Stoke Reaction
 

Well with the level of experience Stoke had on the field not a bad performance, but will we stick with 3-4-3 ?

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

Not bad at all the first half side Stoke played were arguably closer to national League/L2 standard and it sounded like we more than matched them.

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

Great result, need a true right back. Concerned that Dibbs gets too aggressive at times but he is a great man to have on board and I think he’ll more than prove his worth. Well done to who ever arranged the Stoke fixture tonight, thought it was very well conceived and a good challenge for the boys. Bryan should be pleased with the display but informed by the frailties shown. Looking forward to seeing the final few signings and can’t wait to get into the season proper where we’ll never meet a team as strong as Stoke tonight. Come on you reds, come on the town!! Genuinely could be our turn, just need those final additions and a positive mentality for a change (we are the best and anything but first is failure - none of this ‘play-offs is the target’ nonsense!!)

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

[QUOTE=corwenred;2274766]Not bad at all the first half side Stoke played were arguably closer to national League/L2 standard and it sounded like we more than matched them.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely spot on way to look at it. Bit of realism to start with before the cynics start Wrexham bashing.

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

Pathetic. Hughes out. Going nowhere this season. Are the bookies offering odds on relegation? Trust out. #fuming
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size]

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

Good first half , thought we tired in the second half.

Grant and Hooper look good.

Still need a right back.
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size]

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

Positive performance.

Obviously going to get tired when it’s the majority of the squad’s first 90 and they changed teams at 60.

Barton looks way to relaxed on the ball. Harris has some speed on him. Grant looks a different player

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

[QUOTE=benwilliams;2274775]Pathetic. Hughes out. Going nowhere this season. Are the bookies offering odds on relegation? Trust out. #fuming
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size][/QUOTE]

Nice one

[QUOTE=Redordead;2274788]Nice one[/QUOTE]

It's a joke in case that went over anyone's heads
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size]

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

[QUOTE=benwilliams;2274790]It's a joke in case that went over anyone's heads
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size][/QUOTE]

Hilarious. My sides are aching.

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

Bobby grant the most overhyped wrexham player ever!

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

Is that a joke as well

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

Hooper is good. Barton is not a centre back, not physical enough in the slightest.

Midfield was a mess there but Young and Redmond would be in the first choice so can let that slide.

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

Still got Lainton and Redmond to come in. Need to go back to 4-3-3 and get a proper right back.

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

Hard to tell because of the gulf in class and the fact that it was the first 90 minutes for all those players. But , major concerns :
1. RUtherford and Jennings are not wing backs
2. Barton is not a left sided central defender
3. Harris - every time he starts I’m going to put money on him being taken off. By the end of the season I will be a very rich man
4. Grant - seems to have acquired a blindfolded appreciation society as he was a popular man of the match despite not touching the ball in the second half . Summerfield was man of the match by a country mile
5. Hooper - good runs and a good touch, but hopeless in the air. As we will end up pumping high balls into the box in most games, I fear for him
6. 343 isn’t the formation. It was effectively 5 defenders, leaving an outnumbered two in midfield.

All in all, I am much less hopeful than I was a few hours ago,

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

Anyone know why shawcross was getting bood?

[QUOTE=René Higuita;2274798]Anyone know why shawcross was getting bood?[/QUOTE]

Broke Ramsey's leg.
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size]

[QUOTE=Foxy;2274797]Hard to tell because of the gulf in class and the fact that it was the first 90 minutes for all those players. But , major concerns :
1. RUtherford and Jennings are not wing backs
2. Barton is not a left sided central defender
3. Harris - every time he starts I’m going to put money on him being taken off. By the end of the season I will be a very rich man
4. Grant - seems to have acquired a blindfolded appreciation society as he was a popular man of the match despite not touching the ball in the second half . Summerfield was man of the match by a country mile
5. Hooper - good runs and a good touch, but hopeless in the air. As we will end up pumping high balls into the box in most games, I fear for him
6. 343 isn’t the formation. It was effectively 5 defenders, leaving an outnumbered two in midfield.

All in all, I am much less hopeful than I was a few hours ago,[/QUOTE]



Why do you even bother ?
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size]

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

[QUOTE=Foxy;2274797]Hard to tell because of the gulf in class and the fact that it was the first 90 minutes for all those players. But , major concerns :
1. RUtherford and Jennings are not wing backs
2. Barton is not a left sided central defender
3. Harris - every time he starts I’m going to put money on him being taken off. By the end of the season I will be a very rich man
4. Grant - seems to have acquired a blindfolded appreciation society as he was a popular man of the match despite not touching the ball in the second half . Summerfield was man of the match by a country mile
5. Hooper - good runs and a good touch, but hopeless in the air. As we will end up pumping high balls into the box in most games, I fear for him
6. 343 isn’t the formation. It was effectively 5 defenders, leaving an outnumbered two in midfield.

All in all, I am much less hopeful than I was a few hours ago,[/QUOTE]

:guitarist:

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

[QUOTE=René Higuita;2274798]Anyone know why shawcross was getting bood?[/QUOTE]

Didn't want to play for Wales?

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

[QUOTE=René Higuita;2274798]Anyone know why shawcross was getting bood?[/QUOTE]

Because he's a prick

[QUOTE=Foxy;2274797]Hard to tell because of the gulf in class and the fact that it was the first 90 minutes for all those players. But , major concerns :
1. RUtherford and Jennings are not wing backs
2. Barton is not a left sided central defender
3. Harris - every time he starts I’m going to put money on him being taken off. By the end of the season I will be a very rich man
4. Grant - seems to have acquired a blindfolded appreciation society as he was a popular man of the match despite not touching the ball in the second half . Summerfield was man of the match by a country mile
5. Hooper - good runs and a good touch, but hopeless in the air. As we will end up pumping high balls into the box in most games, I fear for him
6. 343 isn’t the formation. It was effectively 5 defenders, leaving an outnumbered two in midfield.

All in all, I am much less hopeful than I was a few hours ago,[/QUOTE]

Pagl you are one of very few naysayers whose opinion I respect so can I ask you whether you really think it's fair to reach all those conclusions given we were playing stoke not Maidenhead and we are experimenting with a new formation?
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size]

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

Looked good until they brought on there first team. Joe Allen bossed midfield and that was us finished. Good effort against a team 3 divisions higher than us.

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

Concerning we have carried on with that formation tbh. We don't have the squad for it. Ruthers isn't a right wing back (tho he's likely to be moved) & I don't like Jennings there either. Bringing in Barton as a cdm and then play him at centre half is a little odd, one game to see fair enough but 3 games there seems strange.

Anyone have any idea how long Lainton and Redmond are out for? Thought they were both only knocks

[QUOTE=benwilliams;2274804]Pagl you are one of very few naysayers whose opinion I respect so can I ask you whether you really think it's fair to reach all those conclusions given we were playing stoke not Maidenhead and we are experimenting with a new formation?
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size][/QUOTE]

Erm, wrong poster.
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size]

[QUOTE=Foxy;2274797]Hard to tell because of the gulf in class and the fact that it was the first 90 minutes for all those players. But , major concerns :
1. RUtherford and Jennings are not wing backs
2. Barton is not a left sided central defender
3. Harris - every time he starts I’m going to put money on him being taken off. By the end of the season I will be a very rich man
4. Grant - seems to have acquired a blindfolded appreciation society as he was a popular man of the match despite not touching the ball in the second half . Summerfield was man of the match by a country mile
5. Hooper - good runs and a good touch, but hopeless in the air. As we will end up pumping high balls into the box in most games, I fear for him
6. 343 isn’t the formation. It was effectively 5 defenders, leaving an outnumbered two in midfield.

All in all, I am much less hopeful than I was a few hours ago,[/QUOTE]

Hmmm, how about you twist your thoughts and begin with..... Hard to tell because of the gulf in class and the fact that it was the first 90 minutes for all those players. But, positives:
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size]

[QUOTE=fezbob;2274807]Erm, wrong poster.
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size][/QUOTE]

Ha my bad, been a long day! In that case if its foxy then I dont need my question answered!
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size]

[QUOTE=benwilliams;2274811]Ha my bad, been a long day! In that case if its foxy then I dont need my question answered!
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size][/QUOTE]

To be fair to Pagl even when he has his doubts I can't see him being quite so down as Foxy is.

There are definite question marks still but that post is a head scratcher.
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size]

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

[QUOTE=EnglishRed;2274812]To be fair to Pagl even when he has his doubts I can't see him being quite so down as Foxy is.

There are definite question marks still but that post is a head scratcher.
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size][/QUOTE]

To be honest if we bought the best players in the world Foxy would find a fault

[QUOTE=spuderz123;2274803]Because he's a prick[/QUOTE]

Is the correct answer. He’s a total knobhead.

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

[QUOTE=Funny_Old_Game;2274817]Is the correct answer. He’s a total knobhead.[/QUOTE]

Is it the Ramsey leg break or turning Wales down? Don’t really hear much bad press about him

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

Anyone no why JBB wasn’t involved tonight?

Rutherford is terrible at RWB!
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size]

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

[QUOTE=Redordead;2274819]Is it the Ramsey leg break or turning Wales down? Don’t really hear much bad press about him[/QUOTE]

Chester links too I thought, know he is from Buckley

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

Reasonable performance in the first half but 343 doesn't work with the side we started with. Neither full back got forward into any real attacking positions and it looked like they were there to support the midfield pair.
Summerfield did OK but lacks vision. Both he and Wright won/ intercepted some good ball but both lack the ability to do anything with it. Impressed with Hooper, Grant looks more interested but tries the worldy pass too often. Harris has a bit of pace but never took his man on.
We appear to have at least in part sorted the front three but in the second half resorted to the same pattern as last year. Panic and hoof. No leader in midfield. Stoke had three youngsters that stood out, 23, 33 and 38. The ginger headed lad at 38 was running the show, Always finding space, good movement and energy, just what we are lacking.
Ruthers will never be a wing back. Neither will Jennings. Both lack pace and the ability to get into the more dangerous areas to cross the ball, probably because they can't get back to defend.
Lawler at least got game time but Barton looked weak defensively.
Overall it's looking more promising than last season but we're still missing a boss and playing Akil isn't giving me much hope that we can dominate games.
We will score more goals, lets just hope that defensively we're as sound.

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

How was the new technical area? Were there any fights?

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

[QUOTE=Quay Red;2274831]Reasonable performance in the first half but 343 doesn't work with the side we started with. Neither full back got forward into any real attacking positions and it looked like they were there to support the midfield pair.
Summerfield did OK but lacks vision. Both he and Wright won/ intercepted some good ball but both lack the ability to do anything with it. Impressed with Hooper, Grant looks more interested but tries the worldy pass too often. Harris has a bit of pace but never took his man on.
We appear to have at least in part sorted the front three but in the second half resorted to the same pattern as last year. Panic and hoof. No leader in midfield. Stoke had three youngsters that stood out, 23, 33 and 38. The ginger headed lad at 38 was running the show, Always finding space, good movement and energy, just what we are lacking.
Ruthers will never be a wing back. Neither will Jennings. Both lack pace and the ability to get into the more dangerous areas to cross the ball, probably because they can't get back to defend.
Lawler at least got game time but Barton looked weak defensively.
Overall it's looking more promising than last season but we're still missing a boss and playing Akil isn't giving me much hope that we can dominate games.
We will score more goals, lets just hope that defensively we're as sound.[/QUOTE]

The 38 was Ryan Woods.

Played 100 odd times for Shrewsbury then went Brentford for a million quid and played over 100 times.

Bet he’s made up you described as a youngster!

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

You could tell the difference when the Stoke 1st team came on in the 2nd half, but I was chuffed with our performance before then. JJ Hooper did great work to get the ball for the goal to a Bobby Grant who looks completely differnt to last season. Harris looked good too. Some good stops from Dibble. I'm unconvinced by Barton he seems lightweight, and Ruthers seemed out of his depth.

Summerfield was probably our best player on the pitch today.

We look decent though. Look far more dangerous in the final third compared to last season.

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

[QUOTE=benwilliams;2274804]Pagl you are one of very few naysayers whose opinion I respect so can I ask you whether you really think it's fair to reach all those conclusions given we were playing stoke not Maidenhead and we are experimenting with a new formation?
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size][/QUOTE]

Seems a reply is justified. Naysayer! I just say what I think thats all.
Your right the quality of the opposition has to be considered and the gulf to the league games is massive. BH seems to be experimenting with a 523 or something close. Probably trying to be a bit more fluid on the pitch.

I think defensively were going to be sound but not convinced Barton is a 3rd CB.
Get a RB sorted as Ruthers/Carra are not right wing backs.
We still lack a midfield general who can hold the ball and dictate the pattern of play. Plenty of effort in the midfield though.
Forward wise I think it will be a bit hit and miss.

Looking at it positively then we have added pace and should certainly score more goals. Its now about the best 11 that work together. Effort and commitment looks there with every player and we should be capable of dominating games this season.

However as a warning we know last years combinations dont work together so the new players are key, otherwise why bring them in. The difference between a Ruthers, Oswell, Grant front 3 and Hooper, McIntosh, Harris will be huge IMO.
Its therefore critical we dont try and revert to the core from last year otherwise we will get the same and be clinging onto games at the end rather than making it 2,3,4 etc.

The ratings/opinions debates will be pretty lively with the usual scapegoat comments rather than a real critique of performance.
QR is usually spot on with his summary and analysis and keeps it performance based and about the game. He has no agenda, scapegoat or anything else its a pure game/player review.

Foxy always makes some good observations and his 2 main concerns over formation and reverting to pumping the ball forward are IMO spot on.

The missing pieces of the jigsaw are still needed now - RB with pace that can get forward and cross a ball and the midfield general that we need.

:)

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

Hughes may well drop 3-4-3 but a pre-season friendly is entirely the right time to be trying it.

Re: Stoke Reaction
 

[QUOTE=Alan Attack;2274845]Hughes may well drop 3-4-3 but a pre-season friendly is entirely the right time to be trying it.[/QUOTE]

Yeh.
Foxy seems to indicate were isolating the midfield 2 which means the wing backs are too far forward. Hopefully we can see the front 3 start to emerge in these games. Ruthers isnt a wing back that seems clear.