greenun Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 :@ During the 1960's, Helenio Herrera's great Inter Milan side pioneered the art of catenaccio (the door bolt) with four man markers and a sweeper, that excelled at grinding out 1-0 wins. This ultra-defensive system relied on Inter's three swift forwards getting an early goal and the team subsequently surviving the opposition's onslaught for the remainder of the match. It was a tactic feared and revered all over the footballing world, but enabled Inter to win 2 European Cups. Following Tony Rougier's excellent 5th minute opener, Roberts' miss when clean through and the unfortunate concussion for Doherty, Danny Wilson unleashed catatonia. This was a ruthless ploy, designed to lull Hartlepool into a true sense of security and bore the rest of us tuning in on television into a stupor. You see, catatonia relies on stereotypical defence, an ineffective midfield and an attack, so weak that they couldn't punch there way out of a wet paper bag. Still, it's been the epitome of a season that promised promotion and delivered us to forage amongst the scraps of the play-offs against far hungrier adversaries. I feared the worst after City's line-up was displayed, with specialist left back Woodman replacing the injured Bell in left midfield, Stowell recalled to the bench and Miller missing entirely. Surprisingly, Lita WAS included in the squad, but what a tiny crumb of comfort. And as for Marc Goodfellow and Darren Caskey, well, I've given up hope of ever seeing those two again. I apologise. Note to self, "I've given up hope of ever seeing Darren Caskey play for City, because he's just a figment of my imagination." There, that feels much better. For most of the match City persistently conceded needless free kicks in the final third. Thankfully, they either resulted in clearances from the rock solid Butler, or superb handling and outstanding reaction saves from Phillips. Nonetheless, unchallenged, Hartlepool poured gamely forward and were denied a cast iron penalty, after Phillips fouled the onrushing Williams. I can only assume that referee Paul Taylor, although well positioned, felt that the ball had already evaded Williams and therefore Phillips' unavoidable block hadn't denied the forward a goalscoring opportunity. What a load of technical twaddle, as the official obviously bottled it. Still, Taylor treated both sides the same and with equal incompetence, booking Coles and Burnell for late, but hardly cautionable offences. As the game entered the last 15 minutes, a 1-0 win straight from the pages of Dick Turpin novel, appeared highly likely. Until that is, Carey and Phillips performed their own rendition of the musical hall favourite "The Lambeth Walk." How I chuckled, as it was everything free and easy, do as you darn well pleasy, with the City players charging towards each other, oblivious to the fact that neither had the ball. Pools Joel Porter must have thought it was his birthday, before caressing the ball into an empty net. Accordingly, City are now the bookies favourites to win the tie at Ashton Gate this Wednesday. However they'll have to improve 90% on this turgid performance against the team with the division's best away record. The question is, will City WANT IT ENOUGH? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamC Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 What nonsense, the team selection made perfect sense, and why was Stowell on the bench? well, if the ref had given the penalty as he should and sent Steve off then I'm sure you be moaning about us playing half an hour of a playoff match with no keeper. Woodman for Bell was hardly controversial either, their right sided midfielder had scored 14 and would you really want to see the lightweight, defensively poor Goodfellow up against him away? You give Hartlepool no credit at all, they went into the game in better form than us and we had to battle hard for a draw. Their goal came from a mistake, but guess what? these things happen, the person who made it had already pulled off three excellent saves. As for Caskey I've seen him in the reserves and he's just not fit enough, he was signed in case of injuries but with Wilkshire in front of him in the queue he's unlikely to figure. We've set up the second leg nicely, I just can believe how much some people like to moan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhatWill Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 Please don't tell me that the green'un actually published that twaddle? If so its giving a very poor representation of our club and its supporters. Must try harder, or I'll happily take over the column. Hear, hear sipowicz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobby Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 Please don't tell me that the green'un actually published that twaddle? If so its giving a very poor representation of our club and its supporters. I hope it was just his first draft and never made the press - couldn't get a copy on Sunday, all sold out. It's bad enough that people moan on here endlessly (the media read the forum too) but to write that kind of stuff.. well words fail me. Did I watch a different game, did we lost 6-0? No didn't think so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Boy Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 But apart from that, was it OK? On a serious note, I got some stick when I christened him, Danny negative, but the above report could have followed any number of turgid preformances of the same type. Simply put, when we attack at pace we look good. When we don't, we look decidedly average and have no imagination in midfield to unlock the Brighton's of this world. More worrying was seeing £1,000,000 worth of signings, a small fortune at this level, warming the bench or in Miller & Goodfellows case, the stand. I have already made my view clear in that even if we gain promotion I don't want to see DW at the helm in Div 1 and if I were SL, I would be very wary about parting with my hard earned on the recommendations of a bloke who has squandered this kind of cash Miller...................................£365,000 didn't play Goodfellow...........................£100,000 didn't play Murray................................(say £200,000 late sub Wilkshire.............................£250,000 late sub Caskey................................never played Rougier cost nothing and a God Send (No Pun) The fact that DW played Woodman & Burnell highlights his style and as a very regular away follower, who was at Victoria Pk, I'm a bit tired of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brady bunch Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 one small point, joe deserved the yellow card, it was a two footed lunge, it was fortutante that the Harlteppol player was not neared the ball otherwise it could have been red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Boy Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 Woodman for Bell was hardly controversial either, their right sided midfielder had scored 14 and would you really want to see the lightweight, defensively poor Goodfellow up against him away? You give Hartlepool no credit at all, they went into the game in better form than us and we had to battle hard for a draw. Their goal came from a mistake, but guess what? these things happen, the person who made it had already pulled off three excellent saves. As for Caskey I've seen him in the reserves and he's just not fit enough, he was signed in case of injuries but with Wilkshire in front of him in the queue he's unlikely to figure. We've set up the second leg nicely, I just can believe how much some people like to moan. What nonsense, the team selection made perfect sense, and why was Stowell on the bench? Agree, made perfect sense to have Stowell on the bench and I posted the same in my team selection on here last week. Woodman for Bell was hardly controversial either, their right sided midfielder had scored 14 and would you really want to see the lightweight, defensively poor Goodfellow up against him away? Two points here.You CAN stop that type of player by man marking as you suggest.The only problem with that is it stops YOU creating anything and invites pressure, which invites cock ups, ala, their goal. How about the more positive slant of the heavyweight Rougier keeping this guy, who's obviously better going forward, defending? Another point is if Goodfellow is such a poor defender (and I agree he is) why sign him when he can only do half the job of the modern winger/wide midfielder?) As for Caskey I've seen him in the reserves and he's just not fit enough, he was signed in case of injuries but with Wilkshire in front of him in the queue he's unlikely to figure. What's the point in signing him if he's not fit? If he's not fit, he can't play, EVEN if someone IS injured. That's just a mental statement. Also how does LW feel? Signed for £250k and can't get a game in front of Burnell who's hardly played all season and is one crap midfielder As I posted in my match review, it's daft to invite pressure in the way we did in the second half and the best way to play Hartlepool, as QPR have shown, is to attack them because they're slow (Roberts over the top, should have scored) and shaky in possesion at the back.As you've said they have attacking midfielders who have scored more than LP!! Now, that doesn't mean playing four centre forwards, it means playing sensible pacey, attacking football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenun Posted May 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 Please don't tell me that the green'un actually published that twaddle? If so its giving a very poor representation of our club and its supporters. Must try harder, or I'll happily take over the column. Hear, hear sipowicz Yes, it WAS published thanks, in today's Post, as I mentioned in the catchline. Football's all about opinions, and I'll respect constructive criticism, but not your rudeness. And by the way Mr Phatwill, I try VERY HARD and always give the club my 100% support at matches, but I'm not writing fairy tales just for your benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 greenun - Could I refer you to page 4, paragraph 6 of your 'Now Is Not The Time' handbook. Thank you. As you well know, the time for fans to be asking questions is after it is too late. Not now, while there is still time to act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maidenheadred Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 why was Stowel on the bench? I can only imagine the posts on this forum had Stowell NOT been on the bench and the ref had called the penalty incident correctly. Philips would have been off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Boy Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 greenun - Could I refer you to page 4, paragraph 6 of your 'Now Is Not The Time' handbook. Thank you. As you well know, the time for fans to be asking questions is after it is too late. Not now, while there is still time to act. As I have said many times, constructive criticism is fine at all times and as DW takes absolutely no notice of the fans, in keeping with Sky Sports and most other official bodies/ clubs, it won't make any difference. We haven't finished this season yet, but if our side includes Burnell & Woodman on Weds, we might well finish it on a low note! I fully support the club, whatever team is picked and was at Hartlepool on Saturday night but if somethings wrong or right, first game or last, I'll mention it. Why have I got a sneaking feeling that Tinman will be wide and Wilkshire or Burnell in central midfield on Weds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richieb Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 Please don't tell me that the green'un actually published that twaddle? If so its giving a very poor representation of our club and its supporters. Must try harder, or I'll happily take over the column. Hear, hear sipowicz Umh, interesting response to the views of a fellow fan. While I tend to take both sides in this one, I find it strange that greenun's comments should be deemed as 'twaddle'. Also, that you feel it is not the opinion of a good representation of City fans? Who says so? Maybe not yours & maybe not mine, but as we say so often on this forum, it's all about opinions. My throw on things is that DW set his stall out to nulify (sp) H'pool & priority was not to conceed & give ourselves something for the 2nd leg. Rougiers goal coming early was a real bonus & we should have had 2/3 more, but from woeful finishing. We had the upper hand for all the first half & passing was crisp & we looked good, as we used our attack as a form of defending. The loss of Tom D was a key factor in the game & I think H'Pool took full advantage of this. The point that greenun makes so very well is that all of a sudden our passing & fouling was letting us down & we invited H'Pool to grow in stature. We lost our control & come the final whistle, I think we were relieved with the draw. Have no problem with Stowell being on the bench & the penalty incident was proof of this. Didn't agree with Burnell on the bench & Woodman for me was far too deep & defensive & at times Hill & Woodman were tripping over each other.When we started to stuggle & give the ball away, Woodman was giving us little option as an outlet. Being at the game, it was interesting to hear the groans when the team was announced & could have been so different if we had not got in front so early. But we did & thank goodness for that. Again in my opinion, we should have brought Leroy into the game & he does tend to give us a little more pace late on & can run defences ragged. But it is a two legged affair & DW was setting his stall out to keep what we had & Weds night will tell whether he was right or whether we should have give it more of a go on Saturday. H'Pool played well, but lets not give them as much credit as sipowicz believes we should, because we too often gave them the opportunity to play, by giving stupid freekicks away & far too often poor passing. They wouldn't have hurt us so much if we kept the football & had better outlets to do so. (not Burnell & Woodman - but Wilkshire & Lita) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhatWill Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 I just feel that the article is over-critical, pays absolutely no respect whatsoever to any City player (some played very well), offical or fan (worth a mention for the milage they enjured). Its rich in sarcasm and frankly any right-minded football fan reading it must think we have the most downbeat, fickle fans in the world! Oh, wait a minute... It wasn't a great performance, it wasn't pretty but we got the result which was fair on both teams on the day. To be honest the saves Philips made were good, but I'd of expected most 'keepers at this level to save them, plus all three of our chances were golden ones. I can't believe people are saying how "lucky" we were. Once we were 1-0 up we were always going to sit on it, and why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 Once we were 1-0 up we were always going to sit on it, and why not? In case we shot ourselves in the foot and gave away a silly equaliser? Oh, wait a minute... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest uncle john Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 Greenun and Bristol Boy, truth is truth, and in my opinion in these posts you have spoken the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
City Exile Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 I was just thinking this morning that the result sort of summed up our season. Decent enough result, but not a performance to get the heart racing. It DID remind me of an away performance by Italien sides of years gone by; get a goal and sit on it, for ever. Turgid, boring to watch, but effective. Don't get me wrong. Of course we had every right to sit deep and see what they could do after we scored. What I could not understand was then how ineffective we were on the break. Time after time, a midfielder got the ball, and then turned back, rather than looking forward. And how many times did we give silly free kicks away outside the box. We have to perform better on Wednesday, and I am confident we will. But the game summed up to me our approach all season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenun Posted May 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 I just feel that the article is over-critical, pays absolutely no respect whatsoever to any City player (some played very well), Dear Mr PhatWill, You STILL haven't read my article thoroughly, have you? Following Tony Rougier's excellent 5th minute opener, Roberts' miss when clean through and the unfortunate concussion for Doherty, Danny Wilson unleashed catatonia. and.... For most of the match City persistently conceded needless free kicks in the final third. Thankfully, they either resulted in clearances from the rock solid Butler, or superb handling and outstanding reaction saves from Phillips. Happy reading Mark Tovey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhatWill Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 Dear Mr PhatWill, You STILL haven't read my article thoroughly, have you? Yes I have thanks. I presume you're not refuting any of my other comments though? "Happy reading" again shows your interesting brand of sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenun Posted May 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 "Happy reading" again shows your interesting brand of sarcasm. You're right, that comment was uncalled for and I apologise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 Chidren,children - chill! Its nothing new that City (Peacock) have been giving away free-kicks in the final third.Its been happening all season.Peacock leads the "most fouls committed" stats for this division and is the main culprit by far. As for "Catatonia" - it was after all an away leg of a two legged tie and a draw is an ok result especially as the onus is on the home to attack and try to gain an advantage. Hartlepool did just that - they attacked whenever they could and when Docherty was subbed they gained momentum and were unfortunate not to get a penalty.It was a good performance from the home side and City defended well. I could understand the critism if City had gone at H'pool gung-ho and then lost 3-1 because of beakaway goals but critism of a creditable away draw is OTT. If City fail on Wednesday then I'll be one of the first to be dishing out the stick but untill then I prefer to wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobby Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 .....that the result sort of summed up our season. Decent enough result, but not a performance to get the heart racing. City Exile - on reflection I kind of agree with you in your summary. And on re-reading greenun's comments I can now see the positive through the negative which fairly reflects our performance. My apologies for previous comments (I think when I read if first time i only remembered the negative emphasis) I always enjoy reading greenun's column and congratulate him on providing fair, reasonable and well argued comments when he writes -which must be pretty difficult sometimes after disappointing results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jon Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 I was at a wedding on Saturday and so saw half the first half as well as the whole of the second. City seemed like a team happy to sit on a one nil score line and looked capable of doing so until Tommy went off. I could see what Danny was trying to do, it wasn't attractive but it was there to serve a purpose. We came away from Hartlepool with a draw and a lucky one at that in my opinion. However, when Chelsea went to Monaco, Ranieri was slated for chasing an away win: he changed his tactics and Chelsea came hugely unstuck. City had a gameplan and stuck to it. We're going into the home leg on Wednesday still in the tie. And quite frankly, at this stage of the season, I don't care how we go up, just as long as we do! Scooter Red Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhatWill Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 And quite frankly, at this stage of the season, I don't care how we go up, just as long as we do! And thats the bottom line, now isn't the time for the idiosyncratic views of some... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 And thats the bottom line, now isn't the time for the idiosyncratic views of some... Neeee naw, neeee naw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhatWill Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 Neeee naw, neeee naw. .wan eeeen ,wan eeeeN I can be silly as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 .wan eeeen ,wan eeeeN I can be silly as well. I know. I've read the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheshire_red Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 Worryingly Catatonia sang a song to do with being Welsh!! If Wilson instigated 'Catatonia' does he admit we are Welsh or are going to Wales in a fortnight? Additionally, ... One of the most interesting experiences about working with people in a state of schizophrenic catatonia is how "normal" people behave around them. ... None of us will be 'normal' till after Wednesday..........and if successful beyond that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhatWill Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 I know. I've read the thread. In case we shot ourselves in the foot and gave away a silly equaliser? Oh, wait a minute... Neeee naw, neeee naw. So have I, thanks for the contributions anyway! Have a lovely afternoon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 So have I, thanks for the contributions anyway! Have a lovely afternoon... Ohhhh, you didn't understand my implications. Ok, well I'm sure someone will explain them to you. Anyway, why thank me? I thought now wasn't the time. Ah well, I guess it.... Oh, what's the phrase I'm looking for? shows your interesting brand of sarcasm. Ah yes, that's the one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beezey Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 Edson would you have taken a draw before the game on Saturday ? Before seeing the team sheet ??? I was happy with the result and not that bothered about what Hartlepool had to offer as an attacking force. I really beleive we will beat them on Wednesday. Just interested as to what you thought would have been a realistic scoreline before the game ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.