Was The Pitch a Contributory Factor?

[Surfbird 1]

A poor show all round last night - second to almost every ball.  Slight improvement when the subs came on.   The Sky commentators said the pitch was awful - like a bog.  Did this have anything to do with the performance - or lack of it?

 

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="Surfbird"]

A poor show all round last night - second to almost every ball.  Slight improvement when the subs came on.   The Sky commentators said the pitch was awful - like a bog.  Did this have anything to do with the performance - or lack of it?

 

[/quote]

 

To use a time honoured cliche, it was the same for both teams. They wanted it more on the night. I don''t think there''s any need to look deeper than that to be honest.

[Gingerpele 0]

Suppose if Sunderland are used to it, then they have the advantage. But it can''t have been that bad for too long can it?

[Cappsy 0]

IMO yes. Not taking anything away from Sunderland but it took crofts about 3 touches to set himself to make a pass and the midfield that was never really there had no chance of any fluidity when trying to play in the middle of the park or should I say swamp

[Cappsy 0]

But we were poor anyway and Sunderland wanted it more as stated above

[ron obvious 1,514]

[quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="Surfbird"]

A poor show all round last night - second to almost every ball.  Slight improvement when the subs came on.   The Sky commentators said the pitch was awful - like a bog.  Did this have anything to do with the performance - or lack of it?

 

[/quote]

 

To use a time honoured cliche, it was the same for both teams. They wanted it more on the night. I don''t think there''s any need to look deeper than that to be honest.

[/quote]

True, Beau, but I think if you''re playing on a dodgy pitch every other week you do get used to it. In your head you accept the ball will bounce oddly sometimes, make fractional adjustments to how you take a ball (obviously without thinking) &, most of all, It doesn''t disconcert you when it happens.

But, as we all know, it was only one factor on a bad night. We learn (please God) & move on ...

[Harry 0]

I didn''t think we had the ball on the ground enough to find out, far to many long balls pumped up to Morison that came straight back at us.

[Jacko 0]

It wasn''t a great deck but that is no excuse. They were a yard sharper than us everywhere. Playing decent football wasn''t impossible on it. Take the way they absolutely carved us apart for the second goal as prime evidence of that. We just had one of those days where it didn''t happen for us.

We got slaughtered by Swansea last year on an absolute bowling green of a pitch last season.These things happen every now and again.

[Baldyboy 0]

same for both sides wasn''t it? sunderland played on the deck and they were fine. the only reason we were so poor is because too many people were NOT up for it!!! End of.

[alysha 0]

In my opinion, there is no way we can blame the pitch for last night. At the end of the day, it was a mixture of wrong tactics and the majority of the team simply playing poor. Sunderland picked up on the fact that we were playing well below par and grew in confidence, we left it too late in the game to change things - as soon as we had some pace down the wings there was a marked improvement. I don''t think we can get away with playing Crofts on the right side of the diamond in this league and I also believe we missed Fox last night. I expect the players will be raring to go Saturday.

[Jacko 0]

Definitely missed Fox. Can''t underestimate his important. That anchor role isn''t just about smashing into big crowd pleasing challenges. The more important role is actually the responsibility of picking up the ball off the back four and providing quick, accurate passes to get us moving. I personally don''t think either Crofts or Johnson have the ability to do that at this level.

[Aggy 757]

Yeah Fox is crucial to us passing the thing around. We don''t string much together without him.

I don''t think the pitch can be used as an excuse too much. In those sorts of games, you have to roll up your sleeves and dig deep - something we have normally done under Lambert when required. Unfortunately, last night we didn''t manage to do that.

As has been said above, Sunderland wanted it more on the night - they were getting to the ball before us and winning the 50 50s.

[Davo 0]

IT shouldn''t be used as an excuse. Yes it was pretty bad but it''s not like all these players have never played on bad piches before. Holt, Morison, Crofts, Johnson, Hoolahan, Whitbred and Martin would have all played on poor pitches when they were in the lower league.

 

Ok the opposition aren''t really comparable but look at the Pitch when we played at Colchester that was a hell of a lot worse yet we still won convincingly and I think that''s one of the worst pitches I''ve ever seen.

 

We were out fought yesterday and that was the reson we lost. If we had of been up for it we would not of been on the end of such a thumping.

 

Davo

[daisy 138]

[quote user="alysha"]In my opinion, there is no way we can blame the pitch for last night. At the end of the day, it was a mixture of wrong tactics and the majority of the team simply playing poor. Sunderland picked up on the fact that we were playing well below par and grew in confidence, we left it too late in the game to change things - as soon as we had some pace down the wings there was a marked improvement. I don''t think we can get away with playing Crofts on the right side of the diamond in this league and I also believe we missed Fox last night. I expect the players will be raring to go Saturday.[/quote]

[daisy 138]

[quote user="Surfbird"]

A poor show all round last night - second to almost every ball.  Slight improvement when the subs came on.   The Sky commentators said the pitch was awful - like a bog.  Did this have anything to do with the performance - or lack of it?

 

[/quote]

[nutty nigel 7,555]

n Daisy..

 

Give us your answer do...

[;)]