• Nigel Adkins has been given the Tranmere job on a permanent basis signing until the end of the 25/26 season. Continue the discussion here.

League Two Vale v Rovers

Match result

  • Port Vale

    Votes: 1 14.3%
  • Draw

    Votes: 2 28.6%
  • Tranmere

    Votes: 4 57.1%

  • Total voters
    7
  • Poll closed .

Boz

Member
Joined
30 Sep 2005
Messages
8,829
Player
Iain Hume
It sounds like Vale have gone closer, couple of decent saves from Murphy, commentary hasn't mentioned their keeper making any. We can't afford another sending off!
 

bigmart

bigmart
Member
Joined
29 Jul 2009
Messages
7,090
Player
Ian Muir
We are going to need to use the bench well as there are few goals in this line up.
 

Boz

Member
Joined
30 Sep 2005
Messages
8,829
Player
Iain Hume
Vale hit the woodwork again.

Mcmanaman on for Glatzel. Unsure about Glatzel being the one picked to come off.
 
Joined
1 Oct 2005
Messages
5,677
Player
Alan King, Barry Dyson
Two clean sheets - very good, only one goal - disappointing. But I'd have settled for four points a week ago.
 

Ian

Super White!
Admin
Joined
21 Sep 2005
Messages
12,003
Player
Aldo
Manager
Kingy
Sounded like an open game with Vale having the better of the opportunities although we could and probably should have won it with around 10 mins to go. Cross to the far post which just needed tapping in. I think today it probably showed we are quite lightweight up front but we defended well and a point is a decent one.
 

Boz

Member
Joined
30 Sep 2005
Messages
8,829
Player
Iain Hume
It will be interesting to hear the impressions from those attending. From the commentary, it sounded like Vale had the better chances, with Murphy making a few good saves and the woodwork coming to our rescue, while defenders Cogley and NKP probably had Rovers best chances. It sounded like the attacking players were quite pedestrian, with the wing-backs breaking forward and having nobody up to play the ball to.

Also a bit puzzled by the subs. Feeney had taken a knock, so why not replace him rather than Glatzel when Macmanaman came on? Also why only give Watson a minute's playing time, rather than bring him on with time to make an impact as Feeney affected by that challenge?

Still a valuable point.
 
Last edited:

bigmart

bigmart
Member
Joined
29 Jul 2009
Messages
7,090
Player
Ian Muir
Happy enough with a point and a good start to the season but we really do need an experienced striker and another 3 signings in as the squad is light on numbers.
 

Sparky

Member
Joined
8 Sep 2009
Messages
7,492
Player
Chris Greenacre
Well a positive clean sheet but against an average vale side it was a wasted opportunity to take 3 points.

We started well with Feeney looking dangerous down the left and Cogley finding space on the right. Several balls into the box but perhaps unsurprisingly no one really on the end of them.

Second half they came into it and had a spell but again we were either wasteful at corners or in their final third with the one good chance saw Mani head poorly and should have done better in my opinion.

Late on mcmanaman came on for glatzel but was didn’t see much of the ball. Felt Micky perhaps was happy with a point as Jolley didn’t come on and Watson came on in injury time when I would have brought him on earlier.

A point on the road js never a bad result but we badly miss a proper front man.

When Mani came I thought well he won’t score many but he’ll win plenty of headers etc but he was often beaten in the air. Defence played well and Murphy made a great save late on. Midfield worked hard and Feeney had a good first half. MOM to me was probably Morris although no one really stood out and most players were a 7/10 today.

4 points from opening two games is decent but we badly need to be more clinical in the final third.
 

ADD

Member
Joined
2 Jun 2018
Messages
1,491
Player
Norwood
Decent enough result but we needed more attacking options plainly and not sure we were the better side overall. They aren't very good at all IMO but for the second time already this season the opposition hit the woodwork. On another day....
Murphy couple of very good saves. Back 3 good with Cogley starting to really get into it. I liked that we passed it around the back rather than Murphy humping it forward but then precious little outlet at times. Foley also excellent today I felt. Mani though was poor I thought. I have said before that I didn't get why people were raving about him in pre-season. Today he looked a bit lazy and was poor in the air and for a big man he needs to get stuck in physically. CB's bossed him all game.
MM sub I didn't get when Feeney was already carrying a knock and yet Glatzel who I thought was doing great was taken of? Don't know, seemed strange to me unless he is trying to protect Glatzel fitness wise?
Lack of numbers manifestly obvious today as others have said.
 

bigmart

bigmart
Member
Joined
29 Jul 2009
Messages
7,090
Player
Ian Muir
Decent enough result but we needed more attacking options plainly and not sure we were the better side overall. They aren't very good at all IMO but for the second time already this season the opposition hit the woodwork. On another day....
Murphy couple of very good saves. Back 3 good with Cogley starting to really get into it. I liked that we passed it around the back rather than Murphy humping it forward but then precious little outlet at times. Foley also excellent today I felt. Mani though was poor I thought. I have said before that I didn't get why people were raving about him in pre-season. Today he looked a bit lazy and was poor in the air and for a big man he needs to get stuck in physically. CB's bossed him all game.
MM sub I didn't get when Feeney was already carrying a knock and yet Glatzel who I thought was doing great was taken of? Don't know, seemed strange to me unless he is trying to protect Glatzel fitness wise?
Lack of numbers manifestly obvious today as others have said.
Micky said after the game he is managing the fitness of the squad and that's why changes were made in Tuesday and today.
 

Boz

Member
Joined
30 Sep 2005
Messages
8,829
Player
Iain Hume
Micky said after the game he is managing the fitness of the squad and that's why changes were made in Tuesday and today.
Slightly strange then that a player who's carrying a knock (Feeney) is allowed to play on for another twenty minutes.
 

Sparky

Member
Joined
8 Sep 2009
Messages
7,492
Player
Chris Greenacre
Can only assume Feeney was ok to carry on. Glatzel did ok first half but I thought faded a bit second half. No surprise to me he went off but feel sorry for him being played either wide or deep when he is a penalty box goal scorer
 
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
769
Player
ian goodison
I got the feeling mani realises mellon doesn,t rate jolley therefore he appears to think he won,t be subbed, but as others have said we really need agood front man still happy with a point
 
Joined
15 Mar 2010
Messages
13,858
Player
Jason Koumas / John Morrissey
Manager
John King
I thought we were the better side, controlling possession for long periods and playing some really good football, but did not test the keeper enough due to the problem at centre forward that has been highlighted numerous times. I lost count of the number of times we got in behind their defence in the wide areas, particularly through the excellent Cogley, but had nothing to hit in the eighteen yard box. The chances were evenly split between the two sides, but Vale made Murphy work slightly more than their keeper had to: we missed opportunities through a blocked shot by Morris in the first half, a sliced attempt by Feeney early in the second, a slide from Foley which narrowly missed the ball, and a diving header from NKP in the closing stages.

I did think Glatzel and Mani would look more effective in a front two, but today they looked less effective than in a 433. Glatzel was tidy outside the box, but neither forward had any presence in the eighteen yard box at all, and there was no sign of any link up between them. I had been fairly impressed with Mani previously, but he was really poor today. He is ok if he receives a good ball in to feet, but he seems incapable of battling for fifty-fifty balls with the centre half, which you have to do in League Two, and he is nowhere to be seen when the ball is delivered into the box. I don't think he is the answer, and we really have to bring in at least a bog standard League Two number nine.

However, there were plenty of positives elsewhere, with the defensive display and the control of possession in midfield very impressive. The three centre halves, Cogley and Spearing all had good games, and Foley looks a better player than I expected. Man of the match, Josh Cogley.
 
Joined
15 Mar 2010
Messages
13,858
Player
Jason Koumas / John Morrissey
Manager
John King
Can only assume Feeney was ok to carry on. Glatzel did ok first half but I thought faded a bit second half. No surprise to me he went off but feel sorry for him being played either wide or deep when he is a penalty box goal scorer
However, he played in a front two today and still did not get into the box. We really need a different option up front.

The substitution made sense, as Glatzel was tiring and MacManaman does not really play in the number ten role which was occupied by Feeney.
 

Sparky

Member
Joined
8 Sep 2009
Messages
7,492
Player
Chris Greenacre
Yes I agree it never looked we had a genuine front two today but I wasn’t sure whether glatzel was playing there or wide/deep.
however yes at times balls were coming into the box but unless it reached Mani there wasn’t really anyone else in there
 
Joined
15 Mar 2010
Messages
13,858
Player
Jason Koumas / John Morrissey
Manager
John King
Yes I agree it never looked we had a genuine front two today but I wasn’t sure whether glatzel was playing there or wide/deep.
however yes at times balls were coming into the box but unless it reached Mani there wasn’t really anyone else in there
I think it was supposed to be a front two, but Glatzel tends to drift wide or deep because that is the kind of player he is, and probably how he has been coached at Liverpool, which is why I think we need a different option.

Mani just does not seem to know where to move when the ball is in the final third. He is ok with balls to his feet, but he does not look an eighteen yard box player.
 

Ian

Super White!
Admin
Joined
21 Sep 2005
Messages
12,003
Player
Aldo
Manager
Kingy
Cogley whipped some excellent balls into the box today, a great weapon to have. We just have to hope we can find a centre forward capable of getting on the end of them.
 

drwhoman

Member
Joined
30 Jun 2008
Messages
2,656
I think it was supposed to be a front two, but Glatzel tends to drift wide or deep because that is the kind of player he is, and probably how he has been coached at Liverpool, which is why I think we need a different option.

Mani just does not seem to know where to move when the ball is in the final third. He is ok with balls to his feet, but he does not look an eighteen yard box player.
I agree with the comment re Glatzel. He always seemed more a Firmino type player when I saw his Liverpool Under 23 highlights. Very much a feeder for a sharp striker which we do not have at present of course. Anyway, a point was a point and who knows what might happen before the window shuts.
 

Higgy

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2010
Messages
654
Player
Dave Higgins
I agree with the comment re Glatzel. He always seemed more a Firmino type player when I saw his Liverpool Under 23 highlights. Very much a feeder for a sharp striker which we do not have at present of course. Anyway, a point was a point and who knows what might happen before the window shuts.
I agree. I think Glatzel has said he can play striker, but also alluded to playing a no. 10 role, which he seems to default to when playing in the middle. I agree with Sparky that it seems harsh to start him wide left when not playing two up front.
If he's up front with Manni I can't see them complimenting each other as although different physically they probably like to drift into the same spaces. Manni/Elliot or Glatzel/Elliot might be a different story.
 
Top