Match Thread: Port Vale v Cambridge United

[Birches Head Fred]

Nathan smith says out of all the managers he’s played for DC wants to win more than anyone he said he’s obsessed with winning

I'd be happier if he was less obsessed with winning and happy to draw a few more.
If we could have turned some of the many defeats into draws this season would have been far more of a success than it already is, and this message board would be a far easier read.

[smithie]

41 minutes ago, philpvfc said:

This is Clarke’s fist full season as Vale manager and for me it has been very disappointing, club going backwards from last season, out of the cups pretty quickly and one to a div 2 team, probably going to end up in the bottom 8, certainly unrest within the camp. 
Should we looking to change Clarke? IMO, no, but he certainly needs to sort it out close season and get us top halve again next season, if we are in a similar position come Christmas he has to go imo.

What's the "certain unrest" ? I'm intrigued. 

[hamilboy]

10 hours ago, NorthwoodValiant said:

If you want your club to get better you need to get rid of the worst players first.

Yes we probably aren't going to win League 1 with Nathan Smith as our best defender, but plenty of players to change before we look at getting rid of him

His contract is up at the end of this season would you keep him as your main defender yes or no.

[Row L]

1 hour ago, Diego Maradona said:

Osh, I think you make a fair point. When you add on all of the injuries and key injuries to majority of strikers a few weeks ago and now injuries to CB's. Also, losing Walker, Charsley and Hall. We haven't add any midfielders to replace them. Squad feels a bit thread bare and has done since January. 
Also, reading the Cambridge fan's comments about why they are struggling, it doesn't sound too dissimilar to Vale's situation, however, we are are clearly in a better position than Cambridge.

Not suggesting things have been perfect under any circumstances (not sorted GK, LWB, not all this seasons signings have worked out) but for our first season back in League 1, not too bad if we can survive?

Sitting here typing, Vale currently showing relegation form, players not performing, working hard enough,  or not good enough, not very ambitious but I would take survival this season and next. Unfortunately, for me, things (including players and finances - but only speculating on what's happened since January) don't seem quite right at Vale at the moment.

No picking at your post here - just using it to illustrate a point a few people have made - that the squad is a bit bare.

In January we lost 2 midfielders and a center half and really only replaced a center half. People are criticizing the decisions on hindsight but really, even now, does anyone think that Charsley and Walker would be playing? Hall I agree would be in there, but we went out of the window with 6 center backs and have been hit hard by injuries and form. You can criticize the transfer policy for the back line, but again, really would anyone have predicted the number of injuries that we have had there? We has 2 x players for each position and still ended up playing a wing back in there against Portsmouth.

I agree that some of the football has not been good this year, but if you look objectively at the decisions made in January, I would still agree with them now, even if they haven't worked out in hindsight.

[NorthwoodValiant]

2 hours ago, hamilboy said:

His contract is up at the end of this season would you keep him as your main defender yes or no.

I'd offer him a deal, he is consistent, he is good at defending.

[For Us All]

3 hours ago, philpvfc said:

So are so many other clubs in this division. Last season beat all expectations but this season has been a flop.

I wouldn't say it's been a flop,it's more like being in a higher level  league with eight teams capable of fighting for promotion and the other sixteen looking over their shoulder to avoid relegation?

[JSValiant]

12 hours ago, NorthwoodValiant said:

If you want your club to get better you need to get rid of the worst players first.

Yes we probably aren't going to win League 1 with Nathan Smith as our best defender, but plenty of players to change before we look at getting rid of him

Yeh I agree I would get rid of 15 before getting rid of Nathan.

One thing though I do wish he would cut down on the falling to the ground actions, referees are now aware of the fact and opposing managers are also.

[NorthwoodValiant]

19 minutes ago, For Us All said:

I wouldn't say it's been a flop,it's more like being in a higher level  league with eight teams capable of fighting for promotion and the other sixteen looking over their shoulder to avoid relegation?

Agreed, a flop would be us in the bottom 4

[Davebrad]

2 hours ago, Row L said:

No picking at your post here - just using it to illustrate a point a few people have made - that the squad is a bit bare.

In January we lost 2 midfielders and a center half and really only replaced a center half. People are criticizing the decisions on hindsight but really, even now, does anyone think that Charsley and Walker would be playing? Hall I agree would be in there, but we went out of the window with 6 center backs and have been hit hard by injuries and form. You can criticize the transfer policy for the back line, but again, really would anyone have predicted the number of injuries that we have had there? We has 2 x players for each position and still ended up playing a wing back in there against Portsmouth.

I agree that some of the football has not been good this year, but if you look objectively at the decisions made in January, I would still agree with them now, even if they haven't worked out in hindsight.

but was the number/quality of the Jan window dictated by availability or certain going on's in the background?

[Row L]

1 hour ago, Davebrad said:

but was the number/quality of the Jan window dictated by availability or certain going on's in the background?

Good question, but even if it was, I was more than happy going into January with the squad that we had. It was always the performance of some players and bad luck with injuries in some areas that has driven this. My biggest concern is that there seems to be a lack of drive and plan B in the team at the moment. We seem to be drifting to the end of the season. Understandable in some ways as the team seem to have been told/assumed that there is nothing to play for ... DC seems to want to change that with "some are leaving" and giving them contracts to play for now

[Diego Maradona]

4 hours ago, Row L said:

No picking at your post here - just using it to illustrate a point a few people have made - that the squad is a bit bare.

In January we lost 2 midfielders and a center half and really only replaced a center half. People are criticizing the decisions on hindsight but really, even now, does anyone think that Charsley and Walker would be playing? Hall I agree would be in there, but we went out of the window with 6 center backs and have been hit hard by injuries and form. You can criticize the transfer policy for the back line, but again, really would anyone have predicted the number of injuries that we have had there? We has 2 x players for each position and still ended up playing a wing back in there against Portsmouth.

I agree that some of the football has not been good this year, but if you look objectively at the decisions made in January, I would still agree with them now, even if they haven't worked out in hindsight.

Appreciate that you weren't being critical of the specific post. 

For me, I was simply highlighting the various issues that have arisen over the course of the second half of the season. Not being critical of anything that the recruitment team have/haven't done, just making observational comments and after everything that we've been through, survival, for me, would be fine.

It could be argued either way if Walker and Charsley would have been good enough for League 1. Ultimately, DF/DC decided that they weren't and for Walker his injuries may have also influenced their decision. Not sure how many times he's played for Tranmere? No doubt that we made a bit money on those 3 also. 

I must admit that immediately after the January window, it was the midfield that was worrying me as we only had 4 left ( Conlon, Garrity, Pett & Ojo) and if we did get an injury to one or two, that would be an area where might have struggled? As it has turned out, the midfield have coped and it was the defence and forwards that have struggled due to injuries.

One final thought: Even though it could be questioned whether Charsley is/was a League 1 player, I think we would have benefitted from his energy and tenacity against Cambridge. Where most had downed tools.
 

 

[Davebrad]

10 minutes ago, Row L said:

Good question, but even if it was, I was more than happy going into January with the squad that we had. It was always the performance of some players and bad luck with injuries in some areas that has driven this. My biggest concern is that there seems to be a lack of drive and plan B in the team at the moment. We seem to be drifting to the end of the season. Understandable in some ways as the team seem to have been told/assumed that there is nothing to play for ... DC seems to want to change that with "some are leaving" and giving them contracts to play for now

agree, but with 11 or so off loan or out of contract why ar'nt the players playing for a contract? if   they played well against Pompy, apart from Worrel and Smith the rest were like a pub team on sat. after a drinking session. Blame it on the pitch, brexit, covid, but somethings wrong...so what? cause after accy and oxford, we've got Lincoln, ipswich, Bristol rovers, Charlton and Plymouth, so the last 5 will be tough. well all 7 will be tough but yer now what i mean.

 

[darren1810]

Interesting to read Bonner, they changed their tactics to alleviate our threats.

Bonner switched to a four-man defence, instead of using wing-backs, and also had experienced Harrison Dunk back in the side for the first time since Boxing Day.

"We felt if we didn't get two players in wide areas we wouldn't be able to stop deliveries into the box," he explained.

"It was a bit risky, because it's such a big pitch, to not play with five in one of your two deeper lines on the pitch - but we also took the risk that we could work more switches of play, we could get dribblers wide to carry the ball and get us up the pitch.

"If we'd played a back three, we'd have probably spent the game in a back five and been a bit cut off from the front of the team. It allowed us to get a bit more control and have really good counter-attacking options and get pace at the top of the pitch."

[mr.hobblesworth]

9 minutes ago, darren1810 said:

Interesting to read Bonner, they changed their tactics to alleviate our threats.

Bonner switched to a four-man defence, instead of using wing-backs, and also had experienced Harrison Dunk back in the side for the first time since Boxing Day.

"We felt if we didn't get two players in wide areas we wouldn't be able to stop deliveries into the box," he explained.

"It was a bit risky, because it's such a big pitch, to not play with five in one of your two deeper lines on the pitch - but we also took the risk that we could work more switches of play, we could get dribblers wide to carry the ball and get us up the pitch.

"If we'd played a back three, we'd have probably spent the game in a back five and been a bit cut off from the front of the team. It allowed us to get a bit more control and have really good counter-attacking options and get pace at the top of the pitch."

That is interesting. I didn't realise that managers were able to analyse the opposition and be flexible with their formations. Can someone tell DC please?

[Diego Maradona]

20 minutes ago, darren1810 said:

Interesting to read Bonner, they changed their tactics to alleviate our threats.

Bonner switched to a four-man defence, instead of using wing-backs, and also had experienced Harrison Dunk back in the side for the first time since Boxing Day.

"We felt if we didn't get two players in wide areas we wouldn't be able to stop deliveries into the box," he explained.

"It was a bit risky, because it's such a big pitch, to not play with five in one of your two deeper lines on the pitch - but we also took the risk that we could work more switches of play, we could get dribblers wide to carry the ball and get us up the pitch.

"If we'd played a back three, we'd have probably spent the game in a back five and been a bit cut off from the front of the team. It allowed us to get a bit more control and have really good counter-attacking options and get pace at the top of the pitch."

Think it was more to do with our unacceptable performance than Bonner's tactical genius!