Page 1 of 2
Ratings.
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 5:20 pm
by Beradogs
Brynn. 6.5. A couple of routine stops. Not much to do
James. 7. Good solid game albeit Cambridge offered no attacking threat.
Beccles 8. Him and Happe won’t have an easier 90 minutes.
Happe. 8. Back to his best.
Galbraith. 7. All the defence can score high marks as I don’t think Cambridge had a clear cut chance in 90 minutes.
Archibald. 8 joint MOM. All our threats in the first half came through him. One absolute blasteroony that hit the crossbar.
Brown. 7.5. Industrious performance and was always in the right place at the right time.
El Miz. 7. Didn’t need to get out of second gear.
Saunders. 6.5. Grew into it but perhaps one of our weaker performers.
Forde. 7. Great outlet. Just wish his final ball was better. Gets in good positions then loses it.
Agyei. Joint MOM 8. Going to be a real player for us. Full of pace and power.
Subs. Pigott. 6 fluffed his lines when clean through. As soon he replaced Agyei we lost our momentum. Others. 6.
Wellens. 7. Not having Ruel forced his hand but we are a better team without him in the side.Marks are high but it’s Christmas.
Cambridge. 5. Awful although to be fair they have a lot of injuries.
Ref. 5. Yellow card happy although our constant kicking the ball away really grates. Where did the fourth official get 8 mins added on from.
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 5:23 pm
by EliotNes
That's about it. Spot on.
Except I'd give Brynn a 7, though how does one really rate him, when he has so little to do?
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 5:28 pm
by gshaw
Beradogs wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 5:20 pm
Wellens. 7. Not having Ruel forced his hand but we are a better team without him in the side.Marks are high but it’s Christmas.
This, far better upfront without Sotiriou constantly losing the ball. Agyei held it up well and will be a real handful. Hopefully the front 3 today can stay fit and available going forward as the starters. Need a better option from the bench though as Pigott continues to look well off the level.
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 5:36 pm
by Loyal_Supporter
Certainly agree that we looked better without Ruel. Think Sanders was a 7 but pretty much spot on. Tempted to give the lads who got booked half a mark downwards though, simply because they were so petulant and unnecessary. That has to be sorted.
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 5:41 pm
by Hoover Attack
Is Ruel the new scapegoat?
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 5:47 pm
by Monkey Boy
Beradogs wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 5:20 pm
Brynn. 6.5. A couple of routine stops. Not much to do
James. 7. Good solid game albeit Cambridge offered no attacking threat.
Beccles 8. Him and Happe won’t have an easier 90 minutes.
Happe. 8. Back to his best.
Galbraith. 7. All the defence can score high marks as I don’t think Cambridge had a clear cut chance in 90 minutes.
Archibald. 8 joint MOM. All our threats in the first half came through him. One absolute blasteroony that hit the crossbar.
Brown. 7.5. Industrious performance and was always in the right place at the right time.
El Miz. 7. Didn’t need to get out of second gear.
Saunders. 6.5. Grew into it but perhaps one of our weaker performers.
Forde. 7. Great outlet. Just wish his final ball was better. Gets in good positions then loses it.
Agyei. Joint MOM 8. Going to be a real player for us. Full of pace and power.
Subs. Pigott. 6 fluffed his lines when clean through. As soon he replaced Agyei we lost our momentum. Others. 6.
Wellens. 7. Not having Ruel forced his hand but we are a better team without him in the side.Marks are high but it’s Christmas.
Cambridge. 5. Awful although to be fair they have a lot of injuries.
Ref. 5. Yellow card happy although our constant kicking the ball away really grates. Where did the fourth official get 8 mins added on from.
Good ratings, thoroughly deserved win, a good performance second-half. Your absolutely right about not having Ruel in the side although Fordes control isn’t much better than Ruels imo.
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 5:51 pm
by gshaw
Monkey Boy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 5:47 pm
Good ratings, thoroughly deserved win, a good performance second-half. Your absolutely right about not having Ruel in the side although Fordes control isn’t much better than Ruels imo.
Forde can beat a man though
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 6:07 pm
by Perry Combover
Our attacking threat owed everything to Agyei's presence in the team.Sotiriou or Forde is a toss-up in my opinion, but Agyei showed desire,pace,power,skill and the know-how,to dominate a poor Cambridge side
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 6:14 pm
by B.whitehouse+10more
Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 5:41 pm
Is Ruel the new scapegoat?
Better ask The Reverend he’s in charge of those decisions
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 6:17 pm
by gshaw
Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 5:41 pm
Is Ruel the new scapegoat?
No that's mostly Pigott given what he's costing us as our main striker to sit on the bench. Sotiriou just isn't anywhere near as good as some think, more suited as a sub option than a starter imo
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 6:26 pm
by Hoover Attack
Perry Combover wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 6:07 pm
Our attacking threat owed everything to Agyei's presence in the team.Sotiriou or Forde is a toss-up in my opinion, but Agyei showed desire,pace,power,skill and the know-how,to dominate a poor Cambridge side
Agreed, he looks the real deal.
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 7:54 pm
by The Reverend
B.whitehouse+10more wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 6:14 pm
Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 5:41 pm
Is Ruel the new scapegoat?
Better ask The Reverend he’s in charge of those decisions
Isn’t it strange how this account, which I’ve never engaged with before, starts digging me out just as “CEB” apparently foed me.
Surly just a complete coincidence….
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 8:06 pm
by Wally Banter
You have the worst alias detecting instincts ever.
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:47 pm
by B.whitehouse+10more
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:56 pm
by CEB
Dear oh dear.
After I said I’d put him on foe, then I went about my new year, Rev really has been all over the board accusing me of hypocrisy and “strange behaviour”…. because he thinks that I was so compelled to engage with him that I did it under my Brian Whitehouse alias???
I’m genuinely intrigued as to how he’ll spin it that it’s totally cool that he did all that for good reasons that make me the baddie, when the penny drops that he’s dropped a bollock here?
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 10:15 pm
by The Reverend
CEB wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:56 pm
Dear oh dear.
After I said I’d put him on foe, then I went about my new year, Rev really has been all over the board accusing me of hypocrisy and “strange behaviour”…. because he thinks that I was so compelled to engage with him that I did it under my Brian Whitehouse alias???
I’m genuinely intrigued as to how he’ll spin it that it’s totally cool that he did all that for good reasons that make me the baddie, when the penny drops that he’s dropped a bollock here?
“I have no interest in pursuing a feud with Rev, apart from when the first thing I did after serving a ban was going through posts which were weeks old to have multiple digs at him”
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 11:52 pm
by Jman
Agree with the above, I think we’re a better side away from home without Ruel as Sanders made us more solid.
Overall a pretty comfortable win. Cements the view we are a pretty decent mid table side in this league. I make RW right that we do tend to struggle against the bigger boys but hardly lose against the mid table / lower sides in the league. Which also confirms to me that there is a pretty sizeable gap between those ‘bigger’ sides and the rest of the league.
As half seasons go, going in 12th into 2024, most fans would’ve taken this and I’m pretty pleased with where we are.
A note to add on Ageyi, who I thought was excellent and added that little extra spark we’ve been crying out for. Mentions for Galbraith, Beckles and Theo too
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2024 9:46 am
by Monkey Boy
I posted a couple of weeks ago about the gulf in the top 6/8 and the rest,as mentioned above for me Beckles has been the difference in the last few games,his partnership with Happe has improved the defence it’s bought a little bit more experience to the side. However we have been playing teams that have played hoofball against us. If we play against a more mobile footballing side it may be a different story. I think we will be ok this season due to the fact that there are some poor teams in this division. Next season if we remain could be a very different proposition. I expect there will be some strong teams promoted and relegated. The summer recruitment will be crucial very much more than this window of which I don’t expect much activity by the club?
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2024 5:59 pm
by Razzmachaz
I only wish Graham was fit. Him and Agyei in the same side is a real threat. Bases of a really strong team next year/season.
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2024 10:40 am
by Lifelongfan
Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 5:41 pm
Is Ruel the new scapegoat?
GShaw never has a good work about him Sweeney or Brown. He hates young players especially those from the Academy like Happe. It is a theme
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2024 10:55 am
by Monkey Boy
Lifelongfan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 10:40 am
Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 5:41 pm
Is Ruel the new scapegoat?
GShaw never has a good work about him Sweeney or Brown. He hates young players especially those from the Academy like Happe. It is a theme
For me Lifelong, it’s not that Ruel is a bad player but he’s being used in the wrong position imo. He not good enough to lead the line on his own but would be better if he had another forward alongside him,however is control of the ball is diabolical and needs to be worked on
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2024 11:04 am
by Monkey Boy
Monkey Boy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 10:55 am
Lifelongfan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 10:40 am
Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 5:41 pm
Is Ruel the new scapegoat?
GShaw never has a good work about him Sweeney or Brown. He hates young players especially those from the Academy like Happe. It is a theme
For me Lifelong, it’s not that Ruel is a bad player but he’s being used in the wrong position imo. He not good enough to lead the line on his own but would be better if he had another forward alongside him,however his control of the ball is diabolical and needs to be worked on
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2024 11:43 am
by Hoover Attack
Monkey Boy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 10:55 am
Lifelongfan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 10:40 am
Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 5:41 pm
Is Ruel the new scapegoat?
GShaw never has a good work about him Sweeney or Brown. He hates young players especially those from the Academy like Happe. It is a theme
For me Lifelong, it’s not that Ruel is a bad player but he’s being used in the wrong position imo. He not good enough to lead the line on his own but would be better if he had another forward alongside him,however is control of the ball is diabolical and needs to be worked on
Agreed he shouldn't be leading the line, he's not strong or fast enough. The only reason he was doing so is that others weren't available, it's not something Richie wanted to do.
He won't have another forward alongside him, we don't play like that, so he has to develop his game as a wide man or 10, something he has been doing well this season.
Absolutely nonsense to say his control is diabolical. His issue is that he does everything at 100 mph, when he doesn't always need to.
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2024 11:53 am
by Monkey Boy
Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 11:43 am
Monkey Boy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 10:55 am
Lifelongfan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 10:40 am
GShaw never has a good work about him Sweeney or Brown. He hates young players especially those from the Academy like Happe. It is a theme
For me Lifelong, it’s not that Ruel is a bad player but he’s being used in the wrong position imo. He not good enough to lead the line on his own but would be better if he had another forward alongside him,however is control of the ball is diabolical and needs to be worked on
Agreed he shouldn't be leading the line, he's not strong or fast enough. The only reason he was doing so is that others weren't available, it's not something Richie wanted to do.
He won't have another forward alongside him, we don't play like that, so he has to develop his game as a wide man or 10, something he has been doing well this season.
Absolutely nonsense to say his control is diabolical. His issue is that he does everything at 100 mph, when he doesn't always need to.
Yes I agree with your point on the formation issue and your correct that Wellens doesn’t play with a front two however don’t agree with your assessment of his control,yes he does do things 100 mph but he has little or no control whatsoever, and a consequence of that is our attacks break down as soon as he receives the ball on 9 out of 10 times. But I take your point
Re: Ratings.
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2024 11:56 am
by Mistadobalina
I don't think he has it in him to play as a no.10. He isn't a creative player and becomes a bit of a passenger in the build up play when he's in that position. It's the same issue as when he's on the wing - he's just too peripheral, his decision making too poor and too lacking in physicality to really impose himself on the game. Has looked occasionally passable in those positions isn't the same as doing well.
I think he could be a decent League 1 forward option as a no.9 as part of a front 2, but otherwise he isn't good enough for this level.
