Watford Post Match Thread, aka Melton, BG and Highland have a moan!

[SantiagoFox]

Re: Watford Post Match Thread

We played 50 minutes against a team with ten men and didn't score, instead we conceded.

We played 50 minutes against a team with 10 men, and failed to even get a shot on goal, despite playing with 11 players forward for 3 or 4 minutes at the end.

We had 50 minutes to outplay a fairly poor Watford team, and failed.

Now matter what the standard of our opposition, we are always that little bit worse.

Watford changed their formation and playing staff as soon as the geezer was sent off to capitalise on what they were left with, we didn't.

Howard was totally ineffective all through the game, Bori was mildly effective only to be replaced by the totally ineffective Hume.

Salt boy sent every single cross into the crowd.

They were clueless, who is coaching these players?, who is selecting these players?, who is buying these players?, who is guiding these players tactically, who is motivating these players?

Somebody must be responsible!!!, obviously it can't be Holloway after reading some of these comments, so who is it?

Have to agree ! 50 minutes against 10 men and no shots on target ?
Square passes across the back then a hoof up front, or pass out wide and have the old hungarian not take anyone on but cross from 50 yards out ?
Why? He looked really good against Cov. Then Hume came on and played out of position on the right wing, and he did cross futher up the field - straight into the keepers arms. As for the home crowd "turning up the noise" I could hardly hear them; the City fans gave good vocal backing and for what ?
Something's got to change!

 

[Melton Fox]

One goalkeeping error cost us a point

Spot on Willlow, and thanks for pointing that out to us.

Before I read your post I was of the belief that it was the amount of midfield and striking errors that cost is threee points, not the goalkeeper costing us one. I am now educated.

 

[bocadillo]

Spot on Willlow, and thanks for pointing that out to us.

Before I read your post I was of the belief that it was the amount of midfield and striking errors that cost is threee points, not the goalkeeper costing us one. I am now educated.

I saw what you did there. The insertion of the extra 'e' in three was clearly designed make Willlow feel comfortable with his extra bit.

 

[Willlow]

Spot on Willlow, and thanks for pointing that out to us.

Before I read your post I was of the belief that it was the amount of midfield and striking errors that cost is threee points, not the goalkeeper costing us one. I am now educated.

Sorry Melton was I suppose to act like it was the worst game I have ever seen and predicatably slag off Hume for not winning the game in the 20 minutes he was on the pitch and moan about Holloway being untouchale because fans think he is funny, even though the only ones who mention this are the people that moan about?

Its just that there are so many people that ALL come out with this shit every game that I thought I would give my personal opinion. Apart from the goalkeeping mistake they threatened our goal as much as we did theres. So in essence if the goalkeeper had of just caught the cross we could have come away with a point if not more.

 

[Boy Genius]

Sorry Melton was I suppose to act like it was the worst game I have ever seen and predicatably slag off Hume for not winning the game in the 20 minutes he was on the pitch and moan about Holloway being untouchale because fans think he is funny, even though the only ones who mention this are the people that moan about?

Its just that there are so many people that ALL come out with this shit every game that I thought I would give my personal opinion. Apart from the goalkeeping mistake they threatened our goal as much as we did theres. So in essence if the goalkeeper had of just caught the cross we could have come away with a point if not more.

but they may not have sat back as much and got a goal anyway, for us to get more than a point we needed to score and never looked like it. How many shots by city were goal bound?

 

[alex]

I agree with your main point Willow, however I do feel Watford let us dominate the match after half-time, it was almost like they had made the decision to sit back and let us play in front of their defence as they knew we would do little more than pump long diagonals to Steve Howard, which they could defend all night. It depressed me we couldn't find any further inventiveness than this, especially with Oakley and Lackso on the park, for 45 minutes we simply did not do enough at all.

 

[OldGit]

I have some sympathy with Willow's point of view. had they not scored then (and as I said earlier, Henderson clearly fouled Alnwick to make him miss the ball) then the initial adrenaline fueled boost they got from their sense of injustice over the red card would not have been there after half time. They may well, therefore, have had to be a bit more adventurous in the second half.

However it does not detract from the fact that, despite a lot of good passing, tackling and general play the total lack of imagination and variety in tactics in and around their box was the main reason we came away with nothing.

 

[MKFox]

But as soon as they scored they subbed a forward before we kicked off! Then played 4-5-1 for the rest of the game.

If they hadn't scored then there would have been a lot more shots on goal. Mateyboy watford striker should have had at least a brace before the goal. If that makes sense...

 

[MKFox]

Then played 4-5-1 for the rest of the game.

Yep, they magiced an extra player having had one sent off....:icon_redf