Stockport County post-match round up | Page 3 | PASOTI

Stockport County post-match round up

Apr 3, 2023
223
205
Plymouth
I think first 2 goals were lucky. Deflections/scrambles that led to goals. We very well may of not given outselves much.luck especially with the 3rd when Evans plays a criminal ball. I think Stockport were very good in possesion which Cleverley did nothing to combat. The goals were hard luck.
 
Jan 6, 2004
16,087
22,740
Curtis is overhyped. Had a few good games when he first arrived but otherwise I don’t see the big deal. Spends far too much time whinging at his teammates. Also looked like he’d given up later in the game today.
The main thing was he got us scoring from corners again - that was a huge deal last season
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrixtonGreen
Jan 6, 2004
16,087
22,740
I think first 2 goals were lucky. Deflections/scrambles that led to goals. We very well may of not given outselves much.luck especially with the 3rd when Evans plays a criminal ball. I think Stockport were very good in possesion which Cleverley did nothing to combat. The goals were hard luck.
I don’t see it like that. Individually the goals may have been bad luck but goals often are. It’s hard to score in football and for it to happen you need a series of things to go your way. The trick is to create the pressure and opportunities for that series of things to happen. Stockport did that, they may have scored some scrappy goals but also came close on other occasions and were denied by an excellent save. 3-1 was fair and if anything flattered us
 
Jan 12, 2020
1,146
1,963
You're absolutely correct Clare but I was most disappointed that the management team missed some obvious problems in the game and didn't rectify them until far too late.

We were short in midfield, Evans could have been dropped deeper or Harding or Ross pushed more forward with Sorinola dropping back to right-back. Or he could have hooked Evans or Pepple earlier.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, if he didn't want to change the system, pulling one, or both, of the midfielders deeper would have eased the pressure on the defence.

Ronan Curtis we were told was a disruptive influence and IMHO those traits in his character raised themselves big time. He didn’t want to play on the left and his support for Hartridge (who is not a left-back) was virtually non existent. His attitude late in the game can be largely excused - he was knackered.

To my eyes, like vs Exeter, we started 4-4-1-1 with Evans playing more as a 10, one assumes to win knock down off Pepple. We have a number of genuine 10s, and some midfielders who can play there, any of which would be a better option in the role than Evans.

We have a number of players being shoe horned into roles that don't suit them. Yes we have injuries but we have failed to replace Dale, who was key factor in our run at the end of the season, despite his lack of end product. Had we had Dale or Sorinola on the left yesterday instead of Curtis would Hartridge have been so exposed - not IMHO.

I think Postey said yesterday in the brief synopsis. This result is down to Cleverley.
And this is precisely why question marks still remain about Cleverley, or at the very least demonstrates he still has much to learn.

He found a system and style that worked for us last season which was great considering the diabolical start. However that was the past, a different squad make up and good managers look to constantly evolve, to find an edge, rather than steadfastly stick to a single approach.

This isn’t a knee jerk reaction to yesterday, I’ve worried throughout the summer about the makeup of the squad to consistently play a high tempo, high press 442 formation and yesterday demonstrated how easily it can be countered. I really want Tom to succeed, I believe there is some talent there but that counts for little if you can’t be more dynamic and tactically flexible.
 
Mar 14, 2024
849
920
And this is precisely why question marks still remain about Cleverley, or at the very least demonstrates he still has much to learn.

He found a system and style that worked for us last season which was great considering the diabolical start. However that was the past, a different squad make up and good managers look to constantly evolve, to find an edge, rather than steadfastly stick to a single approach.

This isn’t a knee jerk reaction to yesterday, I’ve worried throughout the summer about the makeup of the squad to consistently play a high tempo, high press 442 formation and yesterday demonstrated how easily it can be countered. I really want Tom to succeed, I believe there is some talent there but that counts for little if you can’t be more dynamic and tactically flexible.
I think the high press will work most of the time against most teams. Just not yesterday, against a very good Stockport. Keep the faith.
 
Feb 8, 2005
6,965
5,978
Yes, Stockport were the better team, but their first was a deflection, their second was created by a mistake by Mitchell, and their third was a good strike from the edge of the box.

Yes, we should have done better. Yes, we did have opportunities to score but didn't put them away.

Yes 1-3 was a fair reflection of the game, but it could have been different.

We got to grips with the game after 60/70 minutes when they took off their better players, who were the difference between the two sides, and we began to get some more control of the game.

For the first game of the season it is easy to say that Stockport will be amongst the top clubs come the end of the season, but the season is long and injuries can kick in, as we well know, and this is just the start of the campaign.

As long as our season doesn't continue as last year then we will improve as we go along. We are missing Tolaj badly but our players are not yet at their peak and time is on our side.

We shouldn't get too low when we lose and we shouldn't get too high when we win.

Stockport had the better of us yesterday but the league is not won or lost on the first day.
 
Apr 3, 2023
223
205
Plymouth
I don’t see it like that. Individually the goals may have been bad luck but goals often are. It’s hard to score in football and for it to happen you need a series of things to go your way. The trick is to create the pressure and opportunities for that series of things to happen. Stockport did that, they may have scored some scrappy goals but also came close on other occasions and were denied by an excellent save. 3-1 was fair and if anything flattered us a
I agree based on the play and their chances 3 - 1 flattened us. Maybe they created their luck and we did nothing to get ours. The only player that did was Cooper. He was aggresive out and stopped at least 2.
 

Lesley Somerville

My Real Name ⭐️
✨Pasoti Donor✨
Jan 1, 2011
2,091
2,936
Plymouth
You are not going reach perfection cohesion after 1 game of football
We have replaced the goalkeepers we have brought in 1 new player in defence, 1 new player in midfield {who heavens forbid does not live up to the esteemed standards of Ralls & Kane} but is only 24
And a player who has only been in the building for 8 days
Our players are human beings not preprogrammed robots
When a new season starts it takes upto 10 games for any teething problems to be ironed out
Our new players are still learning what makes the other players tick - the team gelling together & becoming a cohesive all functional unit takes patience & time
You don't win the league after 1 game
The voice of reason! And I think Cleverley has the smarts to work out how to use the players we have to their best advantage - at least I hope so!
 
Jul 29, 2012
7,938
6,852
Yes, Stockport were the better team, but their first was a deflection, their second was created by a mistake by Mitchell, and their third was a good strike from the edge of the box.

Yes, we should have done better. Yes, we did have opportunities to score but didn't put them away.

Yes 1-3 was a fair reflection of the game, but it could have been different.

We got to grips with the game after 60/70 minutes when they took off their better players, who were the difference between the two sides, and we began to get some more control of the game.

For the first game of the season it is easy to say that Stockport will be amongst the top clubs come the end of the season, but the season is long and injuries can kick in, as we well know, and this is just the start of the campaign.

As long as our season doesn't continue as last year then we will improve as we go along. We are missing Tolaj badly but our players are not yet at their peak and time is on our side.

We shouldn't get too low when we lose and we shouldn't get too high when we win.

Stockport had the better of us yesterday but the league is not won or lost on the first day.
If nothing else it proves the weaknesses in the squad early doors . Dampens down expectation both in the squad , fanbase etc and removes complacency . Even Harding said " they were better than we thought they'd be".
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrixtonGreen
Sep 20, 2005
3,681
7,732
You are not going reach perfection cohesion after 1 game of football
We have replaced the goalkeepers we have brought in 1 new player in defence, 1 new player in midfield {who heavens forbid does not live up to the esteemed standards of Ralls & Kane} but is only 24
And a player who has only been in the building for 8 days
Our players are human beings not preprogrammed robots
When a new season starts it takes upto 10 games for any teething problems to be ironed out
Our new players are still learning what makes the other players tick - the team gelling together & becoming a cohesive all functional unit takes patience & time
You don't win the league after 1 game
Stockport had 5 new players in their side yesterday (edited to add: and a new manager).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrixtonGreen
Jan 6, 2004
16,087
22,740
Isn't that what Tom himself said? We need a plan B for the better teams like Stockport where that won't work.
Here is why ultimately we should have taken back Schuey when we got the chance. Tom has improved over the last 12 months and I am still fully behind him. However, he still struggles with (a) how to set up differently for different sides and (b) how to make timely changes in game. These are both things Schuey is excellent at as we saw to our cost last season. Tom relies on hitting a formula that works and then riding it for as long as possible. Unfortunately it took him half a season to hit that formula and with the loss of Tolaj and Kane/Ralls it seems that the formula no longer works
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drake
Feb 8, 2005
6,965
5,978
Here is why ultimately we should have taken back Schuey when we got the chance. Tom has improved over the last 12 months but still struggles with (a) how to set up differently for different sides and (b) how to make timely changes in game. These are both things Schuey is excellent at as we saw to our cost last season. Tom relies on hitting a formula that works and then riding it for as long as possible. Unfortunately it took him half a season to hit that formula and with the loss of Tolaj and Kane/Ralls it seems that the formula no longer works
Shuey?

Leave it out.