FT: CARDIFF CITY 3 - 2 SUTTON UTD. Match thread

[Former Labour leader]

Re: FT: CARDIFF CITY 3 - 2 SUTTON UTD. Match thread

To be fair, last night we were OK. Still rusty, a bit shaky at the back. Davies making his debut, and Morrison's 1st competitive game and Smithies showing why he should be first choice stopper.

I was bemused when Marley Watkins appeared in the team, but give the lad credit, he had a decent game and scored two on his debut. Sang was good on the right and Davies did well after being caught out for their first goal. Vaulks was competetive too. Moore looked out of sorts though, not surprisingly.

But a much better than last Saturday. Very little 'hoofball' despite what has been said above. They tried to play it around, it didn't always work. But MM will soon knock this passing game out of the youngsters!! I am more worried about our defence, they look ponderous, and well off form, although Flint has been the pick of the centre backs in both games. Lots of positives though.

I thought Smithies was at fault for their late goal, in fact I dont think he has been 100% since Xmas.
MM seems to like Sang and I would not be surprised to see him start Saturday.
I hear what you say about our defence. Hopefully Morrison will have shaken off the cobwebs for Blackpool, as McGuinness has a knock.
Apart from Phillips, Morrison and Sang I dont expect any other changes for Saturday.

[dml1954]

Re: FT: CARDIFF CITY 3 - 2 SUTTON UTD. Match thread

What situation is that and can you explain to us how they got in it?

1). Pandemic. 2). Resulting lack of funds. 3). Player injury and illness in close season. 4). Playing inexperienced youngsters. I could go on. Hopefully I don't have to explain how they got in it. I think you can probably work it out yourself.

[dml1954]

Re: FT: CARDIFF CITY 3 - 2 SUTTON UTD. Match thread

To be fair, last night we were OK. Still rusty, a bit shaky at the back. Davies making his debut, and Morrison's 1st competitive game and Smithies showing why he should be first choice stopper.

I was bemused when Marley Watkins appeared in the team, but give the lad credit, he had a decent game and scored two on his debut. Sang was good on the right and Davies did well after being caught out for their first goal. Vaulks was competetive too. Moore looked out of sorts though, not surprisingly.

But a much better than last Saturday. Very little 'hoofball' despite what has been said above. They tried to play it around, it didn't always work. But MM will soon knock this passing game out of the youngsters!! I am more worried about our defence, they look ponderous, and well off form, although Flint has been the pick of the centre backs in both games. Lots of positives though.

Thank you. Some sense at last.

[dml1954]

Re: FT: CARDIFF CITY 3 - 2 SUTTON UTD. Match thread

You said there was no hoofball at all, meaning that we tried actually passing it to a team mate for the whole game.
That has been rubbished by other posters here.

And you've got the cheek to ask if I was at the game? If you were I'd suggest taking those rose tinted specs off next time.

I'm not sure what dml stands for but the d has to be deluded surely?

So, come on, were you at the game or not ? Not would be my guess. Check Cardiff55’s post above as well - I obviously wasn't the only one who actually watched the match. You probably wrote your latest analysis of the game before it started.

[dml1954]

Re: FT: CARDIFF CITY 3 - 2 SUTTON UTD. Match thread

C'mon, you can't call him out as being 'pedantic' on that one, surely??
You should have used the words.. "physically strong", if that is what you meant.

I think it's universally accepted, that when referring to a team as "strong" it suggests they have strength in most positions. For example, not having a weak (poor) defence.

Ok, I accept that. I should have said physical instead of strong. I knew what I meant and thought others would too, bearing in mind context but there you go. Many apologies. My mind is obviously frazzled by my spats with the closet Jack.

[blue lewj]

Re: FT: CARDIFF CITY 3 - 2 SUTTON UTD. Match thread

So, come on, were you at the game or not ? Not would be my guess. Check Cardiff55’s post above as well - I obviously wasn't the only one who actually watched the match. You probably wrote your latest analysis of the game before it started.

I wasn't at the game, no. Not many City fans were.

I also didn't post any analysis. I don't need to attend to know that you saying we did not play at least one direct, aimless ball up field wasn't true.

[dml1954]

Re: FT: CARDIFF CITY 3 - 2 SUTTON UTD. Match thread

No I don't disregard scrappy goals, merely acknowledge that there is a difference between a well worked one and a scrappy one. Scrappy goals suggest a certain amount of luck, something that is unsustainable across a season, a well worked one the opposite. Surely you'd prefer to see us score well worked goals?

My apologies for thinking a side that boasts internationals and a number of seasoned Championship players should be beating League 2 new boys Sutton United fairly comfortably rather than relying on scrappy goals.

What situation do we find ourselves in and how did we get there?

Two out of our three goals weren't ‘scrappy’ and one of theirs was ‘scrappy’. So using your logic, we won 2-1 on ‘proper’ goals. Wigan, Peterborough and Derby should have beaten poor little old non league Chorley in the cup last year but didn't. The cups are littered with lower league teams beating higher ones. Thats football. We won this time anyway.

[dml1954]

Re: FT: CARDIFF CITY 3 - 2 SUTTON UTD. Match thread

I wasn't at the game, no. Not many City fans were.

I also didn't post any analysis. I don't need to attend to know that you saying we did not play at least one direct, aimless ball up field wasn't true.

What a surprise. Bet you didn't watch the game on City TV either. So basically you are admitting that you base your post match comments on guesswork, supposition and what other people say. Hoisted on your own petard. And you call me deluded. Anybody who engages with you on this board should now bear in mind that you are making up what you say as you go along. It explains an awful lot to me. You are an attention seeking troll.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: FT: CARDIFF CITY 3 - 2 SUTTON UTD. Match thread

1). Pandemic. 2). Resulting lack of funds. 3). Player injury and illness in close season. 4). Playing inexperienced youngsters. I could go on. Hopefully I don't have to explain how they got in it. I think you can probably work it out yourself.

Much like every other club then you mean. You don’t think all of the money we have wasted on limited, over paid players on long contracts with little sell on value might have something to do with it?

[blue lewj]

Re: FT: CARDIFF CITY 3 - 2 SUTTON UTD. Match thread

What a surprise. Bet you didn't watch the game on City TV either. So basically you are admitting that you base your post match comments on guesswork, supposition and what other people say. Hoisted on your own petard. And you call me deluded. Anybody who engages with you on this board should now bear in mind that you are making up what you say as you go along. It explains an awful lot to me. You are an attention seeking troll.

I watch City a lot. I didn't see last night's game. Given the crowd many others didn't watch it.

I don't need to watch the game to tell you that you're talking cobblers by saying we never played a lofted aimless ball forward. I just don't. Nothing personal. Anybody who watches City with any regularity could tell you that.
Are you still telling us that City never played one long ball forward? You said there was no hoofball, not once.

[blue lewj]

Re: FT: CARDIFF CITY 3 - 2 SUTTON UTD. Match thread

dml, one thing that you seem to miss is that I don't care what anybody who wants to engage with me bears in mind.

You can believe what I say if you want or not. It matters little to me. I couldn't care less if you do.

What I will say is I would believe anybody on this board over somebody who says we did not play one long aimless ball in 90 minutes plus of football against Sutton.

[City123]

Re: FT: CARDIFF CITY 3 - 2 SUTTON UTD. Match thread

Two out of our three goals weren't ‘scrappy’ and one of theirs was ‘scrappy’. So using your logic, we won 2-1 on ‘proper’ goals. Wigan, Peterborough and Derby should have beaten poor little old non league Chorley in the cup last year but didn't. The cups are littered with lower league teams beating higher ones. Thats football. We won this time anyway.

"No I don't disregard scrappy goals"

Regardless. Our first is poor keeping, the second comes to Watkins off the shin of their defender and our third is deflected in off one of their defenders. We had fewer shots, fewer shots on target and fewer corners than a League 2 team but no, it was a great performance and I'll give special thanks to Mick for such a stunning display of football.

[ninian opinian]

Re: FT: CARDIFF CITY 3 - 2 SUTTON UTD. Match thread

Nice thread about the match on the Sutton Message Board. Plus some good photos. Apologies if posted previously. I went to the game so haven’t read all this thread.

https://suttonunited.proboards.com/thread/11284/cardiff-carabao-round-match-thread

https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulloughlin/albums/72157719664447558/