Rovers 0 Franchise1

[Ian]

Nobody is 'scapegoating' Mcgurk and Jervis, that doesn't mean that they weren't useless. Nobody is denying that MK played very well, the point of complaint is that we didn't. Our response to their performance was constantly negative; they're keeping possession well so we'll sit off, they're closing us down so we'll hoof it up to Cassidy, they're causing us problems in midfield so we'll take a striker off for Danny Harrison

100% agree. We're we're pretty much limp for the 90 minutes. The problem when is when you make negative comments, people then think your being negative about what we've achieved this season.

Not at all, they have surpassed my greatest expectations so far, but that doesn't mean you can't be negative about 1 game echoed by SonkORLY's comments above.

Also agree with roverstillidie about Robinson. Think he would have been more effective in the middle.

 

[Boz]

Bigmart, nowhere did I suggest Stockton should have started or that it was wrong to introduce Harrison given we were getting swamped in the middle of the park.

Having brought Harrison on I don't understand why they didnt bring Stockton on for McGurk after 10/15 minutes when it was clear we had stablised the game and play a kind of narrow diamond with Robinson playing attack midfield and go more direct.

I agree with this and SonkORLY?s point about the need for adjustments elsewhere when we went to one up front.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

Yep - everyone gets it wrong sometimes though and last night was one of those occasions.

I still don't believe our tactics were wrong last night; I don't believe that the players were instructed to stand off and sit deep in the first half, it was their natural response to MK starting strongly and getting control of midfield early on, aided by their extra man and their superiority on the ball.

Having been battered in the first half, we realistically had no choice but to bring Harrison on to stem the tide.

Had we started the game on the front foot, pressing MK in their own half and with 7 or 8 players on top form (I am sure this was what our manager was hoping for) the game may have developed completely differently. But we didn't, we were outplayed and RM had to respond accordingly.

McGurk's performance was no worse than several other players, yet he is singled out for criticism. Jervis, I agree, was hopeless.

I agree that we could have made the change RTID sugests and brought Stockton on earlier once we had got a foothold in the game.

On the other issues we will just have to agree to differ.

The posters on other sites were questioning RM's whole competence on the basis of one performance; absurd, whether you think he got it right last night or not. I was not suggesting he is infallible.

 

[amplesou]

Think its time for a rethink ..maybe we should just play 4-4-2 but forget wingers just four bodys across the middle ,robbo.palmer,wallace and maybe Max power..then plug in harrison as a sub ...ronnie did this in his last spell in charge and it worked well (different time and players obviously )

wingers ..a romantic thing of the past ..they just can,t stay fit !

lets move on and get stuck into the battle

 

[DIW]

McGurk's performance was no worse than several other players, yet he is singled out for criticism. Jervis, I agree, was hopeless.

.

I would agree with this. The problem with McGurk, is that until he has put a series of consistently decent performances (which he has never done at any stage of his time at Rovers), he will continue to be singled out.

Jervis was very poor and I will be surprised if Stockton doesn't get the nod on Tuesday.

 

[amplesou]

away fans view

http://www.mkdsa.co.uk/index.php/1201-away-match-review-tranmere-rovers-2012

 

[SonkORLY?]

At the end of a game - whether or not they've played well or badly - the likes of Robbo, ABB, Wallace, Palmer (not sure about Thompson) have normally imposed themselves on a game in some way. Mcgurk is perpetually varying shades of anonymous and that's why he gets singled out. As DIW says, If he was occasionally fantastic then we might hold out some hope - but he isn't. He's been here 2 years, is 24 in January, nearly 70 games later nobody is convinced. I understand that we have injuries, but would like to see what Kirby's about.

 

[amplesou]

At the end of a game - whether or not they've played well or badly - the likes of Robbo, ABB, Wallace, Palmer (not sure about Thompson) have normally imposed themselves on a game in some way. Mcgurk is perpetually varying shades of anonymous and that's why he gets singled out. As DIW says, If he was occasionally fantastic then we might hold out some hope - but he isn't. He's been here 2 years, is 24 in January, nearly 70 games later nobody is convinced. I understand that we have injuries, but would like to see what Kirby's about.

yeah true .. they don,t always get it right here tho..!
\\/