Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Opposition View - Stourbridge

Comments

  • Thanks @Vital
    A finer set of comments would be hard to come by. If margins it is then and we have them at the mo!
    Fair play them. We have generally been the underdogs since coming up from non-league and those comments could have been from ours after a big cup tie. I heard we had 76 teams between and Liv v Ply was 72.
    Hope we get back to being underdogs, televised please!

    COYB!

  • Surprised at their managers comments "we was a more polished side" Really ?
    Was a decent performance by them but would need to that on a weekly basis to say that they compete in div 2.

  • Understandable set of comments. They were a very organised side and were unlucky on the day. Wood added energy when he came on but Hayes seems well below his best.
    We March on though and that was the aim.

  • Yes woods has played well in the last 2 matches in the attacking midfield role.Would say quite a few of our players didn't have good matches.

  • I really thought that Pierre and Stewart would bully and out muscle their forwards. Pierre didn't impose himself as he normally does and Stewart not his usual self,my player of the season so far. Paris at times looked disinterested. Sam gave the midfield pace and attacking options he should have started. Sometimes it's about getting over the line not how you do it. It's great being a supporter at the moment so much to be positive about. What a contrast to October. Onwards and upwards COYB.

  • Yes very enjoyable at the moment..October was awful and certainly was not in a hurry to come along to the next match but everything failed into place and we are on the best form in over 10 years..
    Didn't play well but won and in the hat for the 4th round!

  • I'm rarely negative but I have to say that I do fear that a few cracks may be starting to appear as a result of injuries, tiredness and probably a few colds/bouts of man 'flu.
    Harriman seems likely to be out for some time; Jombati did a lot of leg flexing from the middle of the first half onwards; PCH seemed less sharp than usual and got caught in possession several times (as did Scott Kashket); Matt Bloomfield could be out for a while at a time when he has been playing so well (though Sammy Wood is an able replacement of course); Luke O'Nien copped a nasty challenge late in the game; and Bayo (not surprisingly considering the remarkable amount of work he got through) looked dead on his feet towards the end of the match.

    It will be interesting to see who plays on Tuesday evening, given the rules regarding the minimum number of regulars we have to field under the Checkatrade regulations.

  • Interesting points @micra. The rule re. changes in the trophy is from your last league game right (i.e the Newport game?). If so, given Gareth chopped and changed the team so much for that game, it should allow him to do so again on Tuesday.

  • In fact, he could name a reasonably strong lineup that met the requirements and still rest almost his entire first choice XI (based on who started the Stourbridge game). Players who meet the requirement in capitals.
    GK: BROWN
    RB: JOMBATI
    CB: De Havilland
    CB: Muller
    LB: WOOD
    DM: Bean
    CM: McGinn
    CM: Freeman
    CF: HAYES
    ST: THOMPSON
    ST: Weston
    Jombati has to play, but hasn't exactly played a lot this season anyway, likewise Wood and Thompson hasn't started many. The only regular starter there is Hayes, who arguably isn't in Gaz's first choice XI anymore.

  • @Jonny_King rule 7.3 suggests it is the last game (which I take to mean Fa cup):
    "The full-strength policy for the season 2016-17 competition was five of the starting line-up must have started the previous or following game (a reduction from six in season 2015-16) or five of the starting 11 who have made the most starting appearances in League and domestic cup competitions fixtures during the current season."

    I'm pretty sure we only included three eligible players in the last round (but will have got around it by Gape being cup tied and another player who I can't remember being suspended).

  • In other words with Gape cup tied and Pierre suspended we only need to play three eligible players.

  • Cheers @Midlander. Those rules are confusing!

  • We made 8 changes (maybe even 9) for the Millwall match, and I don't recall hearing about a fine?

  • If I could guess the team tomorrow it would be:
    Blackman; jombati, de havilland, muller, Jacobson; bean, McGinn, wood; Thompson, Hayes, Weston.

  • It was exactly the game I expected...a higher league side underestimating plucky non-leaguers who could scent a historic victory. Very close game. I thought we dealt with them quite well without threatening too much in the first half. Woody's goal was a relief...then even more so The Beast. Both away team and crowd (excepting Mr Flare...) did themselves proud. We may struggle against a bigger club in the next round so let's hope its a money-maker!

  • I didn't see any hint of underestimating them. We had done our homework, were aware of the threat from long throws and had a plan to deal with it.

    They were a lot better going forward than defensively, and there were plenty of chances at both ends. I did anticipate that they might have folded after we scored at the start of the second half but they held on well and fought their way back into it.

    It was a close game, and there's no doubt that they could have won it. But our quality was there to see.

  • @Chris I just got the feeling the defence underestimated their forwards...their Number 7 had acres of space in the first.

Sign In or Register to comment.