| McGahey 12:21 - Sep 17 with 6248 views | D_Alien |
The club did some pretty good business over the summer, but imo the best bit of business was in persuading this lad to sign on for another couple of years
When Hilly refers in his interview to players becoming leaders i'm pretty sure he'll have had McGahey in mind. He's becoming the lynchpin of our defence we hoped he would, and his marshalling of Eaves on Saturday was masterful. The only time Eaves escaped his clutches he slammed the ball against the crossbar, as if to emphasise how dangerous he was
Hilly also makes the point about much of their play coming through Eaves. With him neutered, Gillingham's effectiveness was much diminished. That's them being made to look ordinary by our players and tactics, not that they were poor as such - there is a difference. When they introduced their tricky wide man in the second half their play became more varied and they started creating chances again
McGahey can only go from strength to strength on the back of that display. He's got everything you need in a CB, including pace. Delaney looked a bit more composed alongside him, but that's unsurprising given the confidence McGahey radiates
[Post edited 17 Sep 2018 12:26]
|  |
| |  |
| McGahey on 21:53 - Sep 17 with 1707 views | fitzochris |
| McGahey on 21:51 - Sep 17 by D_Alien |
"Having the last word" is yet another pretty tired cliché
But no worries, i'll just join in the next chorus of "they were poor" when referring to opposition defeated by more than the odd goal
Dead easy, this chorus lark |
It’s not the sound of a chorus, it’s the sound of a point being spectacularly missed. More a thrush than a lark. |  |
| |
| McGahey on 23:13 - Sep 17 with 1616 views | kiwidale |
| McGahey on 21:47 - Sep 17 by fitzochris |
It devalues nothing. I said on another thread that we’ve dropped points against teams putting on a poor show before. We didn’t here and that’s testament to the team Hill picked, the instructions he gave the team and the players for carrying them out.
What did you think, Kiwi? Were Gillingham poor? [Post edited 17 Sep 2018 21:49]
|
I've only seen the highlights but we looked good and they threatened more than once the consensus on here was that we were very good and them not so good. let me ask you a question did Peterborough and Barnsley only look good because we were poor? |  |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| McGahey on 23:19 - Sep 17 with 1607 views | sweetcorn |
| McGahey on 23:13 - Sep 17 by kiwidale |
I've only seen the highlights but we looked good and they threatened more than once the consensus on here was that we were very good and them not so good. let me ask you a question did Peterborough and Barnsley only look good because we were poor? |
We weren’t poor against p’boro.. we just conceded 3 soft goals in the first half. |  |
| Leader of the little gang of immature cretins. |
| |
| McGahey on 00:56 - Sep 18 with 1577 views | Shun |
| McGahey on 21:30 - Sep 17 by 442Dale |
Some thought that Gillingham were possibly the worst L1 team seen in many a year. I disagree that they were anywhere near BuryatGigg-bad, but they were pretty rubbish. It was one of those games you know we will win, the sort that Parkin used to specialise in during first spell and numerous times under Hill. It was also a lot like beating Gillingham 3-0 in 93-94.
Anyway, back to McGahey. The greatest accolade that can be paid is that his current form makes it irrelevant whether we play 4 or 5 at the back. Defensively in open play we look much better and that, in the main, is down to him.
(Set pieces we could have 37 at the back and still concede.) |
When we think of some of the truly terrible League One teams we’ve faced over the past few years - Bury last year, Chesterfield the year before, Crawley a few years ago, to name but three - Gillingham weren’t even close to that level. They weren’t even the worst side we’ve seen this season, I’d give that accolade to Walsall.
It’s a discussion that doesn’t really need to be continued though, tbh, far better to talk about how good we were (which has been done) and discuss the merits of our players (as the Henderson threads have done and this thread seemed like it was intended to). |  | | |
| McGahey on 05:43 - Sep 18 with 1526 views | 1907 |
The back four on Saturday put in one of the most assured displays I’ve seen from us in a long while.
That should definitely be the four we roll with consistently now & I seriously hope that Hill gives them some game time together so they can form some partnerships.
Will be interesting to see whether we go for it on Saturday, or sit back and revert to a back five?
I trust Hill’s judgment on that one, but we should never line up with five at the back at home again. We should fancy our chances against everyone in this division and it’s about time we got back to what we’re good at. No fear! | | | |
| McGahey on 07:02 - Sep 18 with 1489 views | fitzochris |
| McGahey on 23:13 - Sep 17 by kiwidale |
I've only seen the highlights but we looked good and they threatened more than once the consensus on here was that we were very good and them not so good. let me ask you a question did Peterborough and Barnsley only look good because we were poor? |
Sorry, I stopped reading after “I’ve only seen the highlights”. | |
| |
| McGahey on 07:10 - Sep 18 with 1480 views | fitzochris |
| McGahey on 00:56 - Sep 18 by Shun |
When we think of some of the truly terrible League One teams we’ve faced over the past few years - Bury last year, Chesterfield the year before, Crawley a few years ago, to name but three - Gillingham weren’t even close to that level. They weren’t even the worst side we’ve seen this season, I’d give that accolade to Walsall.
It’s a discussion that doesn’t really need to be continued though, tbh, far better to talk about how good we were (which has been done) and discuss the merits of our players (as the Henderson threads have done and this thread seemed like it was intended to). |
I believe the word used was poor, not terrible. The consensus is they were poor.
Walsall were also poor, yes, and the fact we lost that game is annoying, to be honest.
I’ve been fortunate enough to see every league match so far this season, so I’m not making statements based on highlights, like some.
In terms of the standard of opposition we have faced - and by that I mean their performance on the day, as that is all I can fairly judge - Gillingham have been the poorest this season, hotly followed by Walsall.
As for continuing the discussion, I agree. It was concluded on the match thread but resurrected in the OP of this one, therefore it invited further discussion.
I’d much rather talk about the merits of our team than the performance of the opposition, any day. It’s still important to add context, though. | |
| |
| McGahey on 07:38 - Sep 18 with 1455 views | SaxonDale |
Fantastic to hear about McGahey. Said it in the summer but he really does have it all physically, just needed to add the mental side to his game. Didn't watch the game so can't comment on the opposition as a whole but there aren't many sterner tests at this level than Eaves.
Too early in the morning to start talking formations/ tactics but I do think an inform Delaney and McGahey playing well together don't need the third defender in the middle with them. Think Raff offers as much from fullback as he does wingback and Bunney showed in his spell their that you don't have to be a wingback to get forward effectively. If we were to switch more long-term to a back four then it at the very least frees up another space in midfield/ attack, where we seem to have more quality options than ever. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| McGahey on 12:25 - Sep 18 with 1325 views | D_Alien |
| McGahey on 05:43 - Sep 18 by 1907 |
The back four on Saturday put in one of the most assured displays I’ve seen from us in a long while.
That should definitely be the four we roll with consistently now & I seriously hope that Hill gives them some game time together so they can form some partnerships.
Will be interesting to see whether we go for it on Saturday, or sit back and revert to a back five?
I trust Hill’s judgment on that one, but we should never line up with five at the back at home again. We should fancy our chances against everyone in this division and it’s about time we got back to what we’re good at. No fear! |
Saturday's performance was as you describe, and it leaves Hilly with some tricky decisions - which is what he's well-paid for, and good ones to have
I've been an advocate of 532 but with the caveat of "do we have the personnel to exploit it" and Saturday demonstrates that we have the personnel to exploit average L1 outfits at home using a different system
I too would like to see that back four given time to really settle, but it does raise questions around where important acquisitions such as MJ Williams and Perkins will fit in. With Cannon available too, the options available from the bench will result in possibly the most intense competition for places we've ever had, and that's without mentioning Inman, Done, Nthle, JWilliams, Finerty when he's fit and our exciting youngsters
I thought Gillam had a decent game and deserved the full 90 minutes, but at his age that'd be hard to maintain, which leaves the prospect of allowing Done to play just behind Hendo in the same role which brought huge success not long since
Suddenly, our options are multiplied severalfold. Wouldn't be surprised if we started with 532 at Sunderland, but we now have plans BCD. A big test will also follow at home against Portsmouth. Much might depend on how we come away from the SOL in terms of confidence and momentum
Very interesting times, and what a squad!
Edit: typo
[Post edited 18 Sep 2018 13:01]
| |
| |
| McGahey on 12:29 - Sep 18 with 1318 views | JimmyRustler |
| McGahey on 12:25 - Sep 18 by D_Alien |
Saturday's performance was as you describe, and it leaves Hilly with some tricky decisions - which is what he's well-paid for, and good ones to have
I've been an advocate of 532 but with the caveat of "do we have the personnel to exploit it" and Saturday demonstrates that we have the personnel to exploit average L1 outfits at home using a different system
I too would like to see that back four given time to really settle, but it does raise questions around where important acquisitions such as MJ Williams and Perkins will fit in. With Cannon available too, the options available from the bench will result in possibly the most intense competition for places we've ever had, and that's without mentioning Inman, Done, Nthle, JWilliams, Finerty when he's fit and our exciting youngsters
I thought Gillam had a decent game and deserved the full 90 minutes, but at his age that'd be hard to maintain, which leaves the prospect of allowing Done to play just behind Hendo in the same role which brought huge success not long since
Suddenly, our options are multiplied severalfold. Wouldn't be surprised if we started with 532 at Sunderland, but we now have plans BCD. A big test will also follow at home against Portsmouth. Much might depend on how we come away from the SOL in terms of confidence and momentum
Very interesting times, and what a squad!
Edit: typo
[Post edited 18 Sep 2018 13:01]
|
We've also got Dooley to come back and add to the mix (I presume he's injured?) |  | | |
| McGahey on 12:33 - Sep 18 with 1305 views | D_Alien |
| McGahey on 12:29 - Sep 18 by JimmyRustler |
We've also got Dooley to come back and add to the mix (I presume he's injured?) |
I knew there'd be at least one major prospect i'd forgotten, which really illustrates the point about squad riches! | |
| |
| McGahey on 17:21 - Sep 18 with 1182 views | richfoad32 |
| McGahey on 12:29 - Sep 18 by JimmyRustler |
We've also got Dooley to come back and add to the mix (I presume he's injured?) |
And Clough (whilst he's here at least.) | | | |
| McGahey on 17:35 - Sep 18 with 1166 views | tony_roch975 |
For me Perkins / MJ are good cover but neither complement the energy/pace we've seen in last 3 games. We do have several (too many?) options in m/f and striker but no replacements for Andrew/Wilbraham in the 'direct' formation of Sat. Equally I don't see that formation as the 'final solution' - it worked at home against a specific type of opponent. | |
| |
| McGahey on 18:20 - Sep 18 with 1116 views | 1907 |
| McGahey on 12:25 - Sep 18 by D_Alien |
Saturday's performance was as you describe, and it leaves Hilly with some tricky decisions - which is what he's well-paid for, and good ones to have
I've been an advocate of 532 but with the caveat of "do we have the personnel to exploit it" and Saturday demonstrates that we have the personnel to exploit average L1 outfits at home using a different system
I too would like to see that back four given time to really settle, but it does raise questions around where important acquisitions such as MJ Williams and Perkins will fit in. With Cannon available too, the options available from the bench will result in possibly the most intense competition for places we've ever had, and that's without mentioning Inman, Done, Nthle, JWilliams, Finerty when he's fit and our exciting youngsters
I thought Gillam had a decent game and deserved the full 90 minutes, but at his age that'd be hard to maintain, which leaves the prospect of allowing Done to play just behind Hendo in the same role which brought huge success not long since
Suddenly, our options are multiplied severalfold. Wouldn't be surprised if we started with 532 at Sunderland, but we now have plans BCD. A big test will also follow at home against Portsmouth. Much might depend on how we come away from the SOL in terms of confidence and momentum
Very interesting times, and what a squad!
Edit: typo
[Post edited 18 Sep 2018 13:01]
|
Great post. Nothing to add just agree entirely. | | | |
| McGahey on 19:22 - Sep 18 with 1066 views | fitzochris |
| McGahey on 12:25 - Sep 18 by D_Alien |
Saturday's performance was as you describe, and it leaves Hilly with some tricky decisions - which is what he's well-paid for, and good ones to have
I've been an advocate of 532 but with the caveat of "do we have the personnel to exploit it" and Saturday demonstrates that we have the personnel to exploit average L1 outfits at home using a different system
I too would like to see that back four given time to really settle, but it does raise questions around where important acquisitions such as MJ Williams and Perkins will fit in. With Cannon available too, the options available from the bench will result in possibly the most intense competition for places we've ever had, and that's without mentioning Inman, Done, Nthle, JWilliams, Finerty when he's fit and our exciting youngsters
I thought Gillam had a decent game and deserved the full 90 minutes, but at his age that'd be hard to maintain, which leaves the prospect of allowing Done to play just behind Hendo in the same role which brought huge success not long since
Suddenly, our options are multiplied severalfold. Wouldn't be surprised if we started with 532 at Sunderland, but we now have plans BCD. A big test will also follow at home against Portsmouth. Much might depend on how we come away from the SOL in terms of confidence and momentum
Very interesting times, and what a squad!
Edit: typo
[Post edited 18 Sep 2018 13:01]
|
That’s all very true and is reason to be optimistic.
However, apart from Norman, we’re not sure who are the six/seven injured players (or how long they’re out for) and who are the ones perceived to be lacking effort in training.
These factors, too, will undoubtedly have a bearing on the teams Hill puts out. Yet armed with even that little bit of knowledge it makes future left-field selections more understandable. | |
| |
| McGahey on 21:29 - Sep 18 with 998 views | tony_roch975 |
| McGahey on 19:22 - Sep 18 by fitzochris |
That’s all very true and is reason to be optimistic.
However, apart from Norman, we’re not sure who are the six/seven injured players (or how long they’re out for) and who are the ones perceived to be lacking effort in training.
These factors, too, will undoubtedly have a bearing on the teams Hill puts out. Yet armed with even that little bit of knowledge it makes future left-field selections more understandable. |
Looking through the squad and following today's trouncing of Oldham (when some of those perceived as 'lacking effort' may have played) I think injured players (according to Hill) = Randall (months), Norman (?), MJ (?), Thompson (months), Dooley (?) & tbc = McNulty, Finnerty. | |
| |
| McGahey on 21:31 - Sep 18 with 997 views | fitzochris |
| McGahey on 21:29 - Sep 18 by tony_roch975 |
Looking through the squad and following today's trouncing of Oldham (when some of those perceived as 'lacking effort' may have played) I think injured players (according to Hill) = Randall (months), Norman (?), MJ (?), Thompson (months), Dooley (?) & tbc = McNulty, Finnerty. |
I think that’s a fair guess, although Hill made the comment after Randall’s injury, so he won’t be in that number. | |
| |
| McGahey on 21:42 - Sep 18 with 982 views | TVOS1907 |
| McGahey on 21:29 - Sep 18 by tony_roch975 |
Looking through the squad and following today's trouncing of Oldham (when some of those perceived as 'lacking effort' may have played) I think injured players (according to Hill) = Randall (months), Norman (?), MJ (?), Thompson (months), Dooley (?) & tbc = McNulty, Finnerty. |
McNulty was on the bench on Saturday, so I doubt he's injured.
Likewise Finnerty, who was on the bench v bury, although they could have become injured in the meantime, of course. |  |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| McGahey on 21:53 - Sep 18 with 970 views | tony_roch975 |
| McGahey on 21:42 - Sep 18 by TVOS1907 |
McNulty was on the bench on Saturday, so I doubt he's injured.
Likewise Finnerty, who was on the bench v bury, although they could have become injured in the meantime, of course. |
probably why I put 'tbc' for them then | |
| |
| McGahey on 22:01 - Sep 18 with 958 views | TVOS1907 |
| McGahey on 21:53 - Sep 18 by tony_roch975 |
probably why I put 'tbc' for them then |
Aye. | |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| McGahey on 06:17 - Sep 19 with 853 views | kiwidale |
| McGahey on 07:02 - Sep 18 by fitzochris |
Sorry, I stopped reading after “I’ve only seen the highlights”. |
That's a bit of a poor do Christopher, you asked me a direct question, addressed to me which I replied to so why ask me a question if you can be arsed to read my answer? I also notice you had another dig in a subsequent post. I've obviously rattled you which is fine by me I'm happy to oblige. Tell me Chris your a bit of a journalist you even wrote some books about Dale things you never saw? fancy that. Am I wrong in thinking a sports journo writes newspaper reports for those who weren't at the game? and is it fair to assume the readers will be informed and might form an opinion that they may express at work or the pub? isn't that the sole purpose of any sports desk at any newspaper? just why my opinion in particular irritates you is hard to understand, are you equally annoyed with other posters who don't attend the game? There are several on here from the antipodes as well as exiled supporters from closer to home, have a pop at them in future and leave me alone if it's upsetting you, you've got better things to do. [Post edited 19 Sep 2018 6:26]
| |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| McGahey on 08:39 - Sep 19 with 766 views | fitzochris |
| McGahey on 06:17 - Sep 19 by kiwidale |
That's a bit of a poor do Christopher, you asked me a direct question, addressed to me which I replied to so why ask me a question if you can be arsed to read my answer? I also notice you had another dig in a subsequent post. I've obviously rattled you which is fine by me I'm happy to oblige. Tell me Chris your a bit of a journalist you even wrote some books about Dale things you never saw? fancy that. Am I wrong in thinking a sports journo writes newspaper reports for those who weren't at the game? and is it fair to assume the readers will be informed and might form an opinion that they may express at work or the pub? isn't that the sole purpose of any sports desk at any newspaper? just why my opinion in particular irritates you is hard to understand, are you equally annoyed with other posters who don't attend the game? There are several on here from the antipodes as well as exiled supporters from closer to home, have a pop at them in future and leave me alone if it's upsetting you, you've got better things to do. [Post edited 19 Sep 2018 6:26]
|
You couldn't rattle a tin of rice, mate. I’ve nothing against those now in the antipodes at all. Just you. You’ll notice your posts are now being largely ignored by many posters on here due to the fact that they’re mainly antagonistic and puerile. They certainly belie the fact you’re in your 70s.
I did pose a question to you, you’re right, and I did so knowing you hadn’t seen the game. A bit naughty perhaps, but this wasn’t a debate to be based on highlights alone.
And you’re right, I have written two books on Rochdale, some of the events in the books I wasn’t there for, which is why they’re told through the eyes of those who were — the managers (book one) or the players (book two). I add the insight where I have it.
You’re also correct about the role of, not just sports journalism, but journalism as a whole. It’s purpose is to inform. Always keep in mind, though, that journalism is very rarely impartial, is prone to mistakes and is always the opinion of somebody else. If you’re happy to rely on that as a basis for debate that’s fine, I’ve done it before, but it will never be better than somebody’s first-hand account.
Hope that helps, sport. | |
| |
| McGahey on 08:42 - Sep 19 with 757 views | 442Dale |
| McGahey on 08:39 - Sep 19 by fitzochris |
You couldn't rattle a tin of rice, mate. I’ve nothing against those now in the antipodes at all. Just you. You’ll notice your posts are now being largely ignored by many posters on here due to the fact that they’re mainly antagonistic and puerile. They certainly belie the fact you’re in your 70s.
I did pose a question to you, you’re right, and I did so knowing you hadn’t seen the game. A bit naughty perhaps, but this wasn’t a debate to be based on highlights alone.
And you’re right, I have written two books on Rochdale, some of the events in the books I wasn’t there for, which is why they’re told through the eyes of those who were — the managers (book one) or the players (book two). I add the insight where I have it.
You’re also correct about the role of, not just sports journalism, but journalism as a whole. It’s purpose is to inform. Always keep in mind, though, that journalism is very rarely impartial, is prone to mistakes and is always the opinion of somebody else. If you’re happy to rely on that as a basis for debate that’s fine, I’ve done it before, but it will never be better than somebody’s first-hand account.
Hope that helps, sport. |
Plus, you copy and paste all day. |  |
| |
| McGahey on 08:43 - Sep 19 with 755 views | fitzochris |
| McGahey on 08:42 - Sep 19 by 442Dale |
Plus, you copy and paste all day. |
Oh yeah, forgot that bit. Making sure to get the formatting right to cover the crime is a right pain. | |
| |
| McGahey on 09:25 - Sep 19 with 700 views | R17ALE |
| McGahey on 06:17 - Sep 19 by kiwidale |
That's a bit of a poor do Christopher, you asked me a direct question, addressed to me which I replied to so why ask me a question if you can be arsed to read my answer? I also notice you had another dig in a subsequent post. I've obviously rattled you which is fine by me I'm happy to oblige. Tell me Chris your a bit of a journalist you even wrote some books about Dale things you never saw? fancy that. Am I wrong in thinking a sports journo writes newspaper reports for those who weren't at the game? and is it fair to assume the readers will be informed and might form an opinion that they may express at work or the pub? isn't that the sole purpose of any sports desk at any newspaper? just why my opinion in particular irritates you is hard to understand, are you equally annoyed with other posters who don't attend the game? There are several on here from the antipodes as well as exiled supporters from closer to home, have a pop at them in future and leave me alone if it's upsetting you, you've got better things to do. [Post edited 19 Sep 2018 6:26]
|
You don't like being told that your opinion isn't as valid if you haven't seen the game, which most right minded people would agree with I think. I do understand that highlights are your only option.
Can you therefore explain this quote you posted from the Hendo thread?
"On a similar note how can anybody born after Jenkins retired judge who was/is the better player Reg Jenkins or Ian Henderson? the only qualified opinion would be those who have seen them both"
It would help if your reply wasn't antagonistic. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
