Stagsnet report

[Martin Shaw]

brief so far
https://stagsnet.net/match/reports/view ... atchid=981

[MTFCMusings]

Nice brief report Martin.

Would argue against Crewe being in good form though. 19th in form table over last 6, 15th over last 8. Would be in the relegation zone on away form alone, only two wins away all season. Beat Crawley 6-1, but Crawley are the worst away team in the league and Crewe a play-off team on home form.

[EdwinstoweStag]

Nice brief report Martin.

Would argue against Crewe being in good form though. 19th in form table over last 6, 15th over last 8. Would be in the relegation zone on away form alone, only two wins away all season. Beat Crawley 6-1, but Crawley are the worst away team in the league and Crewe a play-off team on home form.

Well we’ll know by quarter to five on Saturday!

[Martin Shaw]

Nice brief report Martin.

Would argue against Crewe being in good form though. 19th in form table over last 6, 15th over last 8. Would be in the relegation zone on away form alone, only two wins away all season. Beat Crawley 6-1, but Crawley are the worst away team in the league and Crewe a play-off team on home form.

thanks

ok point taken. What about over the last 1 ?

edit - I have reworded it

[MTFCMusings]

Nice brief report Martin.

Would argue against Crewe being in good form though. 19th in form table over last 6, 15th over last 8. Would be in the relegation zone on away form alone, only two wins away all season. Beat Crawley 6-1, but Crawley are the worst away team in the league and Crewe a play-off team on home form.

thanks

ok point taken. What about over the last 1 ?

edit - I have reworded it

Haha, reword to 'good result last time out'

[KirkbyStag2]

[Martin Shaw]

my detailed report now on

[Martin Shaw]

my player ratings now on
https://stagsnet.net/match/reports/view ... atchid=981

[Rob]

I thought the back three and Bishop were excellent, all at least an 8. I absolutely cannot agree at all that Grant was anywhere near a 7, he was poor and was quite rightly subbed - there were plenty of people around me who totally agreed with the decision to sub him and frankly it is absurd you think he did not dive, he so clearly did, it was noticeable firstly the lack of appeals and secondly his reaction to being booked. We don't like opposition players cheating, we shouldn't accept our own cheating either. Indeed, he has been poor recently and I would not play him on Saturday.

[Martin Shaw]

I thought the back three and Bishop were excellent, all at least an 8. I absolutely cannot agree at all that Grant was anywhere near a 7, he was poor and was quite rightly subbed - there were plenty of people around me who totally agreed with the decision to sub him and frankly it is absurd you think he did not dive, he so clearly did, it was noticeable firstly the lack of appeals and secondly his reaction to being booked. We don't like opposition players cheating, we shouldn't accept our own cheating either. Indeed, he has been poor recently and I would not play him on Saturday.

I've explained in detail why I gave Grant a 7, I won't simply repeat it. What happened after he went off?

There was clear contact on Grant's boot. Many refs would have given that.

[Rob]

I thought the back three and Bishop were excellent, all at least an 8. I absolutely cannot agree at all that Grant was anywhere near a 7, he was poor and was quite rightly subbed - there were plenty of people around me who totally agreed with the decision to sub him and frankly it is absurd you think he did not dive, he so clearly did, it was noticeable firstly the lack of appeals and secondly his reaction to being booked. We don't like opposition players cheating, we shouldn't accept our own cheating either. Indeed, he has been poor recently and I would not play him on Saturday.

I've explained in detail why I gave Grant a 7, I won't simply repeat it. What happened after he went off?

There was clear contact on Grant's boot. Many refs would have given that.

Only a poor ref would ever give that Martin, it was a clear dive and a yellow card. After Grant went off we were much more competitive in midfield and MacDonald did well (though personally I think I would have replaced Grant with Tomlinson), only a very poor piece of keeping cost us the win as that apart, Lincoln barely looked like scoring. Grant gave the ball away so many times, often in dangerous areas, his flicks and tricks just didn't work. We had completely lost the midfield in the opening 15 minutes of the 2nd half, Flitcroft's change was a terrific piece of management, unfortunately his choice of Logan ahead of Smith wasn't. I think Grant is a terrific footballer, but has had a few poor games.

[lifestags]

For me you have to look at everything we did create Grant was involved in, When he went off we never looked like scoring, we were afraid to get on the ball (Flitcrofts words) and we spent 20 mins hitting it long to Walker as a result.

We need players who are willing to get on the ball and try different things to break teams down, especially for our upcoming home games vs Morcambe/Cambridge.

[Rob]

For me you have to look at everything we did create Grant was involved in, When he went off we never looked like scoring, we were afraid to get on the ball (Flitcrofts words) and we spent 20 mins hitting it long to Walker as a result.

We need players who are willing to get on the ball and try different things to break teams down, especially for our upcoming home games vs Morcambe/Cambridge.

I think the other issue is also where he played, as others have said he is not a central midfielder and we were clearly being outplayed in that area of the field early in the 2nd half. So whilst we created very little in the second half, nor did they apart from the howler from Logan. We had almost 60% possession and Lincoln only had 4 shots on target (most of them pretty lame). So even in the period where they did dominate, it was in front of our back 3 and they created nothing.

I don't think we can play a back 3 and wing-backs and also play Walker, CJ and Grant - it just leaves us too short in the centre of the park and certainly against the good sides they will exploit that area. Of those three I think Grant has been the least effective recently so would leave him out on Sat and play Tomlinson or Macca alongside Mellis and Bishop.

[Parkinsons Perm]

For me you have to look at everything we did create Grant was involved in, When he went off we never looked like scoring, we were afraid to get on the ball (Flitcrofts words) and we spent 20 mins hitting it long to Walker as a result.

We need players who are willing to get on the ball and try different things to break teams down, especially for our upcoming home games vs Morcambe/Cambridge.

I think the other issue is also where he played, as others have said he is not a central midfielder and we were clearly being outplayed in that area of the field early in the 2nd half. So whilst we created very little in the second half, nor did they apart from the howler from Logan. We had almost 60% possession and Lincoln only had 4 shots on target (most of them pretty lame). So even in the period where they did dominate, it was in front of our back 3 and they created nothing.

I don't think we can play a back 3 and wing-backs and also play Walker, CJ and Grant - it just leaves us too short in the centre of the park and certainly against the good sides they will exploit that area. Of those three I think Grant has been the least effective recently so would leave him out on Sat and play Tomlinson or Macca alongside Mellis and Bishop.

You watch the same game as me Rob.
What hasn't been mentioned is that Flitcroft immediately told Macca to get ready as Grant neshed another tackle, he'd simply had enough of him

[Hjeldefan]

Grant is a luxury player no doubt. But as a few have said, we created nothing without him. I would rather drop the anonymous Mellis than Grant.

[cassellswasmagic]

Watched the game back and VAR would have vindicated Grant. There was contact and although he made a meal of it, it was a clear penalty.

[Sweden Stag]

Grant was on a yellow as well

[Bradders]

Only a poor ref would ever give that Martin, it was a clear dive and a yellow card.

Obviously Grant was tripped in the penalty area, but I'm not clear on the rules. I think that you're saying that if a player is deemed to have overplayed the consequences of a foul then the offence should be ignored and a free kick given to the perpetrator's side. No wonder players get confused!

[Rob]

Only a poor ref would ever give that Martin, it was a clear dive and a yellow card.

Obviously Grant was tripped in the penalty area, but I'm not clear on the rules. I think that you're saying that if a player is deemed to have overplayed the consequences of a foul then the offence should be ignored and a free kick given to the perpetrator's side. No wonder players get confused!

In my view having seen it over and over again the minimal contact was initiated by Grant in his attempt to win a penalty. However, I think the point you make is a valid one, if a player does a swallow dive after the slightest contact, I would say in this current era of blatant cheats, you are less likely to be given it than you would have been 10 years ago. So whilst sometimes there might technically be a foul, by trying to make it look more blatant by diving risks the ref, who only gets one view, thinking you have dived.