Match Thread Coventry City - Port Vale Match Thread - Saturday 9th Sep (11 Viewers)

[Mucca Mad Boys]

And we look solid at the back. We've given two goals away to really awful goalkeeping errors. Besides that we have hardly been under much threat. That has to be a good sign.

Bit worried on the striking front. If Andreu is injured and Biamou and McNulty and Thomas is on loan, that only leaves Beavon, Nazon and Ponticelli doesn't it?

Well, I for one prefer this new look defence. In 6 games we've conceded 1 goal that hasn't come from a GK mistake. That's fantastic. We can go into games knowing we can win 1-0 and in past Cov teams we were nervy in those situations. Defence wins games and I don't care if it's a drab affair, it's the 3pts that matters.

That depth is still impressive, might not be ideal, but this could be Ponticelli's and Nazon's foot in the door!

 

---

[no_loyalty]

I certainly didn't feel it was a red. I thought he definitely did bring him down, but that there were other defenders covering, so should have been a yellow.

I thought it was a definite red, but I didn't understand why the ref consulted with the assistant who was covering the other half of the pitch

 

[Grendel]

I certainly didn't feel it was a red. I thought he definitely did bring him down, but that there were other defenders covering, so should have been a yellow.

He denied him a goalscoring opportunity. That's the law

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Coventry City 1-0 Port Vale

I'm not sure we're very balanced

 

[dongonzalos]

Great to get a win, but how badly do we need a goal scorer
We are creating chances we just can't score

 

[Grendel]

Great to get a win, but how badly do we need a goal scorer
We are creating chances we just can't score

How many chances did we create today? Seriously!

 

[skybluegod]

Been watching too much match of the day I'm afraid and listening to the pundits. There is no such thing as "last man" which is a term banded about every week. The definition is "denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity" of which there could be 5 or 7 men in the vicinity.

Yes but as part of denying a goal scoring opportunity, the location and number of players between the attacker and the goal is one of the key determining factors in deciding it. Which is why the term is used, about 'last man'.

 

[Kingokings204]

Coventry 1-0 Port Vale

 

[skybluepm2]

Coventry 1-0 Port Vale

Highlights from today

 

[skybluegod]

However wasn't the rule relaxed last season? To the extent that if it looked like an accident that it was no longer a sending off? It doesn't seem like it was definitely on purpose?

 

[skybluegod]

Good finish by Jodi, but that is some of the worst defending I have seen, how can you give that much space to anybody that close to your goal.
If I was Brown, I would be ripping my players heads off, absolutely no pressure on Jodi for that goal.

 

[dongonzalos]

How many chances did we create today? Seriously!

I would hope the BBC don't wear sky blue tinted glasses....

Coventry City 1-0 Port Vale

 

[skybluesam66]

Andreu - he actually said something along the lines of
it seems bad, but lets hope its not as bad as it seems

 

[dongonzalos]

How many chances did we create today? Seriously!

Or sky for that matter
Coventry 1-0 Port Vale: Jodi Jones' superb goal enough for Sky Blues

 

[dongonzalos]

Problem is we need Jodi to score exceptional goals for us to get anywhere.
Still very puzzled at the last minute signing involving a transfer of a CB.
Don't get me wrong I welcome any signing but if you can only make one and you have a transfer fee. When you are dominating games but not scoring, a new CB isn't the answer

 

[dongonzalos]

Very disappointed with the attendance today.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Fact of life unfortunately. If you keep cutting costs and offering a less and less attractive product. Your customer base will naturally fall.
Still I am sure it will become part of a justification as to why we no longer suit playing at the Ricoh.

 

[Nick]

Watching it back, stokes was also there and could have got there

 

[mark82]

Watching it back, stokes was also there and could have got there

I'm not sure about that. To be fair, the foul could have saved the win for us.

 

[skybluegod]

Watching it back, stokes was also there and could have got there

Disagree, I think if Rod doesn't foul him, stokes wasn't closing him down fast enough to stop him getting 1vs1 and getting a shot away. And even if he gets across, it's a simple pass across for a tap in.
However as I said, it looks like an accident to me, so not sure it it's a sending off by the Letter of the law.

 

[Grendel]

Or sky for that matter
Coventry 1-0 Port Vale: Jodi Jones' superb goal enough for Sky Blues

We created no chances a striker would score thanks for confirming.

 

[higgs]

Rod took one for the team just took him out before he reached d penalty area

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Nick]

Disagree, I think if Rod doesn't foul him, stokes wasn't closing him down fast enough to stop him getting 1vs1 and getting a shot away. And even if he gets across, it's a simple pass across for a tap in.
However as I said, it looks like an accident to me, so not sure it it's a sending off by the Letter of the law.

At the time it looked like he made it look accidental and used his trailing leg as he was beaten

 

[Mcbean]

No penalty he ran across the front of the player who tripped - he did not have control of the ball

 

[chiefdave]

Denial of an obvious goal scoring opportunity has the following criteria:

• distance between the offence and the goal
• general direction of the play
• likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
• location and number of defenders

On that basis this fails on at least two and possible all four. The direction of play was away from the goal and there was another defender moving in to cover.

You could also argue on distance to goal and the likelihood of the forward keeping control of the ball had the foul not been committed.

 

[skybluegod]

At the time it looked like he made it look accidental and used his trailing leg as he was beaten

Can't really tell from that angle, but you probably have a better idea than I do

 

[dongonzalos]

We created no chances a striker would score thanks for confirming.

It should have been a much more emphatic victory, with the Sky Blues failing to convert a number of second-half chances.

Not failing to create

Do keep up

Sky and BBC said the same.

Most people are also in agreement that we need a decent goal scorer.

 

[dongonzalos]

Denial of an obvious goal scoring opportunity has the following criteria:

• distance between the offence and the goal
• general direction of the play
• likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
• location and number of defenders

On that basis this fails on at least two and possible all four. The direction of play was away from the goal and there was another defender moving in to cover.

You could also argue on distance to goal and the likelihood of the forward keeping control of the ball had the foul not been committed.

We are suffering from a different issue we are getting goal scoring opportunities and our transfer business this summer has denied us from taking goal scoring opportunities
McDonald did to them what our last signing of the transfer window did to us

 

[fernandopartridge]

Fact of life unfortunately. If you keep cutting costs and offering a less and less attractive product. Your customer base will naturally fall.
Still I am sure it will become part of a justification as to why we no longer suit playing at the Ricoh.

You contradict yourself all the time you clown. So football isn't about the fans after all

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[covcity4life]

Great to get a win, but how badly do we need a goal scorer
We are creating chances we just can't score

Thats not true at all

We sont make many chsnces per game thus not much for strikers to go on

When we do likes of mcnulty will finish them.off i have no doubt

 

[Grendel]

It should have been a much more emphatic victory, with the Sky Blues failing to convert a number of second-half chances.

Not failing to create

Do keep up

Sky and BBC said the same.

Most people are also in agreement that we need a decent goal scorer.

Our chances were predominantly from midfielders moving into advanced positions. The only shot I can recall in the area was from Beavon

As FP says you are a clown

 

[singers_pore]

We are failing to create many chances and we also waste most of the decent opportunities that we get, especially free kicks on the edge of the box.

 

[dongonzalos]

Our chances were predominantly from midfielders moving into advanced positions. The only shot I can recall in the area was from Beavon

As FP says you are a clown

Got FP on block have done for a while he is a just a mere wum. Once he bottled a charity bet over one of his wumming comments. That was enough to expose the weasel for what he really is.

 

[Adge]

However wasn't the rule relaxed last season? To the extent that if it looked like an accident that it was no longer a sending off? It doesn't seem like it was definitely on purpose?

No, to put it simply from the start of this season if a challenge to win the ball in the penalty area was a "genuine attempt to play the ball" in the opinion of the referee, a penalty is awarded and a caution. Whereas last season it would be a double whammy i.e. penalty and red card.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Got FP on block have done for a while he is a just a mere wum. Once he bottled a charity bet over one of his wumming comments. That was enough to expose the weasel for what he really is.

I said I'd take the bet you lying dickhead

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[dongonzalos]

Our chances were predominantly from midfielders moving into advanced positions. The only shot I can recall in the area was from Beavon

As FP says you are a clown

While you are here have you answered that question yet. In the CCFC club in crisis thread?
You know the one you were asked a question where it completely destroyed your stupid point?
At the time I predicted that because you were made to look like a fool you would ignore the question hoping it would go away.
Guess what you did exactly that.
So I will bump the thread for you.
Look forward to the amusing attempt by you to answer me the question. That you think will shows you were not once again wrong. Yet we all know you are wrong as usual and we will be laughing at the attempt.....