United 1 Port Vale 0 - report

[Deadbat]

We won. Sharp scored a decent goal. They were worse than us. Adams was decent. Sharp not bad. Basham ok. Rest average.

That do you?

 

[Deadbat]

Sorry, struggling to motivate myself to do full reports at the moment.

 

[coaxingstar71]

Concise and to the point.

Although I thought Bash was MOTM.

 

[Bartleby]

A good summary. Reedy gets knocked off the ball a bit as othrs have said but thought he dint do bad. Best Ive seen him play anyway.

 

[JohnDenver]

No Baxter means a miles better shape. Maybe a better pattern will follow the better shape. We can hope...

 

[sitwell]

Basham was immense ,as were mceveley and Edgar

 

[DI36O]

Wingbacks hey lads. Port Vale at home had me expecting nostalgia from November 1999 and instead I got 97-98 albeit without the talent.

 

[coaxingstar71]

Basham was immense ,as were mceveley and Edgar

Basham's distribution was much better today too, not forgetting Edgar's ball that sent Adams away early on.

 

[Woodwardfan]

3-5-2 - clean sheet. I like it.

 

[ShockingBadBuy]

No Baxter means a miles better shape.

Doughnut shape ? Hot air balloon shape ? Potato shape ?

 

[Davie Blade]

I enjoy reading them win draw or lose.
Sorely missed.

An observation.
Interesting that a win doesn't motivate you to write a report.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

I enjoy reading them win draw or lose.
Sorely missed.

An observation.
Interesting that a win doesn't motivate you to write a report.

The fact that it doesn't should be pinned on Adkins wall.

 

[grafikhaus]

We won. Sharp scored a decent goal. They were worse than us. Adams was decent. Sharp not bad. Basham ok. Rest average.

That do you?

No it bloody doesn't! Look, if that erudite grafikhaus chap can keep posting the 'Season comparison' charts, surely you can knock together a bit of a report and player ratings?

Lazy bastard.

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

Doughnut shape ? Hot air balloon shape ? Potato shape ?

Fat arse shape?

 

[Woodwardfan]

I've waxed lyrical about 3-5-2 for ages. With our current squad we are now playing to our strengths at last.

Brayford, Woolford, K.Wallace are all good wing-backs and Freeman would have been too.

Two up front from Done, Adams and Sharp.

Can play a No.10. Shame one's suspended but Scougall can play there, so could Adams.

With this system you never know what might happen yet this season. Will we play it away at Rochdale though?

3-5-2 can be played defensively as well as attacking, depending on the opposition and the stage of the game.

 

[Fulwood Blade]

Basham was immense ,as were mceveley and Edgar

Indeed they were - perhaps Adkins has stumbled on a formation to take (hopefully) into the playoffs?

Worked for brizzle.

K Wallce at left wing back - only change needed to personnel AND press 10 yards further up.

Basham should go in the MIDDLE of Edgar and McEv - he reads the game so well and could be an emergency sweeper, covering behind both of them.

UTB

 

[Fulwood Blade]

I've waxed lyrical about 3-5-2 for ages. With our current squad we are now playing to our strengths at last.

Brayford, Woolford, K.Wallace are all good wing-backs and Freeman would have been too.

Two up front from Done, Adams and Sharp.

Can play a No.10. Shame one's suspended but Scougall can play there, so could Adams.

With this system you never know what might happen yet this season. Will we play it away at Rochdale though?

3-5-2 can be played defensively as well as attacking, depending on the opposition and the stage of the game.

yes, i'll give you that - you have extolled the virtues of 3-5-2 for a while.

Glad to see it work with our players although it needs a bit of tweaking.

It's the 5 in midfield - that is what Clough bought - shame Adkins didn't see it earlier and try it - perhaps he is as dogmatic as Clough. (oh dear!)

UTB

 

[sitwell]

yes, i'll give you that - you have extolled the virtues of 3-5-2 for a while.

Glad to see it work with our players although it needs a bit of tweaking.

It's the 5 in midfield - that is what Clough bought - shame Adkins didn't see it earlier and try it - perhaps he is as dogmatic as Clough. (oh dear!)

UTB

Thought it would be better with Coutts in the middle ,he held the ball and used it so well when he came on.We said he when we had that spell after the goal when they were on he ropes ,Coutts would have took the piss.

 

[sitwell]

I've waxed lyrical about 3-5-2 for ages. With our current squad we are now playing to our strengths at last.

Brayford, Woolford, K.Wallace are all good wing-backs and Freeman would have been too.

Two up front from Done, Adams and Sharp.

Can play a No.10. Shame one's suspended but Scougall can play there, so could Adams.

With this system you never know what might happen yet this season. Will we play it away at Rochdale though?

3-5-2 can be played defensively as well as attacking, depending on the opposition and the stage of the game.

Harris would be a good wingback too. Looks like Scougall has been frozen out or is he injured ? Like I said above ,Flynn would be a god wingback and I would have Coutts over him or Reed in the middle. Basham-Edgar-McEvely was excellent although they had a bit to much work to do.

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

Basham should go in the MIDDLE of Edgar and McEv - he reads the game so well and could be an emergency sweeper, covering behind both of them.

Not so sure about that, Fulwood (though I see the logic).
Thought, defensively, it worked wonderfully as it was, yesterday.
Edgar, in the middle, was as dominant as I've seen him in a Blades shirt. And, on either side, it worked a treat for both for the excellent Basham & for a McEveley who looked like he'd been playing that system all his life.

Will it work ongoing though, or just be the latest false dawn? Will it work against trickier sides, or v.sides using genuine wingers & with overlapping full-backs?
Really hope Adkins goes with it going forward though. Very encouraging signs yesterday.

Also thought that the pressing more generally was much, much better.

More of a problem seems what we do when we've got the ball. But that's not a new problem. In saying that we did have our moments (the play leading to Sharpy's disallowed goal, the glimmering signs of an Adams/Sharp partership, etc).

 

[Fulwood Blade]

More of a problem seems what we do when we've got the ball.

and that is the big problem - no one wants to show for the ball on a regular basis.

Many times yesterday there WERE forward passes on. but players either couldn't or wouldn't do it.

Players have to take responsibility - sadly ours won't which is why I still advocate a massive clear out at season end.

Port Vales no 9 always wanted the ball - as a prime example.

UTB

 

[Woodwardfan]

Harris would be a good wingback too. Looks like Scougall has been frozen out or is he injured ? Like I said above ,Flynn would be a god wingback and I would have Coutts over him or Reed in the middle. Basham-Edgar-McEvely was excellent although they had a bit to much work to do.

Personally I think playing Coutts and Hammond together is too restrictive; one or the other for me.

5 in midfield is not an excuse for not having mobile box to box players. Too many players hanging around the central area of the pitch leads to too much tappy tappy.

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

and that is the big problem - no one wants to show for the ball on a regular basis.

Many times yesterday there WERE forward passes on. but players either couldn't or wouldn't do it.

Players have to take responsibility - sadly ours won't which is why I still advocate a massive clear out at season end.

Port Vales no 9 always wanted the ball - as a prime example.

UTB

The midfield being the prime cuplrits, & the reason for so much side-to-side passing at the back.

 

[sitwell]

Personally I think playing Coutts and Hammond together is too restrictive; one or the other for me.

5 in midfield is not an excuse for not having mobile box to box players. Too many players hanging around the central area of the pitch leads to too much tappy tappy.

Totally different players for me Coutts is a ball player and Hammond a defensive workhorse.

 

[Blade59]

Thought Tuesday was 2 poor to average sides with Bury wanting it more than us and winning with an exceptional finish. Yesterday for me was exactly the same, just swap Bury for us and us for Port Vale. Yes there were positives. Billy and Che showed signs of a partnership that could develop. Midfield moved the ball a bit quicker and the shape was more solid than it has looked recently. Bits and pieces of good football but nothing over a sustained period. Pleased with the win as it keeps that slim hope alive but still did not see enough to suggest that we will bridge the gap to get one of the play off positions.

 

[sheffielder]

352 makes us more flexible with the good players we have in the squad. Brayford could go back to CB with Flynn at wing back for next week for example with basham moving in to midfield.

I know we're up and down but yesterday I was encouraged by high pressing in the 2nd half and sharp and Adams were nearly nearly slipping each other through.

I didn't think Hammond had that bad a game which I think most fans were at, because when he as subbed I thought that everyone would ironically cheer, which some did. However most didn't. A midfield 3 from the 5 of Reed Hammond coutts cuvellier and basham should be more than good enough to compete in top 6. Could do with a bit more quality at left wing back which i think will
Suit Wallace when fit. Need someone pacey to complement up top too

All in all I am encouraged and I do wish we would stop bashing victories because there was a lot of pressure on those players yesterday, even if it was self inflicted

 

[Seanshoreham]

I'm pleased that McEverley has come back from the dead so to speak - impressed by Reed in Donny game and also yesterday, he just needs to get another couple of years under his belt
Basham MOTM for me

 

[Woodwardfan]

Totally different players for me Coutts is a ball player and Hammond a defensive workhorse.

It's the fluidity and mobility I've got a thing about and getting players into the final third. I'm sick and tired of players not doing the hard yards and supporting the striker/s. As good as Sharp has done, he still needs support alongside him and when we cross into the box just having 1 or 2 there is not enough.

3 at the back stay put, Hammond protects them and the rest can attack. If we go down the right then the left wing back can hold back. the rest should get up there.

 

[Deadbat]

I enjoy reading them win draw or lose.
Sorely missed.

An observation.
Interesting that a win doesn't motivate you to write a report.

I did not bother a few weeks ago when we lost. I got in quite tired, had supped a few ales pre and post match and had promised family we would watch a film etc together. Sorry.

Hopefully normal service will be resumed in a few weeks - they do take a while to write them (good hour or so) to be fair.

 

[BushBlade]

It's the fluidity and mobility I've got a thing about and getting players into the final third. I'm sick and tired of players not doing the hard yards and supporting the striker/s. As good as Sharp has done, he still needs support alongside him and when we cross into the box just having 1 or 2 there is not enough.

3 at the back stay put, Hammond protects them and the rest can attack. If we go down the right then the left wing back can hold back. the rest should get up there.

We discussed this in length at the start of the season when I was adamant we didn't have the players for 352 so one of my first thoughts was how has Adkins made it work?

I didn't go yesterday but I suspect it's down to us now having Hammond. It's allowed Basham to drop back into defence, whereas before we needed him in midfield or we were too soft. I've never fancied Collins in a three.

Secondly, the return to form by McEveley.

Thirdly, Edgar has now played long enough to develop an understanding with his team mates.

Whether it will continue to work remains to be seen but, as others have said, it allows Adkins to play two up front but five in midfield, which suits both our strikers and our midfielders.