Brief Synopsis!!!

[pedro91]

Don't know if anyone else saw it,but at the end of the pre match warm up,in the huddle,it was Wotton who was geeing up the players and not Hourihane.Maybe he isn't vociferous enough!!!

 

[ogwellmike]

demportdave wrote:

tigertony wrote:
I can't believe the number of expert managers we have on pasoti
I blame the box play thing 2 (or is it 3) that you plug in and it drip feeds the user with the extra strong dose of ''Iamthebestmanager medicine'' :lol:

Get a grip and stop being so melodramatic.
Football is all about opinions, especially from those who pay to watch the game and follow their team.
Managers at all levels make mistakes, some more than others, but the good ones make less mistakes and usually learn from them.
Yet Sheridan did nothing to change the game until they finally scored and he then throws on 3 subs with about 7 minutes to go. This is not the first time this has happened and that is why he is being criticised.

I'm with TT on this - except I would have written, "expert?" rather than expert. It too easy for the armchair "experts?" to criticise (with all the advantages of hindsight) John Sheridan on how he has handled a game. JS is a bad manager, they say, implying that they could do a better job. This is the same John Sheridan whose team yesterday received a standing ovation from the crowd even though Argyle had just lost 2 - 0. The same John Sheridan who has brought Argyle up from the relegation zone to the play-off contenders in just a few months. The same John Sheridan who has given back to us Argyle supporters the self respect and optimism we used to experience in the past.

If individual players and the manager made some mistakes yesterday then so be it. Their total contribution to the game was immense and that was why we gave them a standing ovation. What is the point of the all the mega-whinging from the "experts?". Would we have done any better if they were in charge. Of course not.

I prefer to put my faith in JS, a proven professional, rather than the "experts?" who, in all probability couldn't manage to get a score in a brothel - let alone on the football pitch.

OK football is about criticism and we are all entitled to our own opinions. But the rest of us are entitled to treat
some half-baked opinions with the contempt they deserve.

 

[demportdave]

demportdave wrote:

tigertony wrote:
I can't believe the number of expert managers we have on pasoti
I blame the box play thing 2 (or is it 3) that you plug in and it drip feeds the user with the extra strong dose of ''Iamthebestmanager medicine'' :lol:

Get a grip and stop being so melodramatic.
Football is all about opinions, especially from those who pay to watch the game and follow their team.
Managers at all levels make mistakes, some more than others, but the good ones make less mistakes and usually learn from them.
Yet Sheridan did nothing to change the game until they finally scored and he then throws on 3 subs with about 7 minutes to go. This is not the first time this has happened and that is why he is being criticised.

I'm with TT on this - except I would have written, "expert?" rather than expert. It too easy for the armchair "experts?" to criticise (with all the advantages of hindsight) John Sheridan on how has handled a game. JS is a bad manager, they say, implying that they could do a better job. This is the he same John Sheridan whose team yesterday received a standing ovation from the crowd even though Argyle had just lost 2 - 0. The same John Sheridan who as brought Argyle up from the relegation zone to the play-off contenders in just a few months. The same John Sheridan who has given back to us Argyle supporters the self respect and optimism we used to experience in the past.

If individual players and the manager made some mistakes yesterday then so be it. Their total contribution to the game was immense and that was why we gave them a standing ovation. What is the point of the all the mega-whinging from the "experts?". Would we have done any better if they were in charge. Of course not.

I prefer to put my faith in JS, a proven professional, rather than the "experts?" who, in all probability couldn't manage to get a score in a brothel - let alone on the football pitch.

OK football is about criticism and we are all entitled to our own opinions. But the rest of us are entitled to treat some half-baked opinions with the contempt they deserve.

Mike, like TT you are talking nonsense.

Just because someone criticises Sheridan for his tactics and lack of substitutions it does not imply that he/she thinks "they could do a better job" and to ask "Would we have done any better if they were in charge?" is silly and juvenile.

It's simply observations and an opinions, no more and no less. Stop reading too much into it and rushing to your keyboard to defend Sheridan. It's all rather pathetic and he doesn't need it anyway, he's been in football all of his life and he knows how it works.

Did you also blindly support Fletcher as well on the principle that he was a "proven professional" or Sturrock Mark 2? On your logic, no professional football Manager would ever be sacked because they know best.

Perhaps you also thought Todd and Gardener were professionals who knew far better what they were doing than us. I'm no Businessman either, but I don't reckon they were doing a very good job of running my club but who was I to question them, surely they knew best?

Sheridan has done well since Xmas to get us where we are, but yesterday I would suggest that the majority of those watching thought that he should have made changes before they scored and been a bit more positive generally. Our whole approach was to stand off, sit deep and let them play and that negativity cost us, perhaps if we had been more positive we might have won.

Hopefully. we will get the win on Tuesday night and we will all be singing his praises.

 

[GreenSam]

I agree D'Port Dave- should never be afraid to question. However I personally wouldn't have made the subs without hindsight. They only really dominated for five minutes before the goal. Each side had spells of attacking and spells of sitting back. There was a 10 minute phase not long before that which we dominated and had about three scoreable chances. It was a game of fits and spells- they were going through one but there was nothing to say we weren't about to have another one right away.

 

[BadBoy]

On the whole, a very good performance and one that was a credit to League Two. Both sides played very well and quite simply one of them took their chances and the other did not. That doesn't mean we didn't play very well for most of the game and as Monkeywrench says, 95% of the time that performance from Argyle would have been enough to get a win. I've seen us play a LOT worse than we did today and win over my 12 years supporting us. Many times too. It's very harsh too to say that just because we apparently only had two shots on target then that apparently means that we didn't really have many clear chances A) That stat is false, I can remember Hourihane having one in each half and Gurrieri having one too B) We had many clear chances that weren't shots on target. Lewi's two that hit the post, Reid's header into the side netting, Blanchard's free header from the corner and Hourihane's other shot against the stanchion come to mind without even thinking. It's also wrong, imho, to say we were dominated in midfield. Both sides had spells where they broke through the others midfield and created chances- the only difference being that Scunny took two of them and we didn't take any. Finally, I also reject the criticism that subs should have been made. It's too easy to say with the benefit of hindsight. At the time, as I said to my mate at the game, we were playing well. Yes Scunthorpe were having a 5 minute spell before the goal but it was that kind of match. Each sides had 5 minute spells to various degrees and again it was only one of theirs that resulted in a goal. On the whole we were playing very well and could easily have nicked it without subs. Sometimes there isn't a great philosophical reason why we lost. Sometimes it's just a case of they took their easy chances and we didn't take ours. Ratings:

Cole-7. Generally did well and his command of area now compared to when he first arrived at the club is not recognisable. One very good save too and I'm not sure if the own goal was really his fault- seemed a bit of a fluke to me.

Blanchard-6. The usual fare from him. Very good in his actual defending but poor distribution.
Trotman-6. Another mixed bag game. Some very good commanding headers but some gaffes too which let them in too much. Passing perhaps better than normal.
Nelson-7. Another solid all round performance from him. Slowly turning into the complete defender. Did the dominant, positional and passing stuff pretty well today. One disastrous pass early on though which nearly cost us.

Berry-8. What happened to that player I used to think was poor?! Well, moving from full-back to wing-back is undoubtedly part of it. His ability to get up and down the line seems to focus him so much more. Covers so much ground out wide for us and much less mistake prone. His crossing has improved too and was much more involved in chance creation too. Got back to help the defence far better than his counterpart Parsons did.
Blizzard-6. Just too mediocre for me. He's SO slow. So slow that his positive attributes are nullified by it. For example one time in the first half where he dropped back into what was the perfect position to be in for him to pick up a loose ball. However in spite of having about a two yard head start, his slow reactions and movement stopped him from getting there. Not even remotely close to Cox and imo not as good as Wotton either. Wotton's speed of motion is also slow but his speed of reactions is so much better. Wotton would either have got to the ball before their man did or they would both have got to it at the same time- in which case Wotton would have won the tackle. Blizzard was however slightly improved in the second half when he didn't play like a bear with a sore head. Would still have Wotton back in for Tuesday.
Young-7. Decent display and once again showed off his superb passing range. A couple of his passes that went out for throw-ins were still very good, just that our wide attackers weren't quite sharp enough to notice it. Defensively questioned, got dispossed a couple of times.
Hourihane-8. Another excellent performance and one that proves surely beyond any remaining conceivable doubt that he's an attacking midfielder, not a defensive one and should be used as thus. His bounding forward with the ball through the defensive lines is a pleasure to watch, as is his high pressing. At times he reminds me of a League Two version of Yaya Toure. Take the shackles off him, let him play in this role permanently and we'll never see the timid player who passes sideways ever again. The only reason he only gets an 8 out of 10 is his finishing. Should have scored at least one if not two of his chances.
Parsons-5. After seeing excellent performances from him in his first few games at the club, this new incarnation seems a bit disappointing. He was very active getting up and down the line but so much of what he tried seemed to go mammaries up. Defensively suspect (he got back but didn't do his job well when he got back) and his crossing going forward was generally nowhere near as good as I've seen him do before. The one exception however being the absolute peach of a cross he put in for Alessandra the first time he hit the post. Generally an iffy game- what I don't accept however is the viewpoint that this means we should automatically shove Ben back in as first choice LB. Whilst Parsons has made mistakes, Ben made mistakes too which went unnoticed/unspoken. He was at least partially at fault for the goals in the Southend home game, Cheltenham home and one of York's goals in which he had an all round dire game. I like Purrington a lot and feel he has a big future but I think it's wrong how possibly due to his local status, his mistakes get a lot less scrutiny than Parsons' do.

Reid-7. Good all round centre-forwards performance. Won a lot of high balls with his back against the goal and flicked them on well to our runners. He was to thank for a lot of our possession in and around the 18 yard box.
Alessandra-8. He was an absolute menace for their defence today. Rarely have I ever seen a striker quite so full of energy and ability to move their centre-backs from their position with his absolute duracell bunny levels of stamina. Constant smart runs off the ball. As with Hourihane, he'd have got an even higher rating if not for the fact that he really should have scored. As excellent as he was today, and he really was good, I can't see that Lavery would have missed both of those chances.

Morgan-7. Looked bright and lively. If only the ref had penalised one or two of the blatant shirt pulls on him eh?
Obedayi-7. See above. Should really have shot when he had the chance in a good position though and instead tried to walk it into the net.
Gurrieri-7. Again similar. Should have done better with his chance.

Very gutting due to the way we lost but the performance was there. Just need to work on the finishing. I think we'll beat Chesterfield on Tuesday now. To have done so well but lost 2-0 will have put fire in their bellies, without a doubt.

Agree with most of this bar your 8 for Berry who was no better than a 6 imo.

 

[Green Flash]

I for one do not agree he should have made the subs earlier. The team were playing well and still full of running. When the substitutions were made at Bristol Rovers I thought the team looked worse - and we conceded the losing goal. I might have brought Andreas on earlier but that is it.

Green Sam's analysis of the game above is spot in my opinion. This was a cracking game between 2 good teams and could have gone either way. Looked more like a top end league 1 than a league 2 game imo.

 

[Tugboat]

From a Scunny perspective..

In summary Plymouth can be exciting at times having good width, but make lots of unforced errors. Think they lack a bit of quality in depth. We were just a better team with a bit too much for them over most of the field. Ground pitch and atmosphere at Home park was excellent. What a comparison with the Newport dump.

 

[bodspafc]

From a Scunny perspective..

In summary Plymouth can be exciting at times having good width, but make lots of unforced errors. Think they lack a bit of quality in depth. We were just a better team with a bit too much for them over most of the field. Ground pitch and atmosphere at Home park was excellent. What a comparison with the Newport dump.

Sounds fair enough when you look how much they've had to spend on players compared to us.

 

[Womble]

From a Scunny perspective..

In summary Plymouth can be exciting at times having good width, but make lots of unforced errors. Think they lack a bit of quality in depth. We were just a better team with a bit too much for them over most of the field. Ground pitch and atmosphere at Home park was excellent. What a comparison with the Newport dump.

Sounds fair enough when you look how much they've had to spend on players compared to us.

Seems like a fair and reasoned assessment. Its just nice for us to be described as "exciting at times"!

 

[ogwellmike]

graiser wrote (of D&D post):

"The majority of those watching" thought he should have made changes earlier,

how can you say that, there was over 8k there, did you do a Q&A to all of them after the game, I must have missed that.

Good point Mr. G. The fact is that the overwhelming majority were standing up at the end of the game and enthusiastically applauding Argyle - even though we had just lost. We were showing our appreciation for a very good performance against a top team. We were showing our appreciation for the massive improvements that have taken place under John Sheridan. There had been mistakes, unfortunate errors and maybe some missed opportunities but these paled into insignificance compared with the overall performance. We were applauding the overwhelming positives too much to dwell on the few negatives.

Funnily enough I wasn't asked to fill in the questionnaire either - presumably because I was too busy (along with most Argyle supporters) showing my appreciation - so I must have missed it too!

I do feel really sorry for those sad individuals who watched that performance and could only see the negatives. How perverse is that?

For sure, our team is still work in progress and we must hope for (maybe) even better things to come.

You never know, John Sheridan may decide to contact some of the pasoti "experts?" and ask for their help with the difficult decisions he has to make!!!!!

 

[Don't Panic]

Ah good old football stats, that's how they should decide whether a team deserves to win or not, doesn't matter how good the attempts on goal are or what a team does with the possession that they have, that's how I feel after playing FIFA anyway. I'm not saying that's how it was yesterday but some use stats as an argument but you can have a game where one team has 10 poor, weak shots on goal whilst another is getting balls whipped across the box & efforts charged down & then some will just look at stats & conclude that the team with more efforts on goal deserve the win somehow.

 

[ogwellmike]

graiser wrote (of demportdave post):

"The majority of those watching" thought he should have made changes earlier,

how can you say that, there was over 8k there, did you do a Q&A to all of them after the game, I must have missed that.

ogwellmike wrote:

Good point Mr. G. The fact is that the overwhelming majority were standing up at the end of the game and enthusiastically applauding Argyle - even though we had just lost. We were showing our appreciation for a very good performance against a top team. We were showing our appreciation for the massive improvements that have taken place under John Sheridan. There had been mistakes, unfortunate errors and maybe some missed opportunities but these paled into insignificance compared with the overall performance. We were applauding the overwhelming positives too much to dwell on the few negatives.
Funnily enough I wasn't asked to fill in the questionnaire either - presumably because I was too busy (along with most Argyle supporters) showing my appreciation - so I must have missed it too!
I do feel really sorry for those sad individuals who watched that performance and could only see the negatives. How perverse is that?
For sure, our team is still work in progress and we must hope for (maybe) even better things to come.
You never know, John Sheridan may decide to contact some of the pasoti "experts?" and ask for their help with the difficult decisions he has to make!!!!!

and demportdave wrote:

nothing!

A deafening silence! Defending the indefensible has suddenly become impossible? Suddenly realised that there is a difference between facts and opinions? Run out of childish insults? Ah - bless!