Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: Getridorit on January 31, 2021, 09:40:27 am
-
Reading their comments on social media, and their forum.
I've never seen a group of fans spit the dummy out and throw their toys out of the pram as much.
Not even the Brentford fans were this bad after THAT match, or even the Leeds fans after we schooled them at Wembley.
Quite something to read
-
The difference is though we weren’t under the cosh for most of those games like we were yesterday.
It is what football is all about and has happened to us many times in the past. They just have to go again in their next game. It won’t have done their confidence or morale much good though which helps us.
-
They play Hull on Tuesday in EFL Trophy at Hull so they will have to see if they can perform like that again. Both teams will want to get through to the semi final.
Their performance was good yesterday I would say the one best against us this season. I would say their pitch was awful as well. I believe it affected our passing game but their closing down put pressure on us which in some cases we failed to deal with. So their supporters can feel aggrieved but you have to score.
There was a gap between their defence and midfield in the middle of the pitch which Richards and Madger exploited at times with better passing judgement we could have put more chances on goal.
-
They play Hull on Tuesday in EFL Trophy at Hull so they will have to see if they can perform like that again. Both teams will want to get through to the semi final.
Their performance was good yesterday I would say the one best against us this season. I would say their pitch was awful as well. I believe it affected our passing game but their closing down put pressure on us which in some cases we failed to deal with. So their supporters can feel aggrieved but you have to score.
There was a gap between their defence and midfield in the middle of the pitch which Richards and Madger exploited at times with better passing judgement we could have put more chances on goal.
Appletons interview is on youtube, he says thats the best they have played since he’s been there
-
They play Hull on Tuesday in EFL Trophy at Hull so they will have to see if they can perform like that again. Both teams will want to get through to the semi final.
Their performance was good yesterday I would say the one best against us this season. I would say their pitch was awful as well. I believe it affected our passing game but their closing down put pressure on us which in some cases we failed to deal with. So their supporters can feel aggrieved but you have to score.
There was a gap between their defence and midfield in the middle of the pitch which Richards and Madger exploited at times with better passing judgement we could have put more chances on goal.
Appletons interview is on youtube, he says thats the best they have played since he’s been there
it was their cup final..
-
I’ve little sympathy especially after the way their fans were deluded last season at the KMS thinking they were going to roll over us
-
They had four shots on target the entire match. We had two. That was not a dominant performance by Lincoln. You can have 70pc possession but you did nothing with it and were prevented from doing anything with it. Sup it up losers.
-
Lincoln were excellent yesterday. But as I've said in another thread, performances mean nowt in games like that. It's all about the result.
-
As SOD once said, it’s about possession efficiency, not just possession
-
How can any manager who loses a game say that they made the opposition look ordinary?
If the winning team were “ordinary” and he is stupid enough to say about his own team “It was arguably the best performance since I’ve been here”, then how good is his own team.
Lincoln are a joke.
-
For years the same has been done to us. Nice to win a game where we offered nothing going forward and won through an excellent all round tactical defensive display
-
Yes on another day it could of been differant if they had put their pens away and their crosses had been a lot better then no doubt we would of all been moaning how poor we played.we have done it may times before been the one not to be able to break teams down the come and just defend,I know we didn’t just defend but at times we do like to sit back and hit teams on the break which we did.
-
The fact of the matter is, we scored, they didn't.
Did they think we were just going to roll over and let them waltz through our defence and score at will? We put up the barriers and defended magnificently and not "desperately" as the home commentator said on several occasions. We even gave them 2 chances to win the game from the penalty spot ( I thought for the first one Grant conned the ref and got his peno) but to no avail, as Ellery was superb in saving both of them.
So there you have it you sour faced Imps, look at your own team and ask them why they could't win the game given the chances they had.
The answer is, they came across a team who did a number on them, and were not going to give up what they'd taken lightly. Well done the Rovers I say!
-
I'll would say we gave them two chances to draw level, not win. Once they had missed the first they still needed two goals. Let's not get carried away.
-
Yes on another day it could of been differant if they had put their pens away and their crosses had been a lot better then no doubt we would of all been moaning how poor we played.we have done it may times before been the one not to be able to break teams down the come and just defend,I know we didn’t just defend but at times we do like to sit back and hit teams on the break which we did.
But on another day they would have got no penalties, and still created few clear cut chances.
For me, I'll remember this match for how immense the defense were.
They really stepped up and won the points for us, after we were short on bodies in attacking positions.
-
I thought Lincoln were exceptionally good in passing the ball around in areas where it didn't really matter. Once they were in the final third I though they were very ordinary, if not sloppy. Look how many times they passed the ball into touch or beyond the goal line for instance.
No, it was very pretty football , but not where it mattered.
-
Donnybob, if they had converted both those penalties, they would have more than likely won that game, that was my point.
-
Would have been brilliant in the away end after the penalty misses and for five or so minutes after the final whistle when the players would have come over towards us
-
I do sympathise with them in a way.
We’ve had it ourselves numerous times over the years when we’ve played the better football in a game or dominated territorially, but not been able to break down the opposition and come away losing by the odd goal. It’s one of the most frustrating things ever as a football supporter.
But it happens! For those of them trying to degrade our league position or what we have done so far this season, it’s just sour grapes. If the boot was on the other foot and they had played as we did and won 1-0, they would be saying it’s the sign of a good team and the result is all that matters.
-
I don't get this "we offered nothing going forward" line.
After 25-30 mins, we could have been 3-0 up. Richards messed up a 3-on-3 very similar to the position he scored from. Should have played to Halliday who was screaming into the box unmarked.
We had that scramble in the 6 yard box where a toe end would have been enough.
And there was a clear handball in the box that blocked a cross from the left.
-
Lincoln were gifted two opportunities to equalise and failed to capitalise on either. Take them away and what are you left with? A lot of pretty huff and puff amounting to nothing (or should I say nil).
Defending is an art. As much a part of the game as attacking. They go together.
It is refreshing to see a team set up in an manner alien to its philosophy and do it so well. Once the goal went in the onus was not on us to score another, it was on them. Indeed chasing a second to kill off the game could have left us exposed.
Lincoln were allowed to tire themselves out, huffing and puffing in front of us. At half time we had actually achieved more attempts on and off the goal than they had.
It's what you do with the ball not how long you have it. A team can be good without the ball. It's not all about possession and good intentions. It's about being effective, and should anyone forget, results. The history books now say 0-1 and will do so forever.
Lincoln are a good team, be in no doubt, for League One. But if they cannot penetrate our defence they are not going to find the Championship any easier.
We move on. Oxford. In great form. Difficult one. Bet we play very differently. Horses for courses. Trust in Darren.
-
I don't get this "we offered nothing going forward" line.
After 25-30 mins, we could have been 3-0 up. Richards messed up a 3-on-3 very similar to the position he scored from. Should have played to Halliday who was screaming into the box unmarked.
We had that scramble in the 6 yard box where a toe end would have been enough.
And there was a clear handball in the box that blocked a cross from the left.
I too have posted elsewhere that they said we were lucky
However this is football - the ball has to cross the line to be a goal and it is a Team game including those in Management and back room positions.
I would deffo include the Scout or those who survey the films of the opposition in that "team" so who failed to notice Taylor Richards has a "penchant" for running at defences and shooting often from outside the area with some success it has to be said ? Well they either didnt spot it (more fool them) or they did and told the Centre Backs / Midfield about it and if they did then those defenders were to blame and who do they play for ? Lincoln
Result - 0 - 1 as TR did just that - they backed off and off and he ran on and on and let fly
Now this is no criticism as he struck it well but lets face it if a Rovers keeper had let that in the Forum would have been going mad. He saw it clearly - it was all along the floor and well struck. Maybe the wind bent it in right at the end because I thought it was going to go wide
.... and who does the Keeper play for - oh yes Lincoln
Then Lincoln are awarded 2 Penalties - both justly given. 2 different Players take one each and both fail to score from 12 yards - and both saved diving by Keeper first one way and then the other (legally according to the Ref as there were no retakes)
They were well struck no doubt but resulted in no goals. Well saved the Keeper who plays for Rovers and 2 chances spurned by 2 players and who do they play for - Lincoln - so I dont see how that makes US lucky in any way whatsoever
-
Where do you get we were lucky the Defence did what they are there for END OF
-
As good as our defence was I thought Lincoln were excellent. They never let us settle on the ball and attacked at speed a little like West Ham did although West Ham had far superior players. In all I thought both teams were exceptional and as someone said before if Lincoln had played like we did and got the result they would have been more than happy. Fortunately we got the result so suck it up imps.
-
No idea what all the fuss was about. Lincoln had a couple of chances but that was all. One might say that fortunately they
suffered from the Rovers disease of never shooting when another pass will do, but that's their problem! And they are as bad at corners as Rovers! After the first penalty miss I thought we mostly controlled thegame. And I reckon the first pen was a dive - James never moved his foot, the guy just threw himself over it and had already passed the ball in the
other direction. And for the second one Balcombe definitely plays the ball quite firmly - if it had been a defender doing that everyone would have said what a good tackle. NID!
-
We beat a very good side on their own pitch end of really. I hope Lincoln are up there at the end of the season
-
Lincoln were very good in the game but our defence did its job, we restricted them largely to efforts outside the box and they did not take any of their better opportunities through a combination of poor finishing and good defending by us. I'm not sure it all needs a deep inquest.
If the roles had been reversed yesterday our forum would be awash with posts decrying our lack of luck, the anti-football of the other side and other excuses to make ourselves feel better.
They will move on. Darren Moore has got the better of his mate Appleton on successive occasions now.
-
Hear hear Alias!!
BobG
-
I too have read all 39 pages of the Lincoln fans bemoaning their ill fated loss, it was a strange game, it was very one sided if you looked at attacking play as the predominant ingredient, and it was very one sided if you look at the effectiveness of disciplined resolute defending...
The key ingredient being able to switch from one to the other, and maintain the new mentality...we did that perfectly,
Yes we were chasing shadows in the 2/3rds of the pitch that didn’t matter, but in that last 3rd we were kings, we allowed them their dominance and quite sublime passing, we allowed them to look great for their own fans but we wholeheartedly denied them a whiff of the spoils, them points were ours and no matter how much show ponying was going on....we were keeping them...
-
I just looked at the results in this mornings paper, and we won 1-0, what is hard to understand.
-
Lincoln fans moaning that they should have won the game.
Well our fans never do that do they.
As for them only having four shots on target, that is crackers.
Don’t forget that shots (that were actually on target) blocked by defenders don’t count in the shots on target stats.
There were plenty of blocks weren’t they.
However, I did think that Lincoln moved the ball very well and caused us problems but our defensive work was superb and was enough to prevent them from scoring.
-
If it hasn't got past a defender though Hound, it is hardly a shot on target. We defended very well, save for the two penalty incidents.
-
RA, so a shot from six yards that would go into the middle of the net and blocked by a defender isn’t actually on target?
I know what you mean of course but in real terms my example above should really be classed as a shot on target.
-
Interesting debate. I think for me, if the aim is true, then it is a shot on target. If the defender blocks it, well, that is good defending! Or poor play by the attacker! Lol.....
BobG
-
So a shot on target cleared off the line by a defender isn't a shot on target?
-
That is correct Stockton, according to the bbc stats.
-
You don't get them on chuffing sky bet shots on target specials annoyingly
-
RA, so a shot from six yards that would go into the middle of the net and blocked by a defender isn’t actually on target?
I know what you mean of course but in real terms my example above should really be classed as a shot on target.
no and either is it at the bookies
-
The difficulty with the blocked shots question is that many shots are blocked by the defender very close to the shooter and it simply isn't possible to know whether the ball would hit the target or not. It's logical IMO therefore that blocked shots should not be assumed to be on target.
-
The difficulty with the blocked shots question is that many shots are blocked by the defender very close to the shooter and it simply isn't possible to know whether the ball would hit the target or not. It's logical IMO therefore that blocked shots should not be assumed to be on target.
Exactly, and in the lower leagues we don’t have the benefit of multiple camera angles to work out where it would have gone. A shot that the keeper deals with is a lot more clear cut whether it’s on target or not.
-
How many times under SOD should we have won with dominating games and lost. We played some outstanding football ⚽️ but unfortunately that doesn’t always win you games, you just have to do what you need to do to win a game.
I remember Reading in the 70s they just sat back in defence and a ball over the top, and won the game 1-0 as they did against us and won the league, I would take that all day long
-
If a sniper was trying to shoot an enemy, and when he fired a bird flew into the path of the bullet.
Then he didn't hit the target (the enemy)
Blocked shots aren't 'on target' because they haven't hit the target.
'on target' any 'hit target' are the same in football.
-
Each Sunday the Football League Paper gives stats for every game in the EFL. Spend a bit of time studying them. The vast majority of games are won by teams with the least possession. You can then see how effective teams are as more often than not the team with least possession creates more shots on and off goal. Possession for its own sake is very misleading. Ineffective possession is pointless. The purpose of football is to score one more goal then your opponent, not to pass him to death. You get no extra points for a two or ten goal margin.
-
I think if we are honest if that would have been reversed we would have been annoyed that we didn't come out the game with anything.
However sometimes you have to see past the emotion and accept that it was there own fault, as fantastic as we defended there final ball was shocking. From our point of view are defence was absolutely immense and hopefully with these new additions and Madjer coming back fit we can get a proper settled midfield again that is competitive. As fantastic as Taylor Richards is going forward he needs a proper defensive midfielder next to him as he can be weak defensively.
A special mention for Fej as well he really was on a hiding to nothing with the space between him and midfield widening as the game went on but nobody could fault how hard he worked. He's having to play every game at the minute and has done brilliant for us these last few games despite the criticism he gets..He's going to need a rest soon though
-
Imagine trying to get any of the squad at this minute to have a rest.
I bet that they are all buzzing with this run, hoping to start and if not coming off the bench.
-
The difficulty with the blocked shots question is that many shots are blocked by the defender very close to the shooter and it simply isn't possible to know whether the ball would hit the target or not. It's logical IMO therefore that blocked shots should not be assumed to be on target.
Sometimes that is true pies but it is ludicrous that a shot cleared off the line by a defender isn’t counted as a shot on target.
Also likewise with a shot from say six yards which is blocked by a defender which clearly prevents a goal being scored.
As for not having multiple tv angles to study, there are some goals not accredited to attackers by the dubious goal panel.
-
As regards shots cleared off the line by a defender I agree but shots blocked from any other position become problematic as the require subjective judgement, which for consistency purposes I agree with the existing interpretation i.e. should not be included as a shot on target.
-
For all Lincoln's excellent play, they created very few chances. They had two of the softest penalties you'll ever see, hit the top of the bar (with a shot that was covered by Balcombe if it had been the 18 inches lower it would have had to be to have gone in) and forced only one other serious save. That speaks volumes of how well we defended. They didn't produce a single chance of note inside the box.
-
For all Lincoln's excellent play, they created very few chances. They had two of the softest penalties you'll ever see, hit the top of the bar (with a shot that was covered by Balcombe if it had been the 18 inches lower it would have had to be to have gone in) and forced only one other serious save. That speaks volumes of how well we defended. They didn't produce a single chance of note inside the box.
Just a bit of pedantry, BST, regarding that last sentence. In the first half, their wonder kid, Brennan Johnson, missed the sitter of the game after big Tom failed to cut out a low cross.
For some reason, Sky Sports didn't show it in their highlights.
-
For all Lincoln's excellent play, they created very few chances. They had two of the softest penalties you'll ever see, hit the top of the bar (with a shot that was covered by Balcombe if it had been the 18 inches lower it would have had to be to have gone in) and forced only one other serious save. That speaks volumes of how well we defended. They didn't produce a single chance of note inside the box.
Just a bit of pedantry, BST, regarding that last sentence. In the first half, their wonder kid, Brennan Johnson, missed the sitter of the game after big Tom failed to cut out a low cross.
For some reason, Sky Sports didn't show it in their highlights.
Correct SS.
That clearly was a seriously bad miss and was well inside the box.
-
Must have been shouting at the kids when that happened cos I don't remember seeing it. I stand corrected.
-
For all Lincoln's excellent play, they created very few chances. They had two of the softest penalties you'll ever see, hit the top of the bar (with a shot that was covered by Balcombe if it had been the 18 inches lower it would have had to be to have gone in) and forced only one other serious save. That speaks volumes of how well we defended. They didn't produce a single chance of note inside the box.
Just a bit of pedantry, BST, regarding that last sentence. In the first half, their wonder kid, Brennan Johnson, missed the sitter of the game after big Tom failed to cut out a low cross.
For some reason, Sky Sports didn't show it in their highlights.
Correct SS.
That clearly was a seriously bad miss and was well inside the box.
m(iss)otm imo