| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night 07:46 - Jan 29 with 8089 views | GlasgowBlue |
Yes we were appalling against Rotherham. Probably the worst performance I’ve seen since the away game at Accrington. The team didn’t work as a unit and there wasn’t one outstanding performance from a player in blue.
But the way people are posting you would think we would we were bottom three rather tan top three. We went into last night’s game top of the league and unbeaten in five.
I also see that both Judge and Edwards are being scapegoated, despite them showing very good form during our recent revival. Not one player player came out of last night’s game with any credit yet it’s the same people moaning about the same two players.
Oh and apparently it was Lambert’s fault we lost despite playing a winning, settled and unchanged team which is what our fans have calling for.
Get a grip lads and lasses. We go again on Saturday. |  |
| |  |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 10:16 - Jan 29 with 4360 views | clive_baker |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 09:46 - Jan 29 by Herbivore |
Judge is an attacking player who has managed one league goal and a few assists in a year's worth of football. It shouldn't be a surprise that people don't rate him. Even the likes of Edwards and Nolan have contributed to more goals over the past year than Judge and both have played fewer games I believe. Garbutt has contributed way more in terms of goal threat and he's mostly played as a full back. At what point does it become fair to assess Judge on his actual contribution rather than a vague perception that he's a quality footballer? |
When you say 'actual contribution', it your interpretation of actual. That's not something that easily concluded if you're solely using goals and assists to form your opinion. There's a reason sides aren't selected based on algorithms, but the judgement of those that work with this squad day-to-day and conduct much deeper statistical analysis. I really like Judge in the number 10 role, I think his link up play between midfield and attack is vital and he utilises the ball well by and large. Retains possession, picks the right passes and certainly this year now he's had a run of games and his match fitness is there he's been involved in a lot. He's created a decent amount of chances that haven't been converted.
I'm a bit of a stats geek in everyday life but football is an area where I think there's a danger of analysis paralysis and they never paint the whole picture. I have access to professional scouting software on my personal laptop from a previous job (probably shouldn't use it anymore and mostly only do for highlights), and Judge does stack up favourably in terms of overall output, ball retention, distance covered. What's interesting is that Jackson is way down compared to Norwood and Keane, but that's for me an example of the dangers of statistical analysis in football as without Jackson we would lose a dimension to our play, and there's nobody quite like him in our squad. I feel the same about Judge. I have wondered if Judge might be better utilised from the bench, where he'll perhaps be able to create more space against tiring defences for the final 30 minutes. The same might be said for Bishop though, who I also really rate and think brings something altogether different. Personally it's one or the other for me and I don't understand how Teddy didn't get 25 minutes last night when we're trailing and only really looked like creating anything from set pieces, which he no doubt would've won for us. Yesterday was thoroughly, thoroughly pony and I'm still annoyed about it because what Rotherham offered was so entirely predictable. |  |
| |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 10:17 - Jan 29 with 4354 views | SouperJim |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 09:29 - Jan 29 by clive_baker |
I think people on here tend to form an opinion on something and then find it hard to concede anything other than that opinion. Judge has been one of our best players since the turn of the year, he's got genuine quality as we've seen lately when he's in his stride, but last night he was one of pretty much the whole side that wasn't on it, yet is singled out for criticism. He actually showed just about the only bit of quality in the whole 90 minutes when he pulled the ball out of the sky to put Jackson through, whose finish was poor. Football supporters are so reactionist. If we win we're the best thing going and when we don't we might as well pack up and fold the club. It's not healthy.
Bad performance = crap player / get them out of the club nowadays. |
This times one billion.
We were really poor last night, dreadful performance, but you have to give Rotherham some credit. They have an effective way of playing which forces their style on the opposition and we didn't have an answer. The first half was one of the worst 45 minutes of football I've watched for some time, which suited them down to the ground. So many unforced errors from us which I put down to frustration and feeling hassled on the ball because Rotherham pressed us to great effect.
Sometimes the opposition can make you look really bad. Last night was one of those times, yet we still might have sneaked a draw and were never out of the game. It happens. Some folk on here need to manage their disappointment better.
It's clear we are of similar quality to 6 or 7 other sides in this division. What matters is we pick up enough points between now and the end of the season to finish in the top 2. I'm still optimistic we can do that, particularly given the way we've improved over the last 6 games or so and our midfield has been able to dominate the majority of those. Huws, Downes and Judge are too good for most sides we play. Rotherham know this and bypassed the midfield for most of the game bar the last 10 minutes or so, coincidentally this was our best spell. We just need to learn from the game and move on. |  |
| |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 10:21 - Jan 29 with 4340 views | Herbivore |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 10:16 - Jan 29 by clive_baker |
When you say 'actual contribution', it your interpretation of actual. That's not something that easily concluded if you're solely using goals and assists to form your opinion. There's a reason sides aren't selected based on algorithms, but the judgement of those that work with this squad day-to-day and conduct much deeper statistical analysis. I really like Judge in the number 10 role, I think his link up play between midfield and attack is vital and he utilises the ball well by and large. Retains possession, picks the right passes and certainly this year now he's had a run of games and his match fitness is there he's been involved in a lot. He's created a decent amount of chances that haven't been converted.
I'm a bit of a stats geek in everyday life but football is an area where I think there's a danger of analysis paralysis and they never paint the whole picture. I have access to professional scouting software on my personal laptop from a previous job (probably shouldn't use it anymore and mostly only do for highlights), and Judge does stack up favourably in terms of overall output, ball retention, distance covered. What's interesting is that Jackson is way down compared to Norwood and Keane, but that's for me an example of the dangers of statistical analysis in football as without Jackson we would lose a dimension to our play, and there's nobody quite like him in our squad. I feel the same about Judge. I have wondered if Judge might be better utilised from the bench, where he'll perhaps be able to create more space against tiring defences for the final 30 minutes. The same might be said for Bishop though, who I also really rate and think brings something altogether different. Personally it's one or the other for me and I don't understand how Teddy didn't get 25 minutes last night when we're trailing and only really looked like creating anything from set pieces, which he no doubt would've won for us. Yesterday was thoroughly, thoroughly pony and I'm still annoyed about it because what Rotherham offered was so entirely predictable. |
I don't think Judge is dynamic enough for that number 10 role to be honest. He's so one paced and often just plays a simple ball backwards. His final ball is very hit and miss, he got into three excellent positions to create a chance last night and only one of those situations actually led to a chance being created. His other two balls were shockers, up there with Jackson booting that cross beyond everyone.
I agree that goals and assists don't tell the full story but for attacking players that's where they need to be contributing. One goal and three or four assists over a full calendar year where he's played in most games simpmy isn't good enough. Playing the role he does with the licence to roam and with no real positional discipline he needs to be amongst our best performers most weeks to justify being given that freedom and that hasn't been happening for me.
Happy to agree to disagree on this one, but I'd be looking to phase him out of the side. |  |
| |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 10:26 - Jan 29 with 4331 views | clive_baker |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 10:17 - Jan 29 by SouperJim |
This times one billion.
We were really poor last night, dreadful performance, but you have to give Rotherham some credit. They have an effective way of playing which forces their style on the opposition and we didn't have an answer. The first half was one of the worst 45 minutes of football I've watched for some time, which suited them down to the ground. So many unforced errors from us which I put down to frustration and feeling hassled on the ball because Rotherham pressed us to great effect.
Sometimes the opposition can make you look really bad. Last night was one of those times, yet we still might have sneaked a draw and were never out of the game. It happens. Some folk on here need to manage their disappointment better.
It's clear we are of similar quality to 6 or 7 other sides in this division. What matters is we pick up enough points between now and the end of the season to finish in the top 2. I'm still optimistic we can do that, particularly given the way we've improved over the last 6 games or so and our midfield has been able to dominate the majority of those. Huws, Downes and Judge are too good for most sides we play. Rotherham know this and bypassed the midfield for most of the game bar the last 10 minutes or so, coincidentally this was our best spell. We just need to learn from the game and move on. |
I still think we'll do it too.
It'll be mighty tight, but with the run of home games I think we'll get over the line. If we can get out of the next 2 with 4 points I'll be happy.
COYB. | |
| |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 10:29 - Jan 29 with 4321 views | SouperJim |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 10:21 - Jan 29 by Herbivore |
I don't think Judge is dynamic enough for that number 10 role to be honest. He's so one paced and often just plays a simple ball backwards. His final ball is very hit and miss, he got into three excellent positions to create a chance last night and only one of those situations actually led to a chance being created. His other two balls were shockers, up there with Jackson booting that cross beyond everyone.
I agree that goals and assists don't tell the full story but for attacking players that's where they need to be contributing. One goal and three or four assists over a full calendar year where he's played in most games simpmy isn't good enough. Playing the role he does with the licence to roam and with no real positional discipline he needs to be amongst our best performers most weeks to justify being given that freedom and that hasn't been happening for me.
Happy to agree to disagree on this one, but I'd be looking to phase him out of the side. |
While I don't disagree, you also need to consider the alternatives in Nolan, Bishop (returning from injury) and Dozzell.
What you get with Judge is a very experienced pro who doesn't make too many errors, looks after the ball, works hard off it and never goes missing from the game. I'm not quite so confident that this applies to the others, Nolan is probably the best pick on that front but is the weakest in terms of vision and technical ability. | |
| |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 10:49 - Jan 29 with 4299 views | Oxford_Blue |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 07:50 - Jan 29 by Chrisd |
For me, it's more the fact that we just can't get the job done against any of the sides around us. Soon as we come against a side that is physical and direct we really struggle and invariably play long ball ourselves and we haven't the personnel to do it effectively. Finally, all this nonsense that we have the best squad in the league can be put to bed for me, Rotherham did a job on us home and away and we weren't even second best in those games. |
It doesn’t matter as long as we end up in the top two.
Last night was poor, but we have to move on and not dwell on it.
We can’t change the result and the team had been unbeaten in five and were top.
We have the chance to beat Peterborough on Saturday and maybe go top again or second. Let’s hold fire on any major judgements till 5pm on sat. |  | | |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 10:52 - Jan 29 with 4298 views | Herbivore |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 10:29 - Jan 29 by SouperJim |
While I don't disagree, you also need to consider the alternatives in Nolan, Bishop (returning from injury) and Dozzell.
What you get with Judge is a very experienced pro who doesn't make too many errors, looks after the ball, works hard off it and never goes missing from the game. I'm not quite so confident that this applies to the others, Nolan is probably the best pick on that front but is the weakest in terms of vision and technical ability. |
Given that Judge does zero defensive work you could easily swap him out for Norwood and stick Keane in the number 10 role, or bring in Sears and go 3-4-3 with wide forwards. Or you bring someone else into the middle of the park and free up Huws and Downes to get up the pitch more at times. I just don't see Judge doing anything like enough to justify his role in the side. | |
| |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 11:07 - Jan 29 with 4285 views | SouperJim |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 10:52 - Jan 29 by Herbivore |
Given that Judge does zero defensive work you could easily swap him out for Norwood and stick Keane in the number 10 role, or bring in Sears and go 3-4-3 with wide forwards. Or you bring someone else into the middle of the park and free up Huws and Downes to get up the pitch more at times. I just don't see Judge doing anything like enough to justify his role in the side. |
Zero defensive work is harsh and not all defending is done without the ball or in your own half of the pitch.
Agree to disagree I guess but I don't think changing the shape of the team just to get Judge out of the side given our recent improved form makes much sense at this point. Yes I'd like to see more from Judge, but I'm far from convinced that his lack of consistent killer edge is good reason to ignore everything else which is decent about his game and disrupt what has otherwise been a very productive way of playing recently. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 11:17 - Jan 29 with 4273 views | Herbivore |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 11:07 - Jan 29 by SouperJim |
Zero defensive work is harsh and not all defending is done without the ball or in your own half of the pitch.
Agree to disagree I guess but I don't think changing the shape of the team just to get Judge out of the side given our recent improved form makes much sense at this point. Yes I'd like to see more from Judge, but I'm far from convinced that his lack of consistent killer edge is good reason to ignore everything else which is decent about his game and disrupt what has otherwise been a very productive way of playing recently. |
Zero defensive work is about right. I think if you swapped him out for Norwood or Sears they would be more effective at defending from the front. The point is we've created a shape to try to accommodate him and he's not really performing, so I don't see any reason to persist with him. He's been largely poor for most of the season with just a few more promising displays (though still not looking too good for this league as promised).
I don't think we should get too carried away by the recent run either, home wins against Lincoln and Accrington who travel badly and a win at relegation threatened Tranmere are positive but these are games midtable sides would expect to win. We got showed up badly last night. And I'd also say that Huws' return to fitness and form alongside Chambers and Woolfenden getting forward has been more pivotal to any improvement than Judge, so I don't see it as a strong argument for persisting with him. | |
| |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 11:34 - Jan 29 with 4256 views | itfcjoe |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 09:40 - Jan 29 by clive_baker |
That's literally what I said. Judge was crap. Everyone was crap. My point is it's important to distinguish between a bad performance and crap footballer. Huws has genuine quality too, and he was the worst player on the pitch for an hour. |
In a game like that - when it is scrappy you expect the players who are better technically to rise above it so they stand out more when they don't - Huws, Garbutt and Judge all fall into that category.
And out of those 3, Judge has Bishop breathing down his neck whilst the others have no real competition so he is going to get singled out more. It was obvious early on that it seemed a game made for Bishop to get on the ball, so everyone of Judge's (many) misplaced or negative passes ramped up the frustration |  |
| |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 11:38 - Jan 29 with 4232 views | clive_baker |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 11:34 - Jan 29 by itfcjoe |
In a game like that - when it is scrappy you expect the players who are better technically to rise above it so they stand out more when they don't - Huws, Garbutt and Judge all fall into that category.
And out of those 3, Judge has Bishop breathing down his neck whilst the others have no real competition so he is going to get singled out more. It was obvious early on that it seemed a game made for Bishop to get on the ball, so everyone of Judge's (many) misplaced or negative passes ramped up the frustration |
I've said much the same, Judge was absolutely crap and its mad Bishop didn't get on. Huws too, how he was even still on the pitch for the 2nd half is beyond me. Garbutt less so IMO, he wasn't as his usual level but he wasn't as poor as the others mentioned. | |
| |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 11:40 - Jan 29 with 4227 views | Radlett_blue |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 10:49 - Jan 29 by Oxford_Blue |
It doesn’t matter as long as we end up in the top two.
Last night was poor, but we have to move on and not dwell on it.
We can’t change the result and the team had been unbeaten in five and were top.
We have the chance to beat Peterborough on Saturday and maybe go top again or second. Let’s hold fire on any major judgements till 5pm on sat. |
Exactly, all teams have setbacks. It's how you respond to them that counts. In early October, we were all feeling good about Town's prospects. Then a poor performance against a very ordinary Accrington was followed by another one against a decent Rotherham side. This gives Saturday's game against fellow promotion hopefuls Peterborough added importance so let's stay positive & hope for 3 points & then we will be right back on track. |  |
| |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 11:47 - Jan 29 with 4219 views | itfcjoe |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 11:38 - Jan 29 by clive_baker |
I've said much the same, Judge was absolutely crap and its mad Bishop didn't get on. Huws too, how he was even still on the pitch for the 2nd half is beyond me. Garbutt less so IMO, he wasn't as his usual level but he wasn't as poor as the others mentioned. |
Garbutt's passing raider was well off, 2 or 3 straight into touch and a couple to no-one - plus the goal was from a terrible pass to Edwards.
He's normally a very proficient passer so it really stood out - it was obviously tough to play against their press, but the game plan (whether PL admits it or not) off going long at the first opportunity didn't help us settle into any rhythm, and didn't allow us to to try and tire out their press and have them step it back | |
| |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 12:05 - Jan 29 with 4191 views | SouperJim |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 11:17 - Jan 29 by Herbivore |
Zero defensive work is about right. I think if you swapped him out for Norwood or Sears they would be more effective at defending from the front. The point is we've created a shape to try to accommodate him and he's not really performing, so I don't see any reason to persist with him. He's been largely poor for most of the season with just a few more promising displays (though still not looking too good for this league as promised).
I don't think we should get too carried away by the recent run either, home wins against Lincoln and Accrington who travel badly and a win at relegation threatened Tranmere are positive but these are games midtable sides would expect to win. We got showed up badly last night. And I'd also say that Huws' return to fitness and form alongside Chambers and Woolfenden getting forward has been more pivotal to any improvement than Judge, so I don't see it as a strong argument for persisting with him. |
Have we created a shape to accommodate him? I agree that Huws has been the standout performer lately and the forward runs by Chambo and Woolf have been the best feature of our 3-5-2, so I don't really understand you advocating changing the system. I do think we will see Bishop come into the side more, perhaps that will help Judge to find an extra edge.
While I still want to see much more from Judge, it feels a bit knee jerk to say, because of his performance last night, out he goes. On that basis you could make a case for half the side. Us fans got it in our heads that he was going to tear up the division, so if he now falls short of that benchmark he's not worth his place? Yes, by his own admission he's not played to his ability this season, but it also seems foolish to ignore the fact that overall he has improved of late. He's earned more patience of late than he did at the start of the season for me. | |
| |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 12:22 - Jan 29 with 4173 views | Herbivore |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 12:05 - Jan 29 by SouperJim |
Have we created a shape to accommodate him? I agree that Huws has been the standout performer lately and the forward runs by Chambo and Woolf have been the best feature of our 3-5-2, so I don't really understand you advocating changing the system. I do think we will see Bishop come into the side more, perhaps that will help Judge to find an extra edge.
While I still want to see much more from Judge, it feels a bit knee jerk to say, because of his performance last night, out he goes. On that basis you could make a case for half the side. Us fans got it in our heads that he was going to tear up the division, so if he now falls short of that benchmark he's not worth his place? Yes, by his own admission he's not played to his ability this season, but it also seems foolish to ignore the fact that overall he has improved of late. He's earned more patience of late than he did at the start of the season for me. |
I'm saying he should be out of the side based on his performances over the course of the season.
We're not really playing a 3-5-2 as such, it's more of a 3-4-1-2 with Downes and Huws primarily sitting to enable Judge a free role behind the strikers. I don't think he does enough to justify playing in that role, even in these supposed improved performances.
Think we'll have to agree to disagree. | |
| |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 12:42 - Jan 29 with 4149 views | SouperJim |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 12:22 - Jan 29 by Herbivore |
I'm saying he should be out of the side based on his performances over the course of the season.
We're not really playing a 3-5-2 as such, it's more of a 3-4-1-2 with Downes and Huws primarily sitting to enable Judge a free role behind the strikers. I don't think he does enough to justify playing in that role, even in these supposed improved performances.
Think we'll have to agree to disagree. |
For what it's worth I don't think we're a million miles apart, I just feel his performances have seen a general upwards trend and that is what's earned him a stay of execution. | |
| |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 12:48 - Jan 29 with 4129 views | Plums |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 07:59 - Jan 29 by Herbivore |
Glassers, I'm not sure I've seen a worse Town performance than that in my 30 or so years of going to and watching games. It was awful. To not show up in a top of the table clash and to seemingly have no game plan to counter an effective but very predictable Rotherham side is incredibly disappointing. We're lucky so many sides are taking points off each other, usually you need 2 points per game for promotion - and we were more than achieving that early doors - but nobody is managing that this season. If they were we'd have a fairly hefty gap to bridge. |
It was Duncan era football for me and it clearly wasn’t working after 10 minutes but nothing changed until the last 10. It really was dire. |  |
| |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 12:51 - Jan 29 with 4124 views | Herbivore |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 12:42 - Jan 29 by SouperJim |
For what it's worth I don't think we're a million miles apart, I just feel his performances have seen a general upwards trend and that is what's earned him a stay of execution. |
Fair dos. I expect he probably will keep his place for now in any case. | |
| |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 13:08 - Jan 29 with 4108 views | SouperJim |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 12:51 - Jan 29 by Herbivore |
Fair dos. I expect he probably will keep his place for now in any case. |
And I think Bishop could start on Saturday! We'll see. | |
| |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 13:15 - Jan 29 with 4094 views | Darth_Koont |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 12:48 - Jan 29 by Plums |
It was Duncan era football for me and it clearly wasn’t working after 10 minutes but nothing changed until the last 10. It really was dire. |
Think the timing of the goal was problematic. Lambert's possibly thinking at 0-0 that we can get in at half-time and try to work things out. Then the goal comes just before half-time and he might think "let's wait and see how the goal affects the game". By then we're already up to 60 minutes played and it was around then he brought on Norwood who probably did add something overall.
In hindsight we needed to do something by the middle of the first half - problem is that it's not clear who or what would have made the difference. Maybe rejigging midfield to get Bishop on who might have helped out Huws and Downes as well as linking up with the isolated Keane? But I think Lambert is a little too attached to Judge to have done that. |  |
| |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 13:25 - Jan 29 with 4082 views | ChateauWines |
I was there and am amazed at stick they have been given. Were rotherham better than us? Yes they were. Were they physically bigger and stronger than us? Yes they were. Did we give up at any stage? No we didnt. I'd have played Holy and Norwood for strength and thought Noeeis poor for goal. Other than that it was just bad day at office. Majority of crowd applauded Lambert at end. Keep calm. Tough league | |
| |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 13:54 - Jan 29 with 4052 views | Herbivore |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 13:25 - Jan 29 by ChateauWines |
I was there and am amazed at stick they have been given. Were rotherham better than us? Yes they were. Were they physically bigger and stronger than us? Yes they were. Did we give up at any stage? No we didnt. I'd have played Holy and Norwood for strength and thought Noeeis poor for goal. Other than that it was just bad day at office. Majority of crowd applauded Lambert at end. Keep calm. Tough league |
It's probably the worst Town performance I've seen, definitely top 5. I think some stick is fair. | |
| |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 14:28 - Jan 29 with 4022 views | Darth_Koont |
| An awful lot of flouncing on here last night on 13:54 - Jan 29 by Herbivore |
It's probably the worst Town performance I've seen, definitely top 5. I think some stick is fair. |
I didn't see it like that but probably more down to Rotherham who were very good on and off the ball. And worked exceptionally hard throughout to deny us time and space.
IMO we looked worse and more clueless in the 5-3 away to a Lincoln side that didn't really have to work to create and take chances. | |
| |
| Totally agree Glassers on 15:09 - Jan 29 with 3987 views | Dyland |
Not worth flouncing.... yet! Perform as limply and get out fought and out thought by Posh, and I'll think we're probs looking at the playoffs rather than automatic promotion, if even. Turn up against a lively looking Posh and win, or even draw with a good performance, and we can put the Millers game down to a bad day at the office... for now.
We were horrendous though. Judge and Jackson way off where they've been, Edwards woeful except for literally the first minute when he won his only battle, Huws leggy as fook, and as for Lambert's tactics, well... |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
