FL2: Port Vale v Torquay United 28th August 2010

Gave them a fair bit to worry about, in my opinion.

The pitch was very wide (seriously, a good couple of metres wider than Plainmoor), and with Danny and Wayno spreading out, he had alot of space to run. He worked well with Wroe and Nicho, although their triangle passing was sometimes too much, and they played each other into trouble. But yeah, on more than one occasion he had 3/4 defenders on him, and couldn't really squeeze a shot in.

I'd say rest him against Bournemouth, but he should start against Southend, injury permitting, of course.

It's a bit different saying "not to their best" and then giving players ratings of 5 and then saying that they weren't interested, especially as we've just beaten one of the bigger teams in the division.

I agree with chelston. Think Warwick's marks were harsh and inaccurate from my perspective, but if that's how he saw it, what's he supposed to do - say the opposite to what he thinks? I'm sure everyone else is capable of reading all the reports and forming their own view of the consensus.

Wonder away! You speak on behalf of the site do you? Maybe all match reports should go through you prior to being posted - then you can judge their intrinsic value on behalf of the rest us. Can only speak for myself, but Warwick Gull's opinion is about as valuable as yours.........other than your last paragraph which is a pile of old pony. Maybe posters can also provide details of their own sporting ability and experience so that we can put their views into context.

I'll always find differing opinions of games I have been unable to get to of value - and have always found it interesting how different fans see games which I have witnessed. At times I have wondered if we were watching the same games, but none of us own the truth. There are some on this site who, in my opinion, take themselves far too seriously and seem to struggle to differentiate between FACT and OPINION.

Carlisle looked out of sorts, gave nothing going forward, kept losing the ball in the second half and his crossing was weak. Perhaps a place in the starting 11 has come a little early. 5

Stevens looked threatening but hes a winger and its all about end product. His end product was to either lose the ball or not get a cross of any substance into the box. 5

Benyon was just poor for me, maybe playing upfront on his tod limited the amount of chasing down he could do in the 2nd half, but compared to the amount of work Zeb got through he was a passenger. 5

I dont want to get away from the fact the we have come away with a great result from one of the fancied sides, but lets get real they were poor with no width or real pace, and after the first 30 minns when we were superb we seemed to get very sloppy and invite a poor side back into the game. We were lucky in the end not to conceed a 2nd goal.

On bbc Stoke after, Micky Adams praised us for being organised and thats what we were. He also slated his players and said if he could he would drop all 11 of them for the next game.

I have given praise where it was due throughout the team and also given poor ratings where i saw fit. If some want to convince themselves it was a great performance full of brilliant displays thats up to you. As i said i did the report in 5 minns flat when I got home, if some want to take those marks out of 10 and start tallying them up and dividing them etc to mock my opinion of the game thats pretty sad.

I'm having a bit of trouble reading/posting from my phone today but I did want to add another thing about Warwickgulls comments.

I thought his report was an accurate take on what I saw. Benyon , Carlisle & Stevens WERE average, that is not a criticism it's an observation. I also agree that Benyon did not do his usual chasing everything down. 

We can't expect ALL the players to be outstanding in EVERY game, although zebs has been. It was a good team performance, but some players were only average, whilst others were outstanding. We won because zebs ran them ragged for 25 mins & Bevan, Ellis & Branston were awesome for the last hour. We defended like our lives depended on it. Just because we won it doesn't automatically mean EVERYONE played out of their skin. Again an observation not a criticism. 

It was a fantastically enjoyable day, even though it was nervy for long periods. 

The fact that we won when some players were not at their best bodes well for the rest of the season. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying they were  bad, but if we can win away at a place like Port Vale when not everyone was on top of their game & still put in a really good team performance then I will take that every time. 

It's about the teams overall performance for me and yesterday that was good. Certainly good enough to deserve the 3 points. 

 

So why did MY honest view of Warwickgull's match report get YOU jumping up and down then Dave? I didn't use it to make derogatory remarks about his appearance for instance did I................is that the correct way to debate? Not that it bothers me mind you, I'm fast approaching 60, played football until I was 50 and cycled competitively up to my fortieth year. I've no real problem being a fat old bastard at my age so...............

Perhaps (and I stress, perhaps) people should refrain from marking players of whom they know little of their instructed role in a game, their state of fitness or their particular state of mind going into a game.

As someone said to me recently, half the feigned shock/horror to my posts come because of who it was posted them rather than what I posted. I never stated that anyone should not report their view of a game, I merely questioned their awareness of the full circumstances of setting out to achieve such a result in a highly competitive environment. Surely my doing so, falls into the category of holding a differing viewpoint; but unlike some people being able to hold that differing view without caving in to the fact that others feel differently and coming over all hurt or in need of having my hand held; I just get on with it.