BFTG Port Vale

Hound
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 25006
Joined: 27 Sep 2016 22:16
Location: Simpleton

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by Hound » 14 Aug 2023 08:34

Snowflake Royal
Hound
Snowflake Royal 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.


Don’t think that’s especially out of the ordinary looking at other games. Button didn’t get that many touches for example. Was lots of insipid passing between the pair of them but no change there

User avatar
stealthpapes
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7560
Joined: 05 Jun 2013 13:25
Location: proverbs 26:11

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by stealthpapes » 14 Aug 2023 10:17

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.


I'd agree with much of this. Mentioned the Button fumbles elsewhere, not great.

The other RFC thing I noticed - and it is not a complaint of the player at all - that Savage went from being everywhere and wanting the ball to essentially a passenger in a very small space of time before his substitution. Lad looked goosed. We need to be careful with over-using some of the youngsters. That was also when Port Vale put the pressure on and we looked increasingly clueless.

Final game notes, it was about a 9km walk from Stoke station to Vale Park, along the canal. That wasn't awful. Burslem town centre was hardly a rhythm and tempo place. Some big old buildings that had seen better days. PieEater has already mentioned the Home Fans only signs :x . Bus back chatting to a couple of fans from both sides, then missed the 1800ish train to find no trains from there to 1925. At least the station pub was a solid one (Titanic Brewery).

This 'iconic' pub sadly closed:

User avatar
RG30
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5959
Joined: 26 Jul 2005 20:42

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by RG30 » 14 Aug 2023 11:07

That train had been cancelled from first thing Saturday morning, surprised you didn't bother checking. By contrast the 18:03 was rammed.

User avatar
stealthpapes
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7560
Joined: 05 Jun 2013 13:25
Location: proverbs 26:11

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by stealthpapes » 14 Aug 2023 11:56

RG30 That train had been cancelled from first thing Saturday morning, surprised you didn't bother checking. By contrast the 18:03 was rammed.


Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't really all that bothered. Away days are more about a nice wander, a bit of food, a good pint etc.

Royals and Racers
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4953
Joined: 05 Jan 2012 16:48

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by Royals and Racers » 14 Aug 2023 11:59

RG30 That train had been cancelled from first thing Saturday morning, surprised you didn't bother checking. By contrast the 18:03 was rammed.

4 coaches just ain’t enough :)


User avatar
Whore Jackie
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2546
Joined: 09 Feb 2006 13:48
Location: Over 'ere

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by Whore Jackie » 14 Aug 2023 13:06

PieEater Decent prematch in the Queens Head, the Titanic Steerage was lovely. I'm quite bemused by the other pubs being home fans only and largely empty, whereas that Queens Head was packed and they were racking it in.

The game was entirely forgettable, we looked the better team and Vale looked poor, but we didn't create anything of note the first half except NGW winning the pen. If that goes in I think we win comfortably, after that it was inevitable we'd lose, and to be fair to Vale they had a couple more chances while we offered absolutely nothing.

We need a bit of luck and a win on Tuesday.


Queens Head or Bull's Head? Bull's Head was in the little square with 6 or 7 Titanic beers on, with a BBQ burger operation in the garden. I too had a couple of Steerage, great pint.

Agree with the match summary. Actually thought McIntyre had a decent game. The rest of the defence were woeful and not convinced by Button at all. Fumbles galore and not at all commanding in the area. Hopefully it was just rustiness.

Stranded
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 19786
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 12:42
Location: Propping up the bar in the Nags

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by Stranded » 14 Aug 2023 13:10

stealthpapes
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.


I'd agree with much of this. Mentioned the Button fumbles elsewhere, not great.

The other RFC thing I noticed - and it is not a complaint of the player at all - that Savage went from being everywhere and wanting the ball to essentially a passenger in a very small space of time before his substitution. Lad looked goosed. We need to be careful with over-using some of the youngsters. That was also when Port Vale put the pressure on and we looked increasingly clueless.

Final game notes, it was about a 9km walk from Stoke station to Vale Park, along the canal. That wasn't awful. Burslem town centre was hardly a rhythm and tempo place. Some big old buildings that had seen better days. PieEater has already mentioned the Home Fans only signs :x . Bus back chatting to a couple of fans from both sides, then missed the 1800ish train to find no trains from there to 1925. At least the station pub was a solid one (Titanic Brewery).

This 'iconic' pub sadly closed:


Bod is the one at the station? Nice little pub if a bit strange that it is split in two as half of it is on the platform and the other on the street.

User avatar
PieEater
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 6462
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 15:42
Location: Comfortably numb

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by PieEater » 14 Aug 2023 13:14

Whore Jackie
PieEater Decent prematch in the Queens Head, the Titanic Steerage was lovely. I'm quite bemused by the other pubs being home fans only and largely empty, whereas that Queens Head was packed and they were racking it in.

The game was entirely forgettable, we looked the better team and Vale looked poor, but we didn't create anything of note the first half except NGW winning the pen. If that goes in I think we win comfortably, after that it was inevitable we'd lose, and to be fair to Vale they had a couple more chances while we offered absolutely nothing.

We need a bit of luck and a win on Tuesday.


Queens Head or Bull's Head? Bull's Head was in the little square with 6 or 7 Titanic beers on, with a BBQ burger operation in the garden. I too had a couple of Steerage, great pint.

Agree with the match summary. Actually thought McIntyre had a decent game. The rest of the defence were woeful and not convinced by Button at all. Fumbles galore and not at all commanding in the area. Hopefully it was just rustiness.



Yes you're right it was the Bull's Head. Somewhat bemused by the garden BBQ operation offering card payments but WiFi not working there, you'd think they'd have done this before.

I noticed this incredible building on the way up to the pub - the Wedgewood Institute.


User avatar
RoyalBlue
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 11692
Joined: 13 Apr 2004 22:39
Location: Developed a pathological hatred of snakes on 14/10/19

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by RoyalBlue » 14 Aug 2023 13:58

stealthpapes I'd agree with much of this. Mentioned the Button fumbles elsewhere, not great.

The other RFC thing I noticed - and it is not a complaint of the player at all - that Savage went from being everywhere and wanting the ball to essentially a passenger in a very small space of time before his substitution. Lad looked goosed. We need to be careful with over-using some of the youngsters.


The two footballing dinosaurs (Gooding and Dellor) were rubbishing that very concept after the game. It was good to hear Ady disagree and point out to Mick that, like it or not, the modern game is very different from when he and Ady were playing.


User avatar
stealthpapes
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7560
Joined: 05 Jun 2013 13:25
Location: proverbs 26:11

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by stealthpapes » 14 Aug 2023 15:13

Whore Jackie
Queens Head or Bull's Head? Bull's Head was in the little square with 6 or 7 Titanic beers on, with a BBQ burger operation in the garden. I too had a couple of Steerage, great pint.

Agree with the match summary. Actually thought McIntyre had a decent game. The rest of the defence were woeful and not convinced by Button at all. Fumbles galore and not at all commanding in the area. Hopefully it was just rustiness.


Bull's Head is the Titanic Brewery home pub, was my destination of choice but with the England match, BBQ, running slightly late and no Green ( :? ), I gave it a swerve. Also wanted to pop into Johny's Micro Pub, but they'd binned off the outdoor seating :x .



Stranded Bod is the one at the station? Nice little pub if a bit strange that it is split in two as half of it is on the platform and the other on the street.


Aye. Thought staff were great, good range of beers and the ... strandedness? ... flew by.

South Coast Royal
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5936
Joined: 16 Jan 2020 17:29

Re: BFTG Port Vale

by South Coast Royal » 14 Aug 2023 15:44

As usual after a defeat, especially against a team tonked 7-0 the previous Saturday, everybody feels low and some criticism is OTT.
Just as I think we were not totally terrible I didn't agree that last week we showed the promise that some posters saw as being positive for the season ahead despite a home defeat.

What would concern me more would be if we don't beat Cheltenham and don't at least get a draw v Stevenage-if that were the case then any thoughts of making any sort of challenge this season would surely be out of the window before the end of August.

Much as the Millwall result was unexpected but brilliant it must have surprised and confused Selles because he probably expected his regular first eleven to look more like that put out v both Peterborough and Port Vale.
Now he has a real quandary because that eleven does not look good enough.

Will he press on with the 6 further signings who he presumably sees as first team starters or does he forget all that and hope that Millwall wasn't just a flash in the pan and most of that side becomes the first team.?

Selection tomorrow night will be interesting and if there are no changes we might feel that the change of manager has been pointless as little has changed in League games from last season bar a bit of extra pressing for the first part of the first game.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 396 guests

It is currently 23 May 2024 21:59