soo QPR game then

The Gaffer · Post by **The Gaffer** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:01 pm

bit of a anti climax really, eevrybody would be soo angry if we lost and booing the team, but the way we got the equiliser has changed the mood to o well we didnt loose.

personally we didnt deserve to loose, but agian we was p*ss poor. we looked abit more dangerous from set plays today alot of the boys getting on crosses when there was people in the box, but still cant defend or score for sh*t at the moment!!

dont reli not what else to say! was kinda a anti climax!

nieros · Post by **nieros** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:23 pm

Thought it was a good game to watch tbh

De vos suprised me a few times, was getting his head in well up in the box for all the throw in's and one time, actually had pace at the back. Not seen that in ages.

budgiebasher · Post by **budgiebasher** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:24 pm

QPR were a physical side, they go in hard and ruffle up a few players. Town need to do it back to some sides, we're too weak at times and bottle challengers.

Was great for Haynes to score in injury time, but we were poor! Our only goal threat came from set pieces, and it's been like that all season, the majority of our goals coming from set pieces.

SashaBlue · Post by **SashaBlue** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:24 pm

it wouldn't be so bad if we concede decent goals

SashaBlue · Post by **SashaBlue** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:48 pm

nieros wrote:Thought it was a good game to watch tbh

De vos suprised me a few times, was getting his head in well up in the box for all the throw in's and one time, actually had pace at the back. Not seen that in ages.

sod's law really, before we were scoring lot's of freeplay goals and very rarely scored from set pieces, now the balance has switched.

Gaz · Post by **Gaz** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:06 pm

Anyone know what Sito was trying to do for their second goal?

SashaBlue · Post by **SashaBlue** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:37 pm

Gaz wrote:Anyone know what Sito was trying to do for their second goal?

Price's positioning concerned me more than Sito

Diddy Dubz · Post by **Diddy Dubz** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:02 am

nieros wrote:Thought it was a good game to watch tbh

De vos suprised me a few times, was getting his head in well up in the box for all the throw in's and one time, actually had pace at the back. Not seen that in ages.

Agree 100%

I thought the referee was poor and set a bad example by letting Furlong off with just a yellow in the opening minutes, had it been about half an hour into the game I think he may have walked.

Richards impressed me in midfield again as did Juan and Gavin Williams.

All in all a point isn't bad against QPR, big physical side with a bit of talent.

My man of the match had to be Danny Shittu, the guys a bloody man mountain and tidy on the deck

The Gaffer · Post by **The Gaffer** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:08 pm

SashaBlue wrote:
Gaz wrote:Anyone know what Sito was trying to do for their second goal?
Price's positioning concerned me more than Sito

the 2nd goal was a defence organisation error. you could clearly see, and i play at the back for a mens side, so no what should be done and in this stance wasnt. the back four were not stretched one bit! the player running with the ball, was devos's man, he should of gone to and therefore shuffle along the line and spread out. but no! devos didnt go to, and let fab this then had fab slightly out of position for the runner coming down the wing, althoug fab made up ground on the guy, if he didnt have to hesitate and go to the player devos should of put up in the air, fab in my opinoun would of stoped the cross completely.

soo the blame for the goal in my opinoun was down to the organisation at the back, no communitcating what so ever, for a simple counter attack we should of delt with!

The Gaffer · Post by **The Gaffer** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:35 pm

soz i mean first QPR goal!

squiz18 · Post by **squiz18** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:52 pm

The thing that pissed me off is that for both of their goals the defence just backs off and backs off untill they are on the 6 yard line ! Some get a f***ing challenge in !! They just invite either shots or dodgy tackles which lead to penalties ala cardiff.

Rach · Post by **Rach** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:18 pm

squiz18 wrote:The thing that pissed me off is that for both of their goals the defence just backs off and backs off untill they are on the 6 yard line ! Some get a f***ing challenge in !! They just invite either shots or dodgy tackles which lead to penalties ala cardiff.

Completely agree...IMO opinion there are only two playe(Sito and Williams) who actually make an effort to get a tackle in every time they are near an opposition player with the ball...and it should be everyone

JasperBlue · Post by **JasperBlue** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:14 pm

bigfatjoes wrote:
SashaBlue wrote:
Gaz wrote:Anyone know what Sito was trying to do for their second goal?
Price's positioning concerned me more than Sito
the 2nd goal was a defence organisation error. you could clearly see, and i play at the back for a mens side, so no what should be done and in this stance wasnt. the back four were not stretched one bit! the player running with the ball, was devos's man, he should of gone to and therefore shuffle along the line and spread out. but no! devos didnt go to, and let fab this then had fab slightly out of position for the runner coming down the wing, althoug fab made up ground on the guy, if he didnt have to hesitate and go to the player devos should of put up in the air, fab in my opinoun would of stoped the cross completely.

soo the blame for the goal in my opinoun was down to the organisation at the back, no communitcating what so ever, for a simple counter attack we should of delt with!

The first goal highlighted the total lack of defensive organisation or structure the team possesses. There was about 40 yards between our defence and midfield so QPR had so much space to run into and everytime they counter-attacked we were outnumbered at the back.

They were analysing Liverpool's defensive qualities on MOTD and they talked about anticipation, teamwork, communication and every player knowing their role - defensively I haven't seen any of this at Ipswich for a while!

StanstedBlue · Post by **StanstedBlue** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:59 am

Personally i put the blame with Wilnis for both goals. Both came from assists from Ainsworth on the right, who Wilnis (at left back in the 1st half) should have been marking. Still, at times we played some good on the ground passing football in spells, mixed in with the long-ball hoof we have been playing lately. Still, QPR are a very physical, in-your-face side so i guess a point is ok as we so very nearly ended up with none.

Kheffan · Post by **Kheffan** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:35 am

Never liked Wilnis dont expect i ever will.

Post by **Earl Blue** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:08 am

nieros wrote:Thought it was a good game to watch tbh

De vos suprised me a few times, was getting his head in well up in the box for all the throw in's and one time, actually had pace at the back. Not seen that in ages.

I would certainly agree with that Neiros, At least up until
we got the equaliser.. What concerned me was the switches we made
i.e. putting Naylor up front and Richards to Left Back. I thought it went
a bit pear shaped then and you could feel the need to put on Danny Haynes to try something different. Alas he did not let us down
but I felt Joe could have brought him on instead of putting Naylor up
front.

burgesshillblue · Post by **burgesshillblue** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:38 am

Well we have lost to QPR for the last 2 years at home so I guess it must be an improvement of sorts!

Post by **Earl Blue** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:48 am

burgesshillblue wrote:Well we have lost to QPR for the last 2 years at home so I guess it must be an improvement of sorts!

Yes, indeedy, In fact I have not received the customary cll from my
QPR fan friend..

Tractor-Boys.com

soo QPR game then

soo QPR game then

REPLY