Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Sign up

It gives me no pleasure

Status
Not open for further replies.

Neddy

C&B Member
May 31, 2005
175
0
1,000
#1
To say i told you so.How we needed a battering ram upfront to make room for others. We will always beat teams who want to play football but in this league physical ability counts as much as silky skills.
 

Ed

Megalomaniac
Administrator
May 18, 2005
27,311
2,749
23,980
#2
Cooke was doing ok upfront, he should of scored but looked good and didn't give up. Had he been around in the second half we would of scored.
 
G

Guest

#4
Think Cooke did okay, held the ball up well but his finishing is just not up to scratch. Give him another few games but IMO we DO need a battering ram up front.
 
G

Guest

#5
cooke did well and 'nearly' scored, but the rearrangement with petta upfront worked, cad was bound to come on and 'nearly' scored,
with some 'potshots' later on, the thing i liked about the second half was that city took the game controlled it and calmed it down themselves despite the ref
 
#6
We dont need a "Target man"!

What we need is a team that plays to its forwards strengths, ie low crosses into the box instead of the constant stream of high balls that central defenders gobble up against Windass & Cooky!

Look at Southends 1st goal, cross whipped in about waist height that caught our defence off-guard.
 
G

Guest

#7
Parrot said:
We dont need a "Target man"!

What we need is a team that plays to its forwards strengths, ie low crosses into the box instead of the constant stream of high balls that central defenders gobble up against Windass & Cooky!

Look at Southends 1st goal, cross whipped in about waist height that caught our defence off-guard.
i thought cooke was unlucky not to score hoofing it over the bar,
i kind of agree abut low powerful crosses and shots
but southends goal was a bit of a mele not directly from a cross
 

emj

C&B Member
Jun 20, 2005
777
23
1,568
47
#8
we do need a target man in the squad.We needed one on the bench tonight,to come on and give Deano some help with the physical aspects of the battle.
 

Ed

Megalomaniac
Administrator
May 18, 2005
27,311
2,749
23,980
#9
We had a target man on the field, until half time ... sheesh.
 
May 18, 2005
1,554
1
1,000
38
#10
IMPO Cookie was twice the player Deano was tonight, ok he missed an early chance but every ball passed to him stuck. As soon as he went off our contol of the ball in attack was knackered.
 
#11
kiko said:
i thought cooke was unlucky not to score hoofing it over the bar,
i kind of agree abut low powerful crosses and shots
but southends goal was a bit of a mele not directly from a cross
Well from where I was sat Kicko, Im sure their left-winger crossed it across our box, Bower & Co completly missed it, which put Ricketts off, & they scored!
 

Barmy

C&B Member
May 18, 2005
3,974
0
1,000
35
Leicester
#12
Would have to agree BOTO, thought Cooke was doin well before havin to be sacrificed at half time.

Dont need another 'target man' because we have one already, Cooke.
 
G
#13
what is this a test, yeh there was a cross but it was a mele, because from the cross it was looped back in to the box, ricketts nearly saved, a defender got in the way, couldn't pull off a double save, southend, looked like prior bundled it over, someone said he used his hand to guide it in from no yards, mix up, loadsa defenders there, looked to me like it could've been an og scenario but southend were there to make sure it went in, it was unlucky on us probably untidy defending, when its a mele, its unlucky
 
#15
It was "Unlucky" that Holloway wasnt in his position (RB) once again!

If he had off being, maybe the cross wouldnt have come in the 1st place!
 
G
#16
kiko said:
what is this a test, yeh there was a cross but it was a mele, because from the cross it was looped back in to the box, ricketts nearly saved, a defender got in the way, couldn't pull off a double save, southend, looked like prior bundled it over, someone said he used his hand to guide it in from no yards, mix up, loadsa defenders there, looked to me like it could've been an og scenario but southend were there to make sure it went in, it was unlucky on us probably untidy defending, when its a mele, its unlucky
There player wasn't even near the ball. They crossed it in from the left, it hit Wethers in the face and went in. Simple!
 

Neddy

C&B Member
May 31, 2005
175
0
1,000
#17
For goodness sake how can anybody who was there tonight say we don;t need a big strong presence up front. Yes cooke works hard and holds it up fairly well but he wins nothing in the air. We need some one to knock defenders of there stride and make room for windass.The only time in recent years we have been consitent at home is when we had Adebola.It will be another season of home toil without one.
 

bg

C&B Member
May 19, 2005
3,158
1
1,000
#18
I agree with Parrot, we don't play to our strengths. We after all have some good players in midfield, they need to battle more and drive on from there, and supply the strikers with ball at their feet. Cooke is not a target man, he holds the ball up sometimes!!! other times he is pushed off it. I have to say I am not a fan of Cooke, but I will not write him off this season yet. If we are going to play long ball football, we do need a target man.
 
G
#19
btw by mele i don't mean bradford mela or a fight, just a mix-up with loadsa players there,
thing is holloway, didn't put his foot in that time, but still tried to put the player off, when he did we know what happened, the goal wasn't holloways fault, don't confuse the 1st goal with the tackle
you tell me who was it that was involved in the southend goal
 
Status
Not open for further replies.