Been critical of him in the past but had an excellent game today. Man of the match in a back four where the other three all struggled defensively.
Think for the first goal Adams was a little deeper than the rest of the back 4 so their guy went through onside. I think the problem is neither Clarke or Willis are a natural organiser.
Clarke did have a very decent game. It's no surprise that Fleck and Thomas were vastly improved from recent games. They were getting good quality ball from the back and it made a huge difference.
If not for a couple of moments at the back, and with a little more composure in the final third, we'd have picked up an easy win. Play like that until the end of the season and a relegation battle won't be an issue.
I had a read of the Port Vale forum. They seemed to think we looked good. Some even thought it was a point earned rather than two dropped, interesting.....
surely any away point is good in the league ?
Yea, but not so much in the context of being 2 up with 10 minutes or so left....
We were vastly superior - if Wilson had equalised immediately after they scored we would have won very easily. As soon as we did score a goal panic set in.
????????? Do Wilson's goals count for 2? If they had just made it 2 nil then how would Wilson be equalising if he scored staright after their second goal?
He means when Wilson went through 1-1 in the second minute having just gone 1-0 down. They showed it on sky sports news, he should have buried it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Yes correct. If we had eradicated the defecit immediately we would have won the game, we were comfortably the better team.
Ah, like the game at Port Vale where we were by far the better team in the first half with our strongest team of the season?
Settle down moody pants
He's just in a huff because he was made to look an idiot after asking if Wilson's goals counts for two.
Settle down moody pants
I thought Willis was poor he hardly won a header all day. Id prefer to have Webster or Seaborne playing instead of Willis.
I thought Willis was poor he hardly won a header all day. Id prefer to have Webster or Seaborne playing instead of Willis.
How was the midfield? and was the lad from Villa playing?
Really? I never went the game (as I don't go to Sixfields) and so Grendel's post could read like that because I wouldn't know about the chances we had before or after their goals. I was merely asking Grendel for clarification which came from both him and Stupot explaining what he meant. How does that make me look an idiot?
Thomas I thought was poor. Gave away possession cheaply. The villa guy played second half and looked far more the part than the youth player from arsenal.
I thought Willis was poor he hardly won a header all day. Id prefer to have Webster or Seaborne playing instead of Willis.
That's interesting. I got the impression we suffered without some "presence" up front. Did we attack differently or did the Fonz play more of a target man role?
I must been at a different game then, I was behind the goal and second half Willis won just about every header against a much taller pope.
Just seen the goals . Clarke was having a nice little Sunday morning jog trying to get back.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?