Poll: Man of the Match vs Huddersfield (1st Leg)...and your player ratings

[StudentOwl 17,082]

Westwood - 7

 

Hunt - 5

Lees - 7

Loovens - 6

Pudil - 6

 

Wallace - 5

Lee - 5

Bannan - 5

Reach - 4

 

Fletcher - 5

Forestieri - 5

 

 

Rhodes - 5

Winnall - 5.5

Jones - 5

 

Turgid performance, but I can't help but feel that's exactly what we were going for. Neither side realistically threatened (though Westwood pulled off that fantastic save in the second half), but no doubt 'Udders were the "better team" on the day. That said, I never really thought we'd concede. We did the job it looked like we set out to do, and you can't ask for much more than that. Doesn't change that it was a poor performance in terms of a 90 minute game, but as part of the bigger picture... well done 

[legendaryswan 2,574]

Lees was mom today,triffic display from him,kept wells quiet and did his job soundly.

Thought we gave the ball away a lot today,passing was off,I know hudders pressed us allover the park.

Roll on Wednesday night its gunna be tense,really hope Hoopers fit.

[Ash77 474]

Had a few beers with a mate & he said we were same as at leeds when we lost 1-0 on sky, could have been the same but fortunately they lacked any quality in final 3rd.

 

We looked like a side trying to get an fa cup replay, we were organised and defended well but had to as we offered zero width, pace or threat and struggled to string 3 passes together.

 

All 4-5 in possession, 7-8 without ball so 5-6/10 overall.

 

Think we're favourites to win now but going by that if we do make the final, cc will be aiming to win on pens after another 0-0  

We offer no width so would play 4-3-1-2/4-3-3 on weds and give ff a free role away from aggressive man markers

 

Wwood

 

Hunt lees loovy reach

 

Lee hutch/jones bannan

 

                Ff

 

   Hoops/fletch rhodes

[sheriwozgod 4,020]

Westwood -  7    Poor kicking but kept very well as always

 

Hunt  -   6   Did OK defensively,  not so good going forward

Lees  -   8   Distribution wasn`t great but defended really well and just shades MOM

Loovens  -   7   First half howler apart he did well

Pudil  -   7   Disciplined performance

 

Wallace  -   4   Almost non existent

Bannan  -   6   Pick of the midfield , but that's not saying much

Lee   -   5    Lets be honest he was poor today,  gave the ball away constantly, gets an extra point for his workrate

Reach  -   5   Put plenty of effort in but never made a tackle and one half decent run apart he offered zilch going forward

 

Forestieri  -   6   Starved of service, needs to play wide left in the second leg

Fletcher  -   5  Given how we set up the ball needed to stick.....but never did

 

Jones  -  4   Don't get him at all..........his contribution was to give away one stupid free kick that could have cost us, and the one time we had a free kick in a decent position he hit the first man, other than that all he did was back peddle as usual.

 

Rhodes  -  5   never got going but starved of service

Winnall   -   7   Provided some energy and impetus.

 

Overall I think we dodged a bullet , it reminded me of the awful Wembley performance but the result is what matters and we need to take advantage of the clean sheet and put them to bed on Wednesday.

[Beswetherwick 11]

I can't believe this, Lees' distribution was awful

 

 

[Holmowl 23,471]

3 hours ago, Buxtongent said:

Thought Bannan had an excellent game whilst defending, but like all the rest, continually gave the ball away to the opposition, and when will he learn to shoot on target and not over the bar. 

 

Bit harsh. Lovely powerful curler from 30 yards, which only just missed the bar/post. 

 

His cross which Hunt couldn't quite control was genius. Similar to his supply for Rhodes second v Norwich.

 

Yet again he was the only one providing forward momentum.

 

I agree though that his passing was unusually wayward.

[nevthelodgemoorowl 12,322]

3 hours ago, Bodhidharma said:

Off the ball,  whole team gets 8

 

On the ball, 4's and 5's. 

 

 

The man Carlos did set up to play off the ball with no one breaking into space and finding room. Consequently when our full backs cleared down the line, as they did, often. There was no one to pick up. The advantage to this was the space allowed Huddersfield to do something creative was extremely limited. So your 4's and 5's can go where the sun don't shine and your 7's and 8's can be scattered freely amongst the team.

[oh_weds_we_love_you 6,835]

Westwood - 7

Hunt - 7

Lees - 8

Loovens - 7

Pudil - 7

Reach - 7

Bannan - 7

Lee - 7

Wallace - 6

Forestieri - 6

Fletcher - 6

--------

Rhodes - 6

Winnall - 6

Jones - 6

 

Couldnr really give the attacking players more than 6 because of the style we played - they were barely involved from an attacking point of view, but did excellent in defending from the front.

 

MotM for me was Lees - won everything and looked pretty comfortable. Have a feeling he could play that sort of defence vs attack all day every day with a smile on his face - loves it!

 

Almost a perfect away display over a 2 leg semi-final - a winning goal would have been perfection. We didn't use and keep the ball as well as we could/should, but our lack of committing men forward makes it pretty hard to retain possession.

 

Part one of the job is done, now on to part two!

[Beholder 10,272]

13 minutes ago, nevthelodgemoorowl said:

The man Carlos did set up to play off the ball with no one breaking into space and finding room. Consequently when our full backs cleared down the line, as they did, often. There was no one to pick up. The advantage to this was the space allowed Huddersfield to do something creative was extremely limited. So your 4's and 5's can go where the sun don't shine and your 7's and 8's can be scattered freely amongst the team.

So you think we used the ball well?

 

Must have been watching a different game to me if so..Hudds game plan was effective. Ours was only half effective. Lees even admitted as much in the post patch interview.

 

Get a bit annoyed when people like yourself get defensive- as if honest appraisals aren't allowed on here.. 

 

So you stick it where the sun don't shine, pal.

Edited May 14, 2017 by Bodhidharma

[SBOwl 897]

Westwood - 7

 

Pudil - 6

Lees - 7

Loovens - 7

Hunt - 6

 

Reach - 6 

Lee - 6

Bannan - 4

Wallace - 5

 

Fletcher - 5

Forestieri - 5

 

Subs:

Rhodes - 5

Winnal - 6

Jones - 5

 

Just my opinion as we were far far off what I know we are capable of. A good defensive performance but far too sloppy and off the pace today. 

[nevthelodgemoorowl 12,322]

28 minutes ago, Bodhidharma said:

So you think we used the ball well?

 

Must have been watching a different game to me if so..Hudds game plan was effective. Ours was only half effective. Lees even admitted as much in the post patch interview.

 

Get a bit annoyed when people like yourself get defensive- as if honest appraisals aren't allowed on here.. 

 

So you stick it where the sun don't shine, pal.

 WAWAW

[Inspector Lestrade 21,653]

33 minutes ago, Bodhidharma said:

So you think we used the ball well?

 

Must have been watching a different game to me if so..Hudds game plan was effective. Ours was only half effective. Lees even admitted as much in the post patch interview.

 

Get a bit annoyed when people like yourself get defensive- as if honest appraisals aren't allowed on here.. 

 

So you stick it where the sun don't shine, pal.

 

 

Dunno, if he's being defensive but we were, we had a game plan and followed it to the letter.  Was it a spectacle?  No, no one would argue that but we get them back to Hillsborough all square.  All to play for and as the home team, the onus is on us to take it to the opposition.  CC will send out a team well drilled to follow his instructions.  

 

Huddersfield to me were disappointing never took the game by the scruff of the neck and at times looked bereft of ideas in the second half.

 

We have everything to play for, no need to look for negatives. 

[Beholder 10,272]

1 minute ago, Holmes said:

 

Dunno, if he's being defensive but we were, we had a game plan and followed it to the letter.  Was it a spectacle?  No, no one would argue that but we get them back to Hillsborough all square.  All to play for and as the home team, the onus is on us to take it to the opposition.  CC will send out a team well drilled to follow his instructions.  

 

Huddersfield to me were disappointing never took the game by the scruff of the neck and at times looked bereft of ideas in the second half.

 

We have everything to play for, no need to look for negatives. 

Not looking for negatives.

 

I just gave ratings of us on the ball.

 

We need to be better on Wednesday and I'm sure we will be.

[Holmowl 23,471]

1 hour ago, SBOwl said:

Westwood - 7

 

Pudil - 6

Lees - 7

Loovens - 7

Hunt - 6

 

Reach - 6 

Lee - 6

Bannan - 4

Wallace - 5

 

Fletcher - 5

Forestieri - 5

 

Subs:

Rhodes - 5

Winnal - 6

Jones - 5

 

Just my opinion as we were far far off what I know we are capable of. A good defensive performance but far too sloppy and off the pace today. 

 

Of our three chances, Bannan created one (Hunt) and had our best shot.

 

You are of course perfectly entitled to your view, but don't you think 4 and having him as the worst player on the pitch is unreasonable?

[Beholder 10,272]

4 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

 

Of our three chances, Bannan created one (Hunt) and had our best shot.

 

You are of course perfectly entitled to your view, but don't you think 4 and having him as the worst player on the pitch is unreasonable?

He had his usual 40 yarder that always sails two feet over.

 

I didn't mind when Brunt used to do it. His often went in.

 

But Bannan's are usually off target.

Edited May 14, 2017 by Bodhidharma

[Hawkowl 1,726]

34 minutes ago, Bodhidharma said:

He had his usual 40 yarder that always sails two feet over.

 

I didn't mind when Brunt used to do it. His often went in.

 

But Bannan's are nearly always off target.

Fixed

[19owl08 1,154]

Tough one I think. 

 

Westwood - distribution was awful but made the saves he needed to

 

Hunt - best player in first half. Second half he wasn't the same after slipping & nearly doing the splits, wouldn't be surprised if he misses Wednesday with hamstring problem as he kept touching it. Should have headed Bannan's cross instead of trying to control it.

 

Lees - solid display all round though Brown won quite a few headers against him & he seemed clueless on the ball

 

Loovens - awful start & but grew into the game 

 

Pudil - tough job with Kachunga & Smith to mark, did ok

 

Wallace - not good enough today

 

Lee - failed to impose himself, seemed to be avoiding challenges

 

Bannan - probably our best player second half but was woeful in the first. Beautiful ball in to Hunt though.

 

Reach - worst game in a while. Too soft & always looks to come inside than give it to the player on the overlap.

 

Fletcher - didn't win enough headers but seemed to have two challenging him each time with no support near him

 

Forestieri - got kicked out of the game, clearly not 100% fit

 

Jones - meh, kept busy but still not strong enough & seems to panic on the ball

 

Winnall - absolute work horse, chased everything & looked most like causing any problems

 

Rhodes - to be honest I didn't actually see him do anything

[SBOwl 897]

1 hour ago, Holmowl said:

 

Of our three chances, Bannan created one (Hunt) and had our best shot.

 

You are of course perfectly entitled to your view, but don't you think 4 and having him as the worst player on the pitch is unreasonable?

 

Yes it is unreasonable but I thought he had a mare today and was our worst player, and since I gave most of our player a low scores anyway he ended up with a 4, probably should give him 5. 

 

Totally understand and some people see it differently but compared to his last performance against Ipswich he was miles off. 

 

 

[OWLMAN21 42]

Tom Lees - didn't put a foot wrong. Solid at the back, don't think he lost a header all game either. Need him and Loovens to play like that again on Wednesday

[cowl 4,945]

1 hour ago, SBOwl said:

 

Yes it is unreasonable but I thought he had a mare today and was our worst player, and since I gave most of our player a low scores anyway he ended up with a 4, probably should give him 5. 

 

Totally understand and some people see it differently but compared to his last performance against Ipswich he was miles off. 

 

How's that even relevant today?