TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

Was always going to be tough to gel cohesively after such a summer overhaul but I thought we performed OK, real signs that when it all comes together we will be competitive in this league. That said I do think we were somewhat fortuitous to escape with a point, but to spin that on its head it is also all credit to the side for not giving in right up until the fire whistle.

The match had a bit of a pre-season feel to it early on, which I guess is understandable but I would accuse a few players of being lackadaisical in possession, most notably Downes and Tonge, whilst Pearce needs to rein in his proclivity to travel with the ball in dangerous situations- at least until he beds into the team. Crucially though he looks great in the air.

Like the look of Harding, struggled to exert too much authority on the game but looks comfortable on either foot, bedded things nicely together with slick first time passing, should be a really solid acquisition and nice to see his set-pieces will give us a bit of variety too.

Cameron showed flashes of excitement but was limited by being played on the right wing where his one-footedness was exposed on occasion. I would love to see him on the left where it is obvious he can and will leave the full-back for dead on the outside. I would be looking to let Chappell and Cameron play their natural game on their natural flanks because sadly (and I don't want to indulge in bashing the man here) but for all his endeavour and attempted involvement Bodin continues to be ineffective. Whether he would benefit from moving into a more central role is open to debate but I do think we missed out on seeing the best of Cameron and Chappell by having Billy on the left wing.

Upfront is a bit of a worry, Benyon and Ball understandably looked like a pair of strangers. Benyon struggled to get into the game all afternoon but as expected he didn't stop trying. Ball is a big unit and puts himself about well sadly the quality of delivery all match wasn't sufficient to show how well he can perform in the box. I must admit I was surprised and disappointed that Yeoman didn't make the squad, with all the new signings in the mix I think his familiarity of the club gave him an advantage over the two new signings for this particular situation. He always performs when given the chance so a little bit bemused as to what he has done wrong, it was obvious that Sullivan wouldn't be used unless we were winning comfortably but so early on the season I would have filled the bench with game-changers. Credit Knill however for bringing on Nial and going for bust, it was an excellent cross in for the equaliser.

Knill has stated that he may need to off-load one or two on loan to trim the size of the every-day training numbers, I really hope that yesterday's squad selection isn't a nod to his thoughts, A loan move for Yeoman would stifle his development.

Final words saved for Ricey, superb, a lot calmer than I have ever seen him. I am willing to take flak for this comment from those who are closer to him, but perhaps the first time he has ever felt like and believed he was a viable candidate for the no.1 jersey? The most basic aspect to goalkeeping is shot-stopping, something he excels at, the rest of the things that comes with a consistent run of matches he is improving at match by match.

All in all not the start I was expecting, but will definitely take a point.

One thing is for certain: Rice is better than Coombe.

Exactly right. I would be kicking myself if I was the Wimbledon manager. Knill knew we had got out of jail. You could tell by his reaction running on the pitch when we scored.

Didn't realise that Yeoman wasn't on the bench - I would actually have him on the pitch rather than Ball.

Nope, sorry Dave, you don't deserve points based on shots on target. Sure, Ricey made three good, but not exceptional saves, but that hardly makes up for the fact that for the rest of the match, Wimbledon did very little right. Three points for a performance of that 'quality' would make a mockery of the game itself. Neither side deserved to win yesterday.
If we're going off 'near misses', then a draw is still a fair result. Their goal was a massive deflection, we had one chalked off for a very technical offside, we hit the post and the rest of our game was no worse than theirs (that is to say, we were equally bad).

Matt.

ferrarilover wrote:Nope, sorry Dave, you don't deserve points based on shots on target. Sure, Ricey made three good, but not exceptional saves, but that hardly makes up for the fact that for the rest of the match, Wimbledon did very little right. Three points for a performance of that 'quality' would make a mockery of the game itself. Neither side deserved to win yesterday.
If we're going off 'near misses', then a draw is still a fair result. Their goal was a massive deflection, we had one chalked off for a very technical offside, we hit the post and the rest of our game was no worse than theirs (that is to say, we were equally bad).

Matt.

You don't get points for playing well and not scoring either and then the poor playing side has one shot on target and scores for a win.

brucie wrote:Didn't realise that Yeoman wasn't on the bench - I would actually have him on the pitch rather than Ball.

Of course you didn't notice because removed

usagullmichigan wrote: You don't get points for playing well and not scoring either and then the poor playing side has one shot on target and scores for a win.

My point is about deserving, not getting. AFCW got what they deserved yesterday, which was a point. Ergo, they neither deserved, nor gained, all three points.

Matt.

Also, Brucie on fine form this season, has at least half a dozen on the hook already. Quality work from him.

ferrarilover wrote:Nope, sorry Dave, you don't deserve points based on shots on target. Sure, Ricey made three good, but not exceptional saves, but that hardly makes up for the fact that for the rest of the match, Wimbledon did very little right. Three points for a performance of that 'quality' would make a mockery of the game itself. Neither side deserved to win yesterday.
If we're going off 'near misses', then a draw is still a fair result. Their goal was a massive deflection, we had one chalked off for a very technical offside, we hit the post and the rest of our game was no worse than theirs (that is to say, we were equally bad).

Matt.

Matt, we can go on for hours with tit for tat replies, so best now to agree to dissagree. I happen to think your opinion on yesterdays game is largely based on bais rather than honesty. Wimbledon were more fluent in their attacking play, and the fact that Ricey so far has 23 from 25 votes as motm tells a story all of it's own, had the boot been on the other foot, you and most of us on here would be saying lucky old Wimbledon, agreed games are won drawn and lost on scoring goals not shots on target, however if one side has by far the greater number of shots on target, as Wimbledon did, how can anyone say they did not atleast deserve to win the game.

And your opinion of Riceys performance is so far wrong in my opinion it's untrue, not claiming my opinion of Ricey's performance is right, but it is based on a great deal of insight, maybe your opinion is also based on insight? Don't know you tell me.

Yes three exceptional saves, 2-3 other saves you would expect a keeper at this level to make, got of his line quickly twice to smoother the ball at the feet of Wimbledon player, made himself an opinion when our back 4 were under pressure and redistrubuted to ball, twice prevented an almost certain 1 v 1 by acting as a sweeping and clearing ball away, please do not try to take away from Riceys performance to try on prove you point to be correct.

forevertufc wrote: Matt, we can go on for hours with tit for tat replies, so best now to agree to dissagree. I happen to think your opinion on yesterdays game is largely based on bais rather than honesty. Wimbledon were more fluent in their attacking play, and the fact that Ricey so far has 23 from 25 votes as motm tells a story all of it's own, had the boot been on the other foot, you and most of us on here would be saying lucky old Wimbledon, agreed games are won drawn and lost on scoring goals not shots on target, however if one side has by far the greater number of shots on target, as Wimbledon did, how can anyone say they did not atleast deserve to win the game.

And your opinion of Riceys performance is so far wrong in my opinion it's untrue, not claiming my opinion of Ricey's performance is right, but it is based on a great deal of insight, maybe your opinion is also based on insight? Don't know you tell me.

Yes three exceptional saves, 2-3 other saves you would expect a keeper at this level to make, got of his line quickly twice to smoother the ball at the feet of Wimbledon player, made himself an opinion when our back 4 were under pressure and redistrubuted to ball, twice prevented an almost certain 1 v 1 by acting as a sweeping and clearing ball away, please do not try to take away from Riceys performance to try on prove you point to be correct.

Yet, you still argue your point......?


Matt has used what he saw to form an opinion, it's seemingly childish to tell him it's wrong just because it differs from yours. He's not once taken away any credit from Ricey's performance, merely stated it was not the best performance he's seen.

ferrarilover wrote: Sure, Ricey made three good, but not exceptional saves

Hardly putting Ricey down, is he? =Z :-|

Can tell you are a newbie lol

usagullmichigan wrote:Can tell you are a newbie lol

Haha what gave me away? :Oops:

No bias Dave, I just happen to think that three meaningful shots in a match, well saved or not, does not make a team worthy of winning a match.

You're right though, we're not going to agree, so, like proper adults, we'll shake hands and retire to the belching chamber for brandy and cigars.

Entirely unrelated, where do you stand these days?

Matt.

ferrarilover wrote:No bias Dave, I just happen to think that three meaningful shots in a match, well saved or not, does not make a team worthy of winning a match.

You're right though, we're not going to agree, so, like proper adults, we'll shake hands and retire to the belching chamber for brandy and cigars.

Entirely unrelated, where do you stand these days?

Matt.

Indeed Matt, our disscusion was enjoyable, as you know, I used to, when Bc-gull was small go from side to on the popside so he could see, now he is older and taller he stand with his friends in the block with the drum, and I stand on the back step next block to the left by the fanatics flag, where my friends go, not far from Andy Candy.

Its strange that the first shot that Rice saved was similar to the shot he let in through his legs for Southends first goal (albeit it was on the other side of the goal).
The save certainly seemed to give him confidence.
I am not so sure I buy in to the excuse about the number of new players in the team being justification for our poor peformance.
Other teams in our division fielded as many as seven new players in their team and managed to win easily - if they could do it, why couldn't we.