ICF's Stoke match report

[It's Character Forming 508]

3rd trip to the Britannia for me, the previous 2 games were carbon copies withCity keeping it tight and competing against Stoke''s physical approach but with little goal threat and losing both times to one moment of quality from Stoke. Which made me think about the ironies of football and the fact that those two performances were so similar under managers generally thought of as polar opposites.

So bright sunshine and mild temperatures had many of the locals wearing shorts as I made my way to the stadium, parking some way away this time after getting stuck in the car park next to the stadium for about an hour after the game last year. Chatting to a local he felt they were playing much better football thus year but the jury''s still out on Hughes.

Our team - defence Ruddy, Martin R Bennett Turner Olsson.

Midfield Tettey Fer Howson with Snoddy and Pilks on the flanks and RVW up front. Good to see Murphy and Hopper on the bench. Obviously some idiots on twitter calling for Hooper to start after playing 125 minutes on Tuesday in his first start of the season.

My main concerns at the start were whether we''d give it a decent crack going forward and would we have a long ball outlet, necessary against Stoke even if you''d like to play it on the floor.

As it happened we took control of the midfield from the start with Tettey Fer and Howson all looking sharp. Stoke played almost nothing on the floor all half and we were creating plenty of chances with good movement and quality crosses, no surprise before long we hit an upright, the worry was whether our control would earn its just reward. Their long balls were all seemingly magnetically attracted to Ryan Bennett''s head as he was playing really well.

At last we won the ball high up the field and Howson latched on to it. His shot wasn''t great but good enough to best the keeper and 1-0 City.

So it continued with City controlling the game and Stoke a threat only at set pieces. An excellent first half came to an end And the question was whether city could do as well in the second half.

The second half started worryingly with City sitting back and the first 20 mins was all stoke but they didn''t make any real chances. We started to come back into it but you could see we were tiring and it was a relief when Elmander came on for a tired RVW and we showed more purpose going forward and started to look more likely to score tho they were a threat on the break.

In midfield Fer looked great but Tettey and Howson were good too. Get used to this lineup folks.

Kenwyne jones did well to create a shot at the near post which Ruddy saved comfortably and there was a shot from distance which forced a good save but that was it from stoke. As the clock wound down from 80 mins we were looking in control. With Elmander doing a good job of keeping possession in the corner in front of the away fans. Snoddy came closest to scoring with a curling shot that brought a superb save from their keeper. On our left Whittaker came on at RW for Pilks and had a run on goal which Murphy would have loved to have had but with Whitts the defence caught up.

The board showed 4 mins which seemed s lot but we saw it out in control of the balls with good play ex specially by Snoddy and Elmander winning repeated throws in the cornet.

So a well deserved and in the end comfortable win where Stoke could easily have lost by more goals.

Now a pleasant stroll in the sun back to my car.

[Dubai Mark 0]

Really appreciate getting an away match report, thanks. Agree with all of that, from watching the match live on TV we rarely looked seriously threatened and were comfortable for the majority of the match. 

[Farkes The Herald Angels 0]

I saw the game on TV and RVW seemed either missing or showed poor touch. Was this your view of the game or did he do stuff off the ball (and camera) that made up for it

[It's Character Forming 508]

RVW ran a lot off the ball and had a few good touches (also got a few free kicks when he was taken out) but I''d have to agree this was a game when we had plenty of possession and he could have contributed more. I feel it may be time to give Hooper a start.

[It's Character Forming 508]

Also having seen MOTD our goal started with a stoke throw and RVW competed with 2 stoke players for the header and tho he didn''t win it, he did enough that it fell to Pilks who slipped it to Howson who we nt on to score. Not exactly an assist but key nonetheless

Tough call now whether Hooper gets a start in the next couple of games.

[ZLF 74]

Tettey and Fer were outstanding and Howson had his best game for us starting as the advanced midfielder and teh whole team were aggressive in closing space down.   I though Bennett had a solid defensive game apart from his distribution but thats why he is a back up defender in a generally good defensive display.

 

Our quality/incisiveness in the final third continues to be lacking,  making RvWs (ditto Hooper when he starts) movement a waste of effort as we both take too long to get the ball forward and pass/cross poorly once we we do (the latter probably down to taking so long that the whole opposing defence is already back in space by teh time we do something.

[peateabee 0]

A good solid job all round I thought - team looked well drilled, the central midfield looked like a cohesive unit, with a good balance for an away performance. Also The back four looked solid, although they were troubled far less than normal because of the simple fact we didn''t encourage the home team on to us as we have done away from home. We took the game to them, pressed them higher and disrupted their rhythm, controlled possession and in the first half Stoke rarely had good possession of the ball in our half let alone our final third. Actually this performance was the kind of one you would expect us to put on at home against stoke, which was pleasing because for too long there has been a ridiculous disparity in our set-up for away and home games. It''s the same game, same players on both sides, same ball, just a slightly different pitch, so why such a BIG difference.

On a side note - being more like our home performances there was still the issue of converting our possession and spells of dominance into chances and goals. That is still an area to work on, but there is always room to improve.

A word on Hughton''s work in this result. This was a good step, but hopefully just a first step in his evolution as a manager. When things are not working you need a manager who can identify what needs changing and come up with an alternative plan to try. That is a vital skill as a manager, and has seemed to be something Hughton has struggled with recently. But well done to him here. Let''s hope he can carry on the positives of this away performance to future games and seek out the negatives to continue to evolve and tweak and refine the team. This was a good step, but I hope it''s just the first step, and I think it could be.

[ROBFLECK 91]

Thanks for the report ICF. I went to Stoke once (2 seasons ago) and it wasn''t a great experience... I watched the game online and I thought the midfield trio were great. The manager got it spot on tactically , I was just dissapointed the Hooper was left on the bench.

[Jack Flash 1]

Worth looking at this link which highlights the impact of our midfield 3 in the match. http://eplindex.com/41224/player-performance-analysis-leroy-fer-stoke-city.html

[It's Character Forming 508]

Thanks, a good article.  Interesting to see that after the opening 6 games Fer has apparently won possession more than Schneiderlin or Fellaini, which given our mixed form is outstanding.

[chicken 124]

Good report bar this bit: "The second half started worryingly with City sitting back and the first 20 mins was all stoke but they didn''t make any real chances. We started to come back into it but you could see we were tiring and it was a relief when Elmander came on for a tired RVW and we showed more purpose going forward and started to look more likely to score tho they were a threat on the break."

Watching the game, just before we scored, I turned to my father in law and said if we don''t make this possession count for something before half time you''d have to think Stoke would be happier with half time coming than us. They wouldn''t come out after the break and play any worse that is for sure.

We got the goal our good work deserved.

Stoke obviously had a bit of a Hughes rocket at half time because they came out much stronger, they were pressing better - but I wouldn''t say it was worrying. Despite pressing more their passing still wasn''t any good. We controlled things nicely and the only shot that Ruddy had to deal with was a 35 yard N''Zonzi drive hit with barely a whisper of venom and straight at Ruddy.

Woflswinkel was clearly injured when he came off - whether it was the toe who knows? But he was afforded precious little protection by the ref. He was hacked down from behind almost every time he had the ball into his feet and got free kicks but despite this being a regular occurrence and there being no intent to win the ball the ref failed to produce a card - and I have seen them dished out at every level from Sunday League upwards for the same.

[It's Character Forming 508]

I think you have stronger nerves than me chicken.  But being serious, although with hindsight Stoke didn''t threaten much, when you''re 1-0 up and you start to sit deep, you only need one decent ball by them, or one defensive mistake by us, and they equalize.  So for me it was a worry.  For example in the Watford game, we were even more dominant for the first 20 minutes IMO and it was their first attacking spell of possession which led to the free kick, and although we blocked the free kick from the resulting throw we were caught out and they scored with their first shot. 

 

Agree with you that RVW didn''t get the protection he should have done from the ref, I couldn''t tell if he was injured but he was definitely fading and so I thought when Elmander came on up front was a big help in keeping possesion and from then we stopped sitting back. 

 

It was very satisfying from about 80 minutes onwards that the ball seemed to be in the Stoke corner of the pitch in front of us away fans for most of the time, where it couldn''t do any harm !

[chicken 124]

I was watching on TV so probably had a different perspective.

Pennant coming on gave them someone who wanted to get beyond their player but as I said, they still couldn''t get the passing right to get anyone a chance really.

I also don''t think we sat deep so to speak - I think Stoke closed us down much better which made it more difficult for us to get up the field. I think the contrast to the first half meant it took our chaps a little bit of time to get a foot on the ball and persevere. But once we did, Stoke struggled to close us again.

As you say the fresh legs helped too although I would have preferred to see Snoddy off as Pilkington continued to look dangerous.