|
|
Post by kruger on Aug 31, 2024 20:12:44 GMT
Agree about Cambridge, definately not a dire team from what I saw today. They came to attack and not do the likes of a Shrewsbury. Our press on them was absolutely superb, in my opinion the best performance from a Rovers team for quite sometime. I thought Cambridge were awful. Occasionally there’s a league 1 side that’s not a big club that tries to play out like a world class team would and it’s awful to watch and embarrassing and always ends up with the manager getting the sack or relegation or both. Clubs that spring to mind are.. Rovers under Garner Rovers under Barton ( league 1) Swindon the last couple of times they’ve been league 1 MK dons whenever they’re in league 1 To play like that at this level and make it work you’d need the best squad in the division and even if you had that you’d be better off mixing it up as we see every season the teams that are successful don’t play tippy tappy slow possession football it simply doesn’t work at this level. one of their fans says they were better than us, I kid you not |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Aug 31, 2024 20:24:07 GMT
Need to get some perspective on that today. Cambridge were dire. And I mean dire. They tried to play yeah but they had no physicality, no pace, no ball winners. There was time and space in almost every department and they showed no real fight or desire. MT said that he wanted us to have a little more ability to retain possession in order to help us be more creative, yet despite Cambridge being so poor, they still dominated session with 64% overall, made DOUBLE the amount of complete passes, had a higher xG, made more passes on the oppositions half and hit the woodwork twice. Now while I know as well as anyone else here that most of that means bugger all of you don’t stick the ball in the net so I’m not disputing the validity of the result, but we should be very careful when the underlying information shows we actually played no differently to Stockport away, Rotherham away or Northampton at home, but just came up against opposition who were nowhere near as good and so we enjoyed more success with our own contributions. 3 shots on target and 2 went in…1 of them a little fortuitously. Which isn’t much different to previous games in terms of output if not outcome. I’m not dismissing the result or putting a dampener on it I’m just saying perspective and context is important if measuring the performance behind the result. My perspective is that we won 2-0 And they forced Griffiths in to only one save. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 31, 2024 20:24:14 GMT
Need to get some perspective on that today. Cambridge were dire. And I mean dire. They tried to play yeah but they had no physicality, no pace, no ball winners. There was time and space in almost every department and they showed no real fight or desire. MT said that he wanted us to have a little more ability to retain possession in order to help us be more creative, yet despite Cambridge being so poor, they still dominated session with 64% overall, made DOUBLE the amount of complete passes, had a higher xG, made more passes on the oppositions half and hit the woodwork twice. Now while I know as well as anyone else here that most of that means bugger all of you don’t stick the ball in the net so I’m not disputing the validity of the result, but we should be very careful when the underlying information shows we actually played no differently to Stockport away, Rotherham away or Northampton at home, but just came up against opposition who were nowhere near as good and so we enjoyed more success with our own contributions. 3 shots on target and 2 went in…1 of them a little fortuitously. Which isn’t much different to previous games in terms of output if not outcome. I’m not dismissing the result or putting a dampener on it I’m just saying perspective and context is important if measuring the performance behind the result. On the flip side an MT team finally put in a decent performance and we won a game convincingly. Until MT made the subs late on there only ever looked one winner, even then SS was unlucky not to make it 3-0. You sense most of us would have taken the 7pts from the first 4 games at the start of the season.. |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Aug 31, 2024 20:28:09 GMT
My first game of the season. Enjoyed it and the three points. The only worry for me was the way we seemed to be a worse team when the raft of subs came on. We were pretty much in control until then. I appreciate Promise looked knackered but I’m not sure I would have taken off Billongo or Moore who were excellent. Did we really need to change anything? This isn’t to moan at the subs. Someone above said we looked a well organised side but that wasn’t the case for the last 15 mins. And yes I know that SS had a great chance to make it 3-0 so the subs did something. But the better side won. Pleased for the manager and all the players. Moore was on a yellow therefore good to change him. What would have be said if he got a second? Still early days and minutes for some need to be managed, plus need to see others can impact a game. I wouldn’t have been looking to make changes in the back line at 2-0 personally. You only have to look at what happened to Everton today to see 2-0 up isn’t a guaranteed win. Moore should have been able to see out the game without another yellow and even if he didn’t we’ve got good cover in Connor Taylor and Forbes for the one match ban he’d get for two yellows. |
|
|
|
Post by clampdown on Aug 31, 2024 20:30:01 GMT
I liked that Dan Barton who came on for them. He's got something about him. Yep, stand out player, very good for his age i thought. Get him here next season after cambridge are relegated. |
|
|
|
Post by wallywalters on Aug 31, 2024 20:33:11 GMT
Moore was on a yellow therefore good to change him. What would have be said if he got a second? Still early days and minutes for some need to be managed, plus need to see others can impact a game. I wouldn’t have been looking to make changes in the back line at 2-0 personally. You only have to look at what happened to Everton today to see 2-0 up isn’t a guaranteed win. Moore should have been able to see out the game without another yellow and even if he didn’t we’ve got good cover in Connor Taylor and Forbes for the one match ban he’d get for two yellows. I honestly wouldn't mess around with those back 3 unless injuries insist. They look so good together id let them play the 90. It's almost like he wants to give Taylor minutes as feels guilty leaving him out. His interview after the game said that in not so many words. |
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Aug 31, 2024 20:34:28 GMT
I thought Cambridge were awful. Occasionally there’s a league 1 side that’s not a big club that tries to play out like a world class team would and it’s awful to watch and embarrassing and always ends up with the manager getting the sack or relegation or both. Clubs that spring to mind are.. Rovers under Garner Rovers under Barton ( league 1) Swindon the last couple of times they’ve been league 1 MK dons whenever they’re in league 1 To play like that at this level and make it work you’d need the best squad in the division and even if you had that you’d be better off mixing it up as we see every season the teams that are successful don’t play tippy tappy slow possession football it simply doesn’t work at this level. one of their fans says they were better than us, I kid you not Some People see a team try and play out that way and go in to blinker mode with comments like “ we play loveley football we just need to click up front and the results will come” Thing is Cambridge are a small club in league 1 they haven’t got a wealth of talent and to stay up they need to do the basics right and fight for their lives. Carry on like they did today and the manager will be sacked before he’s putting up his tree. |
|
|
|
Post by igotgas on Aug 31, 2024 20:42:56 GMT
Need to get some perspective on that today. Cambridge were dire. And I mean dire. They tried to play yeah but they had no physicality, no pace, no ball winners. There was time and space in almost every department and they showed no real fight or desire. MT said that he wanted us to have a little more ability to retain possession in order to help us be more creative, yet despite Cambridge being so poor, they still dominated session with 64% overall, made DOUBLE the amount of complete passes, had a higher xG, made more passes on the oppositions half and hit the woodwork twice. Now while I know as well as anyone else here that most of that means bugger all of you don’t stick the ball in the net so I’m not disputing the validity of the result, but we should be very careful when the underlying information shows we actually played no differently to Stockport away, Rotherham away or Northampton at home, but just came up against opposition who were nowhere near as good and so we enjoyed more success with our own contributions. 3 shots on target and 2 went in…1 of them a little fortuitously. Which isn’t much different to previous games in terms of output if not outcome. I’m not dismissing the result or putting a dampener on it I’m just saying perspective and context is important if measuring the performance behind the result. On the flip side an MT team finally put in a decent performance and we won a game convincingly. Until MT made the subs late on there only ever looked one winner, even then SS was unlucky not to make it 3-0. You sense most of us would have taken the 7pts from the first 4 games at the start of the season.. Well that’s kind of my point. It was a great result but it really wasn’t a great performance at all other than we played a team who were much much weaker than what we’d faced before and so we enjoyed more success doing pretty much the same thing. Agree 7 it’s from 4 games is a pretty solid start though. |
|
|
|
Post by percy on Aug 31, 2024 20:45:25 GMT
Need to get some perspective on that today. Cambridge were dire. And I mean dire. They tried to play yeah but they had no physicality, no pace, no ball winners. There was time and space in almost every department and they showed no real fight or desire. MT said that he wanted us to have a little more ability to retain possession in order to help us be more creative, yet despite Cambridge being so poor, they still dominated session with 64% overall, made DOUBLE the amount of complete passes, had a higher xG, made more passes on the oppositions half and hit the woodwork twice. Now while I know as well as anyone else here that most of that means bugger all of you don’t stick the ball in the net so I’m not disputing the validity of the result, but we should be very careful when the underlying information shows we actually played no differently to Stockport away, Rotherham away or Northampton at home, but just came up against opposition who were nowhere near as good and so we enjoyed more success with our own contributions. 3 shots on target and 2 went in…1 of them a little fortuitously. Which isn’t much different to previous games in terms of output if not outcome. I’m not dismissing the result or putting a dampener on it I’m just saying perspective and context is important if measuring the performance behind the result. The worst thing about this take is 2 people liked it. |
|
|
|
Post by igotgas on Aug 31, 2024 20:49:27 GMT
Need to get some perspective on that today. Cambridge were dire. And I mean dire. They tried to play yeah but they had no physicality, no pace, no ball winners. There was time and space in almost every department and they showed no real fight or desire. MT said that he wanted us to have a little more ability to retain possession in order to help us be more creative, yet despite Cambridge being so poor, they still dominated session with 64% overall, made DOUBLE the amount of complete passes, had a higher xG, made more passes on the oppositions half and hit the woodwork twice. Now while I know as well as anyone else here that most of that means bugger all of you don’t stick the ball in the net so I’m not disputing the validity of the result, but we should be very careful when the underlying information shows we actually played no differently to Stockport away, Rotherham away or Northampton at home, but just came up against opposition who were nowhere near as good and so we enjoyed more success with our own contributions. 3 shots on target and 2 went in…1 of them a little fortuitously. Which isn’t much different to previous games in terms of output if not outcome. I’m not dismissing the result or putting a dampener on it I’m just saying perspective and context is important if measuring the performance behind the result. The worst thing about this take is 2 people liked it. It’s just an honest view without the hyperbole of simply thinking “we won, so we played well”. I’d do the same if we played well but lost. The worst thing about this take is you felt the need to dismiss a considered rational opinion just because you didn’t get it. |
|
|
|
Post by percy on Aug 31, 2024 20:51:02 GMT
Agree with most of the posts here.
My additional takes were
Moore played an almost perfect game. (Card aside). Yes I love Mola but he oozes class in defence and taking the ball forward. Fell apart abit after he went off.
Garrett superb.
Thomas I scored down even tho he was one of our key players as his decision making at times is so off. Love him. Could be a legend. Know when to run. Pass. Shoot.
Cambridge were decent. Some odd comments about them being so poor.
Well done boys. So happy.
Who said Omochere was a mistake?!
|
|
|
|
Post by dulwichgas on Aug 31, 2024 21:53:01 GMT
Need to get some perspective on that today. Cambridge were dire. And I mean dire. They tried to play yeah but they had no physicality, no pace, no ball winners. There was time and space in almost every department and they showed no real fight or desire. MT said that he wanted us to have a little more ability to retain possession in order to help us be more creative, yet despite Cambridge being so poor, they still dominated session with 64% overall, made DOUBLE the amount of complete passes, had a higher xG, made more passes on the oppositions half and hit the woodwork twice. Now while I know as well as anyone else here that most of that means bugger all of you don’t stick the ball in the net so I’m not disputing the validity of the result, but we should be very careful when the underlying information shows we actually played no differently to Stockport away, Rotherham away or Northampton at home, but just came up against opposition who were nowhere near as good and so we enjoyed more success with our own contributions. 3 shots on target and 2 went in…1 of them a little fortuitously. Which isn’t much different to previous games in terms of output if not outcome. I’m not dismissing the result or putting a dampener on it I’m just saying perspective and context is important if measuring the performance behind the result. You mean Cambridge aren't as good as Stockport, so a similar performance lead to a better outcome. Yeah we know. |
|
|
|
Post by igotgas on Aug 31, 2024 22:16:23 GMT
Yep that’s it mate you got it, well done you 👍
|
|
|
|
Post by olskooltoteender on Aug 31, 2024 23:33:26 GMT
Losing his engine though isn't he. A couple of times he was clean through and ran out of puff or the defenders caught up with him. He seems to need 5-6 games to get up to speed. Much better today. To be fair when he is top of his game, he is too good for us. Let's hope he has been pacing himself and the medical team are working their magic to get him to perform at his top level for 20 games a season rather than 5-6 times a season like last season. To be fair, Alex Rodman in the commentary said that it used to take him at least 4 games or so to work up to proper match fitness , so I’m sure Ward will only improve as he gets more minutes |
|
|
|
Post by bluegas on Sept 1, 2024 7:01:32 GMT
Need to get some perspective on that today. Cambridge were dire. And I mean dire. They tried to play yeah but they had no physicality, no pace, no ball winners. There was time and space in almost every department and they showed no real fight or desire. MT said that he wanted us to have a little more ability to retain possession in order to help us be more creative, yet despite Cambridge being so poor, they still dominated session with 64% overall, made DOUBLE the amount of complete passes, had a higher xG, made more passes on the oppositions half and hit the woodwork twice. Now while I know as well as anyone else here that most of that means bugger all of you don’t stick the ball in the net so I’m not disputing the validity of the result, but we should be very careful when the underlying information shows we actually played no differently to Stockport away, Rotherham away or Northampton at home, but just came up against opposition who were nowhere near as good and so we enjoyed more success with our own contributions. 3 shots on target and 2 went in…1 of them a little fortuitously. Which isn’t much different to previous games in terms of output if not outcome. I’m not dismissing the result or putting a dampener on it I’m just saying perspective and context is important if measuring the performance behind the result. On the flip side an MT team finally put in a decent performance and we won a game convincingly. Until MT made the subs late on there only ever looked one winner, even then SS was unlucky not to make it 3-0. You sense most of us would have taken the 7pts from the first 4 games at the start of the season.. Absolutely. But some of us have doubts about how many points from the next 4 games. Or the next 8. |
|
|
|
Post by bluegas on Sept 1, 2024 7:03:13 GMT
Need to get some perspective on that today. Cambridge were dire. And I mean dire. They tried to play yeah but they had no physicality, no pace, no ball winners. There was time and space in almost every department and they showed no real fight or desire. MT said that he wanted us to have a little more ability to retain possession in order to help us be more creative, yet despite Cambridge being so poor, they still dominated session with 64% overall, made DOUBLE the amount of complete passes, had a higher xG, made more passes on the oppositions half and hit the woodwork twice. Now while I know as well as anyone else here that most of that means bugger all of you don’t stick the ball in the net so I’m not disputing the validity of the result, but we should be very careful when the underlying information shows we actually played no differently to Stockport away, Rotherham away or Northampton at home, but just came up against opposition who were nowhere near as good and so we enjoyed more success with our own contributions. 3 shots on target and 2 went in…1 of them a little fortuitously. Which isn’t much different to previous games in terms of output if not outcome. I’m not dismissing the result or putting a dampener on it I’m just saying perspective and context is important if measuring the performance behind the result. My perspective is that we won 2-0 And they forced Griffiths in to only one save. My perspective is that they hit the woodwork 3 times. Had one gone in..... |
|
|
|
Post by bluegas on Sept 1, 2024 7:09:48 GMT
Need to get some perspective on that today. Cambridge were dire. And I mean dire. They tried to play yeah but they had no physicality, no pace, no ball winners. There was time and space in almost every department and they showed no real fight or desire. MT said that he wanted us to have a little more ability to retain possession in order to help us be more creative, yet despite Cambridge being so poor, they still dominated session with 64% overall, made DOUBLE the amount of complete passes, had a higher xG, made more passes on the oppositions half and hit the woodwork twice. Now while I know as well as anyone else here that most of that means bugger all of you don’t stick the ball in the net so I’m not disputing the validity of the result, but we should be very careful when the underlying information shows we actually played no differently to Stockport away, Rotherham away or Northampton at home, but just came up against opposition who were nowhere near as good and so we enjoyed more success with our own contributions. 3 shots on target and 2 went in…1 of them a little fortuitously. Which isn’t much different to previous games in terms of output if not outcome. I’m not dismissing the result or putting a dampener on it I’m just saying perspective and context is important if measuring the performance behind the result. The worst thing about this take is 2 people liked it. Make that 3. |
|
|
|
Post by Dirt Dogg on Sept 1, 2024 7:18:12 GMT
Cambridge had the majority of possession percentage wise but you couldn’t exactly describe it as dominating possession. I was impressed how quickly we got the ball forward once we’d turned over possession. It’ll be interesting to see how we fit Shaq Forde into the side.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kipper on Sept 1, 2024 7:20:16 GMT
The main thing is Rovers are getting points on the board while the players are continuing to get used to each other and gel!
|
|
|
|
Post by kampucheagas on Sept 1, 2024 7:40:36 GMT
The main thing is Rovers are getting points on the board while the players are continuing to get used to each other and gel! ABSOLUTELY!! For me it’s imperative that we stabilise as a club, I can see a definite long term plan being put in place and I’m fully behind it. After years of Barton bull and false promises, it’s time for stability and this young group will grow over time. Get behind ‘em!! It’ll make you feel better….. UTG |
|
