Forest V Stoke Match Thread - Sponsored by Birdseye Breaded Cod fisHcakes | Page 2 | Vital Football

Forest V Stoke Match Thread - Sponsored by Birdseye Breaded Cod fisHcakes

Been stuck at Peterborough for half hour and not sure how long the delay.
Lorry hit a bridge somewhere.
Typical .
 
Pantilimon, Darikwa, Dawson, Figueiredo, Robinson, Guédioura, Colback, Cash, Carvalho, Lolley, Grabban. Subs: Steele, Osborn, Janko, Yacob, Dias, Ansarifard, Hefele
 
Armchair today, just got in from work and can’t use the van (miserable bastards) so expect good in depth reports. ❤️
 
well that half had me almost falling asleep zzz
Still not convinced in the forward 2. Just both too lightweight
 
Lets not let the last 2 minutes mask the over all first half performance...boring football being played by both sides...being at home I expect better from Forest. Stoke created nothing but even us...apart from a shot on the 45th minute we struggled ...to get hold of the ball. The trurh is that if we really want to secure promotion we need two or three players that make the difference, at present we dont have any. Midfield creates nothing ...Grabban has to come in the centre circle to touch a ball...typical performance from the Carv...tge odd nice pass but not affecting the game...poor also Cash nd Lolley...Cash seems to fall every time he has the ball in his feet nd Lolley it seems lost that drive he had some weeks ago..Colback the usual rock ...Gueddy trying but tge firward players are not giving him options...AK needs to change things ...or we will be losing points today...
 
Two points lost...cant understand why we let Stoke control the game so much...as the last 10 minutes showed, we could have punished them nd created more ... at the end Butland was Stoke's heros but we should have won this one...especially being the home team..Dariwka MoM...nd Robinson close second...all the four in defence played well...problem is that we tend to give too much ground to the opposition...the Iranuan should have came for Carv nd not Diaz..another striker in the box in those last 10 minutes would have put more pressure on Stokes defence...Diaz didnt had a clue what he had to do ...
 
Terrible performance. Defence aside, everyone was poor. Grabban and Carvalho were both awful! Cash was on his arse more times than he touched the ball. Darikwa was very good. No tempo and the lack of creativity and movement was frightening!
 
Dawson and fig have conceded 1 goal in 5 games as a pairing.

Cash isn't doing enough all he does is fall over it's a pity that dias is worse. Carvalho ineffective.

I thought we played better when yacob came on. He's too good for the bench in my opinion
 
the jock said:
Dawson and fig have conceded 1 goal in 5 games as a pairing.

Cash isn't doing enough all he does is fall over it's a pity that dias is worse. Carvalho ineffective.

I thought we played better when yacob came on. He's too good for the bench in my opinion
Click to expand...
Thats why we need better then what we have..Carvalio has been playing like this most of the time...these type of performances are masked with the odd episode of class, but is it enough? Its not as if he is a Del Piero in the making ...this is the Championship nd we cannot afford keep having a passenger nd hoping that he commes good with pass or a goal...Cash also has gone on quite...he keeps falling everytime he touches the ball ...positives today the four at the back nd the two central midfielders...even though for 80 minutes we were too defensive..
 
Nothing terrible about that performance, both sides cancelled each other out for long spells but we should have won it 2nd half. Butland denied Lolley with a wonder save, Grabban missed two chances you'd expect him to gobble up.

Great header off the line by Figueredo to stop Crouch nicking it at the death. Darikwa MoM, good defensive performance all round.
 
We were sloppy in the first half, and Stoke were threatening, but we ended it much better. We played much better in the second half and created the better chances. I thought Darikwa was superb. Butland made two great saves in the last 15 mins.

It wasn't a bad performance, but AK seems more intent on not losing than winning. His like for like substitutions show that, particularly ending up with two defensive midfielders on the pitch but still only one up front. This negativity will cost us IMO.
 
forestonourwayback said:
We were sloppy in the first half, and Stoke were threatening, but we ended it much better. We played much better in the second half and created the better chances. I thought Darikwa was superb. Butland made two great saves in the last 15 mins.

It wasn't a bad performance, but AK seems more intent on not losing than winning. His like for like substitutions show that, particularly ending up with two defensive midfielders on the pitch but still only one up front. This negativity will cost us IMO.
Click to expand...
It wasn't negative though was it?

We can hardly criticise 'negative' substitutions if the outcome was us ending the game putting them under constant pressure and nearly winning it.

Couldn't go today through illness but from what I heard the sub seemed very sensible; we were going for it and the game was wide open with them breaking when we lost the ball. Yacob was brought on to allow us to continue pushing with the other players without throwing the game away kamikaze style.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

If we had had a turgid last 10 minutes with no chances you would be quite fair to criticise the sub as negative, but that isn't what happened.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
It wasn't negative though was it?

We can hardly criticise 'negative' substitutions if the outcome was us ending the game putting them under constant pressure and nearly winning it.

Couldn't go today through illness but from what I heard the sub seemed very sensible; we were going for it and the game was wide open with them breaking when we lost the ball. Yacob was brought on to allow us to continue pushing with the other players without throwing the game away kamikaze style.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

If we had had a turgid last 10 minutes with no chances you would be quite fair to criticise the sub as negative, but that isn't what happened.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying but with another striker's goalscoring instinct, e.g. Ansarifard, while keeping Grabban on the pitch we could well have found that all important finish. Yes, we picked up with the subs he made; there was plenty of pressure around the 18 yard area, but without the decisive cutting edge. AK seems unwilling to take a risk, that may bring desisive reward.
 
forestonourwayback said:
I see what you're saying but with another striker's goalscoring instinct, e.g. Ansarifard, while keeping Grabban on the pitch we could well have found that all important finish. Yes, we picked up with the subs he made; there was plenty of pressure around the 18 yard area, but without the decisive cutting edge. AK seems unwilling to take a risk, that may bring desisive reward.
Click to expand...

Someone else will have to tell me because I wasnt there, but was it really a game where just having another striker about would have made more difference than having a tricky winger?

Radio kept saying that the Stoke defence were 'well positioned'. That doesn't sound to me like a scenario where just adding another striker would put the shits up them. It's easy to talk about having another striker 'im the box' as others have done, but would Ansarifard be able to actually get into the box or recieve the ball if he does?

I agree that perhaps there is an element of safety first, of making sure you preserve what you have before really going for it. That depends on your preference. I hate losing, so I'll pay the price of winning slightly less to lose hardly any. This time last year we had about 8 wins and 8 defeats, and that pissed me off much more than having 9 draws. But I appreciate others prefer it differently
 
any striker on would be nice. despite granbbans goalsd he offers nothing. he can only excuse those performances if he scores, today he fluffed even those lines
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Someone else will have to tell me because I wasnt there, but was it really a game where just having another striker about would have made more difference than having a tricky winger?

Radio kept saying that the Stoke defence were 'well positioned'. That doesn't sound to me like a scenario where just adding another striker would put the shits up them. It's easy to talk about having another striker 'im the box' as others have done, but would Ansarifard be able to actually get into the box or recieve the ball if he does?

I agree that perhaps there is an element of safety first, of making sure you preserve what you have before really going for it. That depends on your preference. I hate losing, so I'll pay the price of winning slightly less to lose hardly any. This time last year we had about 8 wins and 8 defeats, and that pissed me off much more than having 9 draws. But I appreciate others prefer it differently
Click to expand...

Yes its a balance between attack and defence, how much you should preserve what you've got in the search for that elusive 3 points. Everyone has their own opinion on where that balance lies. When it was clear that Stoke were time wasting and protecting what they'd got, to change our formation to 442 (shock horror!) may just have made the difference.

We gained a point and didn't lose, so some comfort there, but you could also say we were at home and let 2 points go away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.