BFTG Port Vale

Hound
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 24984
Joined: 27 Sep 2016 22:16
Location: Simpleton

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by Hound » 13 Aug 2023 13:39

CountryRoyal The one thing I will say, which sounds obvious but in the moment people forget is that only a few weeks ago most (on here) seemed to be magnanimous and accepting that we won’t be challenging for promotion and that a mid table finish would be fine. The problem with that is that on the way to a mid table finish you’re going to get some really ugly, shitty performances and results. The two go hand in hand. Despite what people say do our fans actually have the stomach for that? If we play well we will probably win more often than not then we’d be challenging.

It’s still such early days though and we didn’t really have a pre season.


Have no major issue with losing to PV in itself; it’s more that the experienced players were the poor ones

Think most fans would be ok with a team such as the millwall one busting a gut and losing due to naivety or individual mistakes.

It might be a turning point in the season where Selles realises he can’t play his preferred system with that set of players, either adapting himself to a different system or changing the players he is using. It might also give a kick up the backside to some of them who thought they were a level above and doing us a favour by hanging around

User avatar
tidus_mi2
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7319
Joined: 15 Jun 2012 15:24

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by tidus_mi2 » 13 Aug 2023 15:14

After leaving it a night to reflect, I can accept we're still in catchup mode and these results will happen. I suppose it was all the more frustrating after travelling all the way there to start brightly and then just fade horribly yet again. It was also really disappointing to see none of the youngsters involved in the demolition of Millwall retain their place.

User avatar
72 bus
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2148
Joined: 16 Mar 2005 11:01

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by 72 bus » 13 Aug 2023 15:22

tidus_mi2 After leaving it a night to reflect, I can accept we're still in catchup mode and these results will happen. I suppose it was all the more frustrating after travelling all the way there to start brightly and then just fade horribly yet again. It was also really disappointing to see none of the youngsters involved in the demolition of Millwall retain their place.



Apart from:

Knibbs
Azeez
Ehibhationhan
Guinness Walker
Savage

Subs used:
Carson
Wing
Camara
Vickers

User avatar
CountryRoyal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10697
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 13:44

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by CountryRoyal » 13 Aug 2023 15:46

72 bus
tidus_mi2 After leaving it a night to reflect, I can accept we're still in catchup mode and these results will happen. I suppose it was all the more frustrating after travelling all the way there to start brightly and then just fade horribly yet again. It was also really disappointing to see none of the youngsters involved in the demolition of Millwall retain their place.



Apart from:

Knibbs
Azeez
Ehibhationhan
Guinness Walker
Savage

Subs used:
Carson
Wing
Camara
Vickers


Do you know what “retained their place?” means? Because that only applies to Knibbs and Ehibatiomhan (not sure either truly count in this context as both started v posh too) so it was more playing the same players rather than rewarding them specifically for their work v Millwall.

And I wouldn’t really call NGW, Knibbs and to a lesser extent Azees, young players. Not sure why you included Wing there too, he’s almost 30 lol

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 39975
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by Snowflake Royal » 13 Aug 2023 15:50

CountryRoyal The one thing I will say, which sounds obvious but in the moment people forget is that only a few weeks ago most (on here) seemed to be magnanimous and accepting that we won’t be challenging for promotion and that a mid table finish would be fine. The problem with that is that on the way to a mid table finish you’re going to get some really ugly, shitty performances and results. The two go hand in hand. Despite what people say do our fans actually have the stomach for that? If we play well we will probably win more often than not then we’d be challenging.

It’s still such early days though and we didn’t really have a pre season.

It's a good point. Both second halves have been dreadful, but the Posh 1st half was genuinely exciting stuff and Vale was ok.

We've only lost 1-0 on both occasions. We were expecting a slow start and Selles obviously hasn't done enough homework on how the players perform in games.

Couple of results and confidence should increase and performances improve. Worrying how quick we tire and lose all ideas though.


User avatar
CountryRoyal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10697
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 13:44

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by CountryRoyal » 13 Aug 2023 15:54

Snowflake Royal Couple of results and confidence should increase and performances improve. Worrying how quick we tire and lose all ideas though.


That second half looked no different from all the other dross we’ve seen in years go by, only difference is the opposition was even worse than usual, and we still couldn’t lay a glove on them.

Clyde1998
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1781
Joined: 04 Mar 2010 16:27

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by Clyde1998 » 13 Aug 2023 16:10

So that was a downer, especially after the win at Millwall, but it certainly wasn't as apocalyptic as I've seen people suggest on Twitter or elsewhere.

Before the game, it was bizarre to see only two or three turnstiles open, compared to the eight(?) suggested on the match tickets. This led to long queues of people attempting to get into the ground; not helped with the delays due to traffic on the roads and strikes on public transport.

The match started positively: there was intensity, players were supporting each other, the away atmosphere was great. With the performance up until the penalty, we were completely dominant in our play (even without creating many actual chances). Scoring the penalty would've given us a deserved lead with our performance by that stage and probably would've changed the entire complexion of the day. The penalty itself was poor: not in the corner; good height for the keeper. The penalty should've been retaken, given there were around four Port Vale players encroaching and the keeper was clearly off his line when the kick was taken (albeit none of these things don't take away from the shot being poor).

After the penalty, it appeared our confidence had started to decline and Port Vale's had grown. The game evened out after the penalty, but we were still the better side throughout the rest of the first half. Port Vale's only sustained period of causing us problems came in first half stoppage time, albeit they did have a goal disallowed halfway through the first half (I'm guessing it was the player who won the header who was offside, as opposed to the player who put the ball in the net).

The second half was awful. Early on a couple of dangerous balls towards goal was dealt with by their keeper, but there was very little to trouble Port Vale following that.

When the first substitution was made, it really should've been Andy Carroll coming off. He was being wrestled consistently throughout the game (I feel this was poor refereeing to not punish this; the officiating was poor throughout the game), was ineffective as a result and with the increasing frustration was at risk of being sent off. I also feel Ehib linked up very well with Vickers at Millwall and would've been another test of this partnership and seems more suited to the style of play Selles seems to want to play than Carroll. That said, with Ehib starting both games this season, it's possible he didn't have enough in the tank to continue.

The goal we conceded was horrifically bad defending. The initial shot was not under any pressure and, following Wing's block, the ball fell to a Port Vale player who was left in five yards of space (in an onside position). He was closed down by three players: Holmes and Hutchinson, who were both back tracking, and McIntyre, who'd deserted the Port Vale player who ended up scoring. Once the ball fell to the scorer, Carson was dragged across to close him down (which left another Port Vale player unattended in the box) and the resulting shot deflected off of Carson into the goal. I don't know if Button could've done much better with it, given the trajectory of the ball.

For me, the goal was primarily caused by Holmes. McIntyre was forced to leave his position by this player being left in as much space as he was; Holmes was level with our central midfielders in the initial phase - not our defenders. The result was others being forced to react to Port Vale attackers being left in free space.

From here, we never looked like getting back into the game; the atmosphere turned deeply negative in the away end following the Port Vale goal, which I'm sure gave our players a boost. I'd say the players, especially those who were regulars last season, became scared of making any mistake. Of the chances, Button just about tipped the ball onto the bar from a Port Vale break - I'd say that was much more luck than judgement in the save. Dean hitting the bar was the only really moment we could've got a goal in the second half and that from with an over hit cross.

For me, it was only really the second half performance that was problematic. I can understand the frustration people have, especially in the context of the Millwall result and with Port Vale's result last week. However, both teams are League One sides: this is our level. We don't have a right to beat anyone in this division. We didn't play well enough over the whole game - it doesn't matter who we play, if we don't play well enough, we can't expect to get results. Port Vale are probably going to be mid-table, they're reflective of the sort of side we have to perform well against on a regular basis to have a serious chance of being at the top end of the league.

I'd want to see Camara start ahead of Azeez on Tuesday; Holmes dropped (Dean to start if fit enough); Carroll replaced by Vickers. We lacked the pace in attack from Tuesday - Camara and Vickers would help with that.

User avatar
CountryRoyal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10697
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 13:44

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by CountryRoyal » 13 Aug 2023 16:21

Clyde1998 Before the game, it was bizarre to see only two or three turnstiles open, compared to the eight(?) suggested on the match tickets. This led to long queues of people attempting to get into the ground; not helped with the delays due to traffic on the roads and strikes on public transport.


Also not helped by away tickets not getting to the turnstiles until like quarter to or so for collections.

Clyde1998
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1781
Joined: 04 Mar 2010 16:27

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by Clyde1998 » 13 Aug 2023 16:25

CountryRoyal
Clyde1998 Before the game, it was bizarre to see only two or three turnstiles open, compared to the eight(?) suggested on the match tickets. This led to long queues of people attempting to get into the ground; not helped with the delays due to traffic on the roads and strikes on public transport.


Also not helped by away tickets not getting to the turnstiles until like quarter to or so for collections.

I wondered what was happening with that - as there was an ever increasingly long line of people waiting for tickets by the time I got into the ground (perhaps 25 mins before kick-off). And that was a separate queue to the long one with those who had their tickets.


User avatar
Sutekh
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 18721
Joined: 12 Feb 2014 14:05
Location: Undiscovered pyramid somewhere in Egypt

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by Sutekh » 13 Aug 2023 16:26

Clyde1998 So that was a downer, especially after the win at Millwall, but it certainly wasn't as apocalyptic as I've seen people suggest on Twitter or elsewhere.

Before the game, it was bizarre to see only two or three turnstiles open, compared to the eight(?) suggested on the match tickets. This led to long queues of people attempting to get into the ground; not helped with the delays due to traffic on the roads and strikes on public transport.

The match started positively: there was intensity, players were supporting each other, the away atmosphere was great. With the performance up until the penalty, we were completely dominant in our play (even without creating many actual chances). Scoring the penalty would've given us a deserved lead with our performance by that stage and probably would've changed the entire complexion of the day. The penalty itself was poor: not in the corner; good height for the keeper. The penalty should've been retaken, given there were around four Port Vale players encroaching and the keeper was clearly off his line when the kick was taken (albeit none of these things don't take away from the shot being poor).

After the penalty, it appeared our confidence had started to decline and Port Vale's had grown. The game evened out after the penalty, but we were still the better side throughout the rest of the first half. Port Vale's only sustained period of causing us problems came in first half stoppage time, albeit they did have a goal disallowed halfway through the first half (I'm guessing it was the player who won the header who was offside, as opposed to the player who put the ball in the net).

The second half was awful. Early on a couple of dangerous balls towards goal was dealt with by their keeper, but there was very little to trouble Port Vale following that.

When the first substitution was made, it really should've been Andy Carroll coming off. He was being wrestled consistently throughout the game (I feel this was poor refereeing to not punish this; the officiating was poor throughout the game), was ineffective as a result and with the increasing frustration was at risk of being sent off. I also feel Ehib linked up very well with Vickers at Millwall and would've been another test of this partnership and seems more suited to the style of play Selles seems to want to play than Carroll. That said, with Ehib starting both games this season, it's possible he didn't have enough in the tank to continue.

The goal we conceded was horrifically bad defending. The initial shot was not under any pressure and, following Wing's block, the ball fell to a Port Vale player who was left in five yards of space (in an onside position). He was closed down by three players: Holmes and Hutchinson, who were both back tracking, and McIntyre, who'd deserted the Port Vale player who ended up scoring. Once the ball fell to the scorer, Carson was dragged across to close him down (which left another Port Vale player unattended in the box) and the resulting shot deflected off of Carson into the goal. I don't know if Button could've done much better with it, given the trajectory of the ball.

For me, the goal was primarily caused by Holmes. McIntyre was forced to leave his position by this player being left in as much space as he was; Holmes was level with our central midfielders in the initial phase - not our defenders. The result was others being forced to react to Port Vale attackers being left in free space.

From here, we never looked like getting back into the game; the atmosphere turned deeply negative in the away end following the Port Vale goal, which I'm sure gave our players a boost. I'd say the players, especially those who were regulars last season, became scared of making any mistake. Of the chances, Button just about tipped the ball onto the bar from a Port Vale break - I'd say that was much more luck than judgement in the save. Dean hitting the bar was the only really moment we could've got a goal in the second half and that from with an over hit cross.

For me, it was only really the second half performance that was problematic. I can understand the frustration people have, especially in the context of the Millwall result and with Port Vale's result last week. However, both teams are League One sides: this is our level. We don't have a right to beat anyone in this division. We didn't play well enough over the whole game - it doesn't matter who we play, if we don't play well enough, we can't expect to get results. Port Vale are probably going to be mid-table, they're reflective of the sort of side we have to perform well against on a regular basis to have a serious chance of being at the top end of the league.

I'd want to see Camara start ahead of Azeez on Tuesday; Holmes dropped (Dean to start if fit enough); Carroll replaced by Vickers. We lacked the pace in attack from Tuesday - Camara and Vickers would help with that.


Good write up, would agree with the changes needed. Personally I've never really rated Holmes, McIntyre has more about him but is still unconvincing when I've seen him play. Certainly think Camara (who should have been more of a regular last season) and Vickers are far more threatening at this level than an aging striker who, because of his reputation/career to date is going attract all the attention. Carroll should have been replaced instead of WiFi as that would have given the Vale defence more of an issue as they would have had to work out who was going to mark who and that period of adjustment/indecision might have made the difference.

The biggest issue remains however the fact that Reading seem to "run out of puff" in the second halves of games and there, so far, doesn't seem to be much of a change within the management to counter it.

Finally, for the record, Selles hasn't overseen a league win since 4th March which is now, like Reading, a run of 15 games.

Mid Sussex Royal
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3293
Joined: 02 Nov 2008 17:56

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by Mid Sussex Royal » 13 Aug 2023 16:33

The remaining senior players here, particularly at the back, appear drained of confidence and their careers, after early promise, have regressed.

Maybe they all believe what Ince told the press week after week about not being good enough.

karbota
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2759
Joined: 16 Mar 2019 16:36

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by karbota » 13 Aug 2023 16:39

Royal_jimmy
karbota
St Pauli Can something be knee jerk if we’ve gone 15 games without a win?

Surely it’s only knee jerk if we’ve won a few games recently?


But did either team take the knee?


Who cares?


You are dead right, very few now care about the BLM movement since being exposed as a corrupt racist, Marxist, organization.

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 39975
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by Snowflake Royal » 13 Aug 2023 18:47

CountryRoyal
Snowflake Royal Couple of results and confidence should increase and performances improve. Worrying how quick we tire and lose all ideas though.


That second half looked no different from all the other dross we’ve seen in years go by, only difference is the opposition was even worse than usual, and we still couldn’t lay a glove on them.

I thought the tedious passing round the back was different to last year at least. No better than hoofball under Ince though


The Green Programme
Member
Posts: 255
Joined: 27 Oct 2018 13:12

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by The Green Programme » 13 Aug 2023 19:01

Total sh@t result and a very poor performance.

The game is always about taking chances.

The missed penalty changed the game.

One of the things that I have always disliked intensely is the fickle love and hate displayed towards players.

We’ve not won in 15 games.

Our new manager has been im charge of two of them; both of which we lost by a single freak goal after missing enough chances to have been two goals up beforehand.

We really have to get a grip and if we are too half after 15 games; we will have a good opportunity to make the play offs.

Our youngsters have great promise.

We are missing our new striker.

And the financial position is not ideal.

We have had one great performance out of three.

Tuesday is a big game.

Win by three goals and we’ll have a plus goal difference- and the season starts.

McIntyre and Holmes are still young and Harley Dean will hopefully bring some stability.

User avatar
72 bus
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2148
Joined: 16 Mar 2005 11:01

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by 72 bus » 13 Aug 2023 21:08

The Green Programme Win by three goals and we’ll have a plus goal difference- and the season starts.

:D

McIntyre and Holmes are still young and Harley Dean will hopefully bring some stability.

Hound
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 24984
Joined: 27 Sep 2016 22:16
Location: Simpleton

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by Hound » 13 Aug 2023 21:10

Snowflake Royal
CountryRoyal
Snowflake Royal Couple of results and confidence should increase and performances improve. Worrying how quick we tire and lose all ideas though.


That second half looked no different from all the other dross we’ve seen in years go by, only difference is the opposition was even worse than usual, and we still couldn’t lay a glove on them.

I thought the tedious passing round the back was different to last year at least. No better than hoofball under Ince though


Don’t think there was actually a lot of pointless passing round the back - once or twice it was overdone but it was certainly no Stam ball

It was generally a couple of passes, play the full back who then punted an aimless long ball down the line to no one rather than 8 or 9 passes before the aimless hoof

Clyde1998
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1781
Joined: 04 Mar 2010 16:27

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by Clyde1998 » 13 Aug 2023 21:14

Hound
Snowflake Royal
CountryRoyal
That second half looked no different from all the other dross we’ve seen in years go by, only difference is the opposition was even worse than usual, and we still couldn’t lay a glove on them.

I thought the tedious passing round the back was different to last year at least. No better than hoofball under Ince though


Don’t think there was actually a lot of pointless passing round the back - once or twice it was overdone but it was certainly no Stam ball

It was generally a couple of passes, play the full back who then punted an aimless long ball down the line to no one rather than 8 or 9 passes before the aimless hoof

Agree with this; the passing around the back only really started when the midfield weren't making moves for the ball too.

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 39975
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by Snowflake Royal » 13 Aug 2023 21:22

Hound
Snowflake Royal
CountryRoyal
That second half looked no different from all the other dross we’ve seen in years go by, only difference is the opposition was even worse than usual, and we still couldn’t lay a glove on them.

I thought the tedious passing round the back was different to last year at least. No better than hoofball under Ince though


Don’t think there was actually a lot of pointless passing round the back - once or twice it was overdone but it was certainly no Stam ball

It was generally a couple of passes, play the full back who then punted an aimless long ball down the line to no one rather than 8 or 9 passes before the aimless hoof

The Toms had almost twice as many passes as any other Reading player. Each.

We were back to playing the game in our own half.

User avatar
blueroyals
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2153
Joined: 02 Sep 2010 02:11

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by blueroyals » 14 Aug 2023 00:25

We were shite for only 70 minutes which is an improvement vs 90 minutes in most matches last season

Royals and Racers
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4846
Joined: 05 Jan 2012 16:48

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by Royals and Racers » 14 Aug 2023 06:24

Anyone who travelled on the delayed 9.15am Cross Country train from Reading to Stoke can claim delay compensation. I had split tickets and was able to claim Banbury to Birmingham and Brum to Stoke as the train was over 30 mins late. I claimed around 8pm last evening and they agreed it within 5 hours !!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cornflake and 523 guests

It is currently 27 Apr 2024 23:50