Agree completely with those scores Stu and wouldn't change anything at all.RCC 6 - 3 good saves but should have done better with the goal regardless if he was fouled or not.
Phillips 5 - mixed bag, always offered an outlet but often ignored. Some good and poor defending.
Martin 6 - good goal, but didn't look comfortable at times defensively especially when Turner went off. Sloppy with his touch and passing at times
Turner 6 - his injury is a big loss
Stokes 6 - best of the defence, did a half decent job covering at centre back but did make a couple of errors.
Vincelot 8 MOTM - took on the captains armband and did what he does best, chasing harrying, covering, breaking up play.
Bigi 6 - did OK, often played as a third centre back. He's just not as dynamic, have the passing range or the urgency of fleck, who we desperately missed yesterday
JOB 7.5 - our best player on the park in the first half, plays with tempo and intelligence and was always the one who looked likely to put Armstrong through
Cole 6 - an assist, and more involved than the Barnsley game. The problem is we expect miracles from him, and he just isn't the player he was
Kent 5.5 - runs at players, then creates nothing. He did work hard defensively for the team but he just isn't good enough.
Armstrong 5 - his worst home performance. Should have squared that chance to JOB, let down by no service.
Subs
Haynes 5.5 - did OK, like Phillips I don't think he's going to be good enough for league one.
Maddison 6 - took 10 mins to get into the pace of the game, but then showed some exquisite touches.
Fortune 5 - right wing???? faired a little better through the middle but not good enough if we seriously want promotion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Not sure, but you could see exactly what TM was trying to do yesterday in bringing Fortune on. It did make sense.Why oh why does fortune get more game time than Tudgay?
Why oh why does fortune get more game time than Tudgay?
Not sure, but you could see exactly what TM was trying to do yesterday in bringing Fortune on. It did make sense.
A lot of Bigi's passes were telegraphed and intercepted.From where I was sitting Bigi was much better than Cole. Maybe a 7 for Bigi.
RCC 6 - 3 good saves but should have done better with the goal regardless if he was fouled or not.
Phillips 5 - mixed bag, always offered an outlet but often ignored. Some good and poor defending.
Martin 6 - good goal, but didn't look comfortable at times defensively especially when Turner went off. Sloppy with his touch and passing at times
Turner 6 - his injury is a big loss
Stokes 6 - best of the defence, did a half decent job covering at centre back but did make a couple of errors.
Vincelot 8 MOTM - took on the captains armband and did what he does best, chasing harrying, covering, breaking up play.
Bigi 6 - did OK, often played as a third centre back. He's just not as dynamic, have the passing range or the urgency of fleck, who we desperately missed yesterday
JOB 7.5 - our best player on the park in the first half, plays with tempo and intelligence and was always the one who looked likely to put Armstrong through
Cole 6 - an assist, and more involved than the Barnsley game. The problem is we expect miracles from him, and he just isn't the player he was
Kent 5.5 - runs at players, then creates nothing. He did work hard defensively for the team but he just isn't good enough.
Armstrong 5 - his worst home performance. Should have squared that chance to JOB, let down by no service.
Subs
Haynes 5.5 - did OK, like Phillips I don't think he's going to be good enough for league one.
Maddison 6 - took 10 mins to get into the pace of the game, but then showed some exquisite touches.
Fortune 5 - right wing???? faired a little better through the middle but not good enough if we seriously want promotion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
RCC 6 - 3 good saves but should have done better with the goal regardless if he was fouled or not.
Phillips 5 - mixed bag, always offered an outlet but often ignored. Some good and poor defending.
Martin 6 - good goal, but didn't look comfortable at times defensively especially when Turner went off. Sloppy with his touch and passing at times
Turner 6 - his injury is a big loss
Stokes 6 - best of the defence, did a half decent job covering at centre back but did make a couple of errors.
Vincelot 8 MOTM - took on the captains armband and did what he does best, chasing harrying, covering, breaking up play.
Bigi 6 - did OK, often played as a third centre back. He's just not as dynamic, have the passing range or the urgency of fleck, who we desperately missed yesterday
JOB 7.5 - our best player on the park in the first half, plays with tempo and intelligence and was always the one who looked likely to put Armstrong through
Cole 6 - an assist, and more involved than the Barnsley game. The problem is we expect miracles from him, and he just isn't the player he was
Kent 5.5 - runs at players, then creates nothing. He did work hard defensively for the team but he just isn't good enough.
Armstrong 5 - his worst home performance. Should have squared that chance to JOB, let down by no service.
Subs
Haynes 5.5 - did OK, like Phillips I don't think he's going to be good enough for league one.
Maddison 6 - took 10 mins to get into the pace of the game, but then showed some exquisite touches.
Fortune 5 - right wing???? faired a little better through the middle but not good enough if we seriously want promotion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Phillips I'm afraid is not League One standard. That's the way I see it anyway. He showed a lot of promise at one point, but seems to have too many frailties in his armoury and you always worry about his rash tackling and giving the ball way.Agree with most of that but I'd take at least a point from Phillips. Still annoyed by him consistently giving the ball away, being out of position and eventually allowing Oldham in at the end which resulted in the goal. If we had a more experienced right back in we'd have seen the game out yesterday.
Also think fortune did quite well yesterday and offered a more physical outlet up front when he came on, chased more than he usually does and nearly set up Armstrong at the death
As usual I was spot on with my prediction as RV as captainRCC 6 - 3 good saves but should have done better with the goal regardless if he was fouled or not.
Phillips 5 - mixed bag, always offered an outlet but often ignored. Some good and poor defending.
Martin 6 - good goal, but didn't look comfortable at times defensively especially when Turner went off. Sloppy with his touch and passing at times
Turner 6 - his injury is a big loss
Stokes 6 - best of the defence, did a half decent job covering at centre back but did make a couple of errors.
Vincelot 8 MOTM - took on the captains armband and did what he does best, chasing harrying, covering, breaking up play.
Bigi 6 - did OK, often played as a third centre back. He's just not as dynamic, have the passing range or the urgency of fleck, who we desperately missed yesterday
JOB 7.5 - our best player on the park in the first half, plays with tempo and intelligence and was always the one who looked likely to put Armstrong through
Cole 6 - an assist, and more involved than the Barnsley game. The problem is we expect miracles from him, and he just isn't the player he was
Kent 5.5 - runs at players, then creates nothing. He did work hard defensively for the team but he just isn't good enough.
Armstrong 5 - his worst home performance. Should have squared that chance to JOB, let down by no service.
Subs
Haynes 5.5 - did OK, like Phillips I don't think he's going to be good enough for league one.
Maddison 6 - took 10 mins to get into the pace of the game, but then showed some exquisite touches.
Fortune 5 - right wing???? faired a little better through the middle but not good enough if we seriously want promotion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?