|
|
Post by scottbrehaut1 on Oct 10, 2010 11:56:59 GMT
It's not a problem Merse - I didn't take any offence in your question, and was happy to offer up my explanation.
I appreciate that my opinion is only based on what I heard and didn't see (as was yours), and it turns out, having read the match reports from people there, that actually Buckle hadn't messed up. I am happy to state that my posts were borne out of frustration based on what I heard yesterday and that I am very glad to be proved wrong.
|
|
Rags
TFF member
Posts: 1,210
|
Post by Rags on Oct 10, 2010 12:17:37 GMT
I`m a bit confused here, you give a poor 7 to Nicko and a played well throughout a great goal 8 to O`kane and Benners gets a 7 with the comments good game, held the ball well and passed nicely! So 7 is poor and also good game, any chance you could clarify exactly who did what instead of just muddying the waters with numbers that just pop up in your head! Don`t get me wrong I am greatful of your efforts posting a match report but it would be good if it made sense! I`ll give you a very poor 9 out of ten for this, if you get what I mean! Blimey, Aussie - the last time marking discrepancies was raised as a topic, all hell broke loose on here. I'm not getting involved this time... |
|
|
|
Post by tqyfan1 on Oct 10, 2010 12:25:21 GMT
nicholson not had moments of class and poor 7 mansell, didnt tackle enough and looked out of positon alot 6 okane played well througout a great goal 8 stevens shcoking again, wimps out of tackles alot, when all the ball poor aswell 4 kee not a bad game, needed the ball a bit more 6 benyon good game, held the ball well and passed nicely 7 zebroski, made some good runs but didnt tackle enough 6 I`m a bit confused here, you give a poor 7 to Nicko and a played well throughout a great goal 8 to O`kane and Benners gets a 7 with the comments good game, held the ball well and passed nicely! So 7 is poor and also good game, any chance you could clarify exactly who did what instead of just muddying the waters with numbers that just pop up in your head! Don`t get me wrong I am greatful of your efforts posting a match report but it would be good if it made sense! I`ll give you a very poor 9 out of ten for this, if you get what I mean! what i siad was nicholson ahad moments of class, but was poor at times, so he played well and put in good balls etc, but some times he was just poor at defending which marked his score down. so he was good at times but also poor at times |
|
merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Oct 10, 2010 12:27:34 GMT
Chris can you use a flash for your pickies mate........................  What are you trying to do, get the poor guy slung out for getting caught doing what he really shouldn't be doing? I can just see the headlines: "Hayes Ejected After Flashing!"   |
|
|
|
Post by chrish on Oct 10, 2010 12:31:15 GMT
I`m a bit confused here, you give a poor 7 to Nicko and a played well throughout a great goal 8 to O`kane and Benners gets a 7 with the comments good game, held the ball well and passed nicely! So 7 is poor and also good game, any chance you could clarify exactly who did what instead of just muddying the waters with numbers that just pop up in your head! Don`t get me wrong I am greatful of your efforts posting a match report but it would be good if it made sense! I`ll give you a very poor 9 out of ten for this, if you get what I mean! Blimey, Aussie - the last time marking discrepancies was raised as a topic, all hell broke loose on here. I'm not getting involved this time... It just goes to show what a complete load of bollocks match ratings are, although they are essential in Champ Man  Jimgulls aren't bad but by denying us the use of 6 and 8 he's managed to shoot himself in the foot by awarding 9s to Mansell and O'Kane. But he's spot on with Ellis and Benyon's ratings though!  I'd give Benyon the MOTM award for all his tireless work and getting on the end of so many 40 yard balls hit into the channels plus the quick thinking from the free kick. |
|
|
|
Post by chrish on Oct 10, 2010 12:53:28 GMT
Chris can you use a flash for your pickies mate........................ What are you trying to do, get the poor guy slung out for getting caught doing what he really shouldn't be doing? I can just see the headlines: "Hayes Ejected After Flashing!" Well they say there's a story behind every picture. I had to shoot them yesterday in a very sneaky fashion as I got a talking to from the Chief Steward who warned me of copyright laws and such like. To be honest it was such a contradictory pep talk that I didn't really know if I could take pictures or not. I think yes as long as I didn't , in his words, "take the pi$$". It's seems to be such a minefield whether you can take pictures or not at League 2 grounds. Some grounds don't even bat an eyelid, some say that you can't take photos during the game and others, like yesterday, confuse the hell out of by accusing you of breaking copyright laws before you even take a photo. It's hardly as though I sell these photos for money and I can't compete with official photographers with equipment costing near to £15,000, although I must say that the bloke from Pinnacle seems to have "all the gear and no idea". So yesterday I had to take them discretely and using the live view screen in full on stalker mode and I probably ballsed up the shutter speed a little bit as the fecking sun was blinding me. I hardly ever use the flash though..... |
|
|
|
Post by chrish on Oct 10, 2010 13:05:36 GMT
Chris can you use a flash for your pickies mate, can`t make out a lot of what`s there due to how dark the photos are, if that was a cricket match it would have been stopped for bad light! I've lightened them a bit for you... |
|
merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Oct 10, 2010 13:39:39 GMT
What was the opinion of the playing surface of those who were there yesterday? I know with the type of football the team are playing now, the manager is demanding the highest of standards of our own Plainmoor pitch and even he wasn't too impressed with something that went on in the Macclesfield game recently regards that. He was highly critical of Crewe's surface yesterday and Dave Thomas alluded to it in his summarising ~ strange that a club like Crewe should choose to "doctor" their paying surface to make the passing game harder to execute and even cause the opposition to change their approach on arriving at the ground yesterday and decide to alter their game plan. What are your views guys?
|
|
|
|
Post by alunmeerkat on Oct 10, 2010 13:53:05 GMT
Looked like the result of the season when O'Kane put the third one in - couldn't get the the commentary driving home from a local match and by the time I put the tele on sky sports were showing two quick goals for Crewe. A point looked good before the game but 2-0 and 3-1 up with 20 minutes to go looked for all the world as though we blew it.
Its now seven games without a win - all these "magnificent" peformances don't mean very much unless we can start getting some wins on the board.
Think we look a bit open with O'Kane in midfield and Stevens out wide so not really suprised we conceded three in the end - not sure what has happened to Wroe though.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmgull on Oct 10, 2010 14:18:06 GMT
I don't think that Crewe would doctor the pitch on purpose, after all they are reputed to be a passing team too. Perhaps it's either a sign of financial cut backs on the cost of their ground maintenance, as they've plumetted down the leagues somewhat in recent years.......or even the fact that their towering main stand is depriving the pitch of enough sunlight?
The big physical side that we had in our conference days could handle the heavy, poorer pitches easily, I was in doubt whether the current quicker, passing team would cope well come the winter........so it was heartening to hear that we seemed to take it in our stride.
|
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Oct 10, 2010 14:19:29 GMT
What was the opinion of the playing surface of those who were there yesterday? I know with the type of football the team are playing now, the manager is demanding the highest of standards of our own Plainmoor pitch and even he wasn't too impressed with something that went on in the Macclesfield game recently regards that. He was highly critical of Crewe's surface yesterday and Dave Thomas alluded to it in his summarising ~ strange that a club like Crewe should choose to "doctor" their paying surface to make the passing game harder to execute and even cause the opposition to change their approach on arriving at the ground yesterday and decide to alter their game plan. What are your views guys? No idea, as I wasn't there, but I think tufc01 reported that the pitch looked on the heavy-side and the grass a bit long. I have to say I'm a little surprised about PB complaining about pitches in early October - who's he think he is, Arsene Wenger? Of course clubs should ensure they invest in their playing surfaces, but what's the manager going to say after the rains, frosts and snows of November-March test even the most resourceful and dedicated of groundsmen? |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Oct 11, 2010 6:02:02 GMT
Or maybe their groundstaff aren`t as good!  |
|
|
|
Post by loyalgull on Oct 11, 2010 18:19:30 GMT
a few words regarding guy branston,took my wheelchair bound mate to the crewe game,before the match guy was training then suddenly ran up into our stand and shook our hands and thanked us for going a long way for the game.It didnt end there,i had trouble getting my mate in the car after the game,who was there to help get him in? none other than mr branston,what a top bloke he is
|
|
tufc01
TFF member
Posts: 1,179
|
Post by tufc01 on Oct 11, 2010 20:49:46 GMT
What was the opinion of the playing surface of those who were there yesterday? I know with the type of football the team are playing now, the manager is demanding the highest of standards of our own Plainmoor pitch and even he wasn't too impressed with something that went on in the Macclesfield game recently regards that. He was highly critical of Crewe's surface yesterday and Dave Thomas alluded to it in his summarising ~ strange that a club like Crewe should choose to "doctor" their paying surface to make the passing game harder to execute and even cause the opposition to change their approach on arriving at the ground yesterday and decide to alter their game plan. What are your views guys? No idea, as I wasn't there, but I think tufc01 reported that the pitch looked on the heavy-side and the grass a bit long. I have to say I'm a little surprised about PB complaining about pitches in early October - who's he think he is, Arsene Wenger? Of course clubs should ensure they invest in their playing surfaces, but what's the manager going to say after the rains, frosts and snows of November-March test even the most resourceful and dedicated of groundsmen? The pitch looks quite heavy & the grass looks a little on the long side & looking at the warm up games, a bit bobbly, which might not suit the passing game. Yes I thought the grass was way too long. Much longer than any of the pitches I have seen this season. It was clear to see during the warm up that the surface was a bit bobbly and that it might make the passing game a bit more difficult. It did resemble the length you normally see on a park pitch. It didn’t look like it had been cut for a while, which I did think at the time was possibly intentional on their part, but who knows. However, I’m not sure it did make too much difference in the end. |
|
tufc01
TFF member
Posts: 1,179
|
Post by tufc01 on Oct 11, 2010 21:11:13 GMT
Blimey, Aussie - the last time marking discrepancies was raised as a topic, all hell broke loose on here. I'm not getting involved this time... It just goes to show what a complete load of bollocks match ratings are, although they are essential in Champ Man Jimgulls aren't bad but by denying us the use of 6 and 8 he's managed to shoot himself in the foot by awarding 9s to Mansell and O'Kane. But he's spot on with Ellis and Benyon's ratings though! I'd give Benyon the MOTM award for all his tireless work and getting on the end of so many 40 yard balls hit into the channels plus the quick thinking from the free kick. I agree that Benyon worked tirelessly and did exceptionally well to get on the end of some pretty aimless balls, particularly from Bevan’s kicks. He was also fantastically quick thinking for our third goal. I also thought he got to balls that he had no right to get to first, he also did pretty well holding off the defender to start with and I appreciate that sometimes players were slow to link up with him, however surely you can’t deny that he did go to ground an awful lot of times. At one point I felt he may have even had the wrong length of stud in. The trouble is that when he goes to ground, either by not being strong enough or slipping, we lose possession each time. It does appear to be a weakness of his as this is not the only game in which this has happened. Also, I’m not sure he contributed more than Mark Ellis to warrant him being MoM. |
|
I'd give Benyon the MOTM award for all his tireless work and getting on the end of so many 40 yard balls hit into the channels plus the quick thinking from the free kick.
