|
2-2??
Apr 3, 2004 18:02:15 GMT 1
Post by tom_leather on Apr 3, 2004 18:02:15 GMT 1
What the hell happened?
|
|
|
2-2??
Apr 3, 2004 18:04:21 GMT 1
Post by Stue_P on Apr 3, 2004 18:04:21 GMT 1
Same old, Same old.
Last few minutes again. Another match thrown away.
|
|
|
2-2??
Apr 3, 2004 18:06:54 GMT 1
Post by tom_leather on Apr 3, 2004 18:06:54 GMT 1
Crap
|
|
|
2-2??
Apr 3, 2004 18:07:42 GMT 1
Post by Flixton_shrew on Apr 3, 2004 18:07:42 GMT 1
Exeter made an (inspired) substitution by bringing on Moxey for the last 5 mins - scored one and an assist. Meanwhile we off two strikers and bought two on. No defensive lads on the bench - unless we could have played with two keepers Jimmy Q twisting when he should have stuck......
|
|
MrTea
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 146
|
2-2??
Apr 3, 2004 19:47:53 GMT 1
Post by MrTea on Apr 3, 2004 19:47:53 GMT 1
Whilst today's result is dissapointing I'm not happy with people implying we always conceed goals late on. We used to have a massive problem with conceeding late goals, this season we have not. It has happened on a very small number of occasions. I repeat my thoughts from another thread that I don't really think it was anything to do with the subs we made. We had already switched off before they came on. Surely some of the blame lies with the players and not just the manager?!
|
|
|
2-2??
Apr 3, 2004 19:54:32 GMT 1
Post by rob on Apr 3, 2004 19:54:32 GMT 1
here,here Mr Tea.
The players were to blame for switching off.
|
|
|
2-2??
Apr 3, 2004 21:27:37 GMT 1
Post by jamo on Apr 3, 2004 21:27:37 GMT 1
i CAN'T BELIEVE MR TEA THAT VYOU CAN FAIL TO NOTICE THE TEAM VISIBLY WEAKENING FOLLOWING THE SUBSTITUTIONS
|
|
|
2-2??
Apr 3, 2004 23:11:58 GMT 1
Post by stockportershrew on Apr 3, 2004 23:11:58 GMT 1
Mr Tea - we've conceeded a few late ones. Besides the two today - FGR away, Chester away, Margate home. Goals in the last 15 at Scarboro, Woking, Leigh. & Burton away in the last 10 - should have scored but Darren Moss stopped with his hands
The bigger problem is the number of games we've taken the lead only to throw it away.
|
|
|
2-2??
Apr 3, 2004 23:26:24 GMT 1
Post by Red Blue and Amber on Apr 3, 2004 23:26:24 GMT 1
The subs were nothing to do with it we switched off AT THE BACK while Darby had a good game Jody wasnt too hot in my opinion
|
|
MrTea
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 146
|
2-2??
Apr 4, 2004 12:06:44 GMT 1
Post by MrTea on Apr 4, 2004 12:06:44 GMT 1
hi Jamo2 I understand your point but I think we had already stopped playing and the players had already decided that the result was in the bag, before the substitutions. When those two came on I felt it was reasonable, Exeter had done little to cause any real worries, however I will conceed that maybe the rest of our players became even more complacent because of the substitutions. Re the goals conceeded late on, thanks stockported shrew for putting those details up, I agree that throwing away leads is a bad trait. I know this doesn't really help given the way we threw away that win yesterday (and I'll probably get shouted at for saying it ) but I think that a draw and a win from the last two games is OK, it's what I hoped for, it's just that the order was the wrong way round!
|
|
|
2-2??
Apr 4, 2004 12:26:09 GMT 1
Post by MartinB on Apr 4, 2004 12:26:09 GMT 1
hi Jamo2 I understand your point but I think we had already stopped playing. Why had we stopped playing? Was it like Barnet and Forest Green when clearly instructions had gone out from the bench to stop going forward? I blame the person in charge (won't use the term manager as we don't have one). For players to stop it means one of three things, playing to instructions, unfit or no team spirit. All three should be sorted out by a MANAGER.
|
|
|
2-2??
Apr 4, 2004 12:50:23 GMT 1
Post by SeanBroseley on Apr 4, 2004 12:50:23 GMT 1
physical fitness levels impacting on metnal concentation towards the end of the game?
|
|
|
2-2??
Apr 4, 2004 13:58:40 GMT 1
Post by stockportershrew on Apr 4, 2004 13:58:40 GMT 1
have we got the mental strenght and desire? As Ant said in another post could you imagine STFC doing what Exeter did yesterday - playing poorly for 80 mins but still have the mental resolve to keep going - The answer is surely no. We rarely ever come back form a goal behind and we seem to lack the collective desire of the better teams in this division.
|
|
|
2-2??
Apr 4, 2004 20:56:20 GMT 1
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Apr 4, 2004 20:56:20 GMT 1
We knew exactly what to expect when Flack came on, he would cause problems in the air.
I would have taken Lawrence off and put Tolley on with instructions to sweep up in front of the back 4.
Also, I was suprised to hear JQ admit that Tinno was struggling with a groin injury and was having trouble jumping - if I had been in the dugout with that knowledge and them seen Flack coming on it would have rung some warning bells.
PS. Steve, why not register?
|
|
|
2-2??
Apr 4, 2004 21:49:36 GMT 1
Post by somersetshrew on Apr 4, 2004 21:49:36 GMT 1
I still maintain, having stood behind the wakeman goal, that Darby, had he still been on, may have won us the match in the last minutes. The ball fell near Cramb a few times. The Lazy sod stood and watched as it rolled away. Darby would have done something about it.
Cramb is a little too Jemsonesque for my liking.
|
|
|
2-2??
Apr 4, 2004 23:45:18 GMT 1
Post by SeanBroseley on Apr 4, 2004 23:45:18 GMT 1
Cramb is a little too Jemsonesque for my liking. and in some respects he's not Jemsonesque enough.
|
|
|
2-2??
Apr 5, 2004 0:02:36 GMT 1
Post by stockportershrew on Apr 5, 2004 0:02:36 GMT 1
can hardly blame Cramb for yesterday. He did ok but was forced to see balls being lumped aimlessly forward by the defence and midfield - step forward Messrs Lowe and Sedgemore.
Whatever Cramb or indeed Street will never please some people
ps Dave I have registered but keep forgetting the password & then have just become lazy!
|
|
|
2-2??
Apr 5, 2004 1:10:14 GMT 1
Post by somersetshrew on Apr 5, 2004 1:10:14 GMT 1
No. You're Wrong. He did not do ok. I was particularly watching him, and he did not do OK.
He was lazy. on and off the ball. He was not committing himself as he should. He did not move quickly. He was only on for ten or so minutes, and if that had been a trial, he would never have seen a blue and amber shirt ever again.
He had chances to do something, anything, on the rare occasions the ball actually fell to his feet, and he didn't. Im sure Duane would have.
He was slow. Slower than he should have been, being fresh off the bench etc.
But I still blame JQ for making the substitution. OK, DD was knackered, but a knackered DD is infinitely better than a lazy uncommitted Cramb.
|
|
|
2-2??
Apr 5, 2004 1:15:30 GMT 1
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 5, 2004 1:15:30 GMT 1
No. You're Wrong. He did not do ok. I was particularly watching him, and he did not do OK. He was lazy. on and off the ball. He was not committing himself as he should. He did not move quickly. He was only on for ten or so minutes, and if that had been a trial, he would never have seen a blue and amber shirt ever again. He had chances to do something, anything, on the rare occasions the ball actually fell to his feet, and he didn't. Im sure Duane would have. He was slow. Slower than he should have been, being fresh off the bench etc. But I still blame JQ for making the substitution. OK, DD was knackered, but a knackered DD is infinitely better than a lazy uncommitted Cramb. I'm not sure I quite understand which side of the fence you are sitting on here? are you saying Cramb is the messiah of STFC and should be played every game on the back of his macthwinning performance? or not...
|
|
|
2-2??
Apr 5, 2004 10:56:01 GMT 1
Post by stockportershrew on Apr 5, 2004 10:56:01 GMT 1
well we'll have to disagree then. He won more headers than DD all game (& before I get slated DD had a very good game and on current form is clearly ahead of Cramb). In defence of Cramby though, its often difficult to pick up the tempo of game coming on with 10mins left especially when the ball is often being lumped forward. I think its ludicrous to blame Cramb for the result. Just another example of one-eyed thinking. Cramb and street have become the scapegoats for every thing that goes wrong. Cramb is a very frustrating player but I think sometimes his style and body language make him look lazier than he actually is. (hope that makes sense )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
2-2??
Apr 5, 2004 11:39:19 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2004 11:39:19 GMT 1
Cramb's a lazy git but he wasn't to blame on Saturday.
|
|
GM
Shropshire County League
Posts: 61
|
2-2??
Apr 5, 2004 12:45:19 GMT 1
Post by GM on Apr 5, 2004 12:45:19 GMT 1
Saturday
for 80 mins we looked comfortable Exeters subs gave them a lift and chucked everything at us when the 1st went in- they looked a better team with Flack upfront. why was he not on at the start?
At 2-0 with 8 mins left you expect to win 9 times out of 10. hang on this is the Town 2 out of 10!
You just have to defend nice and tight and get 11 players behind the ball.
Our subs barely had time to settle in and were probably running down the clock which backfired- in hindsight Darby should have stayed on he caused them plenty of problems. We almost nicked a third aswell apart from a deflection.
Conclusion : thank goodness we didn't concede a third!
The team has to take responsibility for this - you can hardly blame JQ for the last 5 mins up to that point we looked preety solid
|
|
|
2-2??
Apr 5, 2004 12:57:26 GMT 1
Post by pawlo on Apr 5, 2004 12:57:26 GMT 1
Saturda in hindsight Darby should have stayed on he caused them plenty of problems. - you can hardly blame JQ for the last 5 mins up to that point we looked pretty solid Quinn was to blame. Five mins to go, 2 goals up, what do you want up front, someone who can battle, hold the ball and keep possession in thier half, or a squealing nancy who tippy toes around and surrenders the ball easier than a lame hedgehog. Tinson was injured, why not sub him, the mid field had started to just hoof the ball up, why not sub one of them.
|
|