted to non league, because if he doesn’t, that is truly laughable, and proves that the FA and EFL truly don’t give one about the standard of their referees.

Say no more! 

[darren1810]

9 minutes ago, Powerline said:

Just watched the highlights and I’m even angrier at the referee than I was last night, as it’s confirmed what I already thought.

So we had a perfectly legitimate goal ruled out. We had a blatant penalty not given for handball. And they got a penalty when we won the ball. And we lost 2-1. So even if you don’t account for the penalty we should’ve had, it’s a 2-1 win for us. If we put away that penalty, it’s 3-1. I can’t ever remember a refereeing performance where they got 3 major decisions (and easy ones at that) so wrong, that all resulted in a goal being scored or not given.

Does anyone know how to find out what game the ref is on next? I’d like to see if he gets demoted to non league, because if he doesn’t, that is truly laughable, and proves that the FA and EFL truly don’t give one about the standard of their referees.

He was the referee for Exeter 0 Bradford 0 last Saturday, only the two yellow cards. 

Sam Allison his name. The new Uriah Rennie. Not fit to lace his boots. 

https://www.itv.com/goodmorningbritain/articles/sam-allison-is-the-firefighter-set-to-become-the-football-leagues-first

[Diego Maradona]

Incompetent based on last night’s performance! Totally out of his depth.

Wouldn’t trust him (or his colleagues) to referee a ladsanddads game! Get him out of the  league!

 

[Paul6754]

3 hours ago, philmpv said:

3 hours ago, Paul6754 said:

If I'm not completely mistaken their first goal came as a result of playing 3 at the back. Their guy who scored received the ball in space on the left wing beyond the RWB's, the 3 Vale central defenders were in the middle. Their guy advances to the edge of the penalty area unchallenged and has time to set his sights and let fly into Stone's far left corner.
The is no Vale player to challenge their player and shepherd him down the touchline, when their player receives the ball he has time and space to do what he wants.
I hope DC looks at this as 3 at the back is fast becoming a real Achilles heel, easily exploitable by the opposition.

You're not wrong. I though the whole point of 3 at the back was that the cbs on either side of the 3 would cover the wing back but we're so narrow with it. Perhaps I'm wrong but it certainly cost us last night with that first goal

Yep I agree, the other reason for playing 3-5-2 is it puts 5 players in the midfield and many football cognoscenti reckon the game is won or lost in midfield but so does a 4-5-1 which easily doubles as a 4-3-3. It's fun to speculate.

DC obviously likes that Covolan also sweeps up in the "full back areas" when Vale are attacking and playing 3-5-2. However I bet he didn't plan on Covolan getting sent off two games in a row, hopefully Covolan has learned his lesson now and next time will put his laces through the ball.

[Paul6754]

2 hours ago, PV1973 said:

I thought Jones did well on his side, covered the space behind Benning well, whilst the midfielders dropped in to cover for the majority of the game. Smith did for the majority of the game too. The exception was the goal which came straight down the middle. I thinks it’s Walker who’s been beaten in the middle a bit too easily, worrall is high up the pitch leaving a man behind him, as we’ve gambled and gone man for me. But smith has to come to the danger which is the man with the ball coming down the middle of the pitch because Legge and Jones had men already. He plays it wide to the free man who was behind worrall and he scores. Smith does nothing wrong there for me. 

PV, I only had access to the highlights so can't comment on the Jones/Benning situation or the whole game but obviously saw their goals.

Smith coming across to cover is what Philmpv is saying but I wonder whether it has something to do with the width of Vale's pitch, I'm sure it would all work fine on a narrower pitch. Also, perhaps Nathan hasn't quite got it clear in his mind when to come and when not to but I'm sure it won't be long before he sorts it.