Ratings vs Doncaster (4 Viewers)

[stupot07]

RCC - 4 - at fault for 2 goals, handling was poor, nearly conceded a third. 1 good save though
Ricketts - 6 - solid
Martin - 7 - our best defender yesterday, some great blocks
Turner - 6 - thought he struggled against the mobility of their front 2, also looked uncomfortable on the ball
Stokes - 5 - worst game for us but not helped by Murphy
Fleck - 6 - had a decent game but awful mistake for their second.
Vincelot - 5 - I'm a big fan but he was anonymous yesterday.
Kent - 5 - our biggest attacking threat, but over plays, takes on the extra man, and poor quality final ball is frustrating.
JOB - 7 - never stopped, always willing to take responsibility on the ball and tried to drive us forward
Murphy - 5 - wasteful in good positions, looked disinterested at times, poor control in tough conditions, didn't support stokes enough defensively
Armstrong - 6 - lovely goal, but missed a great chance and got too greedy at times. Got frustrated and came too deep to get on the ball in the last 15 mins.

Subs:
Non used: you looked at the bench an knew there was no one on there that could change the game. Can understand why TM didn't make a change

A toss up between Martin and Job for MOTM.

Doncaster came with a plan to nullify space in the midfield and in behind and it worked a treat for them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

---

[steveo1987]

Fleck kept giving the ball away cheaply.Vincelot played well imo I'm loving Ricketts,player of the season so far.

 

[stupot07]

Yeah Ricketts is just so calm and composed and unrushed in everything he does. Oozes quality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Otis]

RCC - 4 - at fault for 2 goals, handling was poor, nearly conceded a third. 1 good save though
Ricketts - 6 - solid
Martin - 7 - our best defender yesterday, some great blocks
Turner - 6 - thought he struggled against the mobility of their front 2, also looked uncomfortable on the ball
Stokes - 5 - worst game for us but not helped by Murphy
Fleck - 6 - had a decent game but awful mistake for their second.
Vincelot - 4 - I'm a big fan but he was anonymous yesterday.
Kent - 5 - our biggest attacking threat, but over plays, takes on the extra man, and poor quality final ball is frustrating.
JOB - 7 - never stopped, always willing to take responsibility on the ball and tried to drive us forward
Murphy - 5 - wasteful in good positions, looked disinterested at times, poor control in tough conditions, didn't support stokes enough defensively
Armstrong - 6 - lovely goal, but missed a great chance and got too greedy at times. Got frustrated and came too deep to get on the ball in the last 15 mins.

Subs:
Non used: you looked at the bench an knew there was no one on there that could change the game. Can understand why TM didn't make a change

A toss up between Martin and Job for MOTM.

Doncaster came with a plan to nullify space in the midfield and in behind and it worked a treat for them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

I thought Vincelot played okay, myself.

RCC - 4. Very difficult conditions yesterday, but with that in mind he would have been better off trying to parry that shot for the first goal out to the left to the touchline.

Ricketts - 6. Good solid game.

Martin - 6. Pretty solid, but our defence did a look a mess en masse at times, so all the back four were culpable to a degree.

Turner - 6 . Again, pretty solid, but the back four just didn't look as assured as they have previously. Again the conditions might have some bearing on that.

Stokes - 5. His worst game in a City shirt.

Fleck - 6. Disastrous mistake and a basic no no in football is that of playing the ball out blindly. He had time to look up before playing that ball.

Vincelot -6.5 Pretty solid game and one great run into the opposition's box.

Kent - 6. Would be 9 or 10 if he could get that final end product going, but by far and away he was our biggest threat.

JOB - 7. Worked his socks off and was inventive too.

Murphy - 6. Bits and pieces from him yesterday.

Armstrong - 6.5/. Took his goal really well and could have had one or two more.

 

[stupot07]

Perhaps 4 for Vincelot was a bit harsh. He's been immense this season, just thought he struggled to get on the ball yesterday.

Otis - you forgot Turner!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Otis]

Perhaps 4 for Vincelot was a bit harsh. He's been immense this season, just thought he struggled to get on the ball yesterday.

Otis - you forgot Turner!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Maybe that's because he was anonymous or crap.











Or could be that I simply forgot about him.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

Stupot, you gave both Ricketts and Turner 6's but said one was solid yet the other looked uncomfortable?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Thought back 4 was fairly solid, we gifted them 2 goals other than that they barely had a chance. 2 long range shots, one which hit the post and one tipped over is all I can remember.

 

[stupot07]

Stupot, you gave both Ricketts and Turner 6's but said one was solid yet the other looked uncomfortable?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suppose i didn't think Ricketts was particularly tested, their left wingback didn't really get forward, Ricketts was solid but not quite a 7. Turnover on the other hand has looked a cut above this league but yesterday I thought their front 2 worked him over, so on his standards he looked comfortable but still showed glimpses. Didn't want to give half marks but if did Ricketts would have been a 6.5 and turner a 5.5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[wingy]

I agree with Stupot, Vincelot for me was anonymous
CCFC,can't agree about the back four, thought they were ponderous on the ball on many occasions and particularly on both goals.
Midfield were ineffective apart from JOB and Fleck
The Idea that substitutions wouldn't have improved anything I don't buy,certainly not on the subject of pace, as IMO it worked against us leading to Isolation around the box, midfielders not backing up for delivery.
Kent and Murphy no end product, possibly due to this
RCC, I was jesting with my brother calling him Manuel Nuar.
He Is very much a modern goalie in terms of style but It does bring with It certain dangers, like CCFC commented which I have alluded to before.
For some reason yesterday we started slow, lethargically, tempo of passing was slow.
IMO they set up very well to nullify us and possibly conditions got the better of us but we didn't lose and could have.

 

[Otis]

I agree with Stupot, Vincelot for me was anonymous
CCFC,can't agree about the back four, thought they were ponderous on the ball on many occasions and particularly on both goals.
Midfield were ineffective apart from JOB and Fleck
The Idea that substitutions wouldn't have improved anything I don't buy,certainly not on the subject of pace, as IMO it worked against us leading to Isolation around the box, midfielders not backing up for delivery.
Kent and Murphy no end product, possibly due to this
RCC, I was jesting with my brother calling him Manuel Nuar.
He Is very much a modern goalie in terms of style but It does bring with It certain dangers, like CCFC commented which I have alluded to before.
For some reason yesterday we started slow, lethargically, tempo of passing was slow.
IMO they set up very well to nullify us and possibly conditions got the better of us but we didn't lose and could have.

Vincelot had a brilliant run that nearly resulted in a goal and also smashed a guy in the face with his elbow. How can you say he was anonymous?

 

[Grendel]

I think vincelot did well enough.

He tracked back as usual and made a couple of vital blocks. Most passes didn't go astray,

It wasn't great though and overall we were second best for long periods and they were looking to win the game.

Stokes struggled a bit but mainly as Murphy gives little defensive support. I was surprised Kent remained on the pitch. At 2-1 up he needed to show some defensive qualities which he doesn't possess. Also attack wise he was pretty easily nullified.

We needed to tighten the midfield as they started to gain a lot of possession as the game went on.

It's obvious we play the ball out as we have no outlet for a longer ball. Fortune should have come on to try and bully their defence. I actually thought Armstrong had a good overall game but fortune for Kent and pushing Armstrong wide would have allowed more options on distribution,

Get the notion they were poor and we should have won out of our heads. We were tactically outdone for long periods and in the end were hanging on

Bad day all round.

 

[wingy]

Vincelot had a brilliant run that nearly resulted in a goal and also smashed a guy in the face with his elbow. How can you say he was anonymous?

I just didn't notice him yesterday Otis.

 

[Nick]

I just didn't notice him yesterday Otis.

Sometimes that's great, vincelot often goes unnoticed but is still effective

 

[Evo1883]

Thought vincelot was ok ..lets not forget that kent produced a superb pass for armstrong who decided to try and loft the keeper instead of placing it around him .
Fleck was very poor by his recent standards and turner looked like a player back from injury yesterday , wasnt his best day .
Still wish stokes would be more confident going forward ,and his distribution still needs massive work .
Charles cook poor for the 1st goal .
Murphy not working hard enough defensively yesterday ..
Jim o brien was MOTM for me .
Very average performance compared to recent weeks .
But its league 1 and we cannot expect perfection week in week out , and we still picked up a point .
Thats 2 months unbeaten

 

[Otis]

I just didn't notice him yesterday Otis.

He was the French guy with the beard.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I thought the was a strange comment by tm too! Lameiras for Kent or Murphy last 15 would have given him the chance to be a hero with fresh legs

 

[wingy]

He was the French guy with the beard.

Haha I did think someone else had grown a beard at one point yesterday.

 

[aloisiwouldhavescored]

Absolutely agree with everything you said. Exactly as I saw it.

RCC - 4 - at fault for 2 goals, handling was poor, nearly conceded a third. 1 good save though
Ricketts - 6 - solid
Martin - 7 - our best defender yesterday, some great blocks
Turner - 6 - thought he struggled against the mobility of their front 2, also looked uncomfortable on the ball
Stokes - 5 - worst game for us but not helped by Murphy
Fleck - 6 - had a decent game but awful mistake for their second.
Vincelot - 5 - I'm a big fan but he was anonymous yesterday.
Kent - 5 - our biggest attacking threat, but over plays, takes on the extra man, and poor quality final ball is frustrating.
JOB - 7 - never stopped, always willing to take responsibility on the ball and tried to drive us forward
Murphy - 5 - wasteful in good positions, looked disinterested at times, poor control in tough conditions, didn't support stokes enough defensively
Armstrong - 6 - lovely goal, but missed a great chance and got too greedy at times. Got frustrated and came too deep to get on the ball in the last 15 mins.

Subs:
Non used: you looked at the bench an knew there was no one on there that could change the game. Can understand why TM didn't make a change

A toss up between Martin and Job for MOTM.

Doncaster came with a plan to nullify space in the midfield and in behind and it worked a treat for them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[speedie87]

Rcc 4
ricketts 7
martin 7
turner 8
stokes 6
fleck 8 motm
vincelot 6
kent 5
murphy 7
obrien 8
armstrong 7

 

[Covstu]

RCC - 4 - at fault for 2 goals, handling was poor, nearly conceded a third. 1 good save though
Ricketts - 6 - solid
Martin - 7 - our best defender yesterday, some great blocks
Turner - 6 - thought he struggled against the mobility of their front 2, also looked uncomfortable on the ball
Stokes - 5 - worst game for us but not helped by Murphy
Fleck - 6 - had a decent game but awful mistake for their second.
Vincelot - 5 - I'm a big fan but he was anonymous yesterday.
Kent - 5 - our biggest attacking threat, but over plays, takes on the extra man, and poor quality final ball is frustrating.
JOB - 7 - never stopped, always willing to take responsibility on the ball and tried to drive us forward
Murphy - 5 - wasteful in good positions, looked disinterested at times, poor control in tough conditions, didn't support stokes enough defensively
Armstrong - 6 - lovely goal, but missed a great chance and got too greedy at times. Got frustrated and came too deep to get on the ball in the last 15 mins.

Subs:
Non used: you looked at the bench an knew there was no one on there that could change the game. Can understand why TM didn't make a change

A toss up between Martin and Job for MOTM.

Doncaster came with a plan to nullify space in the midfield and in behind and it worked a treat for them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

pretty accurate, didn't think vincelot had a good game and goes to show how we need him in that midfield. RCC wasn't really at fault on the second goal to be fair. I would have brought on bigi for the last 20 for Kent and move JOB back out wide, there were big gaps in the midfield for both teams that could have been exploited