Re: Port Vale match thread.
 

I miss a good old school 4-4-2. Wouldn’t even mind a 4-2-3-1. Not this 3-5-2 nonsense.

Re: Port Vale match thread.
 

Agree with you Josh but also a centre half who can read the game and isn't prone to rushing into a mistake.

Re: Port Vale match thread.
 

Agree Ross was poor today. However, would the same mistakes be made if he played as a CB in a 4. Probably not. O’Sullivan was shocking defensively. That’s the problem when wingers play as a wing back. They either are far too defensive (McConville) ,ignore defensive duties (O’Sullivan), or get caught too often in no mans land (Nolan)

Charles, Pritchard, Butcher, McConville all missing, Rodgers returning from injury, and it shows.

Re: Port Vale match thread.
 

Charles won't feature again, Pritchard out for another month then he has to get match fit, Butcher unsure how long he will be out, McConville has to be rested now and then age and injuries catching up with him, Rodgers oh how we have missed him in my opinion one of the better defenders personally although Savin and Trafford are excellent young keepers felt we needed an experienced keeper has cover. Think this season we need to concentrate on tightening up at the back and consolidate our league position, Hardy hopefully fit enough to compete for a starting spot now Colby is out because Coley mustn't fancy the others has starters hence why we keep absurdly starting with one upfront.

Re: Port Vale match thread.
 

Toby, Notts and Ross were great today - despite the scoreline!!

Jono and Nolan were passengers, Nolan because he was ignored mainly.....

Bringing on the strikers inplace of Tony and Pell was more than bizarre????

Should have been out of sight at half time - but not for the first time - we paid for the mistakes in front of goal......... :(

The balance of the team is wrong completely, we are still shoehorning players in for the sake of playing players.

Colby, Dion and Macca out, not looking good for Pilgrims and Owls....................

Thanks goodness we have Pell and Hamilton :)


:) :) :)

Re: Port Vale match thread.
 

Playing three at the back is ok if you have wing backs who are good at it, McConville by his own admission hates it last season it worked pretty well with Rodgers and Pritchard in the roles for me if either of those aren't available ditch the 3 at the back and go back to playing a straight back four.

Re: Port Vale match thread.
 

From Vale's forum:
'Don’t know where they’ve dug this ref up from. Makes Trevor Kettle look good.'

Re: Port Vale match thread.
 

We must have been bad a number of Stanley fans leaving before the end.

Re: Port Vale match thread.
 

Best team by far in the first 45, but poor in the second, plus everything conspired against us and subs/formation was baffling :confused:

1-0, or 5-1 and you are out of the cup, I just hope the 5-1 does not haunt us, as - and I know it seems stupid to say - Toby played well and pulled off some great saves......... :)

Plymouth and Wednesday are massive now :)

:) :) :)

Re: Port Vale match thread.
 

Cannot agree about Ross today Josh, he was one of our best players and a constant threat bombing forwards - all about opinions :)

You are correct completely about the players missing and the round pegs in triangular holes :)

All of that being said - and I am going out on a limb here - we are not Football Genii and have not got 4 promotions to our names :D ;)

:) :) :)

Re: Port Vale match thread.
 

[QUOTE=VALAIRIAN;1259113]Best team by far in the first 45, but poor in the second, plus everything conspired against us and subs/formation was baffling :confused:

1-0, or 5-1 and you are out of the cup, I just hope the 5-1 does not haunt us, as - and I know it seems stupid to say - Toby played well and pulled off some great saves......... :)

Plymouth and Wednesday are massive now :)

think this is not the first time with stanley that there has been games like that when everything to go wrong does. hope i,m correct by saying i doubt there will be another similar result throughout this season. could have been worse, beaten at home by sodding mansfield.

Re: Port Vale match thread.
 

Only seen the goals on the internet but it looked like Notts and Ross got done too easily for the first, the third Ross slipped but O Sullivan was making no effort at all to get back and cover him and Toby sould probably have done better with the fifth. You might as well go out of the cup 5-1 as 1-0 but there are some real problems there which I mentioned after I saw Stanley at MK but was told I didn't understand playing with wing backs. I have real fears for the season especially losing Colby for the next 3 games. Just hope I'm wrong and there is a backlash against Plymouth next week.

Re: Port Vale match thread.
 

I think that most of us think that we do not have the players to play the system Lost in Cornwall, whether that changes when Harvey and Joe are fit, we shall have to wait and see, but that could be next year.............

:) :) :)

Re: Port Vale match thread.
 

Does the Papa Don't Preach game against Fleetwood count for Colby???


:)

Re: Port Vale match thread.
 

When Chelsea or Man City face Liverpool (other Premier teams are available) in next years FA Cup final, who will even remember Stanley's humiliating round 1 FA Cup exit?
And so it should be! Cup romance belongs to the underdog - at least for rounds 1 to 3.
Once, we were the underdogs, now the boot is very much on the other foot and when ball no.1 came out the draw, I knew it would end in the Vale of Tears.
The only consolation is that at least we were away from home, for I doubt the result would have been much different at the Wham.
Port Vale possess the one quality which has eluded Stanley all season - consistency! With consistency comes confidence which brings sucess.
Any difference in league positions is irrelevant when momentum and lady luck are riding with you.
So good luck to Port Vale in their FA Cup journey, they have all the makings of cup giant-killers.
On current form we'll probably be playing them again in the league next season, assuming we survive another year in L1.
There's been much criticism of the abilities of individual players and dubious formations, but the luckiest man in football must be John Coleman.
After some of the recent results, he'd have been out of a job long ago at anywhere else but Stanley.
If he can maintain our current L1 status, he's guaranteed a job for life.
Lets hope yesterdays disappointment will motivate both him and the players to concentrate their efforts on the most important result - L1 survival.