Rochdale (H) match thread (2 Viewers)

Otis · Mar 3, 2016

Predictions, formations, attendance etc.

Can't see one, Nick. Hope you don't mind.

Another defeat I fear. 1-2. Not only the wheels come off, but the car chassis being put up on bricks.

10,200 (official) 9,800 (actual)

Armstrong to score our goal, probably a consolation.

Very much hope I'm wrong.

I_Saw_Shaw_Score · Mar 3, 2016

I would play a 442 of
(Will it happen no)

RCC
Lorentzson
Martin
Cargill
Stokes
Fleck
Vincelot
Lameires
Murphy
Armstrong
Tudgay or Henderson (not sure who to get probably 60 mins out of before swapping for the other)

Subs
Addai
Ricketts
Stephens
Rose
Maddison
Cole
Tudgay or Henderson

Anyway 2-1 Cov

Armstrong & Martin

ATT 10,300 Rochdale 450

Otis · Mar 3, 2016

Sky Sports saying Martin unlikely to start. How accurate that is I don't know.

I really hope Ricketts is rested. Have my fingers firmly crossed.

I_Saw_Shaw_Score · Mar 3, 2016

Otis said:
Sky Sports saying Martin unlikely to start. How accurate that is I don't know.

I really hope Ricketts is rested. Have my fingers firmly crossed.

I would imagine all will be revealed in TM press conference tomorrow.

Did Vincelot go off injured the other night too?

Otis · Mar 3, 2016

Oh yes. Forgot about that. We would have to swap things about then.

Options under that scenario would include:

Moving Stephens to defensive midfield, Ricketts to centre back, Lorentzson to right back.

Or

Stephens to DM and Martin to come in.

Or

Rose to come in. He's not a defensive midfield player in the mould of Vincelot though

Any other options?

Could Cole play a bit deeper maybe? Bit of a long shot.

I notice the City this season are not at all forthcoming on injuries and how long players may be out for. Be a blow if Vincelot is missing for a number of games.

steve82 · Mar 3, 2016

Lorenztson should start instead of Ricketts. Joe Cole will be back in. Murphy on the bench and lameires in. If vincelot should be out put rose in. Man looks a beast, could do with that height in both boxes.
Changes are required tho as were flat and dejected.

I_Saw_Shaw_Score · Mar 3, 2016

Otis said:
Oh yes. Forgot about that. We would have to swap things about then.

Options under that scenario would include:

Moving Stephens to defensive midfield, Ricketts to centre back, Lorentzson to right back.

Or

Stephens to DM and Martin to come in.

Or

Rose to come in. He's not a defensive midfield player in the mould of Vincelot though

Any other options?

Could Cole play a bit deeper maybe? Bit of a long shot.

I notice the City this season are not at all forthcoming on injuries and how long players may be out for. Be a blow if Vincelot is missing for a number of games.

So many options with our squad the possibilities are endless, but I'm sure It'll just be the tried and tested plan A we use.

Holt has been a handful so far since returning to Rochdale so maybe the 2 young lads at the back may struggle but Ricketts is hardly looking like he's full of confidence at the minute.

I would rather see Cole through the middle
Even if deeper than playing on the flanks but again can't see that happening would imagine Rose or Stephens would come in for Vincelot.

lifeskyblue · Mar 3, 2016

I would keep tudgay (or swap with Henderson) up front. Play arma just behind. As for defence swap lorentson for ricketts. Murphy on left with instructions to take on the full back.
I hope we see desire from the players. If we do a 2-1 to the sky blues. Come on city

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Skyblueweeman · Mar 3, 2016

Otis said:
Can't see one, Nick. Hope you don't mind.

Totally taken his eye of the ball with these match threads has Nick!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Earlsdon_Skyblue1 · Mar 3, 2016

I'm making my team selection based on players that deserve to be given a go, or that have a bit of passion and fight we desperately need. We have too many individuals who aren't putting anywhere near enough effort in. Sadly, Mowbray will probably pick his mates again and the boys will crumble to the mighty 'dale!

RCC
Lorentzson
Martin (if not fit, Stevens)
Cargill
Stokes
Fleck
Vincelot
Lameiras
Rose
Armstrong
Tudgay (With Henderson to come on later)

0-1 Rochdale (Sorry)

ATT 10,001

Otis · Mar 3, 2016

Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:
I'm making my team selection based on players that deserve to be given a go, or that have a bit of passion and fight we desperately need. We have too many individuals who aren't putting anywhere near enough effort in. Sadly, Mowbray will probably pick his mates again and the boys will crumble to the mighty 'dale!

RCC
Lorentzson
Martin (if not fit, Stevens)
Cargill
Stokes
Fleck
Vincelot
Lameiras
Rose
Armstrong
Tudgay (With Henderson to come on later)

0-1 Rochdale (Sorry)

ATT 10,001

Hang on, that can't be right. You have forgotten to include Murphy in your line-up.

Terry Gibson's perm · Mar 3, 2016

Otis said:
Oh yes. Forgot about that. We would have to swap things about then.

Options under that scenario would include:

Moving Stephens to defensive midfield, Ricketts to centre back, Lorentzson to right back.

Or

Stephens to DM and Martin to come in.

Or

Rose to come in. He's not a defensive midfield player in the mould of Vincelot though

Any other options?

Could Cole play a bit deeper maybe? Bit of a long shot.

I notice the City this season are not at all forthcoming on injuries and how long players may be out for. Be a blow if Vincelot is missing for a number of games.

It it would be good to get Rose in and at home we don't need both Vincelot and the ultra defensive Fleck, if Vincelot is fit I would leave out Fleck. I would rest Ricketts also

Pipehitterz · Mar 3, 2016

i think we'll see wholesale changes

rcc
martin
cargill
stokes
lorentzen
fleck
stephens/rose
murhpy
lameiras
cole
armstrong

2-2
10,000

Earlsdon_Skyblue1 · Mar 3, 2016

Otis said:
Hang on, that can't be right. You have forgotten to include Murphy in your line-up.

Ah, I must have missed him out by accident...

Londonccfcfan · Mar 3, 2016

I would definately start with the same team that beat bury and lost against Fleetwood.

Didnt we all think this was a championship winning team 2 weeks ago??

RCC
Ricketts
Stephens
Cargill
Stokes
Fleck
Vincelot
Cole ......starting on the right
Murphy.....starting on the left
Maddison
Armstrong

That team to me is without a doubt the best team we have. I'd give them one more chance to start at home.

The first 45 mins vs Fleetwood I'd say we were easily on top and possibly should have been a goal up. First goal is crucial.

lose this game and then changes I'm afraid.

only possible changes would be Lorentszen for Ricketts

3-1 City! 1-1 at half time. Maddison 3!

Crowd 8750

Otis · Mar 3, 2016

Londonccfcfan said:
I would definately start with the same team that beat bury and lost against Fleetwood.

Didnt we all think this was a championship winning team 2 weeks ago??

RCC
Ricketts
Stephens
Cargill
Stokes
Fleck
Vincelot
Cole ......starting on the right
Murphy.....starting on the left
Maddison
Armstrong

That team to me is without a doubt the best team we have. I'd give them one more chance to start at home.

The first 45 mins vs Fleetwood I'd say we were easily on top and possibly should have been a goal up. First goal is crucial.

lose this game and then changes I'm afraid.

only possible changes would be Lorentszen for Ricketts

3-1 City! 1-1 at half time. Maddison 3!

Crowd 8750

First 20 mins maybe, but not 45. Thought we started quite well, but it seemed that quite quickly Fleetwood got the upper hand.

lifeskyblue · Mar 3, 2016

I don't think fleetwood were the better side ...they just wanted it more. They came for a point and set up accordingly. As the game progressed they realised we had little fight or little threat. At that point they started to play and started to stretch us
But overall two poor teams, boring spectacle and we got what we deserved...0 points

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Otis · Mar 3, 2016

Doesn't that mean that Fleetwood were the better side then if we deserved zero points?

Londonccfcfan · Mar 3, 2016

Otis said:
First 20 mins maybe, but not 45. Thought we started quite well, but it seemed that quite quickly Fleetwood got the upper hand.

Im not sure they had they the upper hand at any point in first half. I checked the bbc stats at half time, we dominated all of them.

I think there was a shout for a penalty but nothing else. They did have some great chances in the second half though.

lifeskyblue · Mar 3, 2016

Otis said:
Doesn't that mean that Fleetwood were the better side then if we deserved zero points?

Haha..I don't think either side deserved anything. At least fleetwood played as a team

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Otis · Mar 3, 2016

That they did for sure. We were just a ragged bunch of misfiring cylinders.

italiahorse · Mar 3, 2016

I can't get my thoughts back on track after the total failure to compete at Barnsley.
Just hope I'm wrong and TM has something he can work on to change things round.

lifeskyblue · Mar 3, 2016

Yes a home game and we tested their keeper once. Shocking

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Londonccfcfan · Mar 3, 2016

italiahorse said:
I can't get my thoughts back on track after the total failure to compete at Barnsley.
Just hope I'm wrong and TM has something he can work on to change things round.

Keep the faith. Confidence and luck can turn around very quickly as we see in this league every week. It's a marathon. long long way to go.

Otis · Mar 3, 2016

I'd rather there wasn't. I wish there were just 2 games to go tops. Would be much more confident of making the top 6 then.

steve82 · Mar 3, 2016

Against fleetwood our performance was too slow, blunt and predictable in the end. In the first 15 minutes we had our best spell. Really need to go back to zipping the ball around and creating space, needs our attacking players to really be in the game running at pace taking players on, something we've missed.

Londonccfcfan · Mar 3, 2016

Otis said:
I'd rather there wasn't. I wish there were just 2 games to go tops. Would be much more confident of making the top 6 then.

Otis....what's wrong with you man? You really have given up!

Otis · Mar 3, 2016

Londonccfcfan said:
Otis....what's wrong with you man? You really have given up!

Burton at home pretty much convinced me we couldn't make the top 2. Scunthorpe really worried me because we were totally outplayed and then Fleetwood showed me how pitiful we have become at the moment.

It's that plus the abysmal run and the teams behind us now breathing right down our necks. They are in form, we are very badly out of it.

Otis · Mar 3, 2016

I think we will lose again on Saturday, but trust me, I so badly want to be proved wrong.

ccfc1234 · Mar 3, 2016

We need to get back to speed play. We smashed Gillingham, Crewe and Peterborough in the second half playing fast flowing football. What really annoys me is we have the players for it to and have gone away from what were good at.

Sat I would play:

----------------------RCC------------------
Lorentzon---Cargill----Ricketss---Stokes
----------Vancalot-----Fleck------------
Murphy--------------------------Lameries
-------------------Maddison---------------
---------Armstrong-----------------------

Murphy almost does not make my team as despite pace, when he has the ball to feet and during crisp inter play he is not on the level of Ruben, Maddison and Arma.

Otis · Mar 4, 2016

ccfc1234 said:
We need to get back to speed play. We smashed Gillingham, Crewe and Peterborough in the second half playing fast flowing football. What really annoys me is we have the players for it to and have gone away from what were good at.

Sat I would play:

----------------------RCC------------------
Lorentzon---Cargill----Ricketss---Stokes
----------Vancalot-----Fleck------------
Murphy--------------------------Lameries
-------------------Maddison---------------
---------Armstrong-----------------------

Murphy almost does not make my team as despite pace, when he has the ball to feet and during crisp inter play he is not on the level of Ruben, Maddison and Arma.

That attacking midfield scares the life out of me. Murphy, Maddison and Lameiras and not one single one of them can put in any sort of meaningful tackle whatsoever.

For that reason Joe Cole has to come back in.

I think this has been part of our problem. Fine to have Maddison, or Murphy, or Lameiras, but when these players lose the ball they can never fight and get it back. Cole and Armstrong are capable of that.

I personally would consider just one of that trio (Maddison or Murphy) and then play Cole and Rose. That would give us the ability to win the ball back higher up the pitch and give us some kind of physicality.

coop · Mar 4, 2016

Yes Cole and Rose for me So se to do the dirty work and Cole purring in crosses and through balls.Murphy has been terrible lately so give lamires a chance.

Gazolba · Mar 4, 2016

Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:
<snip>
Armstrong
Tudgay (With Henderson to come on later)

No, we need Henderson to start with Armstrong and Tudgay to come on later (if needed).
I'm going for a 2-1 win in this game. A draw is no good for us and another defeat would be a disaster.

shrewcov · Mar 4, 2016

Well saw Shrewsbury v Rochdale other night. Must admit not overly impressed by Rochdale, they lacked pace at the back and put decent crosses in but no end product. Although grant holt I think once he's match fit will be a good signing for them possibly. If Murphy and Armstrong are at there best Cov to walk this one especially if they want playoffs. Play up Sky Blues. Ps looking forward to watching Cov away to Shrewsbury as season ticket holder for both clubs

Lanno · Mar 4, 2016

This HAS to be the turning point for our season. Hopefully now the players realise the effort levels have not been good enough for a while. On ability alone this squad should achieve promotion - surely raising the effort level is the easy bit?! I'd rather have that problem than a team with lower ability that gives it's all but still falls short. For that reason I do still think we can go up via the playoffs, albeit with my sky blue tinted glasses on : )

Cov to win 2-0 and finally get back on track!

Rochdale (H) match thread (2 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency