Bokings .

Talk about anything to do with Cheltenham Town, CTFC 500 Club, League 1, ex players & Managers

Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin

Post Reply
everyman
Posts: 2049
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 09:11
Of fouls committed these were deemed bookable by refs;
O`Shaughnessy 23/1
Pell 38/11
Downes 20/6
Cranston 21/7,

Does this suggest that O`Shaughnessy is our best tackler and that Cranston is the worst ?
Not including the new recruits.
Top
confused.com
Posts: 2666
Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 07:16
It could suggest that he needs to foul more. But that would be heresy
Top
andgarod
Posts: 1339
Joined: 19 May 2015, 18:31
It shows how often Cranston took one for the team being left exposed by his co defenders
Top
Ralph
Posts: 4843
Joined: 23 Dec 2009, 01:56
I'm thinking Cranston will show his full potential with the new back line
Top
User avatar
Shade
Posts: 17011
Joined: 27 Sep 2010, 13:02
Location: Cheltenhamshire
Most of Cranston's bookings, and please correct me if you have evidence that I'm wrong, are after he's just been skinned in the left back channel because he's got his body positioning wrong, and trips or pulls the man down.
Top
confused.com
Posts: 2666
Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 07:16
I await the inevitable triad of abuse that will follow such a logical comment
Top
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29826
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Shade wrote:Most of Cranston's bookings, and please correct me if you have evidence that I'm wrong, are after he's just been skinned in the left back channel because he's got his body positioning wrong, and trips or pulls the man down.
Starting position wrong as having to cover for Downes/Parslow was in the back of his mind. Now he can be confident of only needing to play left-back and not emergency centre-back then I expect the bookings to dry up.
Top
confused.com
Posts: 2666
Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 07:16
RCS, not sure where yo are coming from on this one. Again willing to be corrected and probably will. However I would be prepared to bet that most of the times he gets skinned or loses his man, is when he is within a couple of yards of the touch line. It is very very seldom because he has been pulled inside to cover the central area.
Hopefully a stronger back 4 will h the outcome of him raising his defence game to wher it was at the start of the season
I am begining to think that either Shade and myself are expecting too much. Or are watching different games
Top
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29826
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
confused.com wrote:
I am begining to think that either Shade and myself are expecting too much. Or are watching different games.
Judging by the comments and observations made by many others, I think I may agree with your conclusion there.
Top
User avatar
Shade
Posts: 17011
Joined: 27 Sep 2010, 13:02
Location: Cheltenhamshire
Well must be, because I thought Pike did pretty well on Saturday, yet the 'neutral' report on that site Gabriel was advertising on the other thread has ratings too. Cranston 9 and Pike 5!!! It's got to be a joke. I mean, Cranston may have got forward pretty well but did any of his crosses even directly lead to a chance? How the hell can he get a 9, and be motm with D'OS? http://www.thefootballab.co.uk/2017/che ... -cranston/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Top
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29826
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Shade wrote:Well must be, because I thought Pike did pretty well on Saturday, yet the 'neutral' report on that site Gabriel was advertising on the other thread has ratings too. Cranston 9 and Pike 5!!! It's got to be a joke. I mean, Cranston may have got forward pretty well but did any of his crosses even directly lead to a chance? How the hell can he get a 9, and be motm with D'OS? http://www.thefootballab.co.uk/2017/che ... -cranston/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Need to look through your 'hate' and focus on the good things he does too.
Top
confused.com
Posts: 2666
Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 07:16
Here we go again!
Memo to self.... please please get rid of the idea that the primary role of a full back is to defend.
Futile to even engage in debate
Top
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29826
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
confused.com wrote:Here we go again!
Memo to self.... please please get rid of the idea that the primary role of a full back is to defend.
Futile to even engage in debate
'Good things' doesn't mean 'attacking'.

The fact you identify a couple of defensive mistakes, by default means the rest of his defending will be normal, with some elements of good play.

Full backs at L2 level will have a mix of normal defensive play, good defensive play, and poor defensive play. I only ever hear you discussing one of those three things. Try to go a game with an eye free from a blinker to look for the other two options and you may be surprised.
Top
horlickfanclub
Posts: 3944
Joined: 04 Aug 2011, 11:02
I have not been impressed by Cranston this season but as I don't wear blinkers I could see that he had a much better game on Saturday and responded well to receiving crisper passes. If he can up his game with better players I will be happy to give credit .Well played Jordan.
Top
confused.com
Posts: 2666
Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 07:16
happy to say no blinkers either. As mentioned elsewhere thought the whole team (apart from SB) had solid games. I don't tip a waiter because they bring me my food, they have to do a bit more than the basics. Likewise I expect a FB to be doing the basics right and do not see that as an added bonus. What I am repeatedly saying is that he has a habit of not doing the basics right. In my very humble opinion. To that end I think Shade is correct re bookings. RCS not sure how many games you have watched this season. But I find it very hard to believe his defensive frailties have gone unnoticed? Seems on this forum players can not be put under scrutiny e.g, Robins views on DW, which by and large are not wide of the mark
Top
User avatar
Shade
Posts: 17011
Joined: 27 Sep 2010, 13:02
Location: Cheltenhamshire
horlickfanclub wrote:I have not been impressed by Cranston this season but as I don't wear blinkers I could see that he had a much better game on Saturday and responded well to receiving crisper passes. If he can up his game with better players I will be happy to give credit .Well played Jordan.
So will I. I'm not saying he wasn't any good on Saturday, I thought he had a decent game, but no way was he the best player on the pitch with DO'S. RCS is just trolling now as nobody can say the things he is saying without laughing hard as he types.

I will give Cranston some credit - on 3 occasions on Saturday he actually managed to block a cross. I won't mention the 4 or 5 times he waggled his foot and failed to stop a cross or get a tackle in because I'll be accused of failing to look through my hate.
Top
confused.com
Posts: 2666
Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 07:16
Oh come on! You can't expect the basics to be done the majority of the time!!! Focus on the minority of times the basics are done.
Likewise SB ( to show it is not a wich hunt) also had a poor game on Saturday. He seems to have retained his dislike of commanding the area and crosses
Top
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29826
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
As per my last post I would argue the basics are done most of the time, and as you agree they do not earn praise. Only good play deserves praise, same as poor play.

As intimated, I have not seen many games, but where I have good play has outweighed bad play, although about 97% of his effort was basic normal play. Maybe in the games you have seen the opposite has been true and poor play outweighs good play.

Let's agree to disagree, to look forward to seeing JC and the defence get stronger, and to call-out posts where either praise or criticism appears OTT.
Top
Post Reply