Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 26, 2024, 12:28:11 am

Login with username, password and session length

Links


FSA logo

Author Topic: Negative Rovers  (Read 6016 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Rovin Reporter

  • Newbie
Negative Rovers
« on October 06, 2012, 04:32:01 pm by Rovin Reporter »
Good first half but the second half too defensive , bad passing , not pricking out runners up front , reluctant to get get forward   trying to play on the break too much with chances going a begging for Shrewsbury .



(want to hide these ads? Join the VSC today!)

PDX_Rover

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 8890
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #1 on October 06, 2012, 04:47:18 pm by PDX_Rover »
Given the last couple of seasons, I'll take 3 points however they come. Stability is the key. 10 games in and we're in the mix. Most of us would have taken that I think.

Rovin Reporter

  • Newbie
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #2 on October 06, 2012, 04:49:53 pm by Rovin Reporter »
Same here just hate the way play

Bristol Red Rover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 9695
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #3 on October 06, 2012, 04:56:54 pm by Bristol Red Rover »
Still one of the best defences in the league. Midfield sounded better with Harper being the central cog. I like the subs that were made, good timing.

bigbadjack

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 723
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #4 on October 06, 2012, 05:10:53 pm by bigbadjack »
3 points can't complain cocker

newyankee

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 1818
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #5 on October 06, 2012, 05:13:04 pm by newyankee »
There's always one, never satified with anything. Next game let's attack for ninety minutes and lose 1-0, maybe Rovinreporter will be happy then. :headbang: :headbang:

MiKA

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 897
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #6 on October 06, 2012, 05:22:28 pm by MiKA »
3 points at home were all that mattered today.   :scarf:

DRNaith

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 3915
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #7 on October 06, 2012, 05:23:25 pm by DRNaith »
LOL, it's not the Rovers that I'm sick of negativity from.

Filo

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 30195
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #8 on October 06, 2012, 05:24:27 pm by Filo »
Good first half but the second half too defensive , bad passing , not pricking out runners up front , reluctant to get get forward   trying to play on the break too much with chances going a begging for Shrewsbury .



Going begging? I take it you were n`t there? Woods had one save to make all game!

I`ll take your point about being negative in the 2nd half only

glosterred

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 8931
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #9 on October 06, 2012, 05:29:15 pm by glosterred »
Better than Tuesday and 3 points - but still along way to go to be a good team

COYR


big fat yorkshire pudding

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 13628
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #10 on October 06, 2012, 05:34:45 pm by big fat yorkshire pudding »
Problem for me at home is confidence I think, we got a win today but we look scared to lose.  I don't think Saunders wants that but it is an issue IMO.  Defensively good again, but still a lot of work to improve our fluency going forwards.  In spurts it's there but not consistently.

bigbadjack

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 723
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #11 on October 06, 2012, 05:44:22 pm by bigbadjack »
How often did we play champagne football under SOD and got naff all out of it?? For me personally I'll take points over performance for now

Wellred

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 4871
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #12 on October 06, 2012, 05:49:18 pm by Wellred »
and Shelton Martis MOTM

MachoMadness

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 6117
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #13 on October 06, 2012, 05:51:48 pm by MachoMadness »
Much better than Tuesday. Shrewsbury had a couple of half chances in the 2nd half but I don't remember Woods having much to do. Defensively very solid again - it's clear that Deano has gone all out to get rid of the losing mentality at the club and it's working, however the forward line still lacks creativity. We had a couple of chances, Hume should've done better late on, and anyone get a better view of the offside goal? I don't like to judge offsides until I've seen them a couple of times.

Rovin Reporter

  • Newbie
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #14 on October 06, 2012, 06:00:54 pm by Rovin Reporter »
There's always one, never satified with anything. Next game let's attack for ninety minutes and lose 1-0, maybe Rovinreporter will be happy then. :headbang: :headbang:
i pay to watch so pay to moan , that's what watching Rovers does to you. 1-0 is good but it does not alter the fact we are just not playing well at home and teams no how to get under our skin to easily .
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 06:21:14 pm by Rovin Reporter »

dickos1

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 16976
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #15 on October 06, 2012, 06:09:38 pm by dickos1 »
It doesn't help when everytime we make a backwards pass and retain possession the crowd moan and groan.
"get it forward" we have some very thick people sat in that stadium

MachoMadness

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 6117
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #16 on October 06, 2012, 06:11:46 pm by MachoMadness »
It doesn't help when everytime we make a backwards pass and retain possession the crowd moan and groan.
"get it forward" we have some very thick people sat in that stadium

These are probably the same people who cry that we're playing hoofball.

bellevuebhoy

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 54
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #17 on October 06, 2012, 06:20:16 pm by bellevuebhoy »
thought played well ,looked solid hume looks class wins loads in the air,bennet ran his socks of closing down (my motm) paynter made some great runs, shelton looked solid i could go on but i do nt want to be too positive

Rovin Reporter

  • Newbie
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #18 on October 06, 2012, 06:23:40 pm by Rovin Reporter »
thought played well ,looked solid hume looks class wins loads in the air,bennet ran his socks of closing down (my motm) paynter made some great runs, shelton looked solid i could go on but i do nt want to be too positive
please don't be too positive , what is supposed to be negative thread. Thanks for your cooperation .

DonnyBazR0ver

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 18131
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #19 on October 06, 2012, 06:36:51 pm by DonnyBazR0ver »
Agree with the rest that we were much better today especially first half. I think most people will take that any day of the week. Second half, certainly a spell when the wheels came off when even our better players seemed to lose their bearings.

Saunders made the right subs at the right time and we held on for the 3 points. Sure, still room for improvement but after the dire performance v Preston, we started with the right line up and Harper makes a big difference.

Thought Hume was the bright light and was involved in all the good stuff. Martis was excellent at the back and, I have to say, Quinn in the second half, had the best game to date. Bennett's work rate was much better. Wood's looked competent in goal and did what he needed to do when we needed it.

Not such a good day at the office for Syers and rightly subbed but overall, the building blocks are there.

Love to see Martis keep his place along side Jones and I'd like to see Husband keep his place. Persevere with Hume and Paynter up top and see if their understanding develops.   


 

DRFCSouth

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 804
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #20 on October 06, 2012, 06:39:52 pm by DRFCSouth »
I'll take where we are. I think give it 3 months and we will see the rewards. Many new faces, few points off the play offs, cant be bad!  :rtid:

MachoMadness

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 6117
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #21 on October 06, 2012, 06:48:17 pm by MachoMadness »
Deano making the excellent point that a lot of the side that played today have barely featured this season - Martis, Harper, Paynter etc, and the defence did well despite being makeshift.

Good that he identified that we fell apart in the 2nd half too. A better side than Shrewsbury would have probably punished us but all in all, the organisation and effort that was lacking on Tuesday was there, just a shame that some of the football isn't quite there yet, but if Deano says he's working on it and the team continues to put the effort in that's good enough for me.

DonnyNoel

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 2672
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #22 on October 06, 2012, 06:57:30 pm by DonnyNoel »
It was important to win so that may have lead to us being overly cautious against tepid opposition. We confidence flowing we could have rinsed them but the result takes precedence today I reckon.

Good to see understandings starting to form all over the pitch. Harper and Hume will get better as the games come and Martis's outstanding performance today shows we have 6 quality (for L1) defenders.

River Don

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 8333
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #23 on October 06, 2012, 07:03:51 pm by River Don »
Maybe it's just me. I thought we looked comfortable all afternoon. We put together some lengthy periods of possession. There were a few fluid passing moves. Woods hardly had anything to do. I admit a bit more creativity in front of goal would've been nice.

For me it was a decent 3 points.

River Don

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 8333
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #24 on October 06, 2012, 07:17:08 pm by River Don »
It doesn't help when everytime we make a backwards pass and retain possession the crowd moan and groan.
"get it forward" we have some very thick people sat in that stadium

Football is a game of possession not a game of territory.

newyankee

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 1818
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #25 on October 06, 2012, 08:19:22 pm by newyankee »
Things never change, those of us old enough will remember Albert "Yogi" Broadbent always went back to go forward. He always said so long as you have the ball, where you go doesn't matter, if you can't go forward, go back and try again.  That was over forty years ago, it still works, and I wouldn't ever argue with "Yogi".

steve@dcfd

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 9434
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #26 on October 06, 2012, 08:29:37 pm by steve@dcfd »
First half was ok second half was poor. To many hypocrites on this board. Last year when our players were playing back to Woods Sean got slated by the same posters who are now justifying Deans tactics. Yes is was his tactics otherwise why did they all stay back at free kicks and corners. Yes we got three points and proved we can bore supporters while doing it, but it is now better under Dean.

Wellred

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 4871
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #27 on October 06, 2012, 08:33:29 pm by Wellred »
First half was ok second half was poor. To many hypocrites on this board. Last year when our players were playing back to Woods Sean got slated by the same posters who are now justifying Deans tactics. Yes is was his tactics otherwise why did they all stay back at free kicks and corners. Yes we got three points and proved we can bore supporters while doing it, but it is now better under Dean.

Give it a rest. Your hero has moved on why can't you?

Rios

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 1064
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #28 on October 06, 2012, 08:35:33 pm by Rios »
Well Rovin Rover, I agree with you.  It was mind bendingly dull and negative in the second half compounded when we took off Painter and instead of a like for like swap with Brown we brought a defensive midfielder on in Keegan.  Result?  Shrewsbury camped on top of us as we didn't have a decent outlet meaning that Brown had to come on eventually.  Martis was outstanding and Harper, Spurr, Hume and Cotterill can all be happy with their days work.  Apart from a few stray kicks I thought Woods had a decent game too.  Thought Bennet (again!) and Syers were anonymous and I'm really not sure about Quinn as an attacking right back.

Oh and if my views are "negative" according to all you thought Police, then you kiss my fat, hairy arse.  I'm happy with the three points but if we're going to produce that sort of football every home game then it's going to be a long, long winter and if you all want to get all positive and fail to address our blatant failings then we'll stay where we are at the moment... an everage mid-table team who are happy with a dismal three points against one of the divisions also-rans!  (no offence Shrews fans, but you were sh*t... wouldn't mind stealing your right back off you though!)

Red wizard

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 2081
Re: Negative Rovers
« Reply #29 on October 06, 2012, 08:45:43 pm by Red wizard »
Well Rovin Rover, I agree with you.  It was mind bendingly dull and negative in the second half compounded when we took off Painter and instead of a like for like swap with Brown we brought a defensive midfielder on in Keegan.  Result?  Shrewsbury camped on top of us as we didn't have a decent outlet meaning that Brown had to come on eventually.  Martis was outstanding and Harper, Spurr, Hume and Cotterill can all be happy with their days work.  Apart from a few stray kicks I thought Woods had a decent game too.  Thought Bennet (again!) and Syers were anonymous and I'm really not sure about Quinn as an attacking right back.

Oh and if my views are "negative" according to all you thought Police, then you kiss my fat, hairy arse.  I'm happy with the three points but if we're going to produce that sort of football every home game then it's going to be a long, long winter and if you all want to get all positive and fail to address our blatant failings then we'll stay where we are at the moment... an everage mid-table team who are happy with a dismal three points against one of the divisions also-rans!  (no offence Shrews fans, but you were sh*t... wouldn't mind stealing your right back off you though!)
We brought Keegan on as we was getting over run in the middle. I agree in Quinn although he is a steady player who will get better imo.

 

TinyPortal © 2005-2012