Cheltenham Town v Bradford City

[Jon Palmer]

Team news, live updates and video reaction all here this evening: http://bit.ly/BradfordLAST16" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jon Palmer]

Up and running here: http://bit.ly/BradfordLAST16" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Benctfc]

Sounded like another decent performance. Shame we couldn't get it through but the money we have made from the comp is a bonus. Unsurprisingly a Cranston mistake gifted them the win.

[Ctfc02]

Who could've made the mistake???

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

Shocking by Cranston.

[Jon Palmer]

Watch Gary Johnson's post match interview here now: http://bit.ly/BradfordLAST16" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[andgarod]

Cranston should have done better when they scored but I thought he was good going forward and dealt with Marshall ( no 7) well

I thought the defence were good, midfield dropped at 70 minutes
Dayton was poor

If they keep that work rate and get Diego or Dan holman scoring goals we will be OK

[Jon Palmer]

Video interview with Calum Kitscha now here: http://bit.ly/BradfordLAST16" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[paperboy]

Lots of positives tonight.
Big negative was that JC the knockers favourite son gave them more ammunition by giving away a needless free kick and then phaffed around in the six yard box and gifted Bradford the winner.
Small negative was that our three impact subs,Holman, Dayton and Munns came on and did nothing.
We need at least a draw on Saturday to keep our momentum going.

[Jon Palmer]

A fan's view of the game here: http://bit.ly/FanBradford" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[confused.com]

A fan's view of the game here: http://bit.ly/FanBradford" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hmmmmmm, I know I am not Gavin. So it can only be one of the other 3 supporters who have doubts about JC that wrote the article. But good to hear on other threads that he was good going forward.

[confused.com]

Lots of positives tonight.
Big negative was that JC the knockers favourite son gave them more ammunition by giving away a needless free kick and then phaffed around in the six yard box and gifted Bradford the winner.
Small negative was that our three impact subs,Holman, Dayton and Munns came on and did nothing.
We need at least a draw on Saturday to keep our momentum going.

Paperboy, you now have me wondering about my sanity, if the BIG negative from last night was whose fault the goal was. There was me thinking the Big negative was that we lost !!!! Wouldn't waste my breath on debating where the costly errors are coming from because
a) was not there to judge what went wrong for last night's goal
b) now well established that criticism is not welcome on here
c) Others view the primary role of a full back in an entirely different way (using the term wing back to negate any responsibility for defending).
d) and of course, debate should be curtailed until the end of the season so we can all comment with hindsight.

Enjoy the forums cut and thrust

[Johnsons Red Army]

Upon reflection, I was pretty happy with the performance yesterday. Shame that the result didn't go our way but on the whole I thought it was another positive performance and the third on the bounce. Hopefully this momentum will continue.

[vikerlane]

Comments purely based on YT video. Maybe a bit controversial, but I don't think it was Cranston's fault.

First bounce seems to take unexpected direction so he has to adjust, then their 23 barges into him to stop better clearance.

If anything, Manny is ball-watching and Pell is asked way too much to be able to cover distance to catch up with their player and go past him to get a block in.

All in all though it def gave me positive vibe for rest of the season, attack seems to have potency now, very impressed with Billy's progress, even before the new signings.

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

Dodgy first bounce? Purely Paul Baker's fault. More income lost due to the false economy groundshare.

[vikerlane]

Dodgy first bounce? Purely Paul Baker's fault. More income lost due to the false economy groundshare.

Was not trying to blame the pitch, but in the end of the day, yes, it contributed 33% to the goal (bounce + fault + ball-watching).

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

Dodgy first bounce? Purely Paul Baker's fault. More income lost due to the false economy groundshare.

Was not trying to blame the pitch, but in the end of the day, yes, it contributed 33% to the goal (bounce + fault + ball-watching).

So, IF (and it is a huge IF) we make a leap of faith assumption that we would have won the game without that goal, then the failure of the Board to invest in a pitch to cope with 56+ games (or to reduce the games to 23+ if they were not prepared to increase spending) cost us £13,200 last night alone.

Add in the general demise of performances and crowds as the pitch gets worse each year and who knows what the true costs are.

We have asked time and time again: does the revenue generated from doubling the number of games on the pitch have a positive or negative benefit-cost-ratio? Until the Board make public their analysis, fans have every right to have forthright opinion on the matter.

[Cheltenhamshire10]

Dodgy first bounce? Purely Paul Baker's fault. More income lost due to the false economy groundshare.

Was not trying to blame the pitch, but in the end of the day, yes, it contributed 33% to the goal (bounce + fault + ball-watching).

Are we going to start counting when the pitch saves goals too?
I mean if an opposition winger is dribbling and gets slowed down by a bobble or wet patch to allow the defender to get a tackle or get back for a block. Not allowing the winger to send a perfect cross for the centre forward to power a header home.

[Ctfc02]

I think the groundshare is wrong and we would benefit without it

However, in rugby on a complete bog, a team isn't going to Chuck the ball around cause they are adapting to the surface

In cricket, even the clouds can adapt how a team plays.

My point is its not going to change - Gloucester still have 15/20 games to play so the town boys have to find a way to use it to their advantage with the squad available. Let's try and make it a positive for the time the deal is still in place.

[vickeryc]

Lots of positives tonight.
Big negative was that JC the knockers favourite son gave them more ammunition by giving away a needless free kick and then phaffed around in the six yard box and gifted Bradford the winner.
Small negative was that our three impact subs,Holman, Dayton and Munns came on and did nothing.
We need at least a draw on Saturday to keep our momentum going.

Paperboy, you now have me wondering about my sanity, if the BIG negative from last night was whose fault the goal was. There was me thinking the Big negative was that we lost !!!! Wouldn't waste my breath on debating where the costly errors are coming from because
a) was not there to judge what went wrong for last night's goal
b) now well established that criticism is not welcome on here
c) Others view the primary role of a full back in an entirely different way (using the term wing back to negate any responsibility for defending).
d) and of course, debate should be curtailed until the end of the season so we can all comment with hindsight.

Enjoy the forums cut and thrust

I'm not looking to pick an argument, Confused, but you've sort-of invited it.

I don't think many folks object to people posting informed and constructive criticism when it's justified. This is quite different to people who endlessly snipe at the club and/or specific 'targets' - day in, day out. That's the overtly negative attitude of some on here, which has attractive criticism from others who take a more positive view of life. There you are - I've laid myself open to the charge of being a rose tinter! I'm not really - I like to think I'm balanced in my criticism by also giving credit where it's due. Is looking for positives (in a balanced way) such a bad thing? Is it worse than seeking to rubbish the club and/or certain individuals at every opportunity?