Re: Port Vale Thread
 

[quote=VALAIRIAN;864863]We were very unlucky tonight, Vale won the first half, but we dominated the second totally and should have come away with a victory!!! Very unlucky at the death, with a clearance off the line.....:(quote]

Not unlucky, it was a bad miss and Boulding should have slammed it into the roof of the net! If it was Boulding?

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

Thats whats missing fer me, as i said earlier, too lightweight upfront. i thought tonight a neutral would not know which side was league leaders, statistically stanley had twice the corners the league leaders had. says on skysports Santa Cruz is lookin to go out on loan.:D

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

Strange game first half outplayed, outclassed then don't know if Vale took the peddle off the gas but the Reds looked more up for a fight second half and created some half chances but struggled to find a defining cutting edge with passing going astray and some shots fluffed.

Great noise from the Ultras

Ah well back to the bread & butter of the League

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

Here's some reaction for you ASFC News Story > 3732

Unhappiest Coley I've seen for many a year!

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

any positive that can be took, fer me was the introduction of "2 Early Subs" that seemed to give em impetus in the second half, n fer me stanley were better side second 45 mins, end product wasn't yon agree, but they outplayed the leaders that half.

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

cashy we ain't got a goalscorer symesy and granty heve'nt been replaced and thats not coley's fault ..................bring on craney with goals from 30 yards (i hope!)

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

:hidewall:[
Unhappiest Coley I've seen for many a year![/quote]

Coley picked the starting 11.

I feel he should have started 4 4 2 as they certainly finished better than they started. Boulding looked livelier than Gornell tonight and Parkinson and Jacobsen didnt impress.

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

Have to say that was a poor performance tonight. Lots of possession that went nowhere. Port Vale strolled it after taking the lead. Don't even think they got out of first gear really. They look a class oufit to me and will be worthy promotion candidates.
Bad bits - Bavs distribution was awful, Edwards crossing.... if he's gonna be right back for a while he needs to do more than give their keeper 'catchies'. Midfield - possession's great but make some telling passes eventually, most of the night we ran out of ideas and ended up going backwards. Up front we've got no threat, Gornell works so hard on his own he's knackered after an hour.
Good bits - Long continues to improve, Jacobson made decent debut apart from that lousy volley, Barnett had good game but got little help and as stated Gornell for his work rate but again he needs support (Craney perhaps ?)
Good luck to Vale. They play good footie, have strong, quality players, play fair (unlike Rotherham) and are a good bench mark for the rest of L2

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

First half it looked like that couldnt be bothered at all! Second half with the subs on we gave a better performance.

Our season so far sums up this quote from a vale fan

" Accrington played beautiful football, but lacked an end product".

We need more effort from players and someone better and pacey to play with gornell as hes just a superb talent thats wasted.

I dont think fans will be rushing back to watch the reds away.

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

A target man in the Mullin mould would suit Tel Gornell's game superbly...he just needs somebody to do the donkey work.

Most of the best strike partnerships feature the big man/little man combo.

Gornells our Lutel.....we just need somebody to play the Mullers role.

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

I don't see it like that Alvin. Lutel had pace and mobility, which Gornell patently lacks. He is himself more in the Mullin mould, good at holding the ball up, occupying the centre half, and pretty good in the box. I thought we did pretty well last night but they had all left their shooting boots at home. More calmness in front of goal required!

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

Probably the coldest game ive ever been, fair play to Vale for getting the game on.

Well agree with some of the comments above, thought we dominated large parts of the game without an end product.

Barnett had his best game in a stanley shirt for me, he was all over the pitch.

Decent debut for Jacobsen, could bring good balance on the left hand side.

Agree with the Gornell comments, he needs somebody to help him up top. Which seems it a strange decision to let Lindfield out on loan, maybe he needs to get match fit??? Thought Boulding made a decent impact when introduced.

Gutted to be out of all the cups in November, least we can concentrate on League 2 I suppose :(

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

think a run of 4-4-2 is a must Gornell cant do it alone simple as.

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

I am i missing something here or what?
Were playing top of the league away,they have there strongest team out,have the best defensive record in all the leagues,and two of the leagues top goal scores!!!
In the first half we gave them too much respect,but in the second gave them a football lesson without any end product.
Dont forget Acci were missing there best player,there top scorer and had a lad making his debut.
To have a go at them is harsh and i thought they worked hard when not in posession on a tricky surface that started to freeze.
Positives from the game,Barnett was class (he is an attacking midfielder not a defensive one,and it showed),Long and Hessey did really well against,two class forwards and Bouldings movement and touch looked good when he came on.
Also we started the game with a new formation (4-4-2) with jacobson and parkinson giving us width,and it took at least 30 minutes to settle into this.
How many saves did our keeper have to make?,not many,I bet the match stats confirm there was nothing to choose between the teams, and to the person who said they never got out of first gear,ACCI NEVER LET THEM

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

Plenty like this on the Vale forum:-

"I too think that Stanley - and their hardy bunch of wonderful fans - are a decent outfit. They keep the ball very well and only lack a good striker or two to be in the top seven.
They lost Grant and Symes in the summer. But for that they would be flying high I think.
All credit to them. On limited resources Coleman has performed a miracle. They are not a kick and rush outfit or a big ugly shut up shop side. They try to maintain possession and wait for an opening. And, as has been stated already, the incident where their manager gave us the ball back after a wrong call was amazing. In 47 years of watching football I have never seen that before."

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

So who's havin' a go ? I felt Stanley played poorly compared to their best displays this season. Vale, as you say, are top of the league and it showed. They had class all through their team. How many times did Roberts and Taylor in midfield give the ball away ? Not many because their passing was top notch

f19 - 'How many saves did our keeper have to make?'

How many saves did Vale's keeper make ?

Yes, the second half performance was better but I stand by my original thoughts that we didn't really cause Vale too many problems at the back so they didn't really have to step up a gear

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

I had forgotten about that RR :) I thought it was a real gesture and as that chap says, you do not see it too often!!!

:) :) :) :) :) :) :)

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

Which makes that little spot of sour grapes from bitter Bradford fans a few days ago look even more ridiculous! :rolleyes:

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

Expect nowt less from Tykes wyn.:rolleyes:

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

What happened to that post from the Bradford fan? I need something to laugh at...

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

Bantams only use fowl language ;)

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

Reamer,all i was doing was giving my opinion on your post " it was a poor performance tonight" and "they played good footy", If we dont have many shots and they dont either(check the match stats,acci nearly double theres),why were we poor and them good?
I accept a couple of players may have not have performed to there normal levels,but to say it was poor was a bit harsh as i couldnt see anybody not trying,even if on the night it wasnt coming off for them

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

All you can do is give your opinion, football19, and yours differs from mine. This forum is full of opinions on all sorts of topics but to say someone's 'having a go' just because they have a different opinion to you is out of order. I had an opinion and I gave my reasons, now if I were to call someone I was chatting to 'a plonker' without justification, I would consider that 'having a go'
Anyway you've neglected to mention that I also gave some positives in my original post, which is more ,apparently, than JC could do in his post match reflections
By the way, I didn't consult the match stats before forming my impression of the game. My opinion was based on what I saw

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

Ooops that was a costly defeat, you lost out on your cup final ;)

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

So have you :D :rolleyes:

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

Do you already know who we would have got in the fourth round? :rolleyes:

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

Wouldn't have happened Dave Stanley's number would have been 1 and would be at home to dirty Leeds:D

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

Crewe away :)

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

Not this round, numbers were done last week. Port vale or Accrington were always number 60

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

Reamer,you did make some fair points,but what i said was you was "a bit harsh",not out of order,on this occasion we will agree to disagree !!!!,
I also thought JCs comments were harsh,but he will have his reasons( probably hates losing!),at least we agreed Barnett had a top game,so we had something in common !

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

I guess the FA published them on Tuesday, thats the day they were on Clarets Mad board

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

Sorry Dave didn't know that, so Stanley have missed the chance of visiting Anfield in round 4:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes :

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

Re: Port Vale Thread
 

In a strange sort of way it might not be a bad thing. Lack of cup money might actually be better in the long run if it brings things to a head sooner :rolleyes: