Vs 10 men

[BillyStubbsTears]

Jonathan

Agreed (nearly) 100%. I'd only seen the push with the right hand initially. That Twitter video clearly shows some movement of their lad's left elbow (not a punch but that doesn't matter) towards Rowe's chin. If Rowe was feigning contact, it's brilliant acting because the jerk of his head times perfectly with when the elbow is close to his face. Looks to me like he's clipped Rowe and credit to Rowe for not chucking himself to the ground and writhing in agony.

 It didn't look like a very nasty swing of the elbow and any contact was minimal, but I agree if you do that, you're inviting a red card. Could just as easily have been a yellow, but the red wouldn't be rescinded on appeal with that video as evidence, so they can't have any complaints.

[selby]

  The same player, just before that incident had gone for a ball on the blind side of our defender in the box and flung himself at the clearance to try and get a penalty, the referee told him to just get up, outright cheating.
  Then he was sucked in by Rowe, his actions will be viewed as violent conduct striking a player less than five yards from a  linesman that for once made a decision that was correct and flagged the referee who conferred with the linesman who reported the incident.
  No other decision but a straight red, you get sent off for head high tackles at Rugby League, we will see less deserving sending offs this season than that, and lino's who will take no part in the game apart from giving throw ins.

[Bessie Red]

Jonathan

Agreed (nearly) 100%. I'd only seen the push with the right hand initially. That Twitter video clearly shows some movement of their lad's left elbow (not a punch but that doesn't matter) towards Rowe's chin. If Rowe was feigning contact, it's brilliant acting because the jerk of his head times perfectly with when the elbow is close to his face. Looks to me like he's clipped Rowe and credit to Rowe for not chucking himself to the ground and writhing in agony.

 It didn't look like a very nasty swing of the elbow and any contact was minimal, but I agree if you do that, you're inviting a red card. Could just as easily have been a yellow, but the red wouldn't be rescinded on appeal with that video as evidence, so they can't have any complaints.

Someone was saying on the Stockport forum that the player who got the red has a habit (tick/twitch?) of adjusting his shoulder regularly throughout the game and once youve seen it it becomes more apparent so perhaps, unfortunately for him, it was an involuntary action that looked to the linesman like a swing of the arm.

[drfchound]

I was convinced it was an uppercut watching it live, it was obviously the follow up elbow, either way its red

I said to my mates at the game that it looked like their player had elbowed Rowe and it looks as though my instincts were right then.
Well done linesman and further justification that it was a red card offence.

[ravenrover]

How odd that after the sending off their manager left the right back spot wide open. A Stockport player went to have words with the manager presumably about that, the way he was pointing only for the manager to push him and give him an earfull

[Alickismyhero]

ok, here we go,


Before the red card was given I would have blown for a freekick to the opposition because TR was quite clearly holding the player.

The players reaction deserved his red card.

I considered the officials on the whole had a good game.

[drfchound]

How odd that after the sending off their manager left the right back spot wide open. A Stockport player went to have words with the manager presumably about that, the way he was pointing only for the manager to push him and give him an earfull

It was very noticeable, and we spoke about it during the game, how many times we were able to play the diagonal ball into Maxwell  when he was running into their right back area.

[Branton Red]

A soft red card for me. No complaint at the officials as they were correct under the letter of the law. But if that's a sending off then the laws an ass.

I agree that Tomlin was outstanding.

However I thought Rovers were relatively poor against the 10 men. The game didn't have the feel of a 4 or 5-1 at all for me but of a team making heavy weather of taking advantage of their numerical advantage. 2 reasons for this.

Firstly we were too slow in putting a second centre forward on. This should have been done immediately after their equalizer IMO. Miller was isolated and barely had a kick in the final 3rd in the first half hour of the 2nd half.

Secondly everything went through Clayton who for me was poor. He dwelt too long on the ball, slowed things down too much, eschewed playing quick passes to spread the play for simpler ones to the centre backs or to players tightly marked who could only play back to him. He made it easy for Stockport to organize themselves.

The 1st goal was created by Anderson playing an excellent yet simple and relatively risk free forward pass to the flank. Clayton failed to make any such contributions all game. Hence otherwise, with everything going through Clayton albeit very slowly, Rovers created no serious chances from our possession play v 10 men (instead 3 long shots Tomlin x2, Biggins; 2 from set pieces Anderson, near og; Rowe' chance after a possession turnover; Agards miss from Rowe's deep cross)

The winning goal came about because Stockport having been so disciplined in the 2nd half collectively lost their heads, pushed too many men forward and thankfully the ball fell to Tomlin who capped a virtuoso performance with an excellent run and through ball to Agard. Nothing to do with our possession play.

[scawsby steve]

A soft red card for me. No complaint at the officials as they were correct under the letter of the law. But if that's a sending off then the laws an ass.

I agree that Tomlin was outstanding.

However I thought Rovers were relatively poor against the 10 men. The game didn't have the feel of a 4 or 5-1 at all for me but of a team making heavy weather of taking advantage of their numerical advantage. 2 reasons for this.

Firstly we were too slow in putting a second centre forward on. This should have been done immediately after their equalizer IMO. Miller was isolated and barely had a kick in the final 3rd in the first half hour of the 2nd half.

Secondly everything went through Clayton who for me was poor. He dwelt too long on the ball, slowed things down too much, eschewed playing quick passes to spread the play for simpler ones to the centre backs or to players tightly marked who could only play back to him. He made it easy for Stockport to organize themselves.

The 1st goal was created by Anderson playing an excellent yet simple and relatively risk free forward pass to the flank. Clayton failed to make any such contributions all game. Hence otherwise, with everything going through Clayton albeit very slowly, Rovers created no serious chances from our possession play v 10 men (instead 3 long shots Tomlin x2, Biggins; 2 from set pieces Anderson, near og; Rowe' chance after a possession turnover; Agards miss from Rowe's deep cross)

The winning goal came about because Stockport having been so disciplined in the 2nd half collectively lost their heads, pushed too many men forward and thankfully the ball fell to Tomlin who capped a virtuoso performance with an excellent run and through ball to Agard. Nothing to do with our possession play.

All about opinions. The team that showed how NOT to play against 10 men was Bradford, just lumping high balls into the box against us. I thought our patient play was excellent, spraying the ball out to the flanks, and moving Stockport about.

IMO, they were lucky not to be on the end of a 4 or 5 goal hiding.

[Filo]

A soft red card for me. No complaint at the officials as they were correct under the letter of the law. But if that's a sending off then the laws an ass.

I agree that Tomlin was outstanding.

However I thought Rovers were relatively poor against the 10 men. The game didn't have the feel of a 4 or 5-1 at all for me but of a team making heavy weather of taking advantage of their numerical advantage. 2 reasons for this.

Firstly we were too slow in putting a second centre forward on. This should have been done immediately after their equalizer IMO. Miller was isolated and barely had a kick in the final 3rd in the first half hour of the 2nd half.

Secondly everything went through Clayton who for me was poor. He dwelt too long on the ball, slowed things down too much, eschewed playing quick passes to spread the play for simpler ones to the centre backs or to players tightly marked who could only play back to him. He made it easy for Stockport to organize themselves.

The 1st goal was created by Anderson playing an excellent yet simple and relatively risk free forward pass to the flank. Clayton failed to make any such contributions all game. Hence otherwise, with everything going through Clayton albeit very slowly, Rovers created no serious chances from our possession play v 10 men (instead 3 long shots Tomlin x2, Biggins; 2 from set pieces Anderson, near og; Rowe' chance after a possession turnover; Agards miss from Rowe's deep cross)

The winning goal came about because Stockport having been so disciplined in the 2nd half collectively lost their heads, pushed too many men forward and thankfully the ball fell to Tomlin who capped a virtuoso performance with an excellent run and through ball to Agard. Nothing to do with our possession play.

The winning goal fell to Tomlin from a Clayton tackle

[BillyStubbsTears]

The chance Agard had within seconds of coming on was from a move started by Clayton deep in his own half.

The chance Rowe had early in the second half came from a Clayton cross that the defence couldn't deal with.

The Anderson chance was from a multiple pass move involving Clayton.

The one the keeper saved with his face was from a gem of a free kick delivery by Clayton.

The winner came from Tomlin being released by a perfectly weighted touch from Clayton under pressure.

But yeah, Clayton was poor.

[dickos1]

We created no serious chances???
Is that a joke?
We created 5 or 6 excellent chances.

Every attack we had was started by Clayton so to suggest he did nothing is nonsense, he was very good just  not quite as good as Tomlin

[Ronnie Dovers]

A soft red card for me. No complaint at the officials as they were correct under the letter of the law. But if that's a sending off then the laws an ass.

I agree that Tomlin was outstanding.

However I thought Rovers were relatively poor against the 10 men. The game didn't have the feel of a 4 or 5-1 at all for me but of a team making heavy weather of taking advantage of their numerical advantage. 2 reasons for this.

Firstly we were too slow in putting a second centre forward on. This should have been done immediately after their equalizer IMO. Miller was isolated and barely had a kick in the final 3rd in the first half hour of the 2nd half.

Secondly everything went through Clayton who for me was poor. He dwelt too long on the ball, slowed things down too much, eschewed playing quick passes to spread the play for simpler ones to the centre backs or to players tightly marked who could only play back to him. He made it easy for Stockport to organize themselves.

The 1st goal was created by Anderson playing an excellent yet simple and relatively risk free forward pass to the flank. Clayton failed to make any such contributions all game. Hence otherwise, with everything going through Clayton albeit very slowly, Rovers created no serious chances from our possession play v 10 men (instead 3 long shots Tomlin x2, Biggins; 2 from set pieces Anderson, near og; Rowe' chance after a possession turnover; Agards miss from Rowe's deep cross)

The winning goal came about because Stockport having been so disciplined in the 2nd half collectively lost their heads, pushed too many men forward and thankfully the ball fell to Tomlin who capped a virtuoso performance with an excellent run and through ball to Agard. Nothing to do with our possession play.

I also agree that Tomlin was outstanding. Completely disagree with everything else though, your take on the game is totally baffling to me. Poor finishing and good/fortunate goalkeeping were the only things that kept that game tight, in my opinion.

[Bessie Red]

A soft red card for me. No complaint at the officials as they were correct under the letter of the law. But if that's a sending off then the laws an ass.

I agree that Tomlin was outstanding.

However I thought Rovers were relatively poor against the 10 men. The game didn't have the feel of a 4 or 5-1 at all for me but of a team making heavy weather of taking advantage of their numerical advantage. 2 reasons for this.

Firstly we were too slow in putting a second centre forward on. This should have been done immediately after their equalizer IMO. Miller was isolated and barely had a kick in the final 3rd in the first half hour of the 2nd half.

Secondly everything went through Clayton who for me was poor. He dwelt too long on the ball, slowed things down too much, eschewed playing quick passes to spread the play for simpler ones to the centre backs or to players tightly marked who could only play back to him. He made it easy for Stockport to organize themselves.

The 1st goal was created by Anderson playing an excellent yet simple and relatively risk free forward pass to the flank. Clayton failed to make any such contributions all game. Hence otherwise, with everything going through Clayton albeit very slowly, Rovers created no serious chances from our possession play v 10 men (instead 3 long shots Tomlin x2, Biggins; 2 from set pieces Anderson, near og; Rowe' chance after a possession turnover; Agards miss from Rowe's deep cross)

The winning goal came about because Stockport having been so disciplined in the 2nd half collectively lost their heads, pushed too many men forward and thankfully the ball fell to Tomlin who capped a virtuoso performance with an excellent run and through ball to Agard. Nothing to do with our possession play.

I also agree that Tomlin was outstanding. Completely disagree with everything else though, your take on the game is totally baffling to me. Poor finishing and good/fortunate goalkeeping were the only things that kept that game tight, in my opinion.

Do you only take pleasure in criticising Rovers players. I would hazard a guess that your opinions on the game, which you have a right to have and to air, are in a minority of 1 or nearly 1.
Moving the ball across the pitch back & forth whether it is done by the defence or midfield is the best method to adopt against ten men so as to tire them and break down their concentration, another good tactic against 10 men is to pass it into forwards and get it back as that also helps to create gaps. Patience is the best way to defeat 10 men, aimlessly lobbing high balls forward is the best way to make the ten men feel comfortable & is something we could have resorted to in desperation and with fools in the crowd shouting "gerrit forrad" with say 15/10 mins left.
It is without doubt that Clayton, Rowe and Tomlin were masterful, ignored the temptation to rush thing even upto the end of 90mins & carried out a winning plan that eventually and I would say inevitably led to a winner. As for chances, there were definitely enough for it to have ended 4 or 5 - 1.

[Branton Red]

Rovers played for 70 minutes against 10 men engaged in blanket defence.

The best way to combat these tactics is to keep the ball and keep spreading the play. Rovers did this. But to open your opponents up and create chances you also need to, where possible, be incisive and change the point of attack quickly. Rovers didn't do this.

After, say an attack down the right faltered, and the ball came back to the midfield Rovers were not quick enough in moving the ball say to the left to take advantage of the Stockport defence moving to counter the prior move down the right.

We were simply too slow in midfield when the ball needed recycling. This allowed Stockport time to reorganize themselves ahead of the next attacking phase occurring.

Other than the 1st goal in 70 minutes of near continual possession football Rovers therefore did not cut Stockport open and create a single good chance through possession play against 10 men. Not one.

Yes we created other chances through set pieces, long range shots and possession turnovers etc.

As the playmaker through whom nearly all our possession play went through Clayton was chief culprit in this slow play. He had numerous opportunities to recycle play more quickly but didn't opt to take them.

This is what I mean when I say Clayton was poor - in his approach to the game. Not in his technical proficiency which was excellent nor am I saying he didn't do some good things (he had plenty of the ball to do so).

This lack of pace/zip to Rovers passing so very nearly cost us what should have been a very comfortable 3 points.

[dickos1]

I think you need to watch the game again, we created many chances, not just from set pieces.
How we played against ten men is exactly the way to do it, compare that to how Bradford played against us and there’s a very big difference

[Bessie Red]

Rovers played for 70 minutes against 10 men engaged in blanket defence.

The best way to combat these tactics is to keep the ball and keep spreading the play. Rovers did this. But to open your opponents up and create chances you also need to be, where possible, incisive and change the point of attack quickly. Rovers didn't do this.

After, say an attack down the right faltered, and the ball came back to the midfield Rovers were not quick enough in moving the ball say to the left to take advantage of the Stockport defence moving to counter the prior move down the right.

We were simply too slow in midfield when the ball needed recycling. This allowed Stockport time to reorganize themselves ahead of the next attacking phase occurring.

Other than the 1st goal in 70 minutes of near continual possession football Rovers therefore did not cut open and create a single good chance through possession play against 10 men. Not one.

Yes we created other chances through set pieces, long range shots and possession turnovers etc.

As the playmaker through whom nearly all our possession play went through Clayton was chief culprit in this slow play. He had numerous opportunities to recycle play more quickly but didn't opt to take them.

This is what I mean when I say Clayton was poor - in his approach to the game. Not in his technical proficiency which was excellent nor am I saying he didn't do some good things (he had plenty of the ball to do so).

This lack of pace/zip to Rovers passing so very nearly cost us what should have been a very comfortable 3 points.

Like I said, in this case, your opinions on the game & in particular Clayton's contribution seems to be in a minority, which I also said was fine, afterall differing opinions are what makes the game so fascinating. In my opinion, however, which I believe others agree with, is that Clayton, Rowe & Tomlin all have huge experience at a much higher level than Lge 2 and know how to play successfully against ten men who have nearly zero ambition to attack after being at 1-1. They, and others in the team, successfully engineered a win playing the way they did, not by luck, but by patient probing and intelligent passing and movement that in all honesty if we had, had a bit of luck would have been secured well before 91 mins. Just because we werent 5-1 up going into added time doesnt mean we were poor and if we had drawn 1-1 it wouldnt have meant we had been poor. Very often it is, for many reasons, more difficult to beat 10 men than it is to beat 11.
Anyway it is pretty irrelevant now as the record books show we gained 3 points and at the end of the day it is the result that matters not how we got there.

[Branton Red]

However I thought Rovers were relatively poor. The game didn't have the feel of a 4 or 5-1 at all for me but of a team making heavy weather of taking advantage of their numerical advantage. 2 reasons for this.

Firstly we were too slow in putting a second centre forward on. This should have been done immediately after their equalizer IMO. Miller was isolated and barely had a kick.

Secondly everything went through Clayton who for me was poor. He dwelt too long on the ball, slowed things down too much, eschewed playing quick passes to spread the play for simpler ones to the centre backs or to players tightly marked who could only play back to him. He made it easy for Stockport to organize themselves.

Bump. Was criticized on here at the time for these opinions (in bold) after the Stockport game. My views haven't changed. They apply to every game I've witnessed this season.