21 minutes ago, Dol Boy said:

It doesn't really help us to understand it though.  Making numerous changes after a good win still doesn't make sense to me. It's the polar opposite of what Rudge would do, for example. 

Rudge managed in the 80’s and 90’s though mate. it’s a completely different game today than it was back then. You have to be able to adapt to all of the different players, tactics, formations and playstyles in this league in this day and age.

Moore tried sticking with the same team after we battered Newport away and beat a very good Chesterfield side at home. Then we went away to Accrington (who had 2 points from 6 games) with the exact same team and scraped a 2-2 draw last minute and probably should have lost. You have to be able to adapt depending on who you’re playing, and Moore knows that now. 

Love it or hate it, this is modern day football.

Edited January 24, 20251 yr by PVFC2001

12 hours ago, Granville said:

Have watched Moore's press conference today regarding the game - actually asked about the amount of changes he makes and why he makes so many subs. 

What I found interesting is he trotted out one of Darrell Clarke's lines, along the lines of "every game is a different project/challenge"

Not wanting to restart the whole debate but it's clear he picks players based on the games ahead and not on games gone by.

And it's very true, but some selection decisions are strange. 

When I said before I was looking for consistency in the XI, I'm thinking more along the lines of particular pairings within that XI. Really important for the front line to get used to playing together, patterns of play so we can score more goals. Same with the midfield too, in fact we clearly suffer when we have a bad pairing in there. 

When we get the odd game with say, Curtis up front as a lone striker it's a bit strange (on paper, I can't remember the exact circumstances with the team at the time that happened). Or say, Jason Lowe in midfield at home. 

I do think the 'why so many subs' is a stupid question nowadays though - there are 5 subs and they can change a game and there's other games to look after so I'm on board with that. 

1 hour ago, Dol Boy said:

It doesn't really help us to understand it though.  Making numerous changes after a good win still doesn't make sense to me. It's the polar opposite of what Rudge would do, for example. 

Last week he made two both enforced and got panned on here for playing Lowe.

The bloke can't win. 

I've called it before, Richards, Curtis, Paton and others have had great cameos, totally deserved a place in the next game and are invisible. Moore then gets panned for that too. 

Irrelevant of his screamer at Cheltenham, Curtis had a great sub appearance, instrumental in lots of good things , next game was garbage. 

1 minute ago, darren1810 said:

Last week he made two both enforced and got panned on here for playing Lowe.

The bloke can't win. 

I've called it before, Richards, Curtis, Paton and others have had great cameos, totally deserved a place in the next game and are invisible. Moore then gets panned for that too. 

Irrelevant of his screamer at Cheltenham, Curtis had a great sub appearance, instrumental in lots of good things , next game was garbage. 

Good point - lot of inconsistency at this level but then if they were consistent they'd be playing levels higher. 

players are training on the vale park pitch today 2 teams of 11 getting ready for a bit of a practice  happy days hope it pays of tomoz 

1 minute ago, NW9Valiant said:

Good point - lot of inconsistency at this level but then if they were consistent they'd be playing levels higher. 

It's like tomorrow. For me there's one glaring change, Heneghan comes in. He's generally done well away as a proper defender. Surely despite his second half performance folk aren't screaming for Sang to be left centre half tomorrow?

There will be minimum 3 changes, it's what he does. 

knocked down that building back of the paddock too

7 minutes ago, Tim vlf said:

knocked down that building back of the paddock too

Isnt that the catering units? Guess maybe to make more space to relieve the blockages at HT?

13 hours ago, Rodge said:

Just get an early train mate, then more time for socialising in London after the game without having to rush back to Euston. As you know, the train times back to Stoke aren’t really late enough unless you dare risk catching the last Avanti 😬

Good point mate. Might see you on the platform tomorrow. 9.30 train. Spoons Stoke for breakfast and a livener first. 

3 minutes ago, valefan16 said:

Isnt that the catering units? Guess maybe to make more space to relieve the blockages at HT?

its the old building next to that goes all the way down to the exit line

1 hour ago, PVFC2001 said:

Rudge managed in the 80’s and 90’s though mate. it’s a completely different game today than it was back then. You have to be able to adapt to all of the different players, tactics, formations and playstyles in this league in this day and age.

Moore tried sticking with the same team after we battered Newport away and beat a very good Chesterfield side at home. Then we went away to Accrington (who had 2 points from 6 games) with the exact same team and scraped a 2-2 draw last minute and probably should have lost. You have to be able to adapt depending on who you’re playing, and Moore knows that now. 

Love it or hate it, this is modern day football.

I accept that, but keeping the nucleus of a good side together is IMO a no brainer.  A couple of changes is plenty, otherwise the team becomes disjointed.  What you don't do, again IMO, is drop someone who's had a stormer of a game from the squad entirely, leave him out for 2 or 3 games, then put him back in the starting line up, expecting him to have another stormer. 

17 minutes ago, Tim vlf said:

players are training on the vale park pitch today 2 teams of 11 getting ready for a bit of a practice  happy days hope it pays of tomoz 

Just hope there are enough of them fit for the game.  We have had a few injured in training sessions. 🤣

yertiz

8 minutes ago, darren1810 said:

Last week he made two both enforced and got panned on here for playing Lowe.

The bloke can't win. 

I've called it before, Richards, Curtis, Paton and others have had great cameos, totally deserved a place in the next game and are invisible. Moore then gets panned for that too. 

Irrelevant of his screamer at Cheltenham, Curtis had a great sub appearance, instrumental in lots of good things , next game was garbage. 

Fine but the constant selection of hackford isn't explained by that. He is picking him for a reason, it's a reason I can't see. I know it's not based on form. I know it's not based on past contribution. So it is fair enough to question that. Tolaj was ticking along quite nicely with his assists and then all of a sudden out in the wilderness, and almost as suddenly a nailed on starter again. That situation has been very weird.

 

Lowe, was it enforced? He has played 12 times in the league. Ill be as charitable as possible and assume harper wasn't fit to play more than 45, but we still had Sang, we still had heneghan on the bench to cover cb. I just don't see any rhyme or reason in the tinkering as it stands. It looks like he is a tactical god when we win 8 out 10 or whatever it was, but the flip side of that is when we win 1 in 12 and nothing he changes actually has a positive effect, he looks clueless.

 

That's why the upturn in form since Garrity comes back is making me think that Moore is being carried by the quality of the squad. In fact he has done quite well to go 12 games without winning, in league two, with this squad regardless of the injuries we have had. 

 

Plus, the argument that players benefit from a run of games is still valid. Fine to write it off when you are winning but you can't write it off when you aren't.

 

Moore is thick. End of.