Not a match report but a few thoughts.

First the positives. We can play as was shown in the first 45 minutes some really good football. In terms of skill it seems fairly obvious to me that we shouldn't struggle. I thought Haynes and Labadie were our two outstanding performers, my MOM being Haynes and the reason he gets it will be in the negatives.

I thought the team worked hard and there was a good team spirit. I also thought that after the opening 20 minutes of the second half, in which we were dreadful, it showed a certain character to finish as the dominant side, and notwithstanding the sending off which helped, we looked far more likely to find a winner than they did.

Finally a mention for Tom King. Awful error for their equaliser but he didn't go to pieces afterwards.Not just the penalty save but goalkeeping is about confidence and he appeared to just put the error behind him.

Negatives. First of all Labadie. His booking was stupid. He does it week in week out just can't resist giving someone a kick. Leaving aside that I don't like thuggery it also means that he spends much of the game one mistimed tackle away from us being a man short. Players getting booked for mistimed tackles is one thing, just taking somebody out for the sake of it another. Sorry but for that alone to name him MOM would be ridiculous.

I hope O'Brien is back Saturday. We opened up far too easily and looked suspect from crosses. And whilst defenders looking good going forward is great, the primary job of defenders is to defend.

I am as big a fan of Amond as anyone. He took the penalty brilliantly and worked hard. However he seems to have lost pace since last season and that is a concern.

Final point. We had twenty-five to thirty minutes against ten men. For some reason it took us fifteen of those minutes to work out that rather than pumping long balls aimlessly forward we needed to put a bit of width to our game. So for forty five first half minutes and the last ten minutes of the game we bossed it. Had we played as we did in the last ten minutes in the previous fifteen to twenty I think we would have won.

But to finish on a high note, to get casual fans in you have to entertain and Saturday's game was very entertaining.

I don't Amond has lost pace, to be honest he never really had any. What has always been his biggest plus point has been his ability to read the game and get into positions ahead of quicker players. Very similar to Teddy Sheringham, who was known to be a "slow" forward, but could read the game better than most and always managed to pop up in the right space, at the right time to score

ComeOnCounty wrote:I don't Amond has lost pace, to be honest he never really had any. What has always been his biggest plus point has been his ability to read the game and get into positions ahead of quicker players. Very similar to Teddy Sheringham, who was known to be a "slow" forward, but could read the game better than most and always managed to pop up in the right space, at the right time to score

I agree that Amond was never the quickest. You may be right, my impression was on only a couple of games, Tranmere being the other. Also where I'm sure you're right is that Amond is clever and has a footballing brain. Anyway we shall see.

Worryingly, largely agree with you Brendan, though I think you're being a bit harsh on Joss and less generous people might assume you meant something malicious by "thuggery" (a word with some unfortunate racial connotations). That said, I could definitely do without the senseless bookings.

I'd have taken the draw at kick-off, so I shan't complain with the match in the rear view mirror, but I feel we could (should?) have won that one. It does at least bode well for the season - I think we could be mixing it near the top come April, if we can stay healthy and keep our focus.

I think Labadie's reputation goes before him and he gets less benefit of the doubt then pretty much any other player. But it's still down to him not to go in quite so hard quite so early in games.

George Street-Bridge wrote:I think Labadie's reputation goes before him and he gets less benefit of the doubt then pretty much any other player. But it's still down to him not to go in quite so hard quite so early in games.

Agree entirely

If you look at Labadie’s disciplinary record earlier in his career he’s actually gained a degree of control over himself. I’m sure it’s no coincidence he has been given the captaincy. You want your best players on the pitch and the responsibility of being captain should add focus and discipline to Joss’s game.

I like the fact he sticks a bad tackle in here and there. It gives you more space to control the game if the opposition are slightly scared of you.

njbh86 wrote:Worryingly, largely agree with you Brendan, though I think you're being a bit harsh on Joss and less generous people might assume you meant something malicious by "thuggery" (a word with some unfortunate racial connotations). That said, I could definitely do without the senseless bookings.

I'd have taken the draw at kick-off, so I shan't complain with the match in the rear view mirror, but I feel we could (should?) have won that one. It does at least bode well for the season - I think we could be mixing it near the top come April, if we can stay healthy and keep our focus.

Why would you even consider there might be any racial undertone in the use of the word thuggery? I do think it's a bit of an OTT description of Labadie's overall game but he is sometimes a bit rash and over-physical. He has enough skill to impose himself on opponents without resorting to the less savoury side of his game. However, we are a lesser team without his presence.

rncfc wrote:I like the fact he sticks a bad tackle in here and there. It gives you more space to control the game if the opposition are slightly scared of you.

That can be achieved with strong but legal challenges.

excessbee wrote:

rncfc wrote:I like the fact he sticks a bad tackle in here and there. It gives you more space to control the game if the opposition are slightly scared of you.

That can be achieved with strong but legal challenges.

Absolutely. Anybody who has played any competitive contact sport knows the difference between a hard player and a dirty one.

Oh and a thank you for pointing out that there is no racial element to my use of the term thug, which I would happily apply the word thug to Roy Keene, Scholes. Bowyer, Wise, and a whole host of players who have gone beyond 'letting 'em know you're there'.

excessbee wrote:

rncfc wrote:I like the fact he sticks a bad tackle in here and there. It gives you more space to control the game if the opposition are slightly scared of you.

That can be achieved with strong but legal challenges.

They don't particularly put the opposition on the back foot though, they just rile them up into a competitive battle.

There's obviously a fine line as nobody wants to see people getting injured, but one down the calf here and there doesn't do any harm.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

excessbee wrote:

rncfc wrote:I like the fact he sticks a bad tackle in here and there. It gives you more space to control the game if the opposition are slightly scared of you.

That can be achieved with strong but legal challenges.

Absolutely. Anybody who has played any competitive contact sport knows the difference between a hard player and a dirty one.

Oh and a thank you for pointing out that there is no racial element to my use of the term thug, which I would happily apply the word thug to Roy Keene, Scholes. Bowyer, Wise, and a whole host of players who have gone beyond 'letting 'em know you're there'.

Oof. Definitely wasn't trying to call you a racist there but seems like I got my messaging wrong. Fact remains that (particularly in the US) the term is often used to describe young black males in a derogatory way.

In any case, apologies for an implication that wasn't intended, and an "onya" to excess for pulling me up on it too.

F F S
Now calling someone a thug is wrong

WE ARE NOT IN THE F@@£ING U S A

And there's always somebody trying to pick holes in the most innocent of posts

I thought the ref was a bit hasty to book Labs for his first mistimed tackle.Maybe his reputation means refs come down on him more.The ref also booked their guys for their first fouls as well meaning he made himself a problem thereafter.Their LB,Rose and Labs could then really have had another booking but he then took a lenient approach.Some refs think booking early gives them authority but it actually weakens them.