Could not believe that second half yesterday!  first was very poor walked down on 45 so I missed the red card having seen it back I don’t think it’s a red card but we’ll take it. 
 

not so sure he’d have tweaked the system at half time had they still had 11 on the field but brilliant went at them from the off, breath of fresh air if I’m honest what a difference playing with wingers does especially on our pitch criminal that we don’t! George hall run them absolutely ragged in that second half. We got plenty of balls into the box dangerous when you have stockley(a target man) not just crosses but we mixed it up when we got to byline. 
 

clark Byers stockley hall when he came on thought standout performers all had really good games. 

9 minutes ago, Stockleys_socks said:

Sometimes it will work sometimes it won't, you've got to consider how the opposition are set up. With 442 there's always the risk of being overrun in centre mid. To be honest I'm happy for either 352 or 442 and assume that we've done our homework. The main thing for me is to not play 343. A front 2 is the only way to go IMO. You could also argue that 352 hasn't worked because our wingbacks have been injured.

Our midfield gets overrun week in week out playing 3-5-2 because we drop back and end up with everyone bar cole in our defensive third. DM's teams often looked more like they were playing 7-2-------------1 😁

 

I genuinely can't understand how anyone could argue that 3-5-2 has worked or will get us to safety if we stick with it just by picking different players.

 

We have struggled to score goals all season even when we had the wing backs fit and we won't win without scoring goals. I can see how if it was played right it might make us harder to beat but draws at this point are of no use to use we have to do better than the teams above us just to catch them.

 

We stuck with 3-5-2 against bradford and the depressing familiar "one goal beats us" was the result. We started the game against blackpool playing 3-5-2 and were a goal down by half time and looked more likely to concede again than score.

24 minutes ago, kevin_struggles said:

Nowhere near the only one I am certain it was a red and anyone who has read the rules will, at the very least, understand why it was given. The defenders lunge was not under control and he endangered his opponent. Red for the same reason we lost the appeal against the red byers got.

Can definitely see why it was given and why some refs interpret it in that way, especially with how we’ve seen the rules around foul play being implemented against us over the last couple of seasons. I suppose it would be interesting to see if it gets overturned, but it was nice to be on the receiving end of some good fortune with these decisions for once. 

6 minutes ago, PV1973 said:

Can definitely see why it was given and why some refs interpret it in that way, especially with how we’ve seen the rules around foul play being implemented against us over the last couple of seasons. I suppose it would be interesting to see if it gets overturned, but it was nice to be on the receiving end of some good fortune with these decisions for once. 

Rub of the gree.  You win some, you lose some.  In the end, they generally balance out in a season,  So let's just take it and be thankful yesterday it was a win-win!

Was Croasdale injured in that challenge? I'm assuming the change was tactical at half time as he managed to finish the couple of minutes from the end of the first half but not read anything to suggest different.

3 hours ago, Gooders said:

Not the only one.

I think the reason for the confusion is that there is a misunderstanding that making contact with the ball has some impact on the decision.  It doesn't and the IFAB guidance expressly says that contact with the ball isn't a consideration. It's the level of force and how dangerous the challenge is. I also think slow motion replays don't help as by their nature they lessen the apparent impact of the collision. It's pretty hard to reconcile the world of Tommy McClaren with the tackle rules today. Its probably necessary in the modern world. Players potentially can earn millions.  If the sport cordoned that type of challenge there would be legal claims from injured plays counting to millions every year. Rugby has had to make even larger adjustments to its laws over the last 10 years. It's incredibly rare now adays to see a player going to ground that square on to a player running full speed at them. More normally it's coming in from the side, or over the advancing player's shoulder. 

14 minutes ago, kevin_struggles said:

Our midfield gets overrun week in week out playing 3-5-2 because we drop back and end up with everyone bar cole in our defensive third. DM's teams often looked more like they were playing 7-2-------------1 😁

 

I genuinely can't understand how anyone could argue that 3-5-2 has worked or will get us to safety if we stick with it just by picking different players.

 

We have struggled to score goals all season even when we had the wing backs fit and we won't win without scoring goals. I can see how if it was played right it might make us harder to beat but draws at this point are of no use to use we have to do better than the teams above us just to catch them.

 

We stuck with 3-5-2 against bradford and the depressing familiar "one goal beats us" was the result. We started the game against blackpool playing 3-5-2 and were a goal down by half time and looked more likely to concede again than score.

I'm not against 442 but let's see how it goes against 11 men is all I'm saying.

4 hours ago, Old School said:

An earlier post was referencing an interview with Stockley. I cannot find it so could you please let me know where it is or better still put a link to it.

Thanks in advance. 

Not sure if it is this one, but he is interviewed here 

 

i am not going to get carried away with yesterdays result as the club has ALOT of problems and one result against a side down to ten men who imploded doesnt wipe the slate clean for me. anyone who has seen popeys twitter interview by simon humphreys last night will know we are in a right mess and we still need minimum 10 wins from the run in to stay up . 

6 minutes ago, RayWalkers40yarder said:

i am not going to get carried away with yesterdays result as the club has ALOT of problems and one result against a side down to ten men who imploded doesnt wipe the slate clean for me. anyone who has seen popeys twitter interview by simon humphreys last night will know we are in a right mess and we still need minimum 10 wins from the run in to stay up . 

Why are we taking note of what a tier 9 managers opinion is ? 

This is a laugh, apparently none of our goals should have stood at all.

https://avftt.co.uk/index.php?threads/their-goals.67367/

 

4 minutes ago, darren1810 said:

Why are we taking note of what a tier 9 managers opinion is ? 

because he talks a lot of sense !

 

Just now, RayWalkers40yarder said:

because he talks a lot of sense !

 

Tom Pope and sense in the same sentence 

1 minute ago, RayWalkers40yarder said:

because he talks a lot of sense !

 

Can't agree there mate at all. He's all bitter and twisted regarding Vale and I know Humph personally. 

Why he felt Pope is relevant is a mystery to me. 

I absolutely agree we still have loads of issues and one swallow and all that malarkey but Pope come on. 

Thanks for the links and suggestions, there were some interesting interviews.