One can read a blow by report on the BBC or U's website, so "Noah's View" intends to look at another different perspective of Saturday's match - "entertainment value"...
I think it fair to assume that shots on goal (hence goal mouth action) are most fans' perception of what constitutes "entertainment". So how did the two CUFC's on display at WHCS perform?
Source BBC Website data;
Total Shots – Fixture – Home (on target) – Away (on target) – Result
33 Colchester United v Carlisle 15 ( 8) , 18 (3) , 2 - 0
33 Coventry v Notts County 20 (12) , 13 (7), 1 – 2
24 Walsall v Crewe 15 (8), 9 (5), 2 - 2
21 Oldham v Leyton Orient 15 (6) , 6 (1), 2 – 0
19 Hartlepool v Crawley 9 ( 5) , 10 ( 7), 0 – 1
16 Bournemouth v Tranmere 10 ( 6) , 6 (2), 3 – 1
16 Swindon v Scunthorpe 6 (1) , 10 (3) , 1 - 1
15 Preston v Sheff Utd 10 (2), 5 (3), 0 - 1
15 MK Dons v Stevenage 9 (0) , 6 (2), 0 - 1
14 Yeovil Bury 9 (2), 5 (3), 2- 1
13 Doncaster v Brentford 5 ( 3 ), 8 (2), 2 – 1
9 Portsmouth v Shrewsbury 3 (0), 6 (4), 3 - 1
I caveat these observations with some doubts about the BBC statistics. For example; Portsmouth scoring 3 from 3 with zero on target is a tad remarkable! However, one suspects that the tally in the first column (e.g. total shots) is reasonably accurate for most games – with only three requiring the adjudicator to require more than a count of his fingers and toes.
Only two matches exceeded 30 combined shots, including that at WHCS. BTW, Coventry do seem mighty unlucky with 20 shots (the highest by any individual team), with 12 on target (also the highest) and no points after 90 minutes! That game at the Ricoh and that at WHCS were clearly the stand out fixtures as regards attacking goal mouth action. By contrast, whilst it served up four goals, the match at Fratton Park does seem to have had the greatest "yawn factor" (did the BBC statistician fall asleep?). But let's put focus back on the action at WHCS….
A combined 33 shots means an attempt was made on goal every 163 seconds. Bearing in mind my pal (D.O.M) and I missed a Portsmouth goal whilst absent in the urinals, we sat with our leg's crossed tight for most of this game, not daring to leave out seats. Carlisle made a superb contribution, notably in the second half, clearly demonstrated by their higher number of shots (18) and greater possession (59%). But the key comparative statistic is surely 'shots on target' (8 to 3) with the Col U's greater on goal incisiveness allowing them to justifiably emerge as the victors. More generally, whilst both sides passed and retained the ball with great competence, the U's did put in that killer pass to feet on many more occasions.
Overall, a wonderful on the deck passing game with both sides trying to play football as it should be played. My man of the match, Michael Rose (I never thought I would ever say that), put in some cracking tackles (defensive lapses being his past weakness) and distributed the ball in attack as we know he can. Our loanee trio once again flourished and the U's pleased the eye. However, there were 22 'heroes' participating, and here I include most of the Carlisle team who battled so hard to also entertain and also the three officials that kept the game flowing. The only 'villains' being the Carlisle forwards that in one afternoon squandered more chances than the U's had made in total over the season's first four home matches under John Ward. That perspective would be that of a disappointed fan facing a costly 314 mile, seven hour journey home. But in my book, "can we play you every week"? Both the returning Cumbrian (and London) fans that we annually embrace at the Bricklayers Arms; and the Carlisle forwards that evidently left their directional compasses up north, (but not their shooting boots) are always welcome at WHCS. I just wish that more than 3,335 had been there to see it. Great entertainment.