The KNIGHT-mare Reloaded - Ipswich home

[TANGODANCER]

Happily settle for a point we didn't really deserve in the end. Work to be done, especially up the sharp end. Wilkinson is more a sapling than an oak tree and was brushed off the ball easier than a feather duster. McCarthy's a wily old fox and has obviously done his homework. High energy game in parts, but far too much head tennis and casual passing (how many did they intercept). McGoldrick was a constant threat and the type of player we need here. Lonergan, a journeyman? I can recall six or seven saves in the last three games that saved us from losing. Top display from him.

[DJBlu]

Wilkinson was full of energy at the start but that diminished rapidly in the 2nd half. Laboured running with poor vision. Shame, as an impact sub against weaker defences he'll surprise a few.

Tim Ream is fast becoming my favourite player. 100% effort throughout. Such a shame Max Clayton went off as his link play with Ream was superb.

Oh and Eidur. Makes it look effortless. Gifted player.

[Jugs]

Any doubters who wondered what Eidur would bring will surely see today that he brought the kind of class and assuredness that we're lacking a lot of. Just a class, class player who will no doubt get us a few points before the season is out. Great reception, and fairly good atmosphere in general today where I was (under the screen). Proper Wintry game of football but mostly lacking quality on the pitch.

It was nice to see Wilko get some good experience in harsh conditions against a good team, but he shouldn't have played the full 90. He didn't offer much, got knocked off the ball too easily, didn't put himself about like he should.

[Bijou Bob]

I said I'd take a point at half 2 and at half 5 I was grateful for one! Frankly, we were awful. Who said we looked solid at the back? How many times did the same ball go inside the yawning gap between Wheater and Dervit?! We rode our luck n Lonners kept us in it.

We offered nothing going forward and couldn't find a pass around an Ipswich team who worked hard to press us and keep their shape.

Still, third clean sheet in a row and a good point. I'm not unhappy.

[Peter Thompson]

I would have settled for a point before the game....and it keeps our unbeaten run going.

I thought NL got it wrong with his team selection bringing Wheater back and Wilkinson was very poor (I though NL should have started with Mason today), he may only be 19 and could well become a decent player, but on the 90 mins today I can't see anything to suggest that - far to lightweight and to be honest it was like playing with 10 men - well 9 as Danns was shocking, I can't recall him touching the ball more than 3 times....and Spearing was also very poor when he came on.

Lonergan was excellent (MOM for his 2nd half performance), Pratley was good in the 1st half....Eidur showed some neat quality touches when he came on....but there is a clear lack of creativity (yet again) and we had absolutely no threat up front, and as the game went it looked like it was only a matter of time until Ipswich scored.

Ipswich were nothing special and this division is very average, but for the 1st time under NL the team looked shapeless, lacked movement & passion and were completely lacking ideas. I'll be very surprised if NL doesn't bring in 2 or 3 in the window....I'd imagine he'll be quite pleased with the point but he won't have been happy with that performance and the individual performances of 3 or 4 players.

[Jugs]

I said I'd take a point at half 2 and at half 5 I was grateful for one! Frankly, we were awful. Who said we looked solid at the back? How many times did the same ball go inside the yawning gap between Wheater and Dervit?! We rode our luck n Lonners kept us in it.

We offered nothing going forward and couldn't find a pass around an Ipswich team who worked hard to press us and keep their shape.

Still, third clean sheet in a row and a good point. I'm not unhappy.

To be fair though, as Lennon pointed out, we were never cut open. In that sense, we were solid.

Lennon made a few mistakes today. Not starting Vela. Bringing Spearing on for Clayton when Hall was the better option.

And Ream? Have a bloody shot, mate

[thebish]

I can understand in theory the principle of developing youngsters over loanees - but - it does seem a wee bit stubborn to totally overlook Mason, who HAS scored goals for us in the past... yes - I know that was when playing off the Juke - but... to completely freeze him out without any opportunities at all - not even from the bench does seem a bit like cutting our nose off to spite our face...

I only watched on a stream - so I appreciate that's not ideal - but I was NOT uber-confident about our defensive prowess... as I saw it, we could easily have lost that by three or four...

not cut open?? unless there's some technical definition of being "cut open" that I am missing (which is possible) - they were all over us for quite long spells running through fairly large gaps!

[Bruce Rioja]

The ball just isn't sticking up front.

And I don't want to be too harsh on a young player, but Connor Wilkinson looked to me like he couldn't make the ball stick up top if you sent him out with a bucket of glue and a mile of fly tape. Ran around a lot to absolutely zero effect. Constantly ignored the easy ball in a bid to put in a run beyond the level of his pay-scale which always ended with him being caught in possession. See the boy with 22 on his back, Connor? Observe and take notes. That said, Mick McCarthy's teams are built on giant defenders, we know this, so why the fecking Dickens did we keep knocking it long up to them?

A very poor game from which we're pretty fortunate to come away with a point, mainly thanks to some superb goalkeeping from Lonners on at least four occasions.

David Wheater is shit. There are no two ways about it. He also manages to unsettle Mills when they play together. I was glad to see him come off, Vela come on and Dervite revert to the middle.

Tim Ream - I expect a left-footed professional footballer to sufficient self-confidence to have a crack at goal when it sits up nicely on his favoured foot. What on earth went on there? Otherwise though, I thought he had a decent game.

[Little Green Man]

I though NL should have started with Mason today

Mason is said to be out for several weeks with a hamstring injury.

[thebish]

I though NL should have started with Mason today

Mason is said to be out for several weeks with a hamstring injury.

ahh - maybe that explains it then! good spot!

[DJBlu]

Wilkinson was on cause Cravies and Mason are both injured.

The lad was well and truly thrown in the deep end.

[NiceHotCuppaTea]

[Peter Thompson]

Yes just found out that apparently Mason has been ruled out for several weeks - so NL couldn't play him, and had no option but to play Wilkinson.

Which just shows our lack of attacking options, which makes the point even better in the circumstances - Wilkinson is certainly not the answer, I didn't see any attributes to suggest he's anywhere near championship level or is likely to be.

[danardif1]

There are going to be times where other teams are simply better than we are, and Ipswich are one of those sides right now (just as Norwich were as well)... so to get a point from this game is more positive than say the Reading game where I was disappointed we couldn't beat what is a poor side.

6 games unbeaten now, but slightly worried at the goals drying up.

[Spartan2]

The problems with the shape, weren't Lennon's fault, we had two injuries and the whole game changed twice. He sorted it out very quickly with what little we have. Again we were excellent in defence. When Spearing came on and three at the back? caused a lot of problems for the defence, giving away too much possession in midfield but they sorted it out time and again, and when Vela came on we were solid again. If Spearing or whoever gives it away in midfield then our defence is going to look stretched but they delt with everything. Wheater was good too.

Ipswich are average??!! They were second in the league, top goal scorer, and just battered Leeds. Our good defending made them look average!

[jaffka]

They could have gone top of the league, they didn't because we kept them out.

We battled for a point and didn't lose the game which is an improvement from the last bloke.

The injury to Clayton upset us and I don't think we ever looked as good today after that.

Nice to hear Lennons explanation of going 3 at the back and a refreshing honesty of the performance.

The unbeaten run continues against very good opposition.

[Jugs]

I can understand in theory the principle of developing youngsters over loanees - but - it does seem a wee bit stubborn to totally overlook Mason, who HAS scored goals for us in the past... yes - I know that was when playing off the Juke - but... to completely freeze him out without any opportunities at all - not even from the bench does seem a bit like cutting our nose off to spite our face...

I only watched on a stream - so I appreciate that's not ideal - but I was NOT uber-confident about our defensive prowess... as I saw it, we could easily have lost that by three or four...

not cut open?? unless there's some technical definition of being "cut open" that I am missing (which is possible) - they were all over us for quite long spells running through fairly large gaps!

Tbh, I was quoting Lennon, but I agreed with him. I can't remember any moments they got through us by design. They had a few long shots, a few lucky deflections fell their way, but I can't remember them carving out anything of note. We certainly weren't at sixes and sevens.

[Peter Thompson]

The problems with the shape, weren't Lennon's fault, we had two injuries and the whole game changed twice. He sorted it out very quickly with what little we have. Again we were excellent in defence. When Spearing came on and three at the back? caused a lot of problems for the defence, giving away too much possession in midfield but they sorted it out time and again, and when Vela came on we were solid again. If Spearing or whoever gives it away in midfield then our defence is going to look stretched but they delt with everything. Wheater was good too.

Ipswich are average??!! They were second in the league, top goal scorer, and just battered Leeds. Our good defending made them look average!

Honestly ?, I thought our defending in general was poor today as was most of our play and if it wasn't for Lonergan we would have lost, like I said earlier I couldn't and still can't understand why NL brought Wheater back as it actually disrupted the defence, why disrupt the Mills / Dervite partnership with a player that hasn't played all season.

He said it himself previously, at home we should be letting the opposition worry about us not change the team / shape to nullify the opposition....still a good point though !

[Bruce Rioja]

The problems with the shape, weren't Lennon's fault, we had two injuries and the whole game changed twice. He sorted it out very quickly with what little we have. Again we were excellent in defence. When Spearing came on and three at the back? caused a lot of problems for the defence, giving away too much possession in midfield but they sorted it out time and again, and when Vela came on we were solid again. If Spearing or whoever gives it away in midfield then our defence is going to look stretched but they delt with everything. Wheater was good too.

Ipswich are average??!! They were second in the league, top goal scorer, and just battered Leeds. Our good defending made them look average!

Honestly ?, I thought our defending in general was poor today as was most of our play and if it wasn't for Lonergan we would have lost, like I said earlier I couldn't and still can't understand why NL brought Wheater back as it actually disrupted the defence, why disrupt the Mills / Dervite partnership with a player that hasn't played all season.

He said it himself previously, at home we should be letting the opposition worry about us not change the team / shape to nullify the opposition....still a good point though !

Have to agree with PT on this. My first WTF moment in relation to one of Lennon's selections. Wheater was awful, furthermore he unbalanced Mills, and Dervite isn't a full back in the memory of man. I lost count of the times they played the ball between Wheater and Dervite. Looked so much better at the back when we swapped Wheater for Vela. As has been said, if it wasn't for Lonners then they could and perhaps should have had four. Would anyone seriously be praising the defence if they'd have put their chances away? I think not!

[Peter Thompson]

Another talking point coming out of the ground today near me was around Heskey....

No one knew about the Mason injury, but several were saying that Heskey would have been much more of a threat today than Wilkinson regardless of his current fitness.

Final one from me on todays game, I watched him very closely in the 1st half and I thought as a 'so called' winger Feeney was very disappointing today, as he was against Huddersfield, he is a very limited average footballer, he always looks knackered and not arsed to me, he struggles to beat a man and more often than not comes inside or passes back instead of taking his man on the outside and if he actually manages to get a cross in its normally straight at or near the keeper - if we are to improve as a team going forward and if Hall isn't any better - a replacement for Feeney is required in January as based on recent form he's not good enough, unless that is he improves his overall game very quickly.