Quite a bit of long ball last night

[ValeMadrid87]

I'm embarrassed by your post completely ridiculous

 

Wipe your mouth you numpty!

[valiant_593]

Coming frim a thick **** that sucks ****

Haha thick ****? Good one.... Explain to me why I'm wrong?

[sunny boslem]

Valiant 593 always ends his comments with name calling like a big kid

[Bails]

Are people not allowed to have opinions anymore? Jesus wept! I thought we looked garbage early on and I was quite worried when they scored early, but at the same time.knew.we would create chances; which we did. We have to be honest and say that it took us ages getting going, but 2nd.half we came out and comletely dominated.

[Andyregs]

My answer to that: Hughes

 

Hughes is a quality striker. But ever since he was linked I feared the 'long ball' tactic. Him and Pope, for me, don't work. It's like last year with Rico and Pope. One was prolific and the other was virtually non-existent.

 

It's not all about the quality of the striker, but how they work together. Pope and Williamson is a good partnership because Pope flicks it on to Williamson who runs in behind the defence. Similarly, Dodds and Pope is a good partnership (and in my opinion the best) because Dodds links the attack and midfield - thus bolstering the midfield - so we don't get overrun - whilst still acting as a a second striker.

 

Now, please don't knock me because I so think that Hughes is a great striker - a prolific goalscorer. But to me he can't play with Pope. In the Gillingham game he wasn't particularly effective (even though he scored - and that was hugely debatable) and against Wimbledon with those two upfront it meant that we had to play long balls (as there was no pace). There were so many times when Hughes would go for a flick on (which is Pope's job really) and Pope would have to do a bit of running, which really isn't his game. Not only did the long ball not work that great, but it was also so ****ing ugly to watch

 

Like Werrington said: the football against Oxford was so much better. I do think we need some cover on the wings. There is no competition and for me Vincent has become complacent. Lloyd will be a fantastic player in a couple of years time but at the moment he is not pushing Vincent. I reckon he would benefit from a loan to a conference side (league below: no more)

 

Asfor Hughes I will hold out full judgement until a few more games - but as of the two games he has played he has not suceeded in convincing me that he is a better option to partner Pope as opposed to either Dodds or Williamson

 

On a lighter not can I just add that it is rather nice to be arguing about footballing matters again. Although I have my opinions of the current squad every single member could do a very decent job for us :) Long may this continue. UP THE VALE

 

I've always argued that I prefer 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1. As it give more fluidity and options. However I think we looked more likely to score (and we did score twice) when hughes was on as opposed to when Williamson was on. I don't think Williamson is a first 11 player and would be behind pope, hughes and dodds (who wasn't available). Also, it was one game. If the televised game was one of the many that dodds goes missing, would we be having this nonsense about it. Hughes has played twice, and we have 4 points, and suddenly it's his fault that we have this make believe problem.

[nightmare in a damaged bra]

Haha thick ****? Good one.... Explain to me why I'm wrong?

 

Want to throw insults around.Lets see if you can back it up.Next game before or after name the place.

[boomers_left_ear]

I thought that Pope and Hughes linked up well especially at Gillingham. I noticed that Purse was the one launching it forward but both strikers play better with the ball at their feet (unless it's in an area where Popey can head it in the back of the net).

[valiant_593]

Valiant 593 always ends his comments with name calling like a big kid

 

Because I called someone who was blatantly being a bell a bell end great.....

[valiant_593]

want to throw insults around.lets see if you can back it up.next game before or after name the place.

 

lol.

[Bycarsbill]

No it wasn't the pitch.The game was dire.After 20 minutes I was looking at the remote control.By half time I got the dogs lead and took him for a walk.As a neutral you would never have known who was top and who was bottom it was dog cack.

 

It's when a team is not playing well but still manages to eek out a point that you know we are still very much in the hunt for promotion.

[Valiant in Brum]

It's when a team is not playing well but still manages to eek out a point that you know we are still very much in the hunt for promotion.

 

The last few seasons before this one we would have go on to lose the game probably heavily and that would be the start of our great slide. So yes I agree with you there.

[sunny boslem]

I'm only joking fellow valiant

[jk77]

Not knocking it as you need to do what you need to do to get promotion.

 

Everytime the keeper had it he launched it to Pope in the hope he could flick it on wheras against Oxford you never played those tactics and looked for the wingers.

 

Has Adams changed it ?

 

Maybe if we spent £80m on players we could play carpet football like Stoke too...

[PortVale89]

Werrington if anything I thought you would have picked up on the fact that we attacked a team away from home. You lot think that this is against the rules.

 

Playing long ball in league two is to be expected. But in the premier league, when you have spent as much as you have, you should get stick because all you do is kick it at Jones's head.

[JohnJames]

Long ball is better than long bore which applies to a Stoke season