|
|
Post by ohtobeatplainmoor on Mar 23, 2009 0:11:31 GMT
Well worth the wait for that, tufc01 (same goes for all of those who posted their thoughts after attending the game)- great stuff.
|
|
merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Mar 23, 2009 3:41:51 GMT
The pitch was immaculate and no excuses can be made about that.  That wasn't the manager's opinion and he was quite categoric in his after match interview on the fact. Perhaps it was one of those "looks good from the stands, but horrible to play on" type of pitches that needed a good water, and in a drying and strong wind; they can be a bastard to maintain close control and judge the strength of passing on. On my travels around the non league circuit I would venture that the difference in watering standards is the main feature of playing surfaces. A really good and sophisticated watering system is a rarity at this level of football and as much as we are proud of our own Plainmoor pitch these days, I heard "firmness" was something commented on by the Coventry City party when they were down for the FA Cup tie in January. The biggest enemy of the footballer is wind (of the meteorological kind I hasten to add!) and so often at this stage of the season we see the March and April winds added to bobbly and firm surfaces bring about some pretty scrappy and less entertaining football. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2009 7:06:24 GMT
On my travels around the non league circuit I would venture that the difference in watering standards is the main feature of playing surfaces. A really good and sophisticated watering system is a rarity at this level of football and as much as we are proud of our own Plainmoor pitch these days, I heard "firmness" was something commented on by the Coventry City party when they were down for the FA Cup tie in January. In non-league I guess it's also down to how much time can be spared to look after the pitch. When we played at Lewes the Argus had made the groundsman Man of the Match for the previous game on the basis that, as someone who works through the day in another job, he'd performed wonders to get the game played. Mind you, the team's performance might have played a part in his nomination as well.... |
|
tufc01
TFF member
Posts: 1,179
|
Post by tufc01 on Mar 23, 2009 7:30:51 GMT
The pitch was immaculate and no excuses can be made about that. That wasn't the manager's opinion and he was quite categoric in his after match interview on the fact. Perhaps it was one of those "looks good from the stands, but horrible to play on" type of pitches that needed a good water, and in a drying and strong wind; they can be a bastard to maintain close control and judge the strength of passing on. On my travels around the non league circuit I would venture that the difference in watering standards is the main feature of playing surfaces. A really good and sophisticated watering system is a rarity at this level of football and as much as we are proud of our own Plainmoor pitch these days, I heard "firmness" was something commented on by the Coventry City party when they were down for the FA Cup tie in January. The biggest enemy of the footballer is wind (of the meteorological kind I hasten to add!) and so often at this stage of the season we see the March and April winds added to bobbly and firm surfaces bring about some pretty scrappy and less entertaining football. Apologies for that as I didn't/haven't heard his radio interview yet. If anything then his problem must have been either OVER WATERING, as the lino our side had to contend with a flooded line, and balloons, or that it had been watered inconsistently. What I should have said was the pitch LOOKED immaculate. |
|
rjdgull
TFF member
Admin
Posts: 12,217 
|
Post by rjdgull on Mar 23, 2009 9:51:38 GMT
A good report as always TUFC01  Agree with your comments about the line up and although Stevens and Robertson were fine against Barrow, I think that combination is a significant weakness against a more competent team. However, 16/18 points from the last six games, a lot of players now rested and raring to go, looking forward to the next month or so. |
|
Enzo
TFF member
Posts: 283
|
Post by Enzo on Mar 23, 2009 11:00:52 GMT
JM
It is great to have Toddy back, and I agree from set pieces the presence of he and Robertson will always be a threat, but do you honestly think that was a satisfactory defensive display on Saturday? Personally, I have no strong opinion or knowledge of the facts about the Woods situation and prior to Saturday felt that we had enough options to cope. However, in my opinion much of the defending was shambolic on Saturday - you touched upon the fact that we nearly went two down through hesitant defending. That was the case all afternoon. The Northwich number 14 had carte blanche in the air. Luckily Bevan came for most crosses, but when he didn't we always looked shakey. I like Robertson, but he is not a right back and never will be. He was weak and the partnership of Todd and Hodges was weak. Where was the leadership in the defence? I hope it was just Toddy and Hoges having a "get to know you" afternoon, because against a better team we would have been hammered. If you pick defenders on the basis of their goal scoring ability then, over the course of a season you will have lost more goals than you gain.
I agree that the second half was a much improved display, but you seem to suggest that Northwich were "well up for it" from the off. Again, I disagree. With better finishing, we should have been two up after 10 minutes. Then we ran out of ideas and Sills and Thompson did not have the pace to exploit a very cumbersome and high defending Norhtwich defence. Northwich grew in confidence when they realised that we had no real plan to break them down and then realised that their number 14 had the freedon to do whatever he wanted up front. The introduction of Dsane and benyon changed everything. Suddenly there was movement, a degree of pace and we actually strung moves together. With this in mind, what are your thoughts on the starting line up that Buckle sent out? I felt he got it completely wrong.
In my opinion, this was a game which we won becuase Paul Buckle has assembled a strong squad, with strong players on the bench to change games. We were fitter, stronger and never let our heads drop - for that and the way we kept our discipline in the face of bizarre refereeing Paul Buckle and the team deserve great credit. We have won many games this season because of these reasons - it is also a reflection of how poor two thirds of this league is. We are on a great run and up to third in the league - Great stuff. In my opinion, it has very little to do with any tactical ability of our Manager and that is becoming more apparent by the game. I just hope that the ability of the players alone is enough to get us out of this league, because if we are left relying on the tactical ability of Buckle we will find him like a rabbit in headlights..................just as we did in the play offs last year. I expect some will point to the fact that I myself have even suggested that it was the tactical substitutions that Buckle made which enabled us to win the game on Saturday. It may well have been a tactic to lull Norhtwich in by producing a clueless performance for an hour, before sneaking a win. If that was the case and it takes us to promotion then I'll gladly say I was wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmgull on Mar 23, 2009 17:27:47 GMT
Enzo You make some good points..... We started well for sure, you are right in saying that the Vics only looked "up for it" when we didn't convert one of our good early chances.....they were looking for some encouragement and they got it when we let them off the hook. I totally agree that during the 1st half especially, we looked unsure and hesitant at the back.....shambolic is a bit strong perhaps. It might well have been the 1st time that Todd and Hodges were partnered there.....and it did seem to take them a while to adjust to each other, i still maintain that Northwich's forwards were a handful for any defence in this league especially the guy Perry on loan from Port Vale. It needs to be remembered that the Vics have apparently lost 19 games by an odd goal this season......so obviously no pushovers, more a team that maybe flatters to deceive. I would pick Mansell at RB over Robertson, i was merely suggesting that the added presence of Robbo does give us a formidable look at Set pieces. Robbo does a job at RB, no more....he tends to look cumbersome at times out there, and is obviously, more prone to being skinned by a LW than Mansell would be. Now rested i'd expect Mansell to get his place back....Robbo was playing well at CH before and i think Bucks maybe found it difficult to drop him, so a Mansell rest was probably a diplomatic move by Buckle.....it worked thankfully. As for Buckle and his tactical nous.........well, i believe good managers learn by their mistakes and i think/hope that is the case with Paul. He has had time to assemble a strong squad (unlike last season) and has delivered on that, we have players looking fresh this time around....the team looks like it has "goals in 'em" - we're looking strong. As angry as i, and most of our fan base was, at the ultimately unsuccessful tactics used in the play off games against Exeter.....in retrospect you could sort of understand them. We had just finished a marathon season, several of the players were looking jaded and he was up against a resurgent Exeter team that had sneaked in through the back door, we had little depth in our squad to rest players. Our preferred "high tempo" direct, physical game would maybe have resulted in a defeat anyway, who knows, it may well have been likely though? All we can ask this season is to have a real crack at the play offs (if we're in them, of course  ) by playing the way that WE want to play, if we do, then it will be the other team that have to worry about us. With the strong squad that we have, compared to last season then i think it is fairer to judge Bucks this time around and put last season down to experience... |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Mar 23, 2009 17:32:48 GMT
Merse you must stay away from The`DARK` Site, you know they are a bunch of t0ssers and you know they will only wind you up. Spot on about the whinge factor over there, if we won every one of the last six games they would still try and find a way to hate PB or say he is doing things wrong or he could do better. But we need that site to go on so it stops them coming over here and pissing us off, I bet they try and find a charity situation to raise money for in the not to distant future as they like to copy this site every inch of the way. I think you might find that there is a difference between The `DARK` Site and ours and that difference would be related to those that love the Club and those that love themselves!
|
|
midlandstufc
TFF member
Posts: 945
Favourite Player: Dawkins lol
|
Post by midlandstufc on Mar 23, 2009 19:11:41 GMT
In reply to TUFC01's match report -
1. Yes the kids running on the pitch should have been ejected. The state of NV and the stewards doing it for free probably stopped proper action. I told the TUFC kids to get off the pitch a couple of times as they were embarrassing me and themselves. The joy on Dsanes face as he came to the by-line soon faded when he was confronted by a pack of loonies. I even heard one say that the stewards were crap and let's do it again - what a doughnut.
2. Pitch a bit wet for the nearside lino but so was he. Agree, no excuses, a pitch made for passing no matter what was said after.
3. Elam took his stick well but I thought their right-back the more dangerous with the time and space he was allowed.
All said and done a great match report and much better than my 'effort'.
Cheers!
|
|
tufc01
TFF member
Posts: 1,179
|
Post by tufc01 on Mar 23, 2009 19:32:13 GMT
In reply to TUFC01's match report - 1. Yes the kids running on the pitch should have been ejected. The state of NV and the stewards doing it for free probably stopped proper action. I told the TUFC kids to get off the pitch a couple of times as they were embarrassing me and themselves. The joy on Dsanes face as he came to the by-line soon faded when he was confronted by a pack of loonies. I even heard one say that the stewards were crap and let's do it again - what a doughnut. 2. Pitch a bit wet for the nearside lino but so was he. Agree, no excuses, a pitch made for passing no matter what was said after. 3. Elam took his stick well but I thought their right-back the more dangerous with the time and space he was allowed. All said and done a great match report and [glow=yellow,2,300]much better than my 'effort'.[/glow] Cheers! Thank you, but would have to disagree with you on your last point. I thoroughly enjoyed your report and having read it again we appear to agree on most of our points. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by papalazarou on Mar 23, 2009 20:37:23 GMT
Enjoy!
|
|
|
|
Post by jmgull on Mar 23, 2009 21:07:34 GMT
Great work..... i missed Toddy's goal at the time so thanks for that. Shame you didnt get Sills' bullet  |
|
|
|
Post by papalazarou on Mar 23, 2009 21:10:22 GMT
I didnt film them just found them! Wish I did though I hate having to work Saturdays!!
|
|
Enzo
TFF member
Posts: 283
|
Post by Enzo on Mar 23, 2009 23:02:11 GMT
Enzo You make some good points..... We started well for sure, you are right in saying that the Vics only looked "up for it" when we didn't convert one of our good early chances.....they were looking for some encouragement and they got it when we let them off the hook. I totally agree that during the 1st half especially, we looked unsure and hesitant at the back.....shambolic is a bit strong perhaps. It might well have been the 1st time that Todd and Hodges were partnered there.....and it did seem to take them a while to adjust to each other, i still maintain that Northwich's forwards were a handful for any defence in this league especially the guy Perry on loan from Port Vale. It needs to be remembered that the Vics have apparently lost 19 games by an odd goal this season......so obviously no pushovers, more a team that maybe flatters to deceive. I would pick Mansell at RB over Robertson, i was merely suggesting that the added presence of Robbo does give us a formidable look at Set pieces. Robbo does a job at RB, no more....he tends to look cumbersome at times out there, and is obviously, more prone to being skinned by a LW than Mansell would be. Now rested i'd expect Mansell to get his place back....Robbo was playing well at CH before and i think Bucks maybe found it difficult to drop him, so a Mansell rest was probably a diplomatic move by Buckle.....it worked thankfully. As for Buckle and his tactical nous.........well, i believe good managers learn by their mistakes and i think/hope that is the case with Paul. He has had time to assemble a strong squad (unlike last season) and has delivered on that, we have players looking fresh this time around....the team looks like it has "goals in 'em" - we're looking strong. As angry as i, and most of our fan base was, at the ultimately unsuccessful tactics used in the play off games against Exeter.....in retrospect you could sort of understand them. We had just finished a marathon season, several of the players were looking jaded and he was up against a resurgent Exeter team that had sneaked in through the back door, we had little depth in our squad to rest players. Our preferred "high tempo" direct, physical game would maybe have resulted in a defeat anyway, who knows, it may well have been likely though? All we can ask this season is to have a real crack at the play offs (if we're in them, of course ) by playing the way that WE want to play, if we do, then it will be the other team that have to worry about us. With the strong squad that we have, compared to last season then i think it is fairer to judge Bucks this time around and put last season down to experience... Fair points. It is frustrating that Northwich are able to bring in Perry on loan and we sign Christie! No doubt geograpy had a part to play in that, but Christie has been a strange, strange signing. Reminds me of Don O's signing if Ollie Morah - "The board have given the green light to bring someone in, if I don't use it I'll lose it!" kind of thinking. Re the potential dropping of Robertson and the "diplomatic resting" of Mansell, it would have made far more sense to give Robertson a run in the position he was impressing at - ie centre back, particularly whilst Toddy found his feet again. We boh know there is more to it than that. We can pick over the reasons for the Play Off defeat all night long and we'd only get wound up by it! I just hope you are right about PB learning from his mistakes. My problem is that he is still making many of them. |
|
merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Mar 24, 2009 3:56:37 GMT
Re the potential dropping of Robertson and the "diplomatic resting" of Mansell, it would have made far more sense to give Robertson a run in the position he was impressing at - ie centre back, particularly whilst Toddy found his feet again. We boh know there is more to it than that. So where would "Toddy find his feet again"? He trains with the squad all week, he's re-gained match fitness at Salisbury. Do you propose he finds them losing match fitness sitting on the bench? Sitting in the stand? How about doing what he does best..................playing, scoring and taking part in a three point victory? Or do you propose the exclusion of Hodges for that match? Someone has to start and someone has to sit it out, and there doesn't necessarily need to be "more to it than that" than just simply horses for courses and a manager picking a starting eleven. Dave is right, whatever Bucks does he is damned by people with an agenda, an agenda that is borne of some strange cross pollination of his Exeter City past (although one with us much further back precedes it) and some know-all attitude that implies that because of his age and the fact it is his first managerial job, he somehow doesn't know what he is doing. Look, we have at last got something at OUR club that we haven't had in decades; namely a decent sized squad that is interchangeable without significantly weakening the side. With that comes movement in and out of the starting eleven, do you think they carry on like this at Man Utd and Arsenal? Get used to it and enjoy it for what it is........................a rarity for us for events might conspire that result in that policy being unable to be followed in the future as JM's and Daves' reports of the REAL financial reality out there tell you. No player likes being left out, and don't expect them to arrive at a game with a smile on their face because they aren't in the starting line up. Managers play players where THEY want them not where fans want them or even the players themselves necessarily want to play....................it's part of the territory of being a professional footballer. Read Chris Hargreave's blog tonight on Mark Ellis and his exemplary reaction to his own personal situation at the club. "Make far more sense" ? Make more mischief more like! |
|
) by playing the way that WE want to play, if we do, then it will be the other team that have to worry about us.
