grant was right about players weak minds.......

[lucky green trainers 0]

stoke physically outfought city compeltely in the second half with route one aerial box bombardments.  level within 30 secs of restart and from then on we were second best, unable to play our game we surrendered to  stoke -  grant was right, some of city''s players have weak minds that don''t believe - when the going gets tough - they go missing.  despite having doherty, taylor, shackell and dublin - all big guys - available for stokes numerous free kicks/corners and long throw ins - time and time again, a stoke player was first to it, or left unmarked - especially at the far post.  we rode our luck, but were undone 2 mins from time, by again  cort, a tall defender, winning the ball with ease.how can this be???the roeder revolution stutters, but is not derailed at the potteries - like grants team was just a year earlier - but surely the manner of city''s second half display will disappoint him.

[colneycanary 0]

Who ever was marking cort had a very bad game. Terrible marking and cort was unlucky he didn''t score more! As was dotherty, he should never be in this team. Clear handball by him and stoke should of had a penalty!

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]stoke physically outfought city compeltely in the second half with route one aerial box bombardments.  level within 30 secs of restart and from then on we were second best, unable to play our game we surrendered to  stoke -  grant was right, some of city''s players have weak minds that don''t believe - when the going gets tough - they go missing. 

despite having doherty, taylor, shackell and dublin - all big guys - available for stokes numerous free kicks/corners and long throw ins - time and time again, a stoke player was first to it, or left unmarked - especially at the far post.  we rode our luck, but were undone 2 mins from time, by again  cort, a tall defender, winning the ball with ease.

how can this be???

the roeder revolution stutters, but is not derailed at the potteries - like grants team was just a year earlier - but surely the manner of city''s second half display will disappoint him.
[/quote]

LGT

One logical deduction from your post appears to tell us that you are of the view that Doherty, Taylor, Shackell and Dublin are your ''weak-minded ones''??

Am I right?

If so, this needs to be sorted sharpish.

OTBC

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]stoke physically outfought city compeltely in the second half with route one aerial box bombardments.  level within 30 secs of restart and from then on we were second best, unable to play our game we surrendered to  stoke -  grant was right, some of city''s players have weak minds that don''t believe - when the going gets tough - they go missing. 

despite having doherty, taylor, shackell and dublin - all big guys - available for stokes numerous free kicks/corners and long throw ins - time and time again, a stoke player was first to it, or left unmarked - especially at the far post.  we rode our luck, but were undone 2 mins from time, by again  cort, a tall defender, winning the ball with ease.

how can this be???

the roeder revolution stutters, but is not derailed at the potteries - like grants team was just a year earlier - but surely the manner of city''s second half display will disappoint him.
[/quote]

LGT

One logical deduction from your post appears to tell us that you are of the view that Doherty, Taylor, Shackell and Dublin are the ''weak-minded ones''??

Am I right?

If so, this needs to be sorted sharpish.

OTBC

 

[ca 1]

[quote user="city til i die"]Who ever was marking cort had a very bad game. Terrible marking and cort was unlucky he didn''t score more! As was dotherty, he should never be in this team. Clear handball by him and stoke should of had a penalty![/quote]

 

Who would you have played instead of Semmy then?

[Old Boy 0]

We lost because we stopped playing football after they scored - we conceded possession easily and so let them dictate the terms. If we''d had the strength of character to keep doing what we did in the first half we''d have won. It''s unfair to blame Doherty - Semmy fell ill this morning so Roeder had to pick another player from the squad, and there wasn''t any choice as far as I can see. Doherty wasn''t responsible for us losing, so don''t make him the scapegoat.

[Charles 0]

Bang on Old Boy. Find it typical that people are blaming Doc 10 minutes after the game when they were blatantly not there to see the action. Doc made a fantastic last ditch tackle in the first half to prevent an open goal and was generally quite solid. As for the ''handball'' he bravely threw himself in front of the ball to block a goalbound effort.

 

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="Old Boy"]We lost because we stopped playing football after they scored - we conceded possession easily and so let them dictate the terms. If we''d had the strength of character to keep doing what we did in the first half we''d have won. It''s unfair to blame Doherty - Semmy fell ill this morning so Roeder had to pick another player from the squad, and there wasn''t any choice as far as I can see. Doherty wasn''t responsible for us losing, so don''t make him the scapegoat.[/quote]i think this is a reasonable explanation.certainly, we defended poorly at set pieces - and were lucky not to concede more, but should we with the defensive  personal we have available???  no imo.  it seemed to me we were rocked by the early stoke equaliser - which put us fair and square on the back foot, and we never got off it.  stoke wanted it more - and eventually they got it.  not through pretty passing footy, it has to be said, but by sheer brute force, coupled with more desire than we had.  it takes strong minds to deal with such intimidation - and counter with your own football.man for man - we should have a better squad, but if they don''t want to dig deep and win games of football, we become the constant 2nd best underachievers - something which roeder and co will need to address.

[0ridgemanddMMyyyy0Falseen-USTrue 0]

Part of the reason is our midfield with four midfielders we are OK but Roeder took Pattison off and brought a forward on which meant we were weaker in midfield as Adams commented. It is brave to bring on another forward if your midfield is in control but to sacrifice your midfield and not give your forwards the service isn''t exactly wise.

[Hooleyfan 0]

[quote user="gcb...norwich"]

Bang on Old Boy. Find it typical that people are blaming Doc 10 minutes after the game when they were blatantly not there to see the action. Doc made a fantastic last ditch tackle in the first half to prevent an open goal and was generally quite solid. As for the ''handball'' he bravely threw himself in front of the ball to block a goalbound effort.

 

[/quote]

I agree Docherty did have a good go this afternoon, but he is certainly not good enough to be anything but there to patch up the side when down to the wire. Shackell was missing most of the time and rarely committed himself, leaving Taylor and Camara to hold the back line. Unfortunately, in my view, Rusty and Fozzy were not up to much this afternoon, particularly in the second half which meant that there was little in the way of distribution to Croft and Hucks and although Dion made his presence felt he rarely was able to connect with anyone. I was surprised that Pattison was replaced, but Cureton was not the right choice in that position.

Ched Evans looks good, but will need the midfield performing to get a look in. I''m always grateful for a Norwich goal, but scoring in the first five minutes gives me the shakes, particularly if we dont score again before half time. We were lulled into complacency and taken full advantage of at key times, just before we woke up in the second hald and as usual in the dying moments of the game.

A couple of wins was good, but be realistic we will not turn into play-off contenders overnight. Lets look forward to Plymouth on Tuesday night.