Dance of the Eleven Vales, Home to Port Vale Sat 25th Feb. 3-O'clock.

[TANGODANCER]

Had to disappear quickly at the whistle to catch Ireland on TV rugby, then the England/Wales game. Both satisfactory. The Whites? just about what we'll have to expect occasionally. Neither surprised or disappointed. Some lower placed sides turn out a banana patch win against the odds now and then even in the Premier League. Vale, a decent side, didn't come here to lose, and we didn't expect a 5-0 win, so three points any old way is a nice bonus particularly after a shock early loss. We did what we had to do, got in front and stayed there without bells, whistles and dance bands. There may be other games like this before the season ends, but right now we're doing fine.

Don't k now who was deputising for Marc Illes, but get him back quick. The B.N. non-commentary was useless. Finally, here's to Sonic's kettle, even in deputy mode..

[BWFC_Insane]

Marc Iles was doing the BN live blog.

[GhostoftheBok]

I'm just watching the replay and god, the iFollow is awful. People who paid a tenner for that must have suffered.

I'm up to the first goal, but if it stays this bad I may give up on it.

There's loads to pick apart from today and I'm sure Evatt and his staff will do that, but we won so we might might as well take the positives.

I thought Williams and Adeboyejo showed today why we signed them. Williams demonstrated some of that pace we worried he didn't have any more, whilst Adeboyejo's goal and assist both came from his physicality in the box.

Sheehan isn't match fit yet, bit he has contributed well in two games now and took his goal beautifully. I agree with everyone who says we will look to upgrade him in the summer, but for now he's a good League One player.

Nlundulu nursed himself through that one. He's back from a hamstring issue and he clearly didn't want to sprint/stretch. Still great to get him back on the pitch and his controlled play was very good at times.

There's been a lot on social media from people saying Vale "battered" us or words to that effect, but it was nothing like. They scored one off a pattern breaking down and Mbete's spacing gave them a couple of other openings. That was it. We largely controlled the game once we went 2-1 up and didn't really push for a third. Once Charles came on the covering improved in wide positions, as did the press with both him and Lee in the picture, and they mostly stopped threatening. They had fewer transitional phases and the game just sort of ebbed out until that last frantic bit from them.

Like I say, we could be very critical of aspects of our play; but we know they can and will be better in other games. As Evatt likes to say, we know what a good performance looks like. This wasn't a good performance, but we did enough to win and our superior quality carried us through. One of the advantages of simply being better than your opponents man for man.

[BWFC_Insane]

There's been a lot on social media from people saying Vale "battered" us or words to that effect, but it was nothing like. They scored one off a pattern breaking down and Mbete's spacing gave them a couple of other openings. That was it. We largely controlled the game once we went 2-1 up and didn't really push for a third.

We scraped through. Not by plan or design or by controlling the game. We just managed to hold them off. But they had more shots and more shots on target than us.

They had 12 shots to our 5. 5 on target to our 2. And 10 corners to our 4. And matched our possession.

We got lucky that they didn’t have the cutting edge. If they did we weren’t stopping them.

As per Evatt…

It’s great credit to the players and I have to give credit to Port Vale as well because they have pushed us, asked lots of questions, and they were unfortunate not to get something out of the game.

[DJBlu]

We played like that day in work hungover from a brilliant night out. 5pm turns up and you wonder how you made it through the day still employed.

[GhostoftheBok]

We scraped through. Not by plan or design or by controlling the game. We just managed to hold them off. But they had more shots and more shots on target than us.

They had 12 shots to our 5. 5 on target to our 2. And 10 corners to our 4. And matched our possession.

We got lucky that they didn’t have the cutting edge. If they did we weren’t stopping them.

As per Evatt…

It’s great credit to the players and I have to give credit to Port Vale as well because they have pushed us, asked lots of questions, and they were unfortunate not to get something out of the game.

Nothing you just said is at odds with what I wrote.

Broadly we controlled the football game. Their chances came from issues in detail, not general play. We didn't change the system to solidify things in the second half, we brought on people who got the detail work done.

As I said in the post, the issues were Mbete's spacing and the press from the front three. When we missed triggers they got in, but when got the basic stuff right they were totally passive. We introduced Jones, Charles and Lee and with each change they got less and less dangerous. As I said, we could be very critical if we wanted to be; I just don't see the point when I assume we can all see what the issues were after having watched Evatt sides for as long as we have.

We dictated that football game and if we'd stepped it up even marginally they'd not have lived with us. They had no other level to go to. They will probably feel like they should have got a point and finished those openings, but if it was 2-2 with 10 minutes left we'd probably have won 3-2.

The inquest today will be why we couldn't step it up, not that there was something fundamentally wrong with the gameplan. The issues were in the head.

[BWFC_Insane]

We scraped through. Not by plan or design or by controlling the game. We just managed to hold them off. But they had more shots and more shots on target than us.

They had 12 shots to our 5. 5 on target to our 2. And 10 corners to our 4. And matched our possession.

We got lucky that they didn’t have the cutting edge. If they did we weren’t stopping them.

As per Evatt…

It’s great credit to the players and I have to give credit to Port Vale as well because they have pushed us, asked lots of questions, and they were unfortunate not to get something out of the game.

Nothing you just said is at odds with what I wrote.

Broadly we controlled the football game. Their chances came from issues in detail, not general play. We didn't change the system to solidify things in the second half, we brought on people who got the detail work done.

As I said in the post, the issues were Mbete's spacing and the press from the front three. When we missed triggers they got in, but when got the basic stuff right they were totally passive. We introduced Jones, Charles and Lee and with each change they got less and less dangerous. As I said, we could be very critical if we wanted to be; I just don't see the point when I assume we can all see what the issues were after having watched Evatt sides for as long as we have.

We dictated that football game and if we'd stepped it up even marginally they'd not have lived with us. They had no other level to go to. They will probably feel like they should have got a point and finished those openings, but if it was 2-2 with 10 minutes left we'd probably have won 3-2.

The inquest today will be why we couldn't step it up, not that there was something fundamentally wrong with the gameplan. The issues were in the head.

Look. Port Vale were the better side. The stats reflect that. Everyone at the game knows that. They played the football on the day and controlled the game for the vast majority. Reducing us to desperate hoof balls to the strikers asked to try and hold it up.

We clearly had a huge problem with tired legs and minds after Wednesday. That’s the long and short of it. Somewhat worrying how far it dropped our levels but that’s it.

But Port Vale were decent and they exposed us. Had they had more up front that bringing on Jamie Proctor then we’d have been in trouble and I suspect wouldn’t have held on.

But let’s stop with the Dougie Freedman ‘controlled the game’ nonsense. They were just the better side on the day. We dug deep and found a way to win. That’s all good.

You wouldn’t want to ever repeat that performance though as more times than not we’d have lost yesterday. We had a bit of luck and they didn’t have enough to exploit the fact they were dominant.

Win. Move on.

[GhostoftheBok]

Look. Port Vale were the better side. The stats reflect that. Everyone at the game knows that. They played the football on the day and controlled the game for the vast majority. Reducing us to desperate hoof balls to the strikers asked to try and hold it up.

We clearly had a huge problem with tired legs and minds after Wednesday. That’s the long and short of it. Somewhat worrying how far it dropped our levels but that’s it.

But Port Vale were decent and they exposed us. Had they had more up front that bringing on Jamie Proctor then we’d have been in trouble and I suspect wouldn’t have held on.

But let’s stop with the Dougie Freedman ‘controlled the game’ nonsense. They were just the better side on the day. We dug deep and found a way to win. That’s all good.

You wouldn’t want to ever repeat that performance though as more times than not we’d have lost yesterday. We had a bit of luck and they didn’t have enough to exploit the fact they were dominant.

Win. Move on.

You seem to have this view that people have to use the language you want about football.

Port Vale's performance was better than our performance, because they were closer to their best than we were. They weren't in control of the game, though. When they had opportunities they were far more switched on to get after them and that was a major issue.

Like I said, our failings were in the head and as such I'm not concerned about (what I already said was) a poor performance.

Things like that actually do matter, though. They allow you to make informed judgements about what's likely to happen over a span of games. If all you want to say is "Them good, us bad" then fair enough, knock yourself out. Why they were good and why we were bad matters a lot more to me.

That was our game to win or lose and it was entirely our performance levels that dictated the outcome. We were just about good enough to get a result, but if we'd stepped it up even a bit Vale would have had no way of dealing with it. That matters for the season overall.

[GhostoftheBok]

We played like that day in work hungover from a brilliant night out. 5pm turns up and you wonder how you made it through the day still employed.

We're very lucky they don't have better players. If we play like that on Tuesday it won't be pretty. Vale are better drilled than Pompey, but they've not got anywhere near as much technical ability. If we hand Portsmouth the chances we handed out yesterday they'll put three past us.

[BWFC_Insane]

Look. Port Vale were the better side. The stats reflect that. Everyone at the game knows that. They played the football on the day and controlled the game for the vast majority. Reducing us to desperate hoof balls to the strikers asked to try and hold it up.

We clearly had a huge problem with tired legs and minds after Wednesday. That’s the long and short of it. Somewhat worrying how far it dropped our levels but that’s it.

But Port Vale were decent and they exposed us. Had they had more up front that bringing on Jamie Proctor then we’d have been in trouble and I suspect wouldn’t have held on.

But let’s stop with the Dougie Freedman ‘controlled the game’ nonsense. They were just the better side on the day. We dug deep and found a way to win. That’s all good.

You wouldn’t want to ever repeat that performance though as more times than not we’d have lost yesterday. We had a bit of luck and they didn’t have enough to exploit the fact they were dominant.

Win. Move on.

You seem to have this view that people have to use the language you want about football.

Port Vale's performance was better than our performance, because they were closer to their best than we were. They weren't in control of the game, though. When they had opportunities they were far more switched on to get after them and that was a major issue.

Like I said, our failings were in the head and as such I'm not concerned about (what I already said was) a poor performance.

Things like that actually do matter, though. They allow you to make informed judgements about what's likely to happen over a span of games. If all you want to say is "Them good, us bad" then fair enough, knock yourself out. Why they were good and why we were bad matters a lot more to me.

That was our game to win or lose and it was entirely our performance levels that dictated the outcome. We were just about good enough to get a result, but if we'd stepped it up even a bit Vale would have had no way of dealing with it. That matters for the season overall.

We all know our problems relayed to Wednesday. And tired legs and minds. How that will play out Tuesday and then against Morecambe in tough games we will find out.

But you seem annoyed they were better than us on the day. We know the reasons why they were but let’s not pretend otherwise.

If there is any concern at all after what has been an excellent week it’s that we looked so drained and whilst sure a semi final on Wednesday will do that a bit I did not expect it to hit us quite that hard. For Evatt to say we were out on our feet especially after making changes is probably a bit concerning. I do wonder and hope that we stop training to the intensity we have been and adopt a lighter schedule. We shouldn’t be that physically hit. I can understand the mental thing more but yeah to be so physically hit by a Wednesday Saturday turn round even with changes would be a concern to me.

[BWFC_Insane]

Worth noting it was a superb attendance yesterday. Nobody can say the town isn’t backing its club. Not that there isn’t a lot of interest in Wembley. I suspect whatever we take there is our ceiling for such a trip.

[GhostoftheBok]

But you seem annoyed they were better than us on the day.

Quite the opposite. I wasn't annoyed during the game and I'm not now, because it didn't worry me much and doesn't worry me for future games.

I was slightly concerned for the first ten minutes or so, but we stepped it up to go ahead and then dropped our levels again. If we'd conceded I think we'd have stepped it up again.

Technically we were okay. We were just making timing and spacing errors. Like you say, legs and minds - though also some inexperience from the two kids.

I think Evatt will be annoyed. He will have wanted them to push through, but I'm kind of happy that we got the result and didn't run ourselves ragged. Also pleased we *probably* didn't pick up any more serious injuries.

Generally it was a poor display, but like I said before I'll take the positives because we won.

[BWFC_Insane]

But you seem annoyed they were better than us on the day.

Quite the opposite. I wasn't annoyed during the game and I'm not now, because it didn't worry me much and doesn't worry me for future games.

I was slightly concerned for the first ten minutes or so, but we stepped it up to go ahead and then dropped our levels again. If we'd conceded I think we'd have stepped it up again.

Technically we were okay. We were just making timing and spacing errors. Like you say, legs and minds - though also some inexperience from the two kids.

I think Evatt will be annoyed. He will have wanted them to push through, but I'm kind of happy that we got the result and didn't run ourselves ragged. Also pleased we *probably* didn't pick up any more serious injuries.

Generally it was a poor display, but like I said before I'll take the positives because we won.

If there is concern it would be that Shoretire is increasingly looking like a kid who burst onto the scene but can’t keep it going. Probably needs more than he got yesterday but certainly it’s that initial burst you get then they struggle for a while.

Williams whilst he played well initially yesterday is taking a few pelters for his performance and whilst I’d say that’s harsh in context there were times in the second half he did look absolutely hapless. Looks a fitness issue to me. Exhausted at half time.

Not enough of the new players are making a mark and stepping up I suspect. Victor got a goal and that’s good. He had a bright first half but really again looked poor with the ball at his feet at times.

Nlundulu…well….ermmm….yeah

Mbete looked all over the show yesterday. Young lad and all so probably expected eventually. And he was clearly in pain and limping round so again probably will naturally miss a few games now.

It leaves us light at the back in key areas. John has to play Tuesday and Bradley…Bradley is becoming increasingly problematic.

[GhostoftheBok]

It's one of those, I can see why people might worry - personally I'm not concerned about any of them.

This is a very technical, high-information style of football and I don't expect any of them to be perfect initially. I just want to see contributions and signs they want to learn.

Every one of the new players looks fine by that metric. Williams is creating chances, Vik set one up and scored one...so those two are fine. I've seen people have a pop at both, but I ignored them like I ignored the guy sat near me who was bleating all game. You'll always get that.

I agree with you Williams is a fitness issue. Vik is just really useful. He's not Del Piero with his feet, but he is way above average for a physical centre forward at this level technically. His attitude is really good and I think he'll turn out to be a very good signing. Anyone who is that powerful, can finish and is able to lay it off is going to be worth his salt in League One.

Nlundulu is probably the most talented forward Evatt's had so far. Again, it's about his attitude and willingness to learn. His raw technical ability is way above this level, he's massive and he's quick - he's just not match sharp right now. He didn't want to stretch that hamstring and he still played around Vale players for fun in the left half space at times. There's a huge amount he needs to improve - especially how to use that massive frame of his. He's bigger and probably stronger than Vik, but Vik has more experience and uses his body a lot better. Jerome is superb at a lot of that sort of stuff, so hopefully that rubs off. Dan has it in him to be unplayable at this level, or he could remain an unfulfilled talent - that's up to him. He's 24 and has never really put his full talent on the pitch, so we'll see what he does about that.

The kids are kids. Both will end up much higher than this, but until they learn the trade they'll be inconsistent. I'm fine with that. Hopefully we can get enough out of them to make a difference. I think Mbete has been superb up until the last two games. Shoretire has offered quite a bit too. I'm not sure either having off days is too much of an issue.

Jerome is just a good, solid pro and as such I expect him to be fine. Whether he'll still be able to cut it next season is more of an issue, but I'll worry about that in a different part of my brain.

I'm not saying they're all going to turn out to be brilliant signings. That'd be really unusual, but they've all got a chance to really offer something. Chances are we'll end up with a mix of hits and misses, so you have to hope the big success stories are the ones we've spent money on and/or given proper contracts. Randell and Vik are lads we've backed to be able to play for us in the Championship. I'd say they've got until the run-in to really find their feet. At that stage I'll start to be more demanding, even though we obviously need the points now.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I'm just watching the replay and god, the iFollow is awful. People who paid a tenner for that must have suffered.

Or €11 if you happened to find yourself in the Netherlands

First quarter of the iFollow footage was unusually shite in terms of laggy camera relay (the clock didn't lag so it was a visual feed problem). Got better after that and settled back down to its usual problems - lack of camera angles, Harlan repeatedly stating the plainly obvious as if it were golden insight.

[Worthy4England]

The kids are kids bit - and Bradley. He looked shagged yesterday. I don't disagree he might need to put his feet up for a game. It felt for me yesterday, that he was a lot deeper than normal and had a more defensive job to do. But when we talk about his woeful delivery, he delivered one cross, all day on 85 minutes. (I had to re-watch it, because I couldn't recall him "delivering any"). It didn't hit a Bolton shirt, was overhit to back post when we had runners at near and in central. So yeah 100% failure rate on delivery, but a mighty small sample from yesterday. It wasn't that sort of game, it wasn't his day (he did lose possession a good few times).

Shoretire - maybe I'll put this forwards now last week is a week ago - I thought Wycombe and PV did a pretty "grown up" job on him. Sometimes on the margins, arguably sometimes the wrong side of them (but if the ref doesn't spot it - c'est la vie), but in both cases, some older blokes showing the young 'un, that they're not going to just let him waltz through...

[officer_dibble]

Marc Iles was doing the BN live blog.

Is there anyone else who now can’t read any article on the BN website or is it just me? I used to be able to get free ones with a login but even those seem to be restricted to the first para only.

Anyway, good to play badly and win IMO. Big week now though - two tough away at opposite ends of the country and I’m not sure what my team for each would be.

[sonicthewhite]

Marc Iles was doing the BN live blog.

Is there anyone else who now can’t read any article on the BN website or is it just me? I used to be able to get free ones with a login but even those seem to be restricted to the first para only.

Anyway, good to play badly and win IMO. Big week now though - two tough away at opposite ends of the country and I’m not sure what my team for each would be.

You need to reset your cache and delete cookies. Then you can start reading again.

[officer_dibble]

Cheers boss!