Re: Warrington game reaction
 

That was a very awkward game. A very small, uneven and sloped pitch with very long grass on it made playing football difficult and the game was scrappy as a result. Yet to be convinced by Hurst although the run and cross for the first goal was good, Carrington was poor in my opinion and I'm usually a fan.

The problem for me was there was very little link from midfield to attack, when we got into the final third we caused problems and usually resulted in a chance, it just didn't happen too often largely down to a well drilled, physical Wire side better suited to the conditions. Boden's goal was lovely to watch, finished to perfection! Gime is not good enough and we need an ugly style forward in the Danny Wright or Rhead mould.

Re: Warrington game reaction
 

[QUOTE=standman;2051371] I had some mates who once played against Charlie Nicolas and Mark Hughes on a beech, they still got hammered by them on sand.[/QUOTE]

Well, I played against Mark on grass (cough, aged 10, cough) in a highly competitive Ruabon schools fixture and he won the game on his own. It was literally impossible to get the ball off him.

Re: Warrington game reaction
 

[QUOTE=[Removed User];2051396]Pitch - slight slope. Grass looked long but wasn't so bad when you looked at it close up. One goalmouth seemed to have a baby camel buried under it and we defended that one first half. Bigger issue was the pitch was relatively hard and uneven. Playing a ball on the floor always resulted in a bobble up. The pitch was also small which posed its own challenges. Did level things up slightly.

Opposition - two or three very good players and they were well organised and competitive throughout without creating much until the second half. One or two who didn't think it was a friendly.

Dibble - watched him warm up and still think there is a Belford issue on his left side. He collapses rather than dives. Watch his left knee in the videos.

Dunn - could barely kick over the halfway line on a small pitch. Took too many chances kicking out on that pitch and nearly cost us a goal twice. Otherwise, he's okay but nothing special.

Hirst - think he's an attacking full back more than a full back. Repeatedly clears with his head down and not looking, which explains the distribution issue raised earlier. Overlaps nicely but doesn't use the space when he has it. Runs to the defender and loses any advantage and sometimes the ball. This specifically started the move which cost us their goal. Disappointed with him.

Jennings - started positively but carelessly. Wasn't a surprise when he injured himself. His loss created several issues. We were instantly lopsided and lacked an outlet on the left. Moving Carra to left back showed our versatility but also our limitations.

Pearson - excellent in all respects. A commanding talker. Very impressed.

Manny - put all his manifest strengths and weaknesses on display. Came out and repeatedly went to ground instead of standing his man. Exposed the back four in a way better teams could exploit.

Rutherford - always full of energy and almost always found his man, but, wasn't especially progressive and like Carra he often ended or re-started moves rather than continuing them. Didn't play badly but made us look pedestrian.

Wedgebury - good talker but forced backwards after Jennings went off and didn't play especially well or ever look comfortable.

Kelly - I think he may turn out to be a mistake. The ball is clearly his friend but he shirked tackles and his chasing back was token. It wasn't that he didn't. Looked to me like his legs are starting to go. He tried to chase back and was repeatedly out paced. Looked better as the game opened up. He sought to take advantage of it but he wasn't responsible for it.

Holroyd - clever and mobile but patently not a finisher. Also looks to me as though his legs are starting to go as he was far too easy to shut out of the game.

Triallist - couldn't win the ball and was isolated because of Holroyd being taken out of it and our general ploddiness. Clearly isn't going to cope with being pressed in the NL and, whilst he has a nice touch, it's just that. Nothing powerful or predatory. He's basically a placeholder until Keates gets his man.

Wright - didn't look comfortable from the off with the lack of space and width. Some poor distribution and positioning mixed with some great tackling. Suspect he'll look better with Mackreth back and Leo alongside him as proved the case late on.

Leo - Looked stronger and more alert to the speed of the game. Didn't see enough but very much liked what I saw. Made a stronger case than Kelly in a much shorter time.

Massanka - we're trying to play to his strengths and it's showing. Strong, fast and powerful. Clearly worried them the moment he came on and his determination won Boden the chance to score the 2nd. I now see him as starting ahead of Holroyd. He and Boden carry our only real threat.

Boden - player. End of. Lovely touch and movement. Real awareness and a predatory instinct. Great finish too. Looking forward to seeing more of him.

Very much had the sense tonight was about experimenting with certain tactics and pairings. All came a bit undone with Jennings self-inflicted departure so we were a tad unfortunate in that respect. Also had the sense that the first half team was a second string defensive tactic being tried out. Back 4 was very well protected but once the ball was in the box we struggled. Lots of attacking possession and calmness and a deserved lead but not especially inspiring.

The intro of Smith, Boden and Massanka made us look much better but more vulnerable to the counter and so it proved. Lucky it didn't finish 2-2. Given how many talkers we have I thought we were extraordinarily quiet bar Pearson and Wedgebury.

So, a scrappy but interesting workout that raised more questions than answers for me. Are we a better squad than last season? Definitely. A better team? Not necessarily.

Bar two more signings I think we're looking 13th to maybe 8th if we have few injuries or suspensions.

On to Nantwich.[/QUOTE]

We finished 13th last season. Who released from last season is better than this. I know some are getting carried away restaurant winning leagle but looking at players signed in don't see how the team is not considerably better than last season's. It is a new team that is also getting to know one another and it's obvious we need a striker.

Re: Warrington game reaction
 

Wasn't at the game but when I saw pictures on social media of the pitch before the match I knew it wasn't going to be pretty. The grass looked so long and dry it looked like a farmers field. Pathetic. Was all about getting through it without any injuries for me and if we did then that's the positive. Hate pre season friendlies, roll on the proper season.

Re: Warrington game reaction
 

[QUOTE=[Removed User];2051396]Pitch - slight slope. Grass looked long but wasn't so bad when you looked at it close up. One goalmouth seemed to have a baby camel buried under it and we defended that one first half. Bigger issue was the pitch was relatively hard and uneven. Playing a ball on the floor always resulted in a bobble up. The pitch was also small which posed its own challenges. Did level things up slightly.

Opposition - two or three very good players and they were well organised and competitive throughout without creating much until the second half. One or two who didn't think it was a friendly.

Dibble - watched him warm up and still think there is a Belford issue on his left side. He collapses rather than dives. Watch his left knee in the videos.

Dunn - could barely kick over the halfway line on a small pitch. Took too many chances kicking out on that pitch and nearly cost us a goal twice. Otherwise, he's okay but nothing special.

Hirst - think he's an attacking full back more than a full back. Repeatedly clears with his head down and not looking, which explains the distribution issue raised earlier. Overlaps nicely but doesn't use the space when he has it. Runs to the defender and loses any advantage and sometimes the ball. This specifically started the move which cost us their goal. Disappointed with him.

Jennings - started positively but carelessly. Wasn't a surprise when he injured himself. His loss created several issues. We were instantly lopsided and lacked an outlet on the left. Moving Carra to left back showed our versatility but also our limitations.

Pearson - excellent in all respects. A commanding talker. Very impressed.

Manny - put all his manifest strengths and weaknesses on display. Came out and repeatedly went to ground instead of standing his man. Exposed the back four in a way better teams could exploit.

Rutherford - always full of energy and almost always found his man, but, wasn't especially progressive and like Carra he often ended or re-started moves rather than continuing them. Didn't play badly but made us look pedestrian.

Wedgebury - good talker but forced backwards after Jennings went off and didn't play especially well or ever look comfortable.

Kelly - I think he may turn out to be a mistake. The ball is clearly his friend but he shirked tackles and his chasing back was token. It wasn't that he didn't. Looked to me like his legs are starting to go. He tried to chase back and was repeatedly out paced. Looked better as the game opened up. He sought to take advantage of it but he wasn't responsible for it.

Holroyd - clever and mobile but patently not a finisher. Also looks to me as though his legs are starting to go as he was far too easy to shut out of the game.

Triallist - couldn't win the ball and was isolated because of Holroyd being taken out of it and our general ploddiness. Clearly isn't going to cope with being pressed in the NL and, whilst he has a nice touch, it's just that. Nothing powerful or predatory. He's basically a placeholder until Keates gets his man.

Wright - didn't look comfortable from the off with the lack of space and width. Some poor distribution and positioning mixed with some great tackling. Suspect he'll look better with Mackreth back and Leo alongside him as proved the case late on.

Leo - Looked stronger and more alert to the speed of the game. Didn't see enough but very much liked what I saw. Made a stronger case than Kelly in a much shorter time.

Massanka - we're trying to play to his strengths and it's showing. Strong, fast and powerful. Clearly worried them the moment he came on and his determination won Boden the chance to score the 2nd. I now see him as starting ahead of Holroyd. He and Boden carry our only real threat.

Boden - player. End of. Lovely touch and movement. Real awareness and a predatory instinct. Great finish too. Looking forward to seeing more of him.

Very much had the sense tonight was about experimenting with certain tactics and pairings. All came a bit undone with Jennings self-inflicted departure so we were a tad unfortunate in that respect. Also had the sense that the first half team was a second string defensive tactic being tried out. Back 4 was very well protected but once the ball was in the box we struggled. Lots of attacking possession and calmness and a deserved lead but not especially inspiring.

The intro of Smith, Boden and Massanka made us look much better but more vulnerable to the counter and so it proved. Lucky it didn't finish 2-2. Given how many talkers we have I thought we were extraordinarily quiet bar Pearson and Wedgebury.

So, a scrappy but interesting workout that raised more questions than answers for me. Are we a better squad than last season? Definitely. A better team? Not necessarily.

Bar two more signings I think we're looking 13th to maybe 8th if we have few injuries or suspensions.

On to Nantwich.[/QUOTE]

Excellent summary and exactly as I saw it. And yes, they were very quiet .

Re: Warrington game reaction
 

Honestly I wouldn't read too much into these pre season friendlies. The players have had a tough, intense few weeks in training and some might be carrying heavy legs. The goal is to be ready for August 5th which I'm sure we'll hit the ground running on a lush green, watered, Racecourse pitch.

Re: Warrington game reaction
 

[QUOTE=[Removed User];2051396]Pitch - slight slope. Grass looked long but wasn't so bad when you looked at it close up. One goalmouth seemed to have a baby camel buried under it and we defended that one first half. Bigger issue was the pitch was relatively hard and uneven. Playing a ball on the floor always resulted in a bobble up. The pitch was also small which posed its own challenges. Did level things up slightly.

Opposition - two or three very good players and they were well organised and competitive throughout without creating much until the second half. One or two who didn't think it was a friendly.

Dibble - watched him warm up and still think there is a Belford issue on his left side. He collapses rather than dives. Watch his left knee in the videos.

Dunn - could barely kick over the halfway line on a small pitch. Took too many chances kicking out on that pitch and nearly cost us a goal twice. Otherwise, he's okay but nothing special.

Hirst - think he's an attacking full back more than a full back. Repeatedly clears with his head down and not looking, which explains the distribution issue raised earlier. Overlaps nicely but doesn't use the space when he has it. Runs to the defender and loses any advantage and sometimes the ball. This specifically started the move which cost us their goal. Disappointed with him.

Jennings - started positively but carelessly. Wasn't a surprise when he injured himself. His loss created several issues. We were instantly lopsided and lacked an outlet on the left. Moving Carra to left back showed our versatility but also our limitations.

Pearson - excellent in all respects. A commanding talker. Very impressed.

Manny - put all his manifest strengths and weaknesses on display. Came out and repeatedly went to ground instead of standing his man. Exposed the back four in a way better teams could exploit.

Rutherford - always full of energy and almost always found his man, but, wasn't especially progressive and like Carra he often ended or re-started moves rather than continuing them. Didn't play badly but made us look pedestrian.

Wedgebury - good talker but forced backwards after Jennings went off and didn't play especially well or ever look comfortable.

Kelly - I think he may turn out to be a mistake. The ball is clearly his friend but he shirked tackles and his chasing back was token. It wasn't that he didn't. Looked to me like his legs are starting to go. He tried to chase back and was repeatedly out paced. Looked better as the game opened up. He sought to take advantage of it but he wasn't responsible for it.

Holroyd - clever and mobile but patently not a finisher. Also looks to me as though his legs are starting to go as he was far too easy to shut out of the game.

Triallist - couldn't win the ball and was isolated because of Holroyd being taken out of it and our general ploddiness. Clearly isn't going to cope with being pressed in the NL and, whilst he has a nice touch, it's just that. Nothing powerful or predatory. He's basically a placeholder until Keates gets his man.

Wright - didn't look comfortable from the off with the lack of space and width. Some poor distribution and positioning mixed with some great tackling. Suspect he'll look better with Mackreth back and Leo alongside him as proved the case late on.

Leo - Looked stronger and more alert to the speed of the game. Didn't see enough but very much liked what I saw. Made a stronger case than Kelly in a much shorter time.

Massanka - we're trying to play to his strengths and it's showing. Strong, fast and powerful. Clearly worried them the moment he came on and his determination won Boden the chance to score the 2nd. I now see him as starting ahead of Holroyd. He and Boden carry our only real threat.

Boden - player. End of. Lovely touch and movement. Real awareness and a predatory instinct. Great finish too. Looking forward to seeing more of him.

Very much had the sense tonight was about experimenting with certain tactics and pairings. All came a bit undone with Jennings self-inflicted departure so we were a tad unfortunate in that respect. Also had the sense that the first half team was a second string defensive tactic being tried out. Back 4 was very well protected but once the ball was in the box we struggled. Lots of attacking possession and calmness and a deserved lead but not especially inspiring.

The intro of Smith, Boden and Massanka made us look much better but more vulnerable to the counter and so it proved. Lucky it didn't finish 2-2. Given how many talkers we have I thought we were extraordinarily quiet bar Pearson and Wedgebury.

So, a scrappy but interesting workout that raised more questions than answers for me. Are we a better squad than last season? Definitely. A better team? Not necessarily.

Bar two more signings I think we're looking 13th to maybe 8th if we have few injuries or suspensions.

On to Nantwich.[/QUOTE]

Good god !! You make me depressed !! bet your missus looks forward to you opening your eyes in the morning :(

Re: Warrington game reaction
 

The pitch looked like a farmer had just left after cutting it for sileage - it was poor. Our first fixture at Lex was similar and the grass there was even longer - perhaps a ploy by the host clubs to stop us playing football. Perhaps even worse it looked parched, dry and hard last night.

Onto Nantwich Town on Saturday by which time hopefully DK has brought in some quality fire power.

Re: Warrington game reaction
 

This will sound like a poor excuse or bad sportsmanship but the refereeing didn't help.
They (WTFC) were pretty late into jumps and tackles and some of their players seemed intent on causing some pain. I thought the ref was weak in that respect.
Having said all that, we were leggy and perhaps that's to be expected after the amount of games, training, travel and the fact it's pre season and friendlies must be harder to be as focused for.