Match Thread: Lincoln City v Bristol Rovers | Page 15 | Vital Football

Match Thread: Lincoln City v Bristol Rovers

mikeosullivan said:
But there was a big difference in my view Scot between Saturday and the wins at Barnsley and against Cambridge. Barnsley and Cambridge didn't miss any clear cut chances because we didn't give them any.

Bristol Rovers missed three one-on-ones and a penalty. 5-0 therefore flattered us. Yes the best team won, but it definitely was not a 5-0 game. Yes, Jensen did his job, but better strikers and better Rovers luck would have had us conceding 3 or 4 goals.

That is really the point some (and me) are trying to make. It was a great win and delightful to watch. But there was a certain amount of luck involved on our side. A 5-3 win might have been a fairer result, which we would all still have been thrilled with.

At some point though, things will go against us rather than for us. Hopefully not until July in some meaningless pre-season friendlies!!
Click to expand...
Three one-on-one's is pushing it, it was only really one.

You'd expect a striker to score a one-on-one but Jenson would have been disappointed to concede the Brown shot and particularly the Martin one as they were both wide of the six yard box. Excellent save from the near post header, mind.

I understand the gist of your post but I'm not sure whether it's luck or just having better players? If you look at the performance level over the entire 90 minutes our 'keeper performed better, our defence performed better, the midfield performed better (bar that 15 minute spell) and the attack performed better.
 
johnolbe said:
Sorry Chimp you lost me when I read ‘ Kennedy was right’ . If MK had this current squad we would still be playing Mick McCarthy dour, negative, boring football
Click to expand...
We might be?

Then I would agree with you....but we will never know.

The facts are you wanted to play the type of football we are playing now ...with Oakley- Boothe, Virtue and Sorensen in midfield and Garrick and Diamond up top, with Vernam and Hopper off the bench.

We wouldn't have scored 5 or 6 each week but we might well have conceded 3 or 4...

The arguement is really not relevant.

We easily navigated last season (with MK) and therefore are still in L1 to be able to watch the good football that we are now capable of.

Skubala is a better fit than Kennedy....but he didn't start playing an attacking brand of football until he had the players to do so....

Wigan away 0-0 and a game where we didn't get a corner are also part of the Skubala reign...but we didn't lose that game (remind you of anything).

If you read your comments around Christmas , Skubala was Kennedy reincarnated.

What has changed....I would suggest the players available to him....

....and to be fair to him is getting it perfectly right and very probably more right than Kennedy would have done...
 
johnolbe said:
Sorry Chimp you lost me when I read ‘ Kennedy was right’ . If MK had this current squad we would still be playing Mick McCarthy dour, negative, boring football
Click to expand...
We said the same on Saturday. Would have gone to Oakwell looking for a draw and likely lost 1-0. On a good day come away with an insipid 0-0 and the joy drained from our weekend.
 
mikeosullivan said:
But there was a big difference in my view Scot between Saturday and the wins at Barnsley and against Cambridge. Barnsley and Cambridge didn't miss any clear cut chances because we didn't give them any.

Bristol Rovers missed three one-on-ones and a penalty. 5-0 therefore flattered us. Yes the best team won, but it definitely was not a 5-0 game. Yes, Jensen did his job, but better strikers and better Rovers luck would have had us conceding 3 or 4 goals.

That is really the point some (and me) are trying to make. It was a great win and delightful to watch. But there was a certain amount of luck involved on our side. A 5-3 win might have been a fairer result, which we would all still have been thrilled with.

At some point though, things will go against us rather than for us. Hopefully not until July in some meaningless pre-season friendlies!!
Click to expand...
I'm pretty pragmatic about our football and would often agree with you. But on Saturday especially for the first 30 minutes we swarmed all over them and thoroughly deserved to be 3 nil up. The game effectively won.
From there they made their subs and changed it a bit. And yes created a couple of chances as will happen in all games. But thankfully we continued to be forward thinking and were hungry for more goals. And these came. Fair play to Skubala for this. Some would just sit on it. We have a team at present chasing goals. Brilliant to watch and Imo how the game should be played. With a balance of defense and attack. Yes, we will concede and Rovers should have had a goal. But I don't think the scoreline flattered us. I can't remember an Imps team overwhelming a team like we did the first 30mins. Long may this continue.
There will be times when we don't take our chances and fall behind. Then we will see what we're made of. On the evidence I see, with the attacking intent, quality on the ball, confidence and motivation we will continue to play for goals. And outscore the opposition.
 
My view is we will be more open in games because we have been forced to be more attacking due to the availability of personnel. Thought we were great at Barnsley and whilst under pressure before half time limited the quality of the chances. Cambridge were able to create a few decent opportunities. Bristol Rovers are a good attacking team and caused us more problems. However, whilst Hamilton, McGrandles and Ehrhaon are unavailable we just need to score more than the opposition. We perhaps may never go back to more defensive options in the future, maybe at decent teams away from home. We need Eharhon available as soon as possible but I see Reading and then Oxford away as the two games we may struggle to keep clean sheets, due to the absence of Hamilton/McGrandles and both could be goal fests.
 
57harry said:
Its true Bristol Rovers had their chances but lets not forget we hit the post twice. The first one was their wayward backpass.
Click to expand...
agree, and have been thinking the same, reading this whole rovers had loads of chances debate.

hackett also had a shot well saved that was from roughly the same position as two of the three 'one on ones' rovers had.

teams have chances to score in every game. goalkeepers are part of the game, there to stop those chances. we have a very decent all round keeper, who has shown from very early on in the season that he is good on close-range blocks/saves.
 
abebaby said:
I personally can not understand those that keep saying it could have been 3-3 at half time etc etc. You could in theory say, we could have been 3-0 down had we not scored and they had !!! The reason they didn't score was because Jensen did his job.
We are in a position where; at the moment; the whole team are doing their jobs effectively. This puts pressure on the opposition in both an attacking and defending mode and we can all see how that has panned in our favour.
Click to expand...
That’s the point…we could’ve been 3-3 at half time if it wasn’t for Jensen. It’s just a casual observation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.