Match report: Hartlepool United 2, York City 0 - Sky Bet League Two

York Press: York City striker Wes Fletcher is unable to get a shot on Hartlepool's goal.  Picture: Gordon Clayton York City striker Wes Fletcher is unable to get a shot on Hartlepool's goal. Picture: Gordon Clayton

TEENAGE kicks inspired Hartlepool to their first win in 2014 but there were undertones of frustration in Nigel Worthington’s post-match post-mortem as his York City team lost for the first time since the turn of the year.

Nineteen-year-old pair Luke James and Jack Barmby sank City on the north-east coast and turned the tide of an even contest with two impressive late strikes.

The Minstermen contributed to their own downfall, however, with Josh Carson’s 82nd-minute foul, which led to James’ opening goal, proving one carelessly conceded free-kick too many for the visitors.

Just moments earlier, Keith Lowe had also blazed over an inviting net on an afternoon of few clear-cut chances for both teams with City’s engine room struggling for supremacy against a narrow, four-man home midfield.

James had the first opportunity of the game but Nick Pope was quick off his line to deny the Hartlepool striker after David McGurk had misjudged the pace of a Simon Walton through ball.

City’s on-loan Charlton shot-stopper also pushed a curling, 20-yard Andy Monkhouse effort around his right-hand post before Marlon Harewood – looking a pale imitation of the former Premier League striker who once cost Aston Villa £4 million – had the ball in the net but was correctly flagged offside.

The Minstermen’s first attempt saw Michael Coulson fire into the sidenetting from 12 yards on 20 minutes while Carson drove wide from a free-kick.

Former Northern Ireland international Carson also scuffed the visitors’ best chance of the half wide after being picked out near the penalty spot by Coulson.

Monkhouse then went close in first-half stoppage time when he drove narrowly wide after Neil Austin had tricked his way past Ben Davies on the right flank.

Within a minute of the restart, Pools ’keeper Scott Flinders was forced into his only saves of the match, keeping out Ryan Jarvis’ header from a Carson corner at his near post before also proving equal to Wes Fletcher’s follow-up effort.

Moments later, Pope smothered Luke Williams’ ten-yard shot before a long lull in action hinted at a fourth consecutive 0-0 draw between the two clubs.

But, on 76 minutes, Jonathan Franks drove over after Monkhouse had headed down a Walton corner.

Lowe then lifted his five-yard chance over the bar after Flinders had dropped Carson’s cross under pressure from Jarvis.

Shortly afterwards, Carson gave away a free-kick on the touchline and, despite Lanre Oyebanjo heading out Walton’s initial cross from the left, the former Leeds midfielder swung a second delivery on to the head of centre-back Jack Baldwin.

He, in turn, picked out James, who drilled a low shot inside Pope’s right-hand upright.

A second edge-of-the-area effort then wrapped up the points on 89 minutes.

Jack Barmby’s father, Nick, scored 84 goals for club and country during a distinguished 20-year career but few can have been finer than his son’s maiden strike just ten minutes into a promising professional debut.

The on-loan Manchester United winger received the ball from Williams and curled the ball brilliantly into a helpless Pope’s top right-hand corner.

Both McGurk and fellow centre-back John McCombe had been pressed into forward roles by that stage but there was no way back for City after the young Red Devil’s hell of a strike.


Match facts

Hartlepool United 2 (James 82; Barmby 89), York City 0 

York City

Nick Pope 7
Had little chance with either goal but pulled off a couple of smart saves and dealt with crosses into his box.

Lanre Oyebanjo 6
Kept his forward surges to a minimum but rarely troubled down Hartlepool’s left flank.

Keith Lowe 7
STAR MAN – should have scored but had Harewood in his pocket prior to the ex-Premier League striker’s substitution.

David McGurk 6
Caught out on the odd occasion but generally solid and made fair share of timely interceptions and tackles.

Ben Davies 6
Dependable defensively for the most part but disappointed with some of his deliveries into the home box.

Josh Carson 6
Plenty of honest endeavour but snatched at his first-half chance and got punished for conceding 82nd-minute free-kick.

Lewis Montrose 6
His long passing was a little off radar and yellow card was inevitable after a succession of niggling fouls.

Russell Penn 6
Found it hard to get a grip on the game and often crowded out in the middle of the park.

Michael Coulson 6
Started brightly and his team’s brightest attacking outlet before the break only to fade during the second period.

Ryan Bowman 6
Contained by Hartlepool’s defenders before exiting the action due to injury just before the half-hour mark.

Wes Fletcher 6
Never really hurt Hartlepool down the sides as he is capable of doing.

Subs: Ryan Jarvis 6 – combative (for Bowman, 29), John McCombe (for Jarvis, 85). Subs not used: Chris Smith, Tom Platt, Michael Ingham, Chris Dickinson, Adam Reed.


Hartlepool United

Scott Flinders, Neil Austin, Jack Baldwin, Christian Burgess, Darren Holden, Brad Walker, Simon Walton, Andy Monkhouse (Jack Barmby, 78), Luke Williams, Marlon Harewood (Jonathan Franks, 69), Luke James. Subs not used: Andy Rafferty, Sam Collins, Jack Compton, Antony Sweeney, Nialle Rodney.

Star man: Austin – filled vacant right-back spot with confidence.


Referee: Iain Williamson (Berkshire).

Rating: 7/10 – some of his cautions were a little over-zealous but sensible otherwise.

Booked: Walker 33, Burgess 37, Lowe 45, Carson 48, Montrose 68.

Sent off: None.

Attendance: 4,673 (956 from City).

Shots on target: Hartlepool 6, City 2.

Shots off target: Hartlepool 4, City 5.

Corners: Hartlepool 7, City 9.

Fouls conceded: Hartlepool 11, City 18.

Offsides: Hartlepool 2, City 0.

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:28pm Sat 25 Jan 14

dadster says...

Obviously a disappointing result but its gone so need to move on. No real damage done with other results being fairly good for us. Main concern would be how serious the injuries to Bowman and Jarvis are with a really tough two games coming up against Chesterfield and Fleetwood.

Maybe a chance for McDonald to show what he can do?

If we can get 3 points from these I would take that right now.

A reality check today for those that were getting carried away with our recent form.
Obviously a disappointing result but its gone so need to move on. No real damage done with other results being fairly good for us. Main concern would be how serious the injuries to Bowman and Jarvis are with a really tough two games coming up against Chesterfield and Fleetwood. Maybe a chance for McDonald to show what he can do? If we can get 3 points from these I would take that right now. A reality check today for those that were getting carried away with our recent form. dadster

5:57pm Sat 25 Jan 14

Realistic ycfc says...

We were poor against a bang average team, agree with McDonald, conditions were poor, just wish we could have taken one of our very few chances, would like to see just one more striker added finances permitting, but we so seem more solid at the back in recent games, don't see the point of having smith on the bench would have preferred another attacking option as surely an injury to either Lowe or mcgurk and it will be mccombe coming in
We were poor against a bang average team, agree with McDonald, conditions were poor, just wish we could have taken one of our very few chances, would like to see just one more striker added finances permitting, but we so seem more solid at the back in recent games, don't see the point of having smith on the bench would have preferred another attacking option as surely an injury to either Lowe or mcgurk and it will be mccombe coming in Realistic ycfc

6:50pm Sat 25 Jan 14

joejamestom says...

The better side took the points, Pools spread the ball across midfield better than city who resorted to a lot of speculative balls over the top down either flanks where to be fair to our wingers they were against taller defenders & when we did not take the few chances we created we would have been lucky to get a point. As it was NW deemed it appropriate to replace Jarvis with a CB & not replace the about to be carded Montrose with Reed strange!! About time we saw McDonald on for a few minutes or at least on the bench as it seemed a remote possibility that Smith would come on. It was a winnable game with the squad we have, must do better with Chesterfield looming 6/10 Mr Worthington. C'mon City!!!
.
The better side took the points, Pools spread the ball across midfield better than city who resorted to a lot of speculative balls over the top down either flanks where to be fair to our wingers they were against taller defenders & when we did not take the few chances we created we would have been lucky to get a point. As it was NW deemed it appropriate to replace Jarvis with a CB & not replace the about to be carded Montrose with Reed strange!! About time we saw McDonald on for a few minutes or at least on the bench as it seemed a remote possibility that Smith would come on. It was a winnable game with the squad we have, must do better with Chesterfield looming 6/10 Mr Worthington. C'mon City!!! . joejamestom

7:20pm Sat 25 Jan 14

bh12man says...

Very poor game, albeit on a windswept day that made things difficult for everyone. Indeed, as difficult as it was for 1,000 City fans to exit via a tiny doorway out of the stand one by one!

It was always likely that the first team to score would win, and so it proved. Both teams had one close effort in the first half, and Lowe's miss from under the bar just before Hartlepool scored provides the 'if only' moment for the likes of Barry Parker to fawn over.

IMO Hartlepool had more speed, flair, and attacking intent, and were far more creative in midfield. This again highlights that Worthington favours grit and graft away from home preferring Penn and the lumbering Montrose in the middle rather than give Adam Reed a run out. At least Montrose's umpteenth booking of the season means he'll now be suspended for a couple of games, so at least there will be some enforced changes. Carson again got into good positions but delivered little, and there wasn't much from the other flank either to feed Fletcher who again worked his socks off.
It's a tight league, but don't get carried away by recent results because we're just as liable to fall back into trouble as we are to pull clear of it..
Very poor game, albeit on a windswept day that made things difficult for everyone. Indeed, as difficult as it was for 1,000 City fans to exit via a tiny doorway out of the stand one by one! It was always likely that the first team to score would win, and so it proved. Both teams had one close effort in the first half, and Lowe's miss from under the bar just before Hartlepool scored provides the 'if only' moment for the likes of Barry Parker to fawn over. IMO Hartlepool had more speed, flair, and attacking intent, and were far more creative in midfield. This again highlights that Worthington favours grit and graft away from home preferring Penn and the lumbering Montrose in the middle rather than give Adam Reed a run out. At least Montrose's umpteenth booking of the season means he'll now be suspended for a couple of games, so at least there will be some enforced changes. Carson again got into good positions but delivered little, and there wasn't much from the other flank either to feed Fletcher who again worked his socks off. It's a tight league, but don't get carried away by recent results because we're just as liable to fall back into trouble as we are to pull clear of it.. bh12man

7:34pm Sat 25 Jan 14

23rdApril1966 says...

I think it fair to say that should anybody ever publish a book 'Great York City v Hartlepool United Encounters' then the two matches this season will not feature.
August's match was abject, this marginally better. Granted the conditions would have made monkeys of far better players than these but it truly was a dismal match.
I cannot be alone in disagreeing with NW when he states that City played well for 82 minutes? Not a chance. Complete lack of flair with central midfield anonymous. At best Montrose and Penn are spoilers. Yet today they won barely anything in terms of second ball.
I will call out Lowe and TY, particularly Lowe who won more headers today than Chris Smith has in both his City spells combined. Pope also showed why he has the jersey.
The tactics were so negative. With both Montrose and Carson booked why not bring on Reed? I said last week that we concede too many stupid free kicks and Carson did it again today resulting in the first goal - game over.
On comes McComb up front - was Dickinson on the bench? If so why if not prepared to throw him on? And where was McDonald? If he can't get on a bench of 7 subs why have him?
Really disappointed to have lost to such a poor side who had not won at home since Nov 24th.
Now onto Radio York and Parker......inept as ever. I tuned into BBC Tees at 6 pm and they were still talking football wit a good 15 mins interviewing Colin Cooper and their first goalscorer - different class to RY. Please RY mgmt get hold of a recording.....that's how it should be.
All in all though I blame the wife....my new lucky jumper fist aired on NY Day and with a WWWD track record was in the wash. It will resurface Tuesday night for the DourRites. Montrose banned so at least we should see Reid and hopefully a tad more flair.
I think it fair to say that should anybody ever publish a book 'Great York City v Hartlepool United Encounters' then the two matches this season will not feature. August's match was abject, this marginally better. Granted the conditions would have made monkeys of far better players than these but it truly was a dismal match. I cannot be alone in disagreeing with NW when he states that City played well for 82 minutes? Not a chance. Complete lack of flair with central midfield anonymous. At best Montrose and Penn are spoilers. Yet today they won barely anything in terms of second ball. I will call out Lowe and TY, particularly Lowe who won more headers today than Chris Smith has in both his City spells combined. Pope also showed why he has the jersey. The tactics were so negative. With both Montrose and Carson booked why not bring on Reed? I said last week that we concede too many stupid free kicks and Carson did it again today resulting in the first goal - game over. On comes McComb up front - was Dickinson on the bench? If so why if not prepared to throw him on? And where was McDonald? If he can't get on a bench of 7 subs why have him? Really disappointed to have lost to such a poor side who had not won at home since Nov 24th. Now onto Radio York and Parker......inept as ever. I tuned into BBC Tees at 6 pm and they were still talking football wit a good 15 mins interviewing Colin Cooper and their first goalscorer - different class to RY. Please RY mgmt get hold of a recording.....that's how it should be. All in all though I blame the wife....my new lucky jumper fist aired on NY Day and with a WWWD track record was in the wash. It will resurface Tuesday night for the DourRites. Montrose banned so at least we should see Reid and hopefully a tad more flair. 23rdApril1966

8:30pm Sat 25 Jan 14

Jono1966 says...

23rdApril1966 wrote:
I think it fair to say that should anybody ever publish a book 'Great York City v Hartlepool United Encounters' then the two matches this season will not feature.
August's match was abject, this marginally better. Granted the conditions would have made monkeys of far better players than these but it truly was a dismal match.
I cannot be alone in disagreeing with NW when he states that City played well for 82 minutes? Not a chance. Complete lack of flair with central midfield anonymous. At best Montrose and Penn are spoilers. Yet today they won barely anything in terms of second ball.
I will call out Lowe and TY, particularly Lowe who won more headers today than Chris Smith has in both his City spells combined. Pope also showed why he has the jersey.
The tactics were so negative. With both Montrose and Carson booked why not bring on Reed? I said last week that we concede too many stupid free kicks and Carson did it again today resulting in the first goal - game over.
On comes McComb up front - was Dickinson on the bench? If so why if not prepared to throw him on? And where was McDonald? If he can't get on a bench of 7 subs why have him?
Really disappointed to have lost to such a poor side who had not won at home since Nov 24th.
Now onto Radio York and Parker......inept as ever. I tuned into BBC Tees at 6 pm and they were still talking football wit a good 15 mins interviewing Colin Cooper and their first goalscorer - different class to RY. Please RY mgmt get hold of a recording.....that's how it should be.
All in all though I blame the wife....my new lucky jumper fist aired on NY Day and with a WWWD track record was in the wash. It will resurface Tuesday night for the DourRites. Montrose banned so at least we should see Reid and hopefully a tad more flair.
23rd April 1966 you were certainly watching the same game as me as I also thought we lacked any flair in the middle of the park and we're crying out for someone to have the vision and creativity to get the ball down and feed quality balls to our frontmen. Also felt we failed to win enough second ball all game and when we did it usually came to nothing. IMO Lowe continues to put in consistent performances so looking like a good acquisition. Penn showed odd glimpses that he might be ok but I will reserve judgement for the time being. It appears to me that NW has them playing the %'s game and that seems to involve just getting the ball in the oppositions half and then hoping something might happen - today the team that played the ball around better won so we got what we deserved - NOWT !
[quote][p][bold]23rdApril1966[/bold] wrote: I think it fair to say that should anybody ever publish a book 'Great York City v Hartlepool United Encounters' then the two matches this season will not feature. August's match was abject, this marginally better. Granted the conditions would have made monkeys of far better players than these but it truly was a dismal match. I cannot be alone in disagreeing with NW when he states that City played well for 82 minutes? Not a chance. Complete lack of flair with central midfield anonymous. At best Montrose and Penn are spoilers. Yet today they won barely anything in terms of second ball. I will call out Lowe and TY, particularly Lowe who won more headers today than Chris Smith has in both his City spells combined. Pope also showed why he has the jersey. The tactics were so negative. With both Montrose and Carson booked why not bring on Reed? I said last week that we concede too many stupid free kicks and Carson did it again today resulting in the first goal - game over. On comes McComb up front - was Dickinson on the bench? If so why if not prepared to throw him on? And where was McDonald? If he can't get on a bench of 7 subs why have him? Really disappointed to have lost to such a poor side who had not won at home since Nov 24th. Now onto Radio York and Parker......inept as ever. I tuned into BBC Tees at 6 pm and they were still talking football wit a good 15 mins interviewing Colin Cooper and their first goalscorer - different class to RY. Please RY mgmt get hold of a recording.....that's how it should be. All in all though I blame the wife....my new lucky jumper fist aired on NY Day and with a WWWD track record was in the wash. It will resurface Tuesday night for the DourRites. Montrose banned so at least we should see Reid and hopefully a tad more flair.[/p][/quote]23rd April 1966 you were certainly watching the same game as me as I also thought we lacked any flair in the middle of the park and we're crying out for someone to have the vision and creativity to get the ball down and feed quality balls to our frontmen. Also felt we failed to win enough second ball all game and when we did it usually came to nothing. IMO Lowe continues to put in consistent performances so looking like a good acquisition. Penn showed odd glimpses that he might be ok but I will reserve judgement for the time being. It appears to me that NW has them playing the %'s game and that seems to involve just getting the ball in the oppositions half and then hoping something might happen - today the team that played the ball around better won so we got what we deserved - NOWT ! Jono1966

9:47pm Sat 25 Jan 14

OLD - HEAD says...

This was argueably our easiest fixture out of three difficult games. But we got just what we deserved from this game - "nothing". So this obviously has to be our reality check, for we are still trying to avoid getting drawn back into that bottom group. Chesterfield and Fleetwood are by far the best two sides that City have played so far this season. So we are looking for two much improved displays from the next two matches.
This was argueably our easiest fixture out of three difficult games. But we got just what we deserved from this game - "nothing". So this obviously has to be our reality check, for we are still trying to avoid getting drawn back into that bottom group. Chesterfield and Fleetwood are by far the best two sides that City have played so far this season. So we are looking for two much improved displays from the next two matches. OLD - HEAD

10:12pm Sat 25 Jan 14

openallhours says...

Whilst there's been short a respite, if we lose again on Tuesday the 'sack Nigel brigade' will be out in force again, just as they were 3 weeks ago. Today was disappointing, but 3 straight wins highlights the potential of this group of players.
Whilst there's been short a respite, if we lose again on Tuesday the 'sack Nigel brigade' will be out in force again, just as they were 3 weeks ago. Today was disappointing, but 3 straight wins highlights the potential of this group of players. openallhours

10:16pm Sat 25 Jan 14

YorkCityLuke says...

We were awful.

Might as well start off with the positives, I thought Ben Davies was put under a lot of pressure and played like a real professional, and put in some superb first half tackles. I also thought Fletcher worked hard (as usual) and showed flashes of skill and control.
On the other hand, I thought Penn was poor, his distribution and pace were dreadful and he was caught in possession far too often. For me, he's no better than Platt (and Platt has youth/energy in his favour). I also thought McGurk and Lowe were fairly poor, not so much for their defending (which for 80 minutes was just about adequate) but for the woeful distribution from the back and the frankly baffling constant high/ long balls. Long ball football is ugly and ineffective enough in perfect conditions, but it should have been clear after 5 minutes today that it was the worst tactic possible. I'm all for 'simple' clearences, but I counted at least 5 times today when they had the opportunity to control the ball under no pressure, but just booted it up field (almost always onto the head of a Hartlepool player). NW said after the game that we were good for 80 minutes - we were nowhere near good for the whole 90 minutes in my opinion. Vast improvemenets for Tuesday please.
We were awful. Might as well start off with the positives, I thought Ben Davies was put under a lot of pressure and played like a real professional, and put in some superb first half tackles. I also thought Fletcher worked hard (as usual) and showed flashes of skill and control. On the other hand, I thought Penn was poor, his distribution and pace were dreadful and he was caught in possession far too often. For me, he's no better than Platt (and Platt has youth/energy in his favour). I also thought McGurk and Lowe were fairly poor, not so much for their defending (which for 80 minutes was just about adequate) but for the woeful distribution from the back and the frankly baffling constant high/ long balls. Long ball football is ugly and ineffective enough in perfect conditions, but it should have been clear after 5 minutes today that it was the worst tactic possible. I'm all for 'simple' clearences, but I counted at least 5 times today when they had the opportunity to control the ball under no pressure, but just booted it up field (almost always onto the head of a Hartlepool player). NW said after the game that we were good for 80 minutes - we were nowhere near good for the whole 90 minutes in my opinion. Vast improvemenets for Tuesday please. YorkCityLuke

10:23pm Sat 25 Jan 14

YorkCityLuke says...

openallhours wrote:
Whilst there's been short a respite, if we lose again on Tuesday the 'sack Nigel brigade' will be out in force again, just as they were 3 weeks ago. Today was disappointing, but 3 straight wins highlights the potential of this group of players.
Why not comment on the match instead of second guessing some imagined conspiracy against NW? No-one has mentioned sacking him, but the performance today was in no way good enough. It wasn't good enough under Mills and it's not good enough now. Never mind that our league position wasn't hit too hard, 1000 of our fans paid good money and got nothing in return. The 'sack Nigel brigade' (by the way - are you his friend or something? Surely it's Mr. Worthington to you...) will probably come back if he keeps losing games. And rightly so.
[quote][p][bold]openallhours[/bold] wrote: Whilst there's been short a respite, if we lose again on Tuesday the 'sack Nigel brigade' will be out in force again, just as they were 3 weeks ago. Today was disappointing, but 3 straight wins highlights the potential of this group of players.[/p][/quote]Why not comment on the match instead of second guessing some imagined conspiracy against NW? No-one has mentioned sacking him, but the performance today was in no way good enough. It wasn't good enough under Mills and it's not good enough now. Never mind that our league position wasn't hit too hard, 1000 of our fans paid good money and got nothing in return. The 'sack Nigel brigade' (by the way - are you his friend or something? Surely it's Mr. Worthington to you...) will probably come back if he keeps losing games. And rightly so. YorkCityLuke

12:26am Sun 26 Jan 14

sixtyfourfive says...

YorkCityLuke wrote:
We were awful.

Might as well start off with the positives, I thought Ben Davies was put under a lot of pressure and played like a real professional, and put in some superb first half tackles. I also thought Fletcher worked hard (as usual) and showed flashes of skill and control.
On the other hand, I thought Penn was poor, his distribution and pace were dreadful and he was caught in possession far too often. For me, he's no better than Platt (and Platt has youth/energy in his favour). I also thought McGurk and Lowe were fairly poor, not so much for their defending (which for 80 minutes was just about adequate) but for the woeful distribution from the back and the frankly baffling constant high/ long balls. Long ball football is ugly and ineffective enough in perfect conditions, but it should have been clear after 5 minutes today that it was the worst tactic possible. I'm all for 'simple' clearences, but I counted at least 5 times today when they had the opportunity to control the ball under no pressure, but just booted it up field (almost always onto the head of a Hartlepool player). NW said after the game that we were good for 80 minutes - we were nowhere near good for the whole 90 minutes in my opinion. Vast improvemenets for Tuesday please.
A poor game I agree but to apportion so much blame on Mcgurk and Lowe is frankly rubbish.Both were very solid throughout and quite honestly as others have said it is in central midfield where we need more creativity.If you are expecting a Worthington team to build from the back "a la Mills" you are not going to see it. Coulson again worked hard - particularly in the first half, before fading, but I have increasingly become concerned over Carson' s lack of progress. He is no longer the bubbly character prepared to take his man on one to one and as a result the quality has gone downhill.I am still , and never have been, convinced with Davies. We are however more solid (never pretty!) and I would not be at all surprised if we beat Chesterfield Tuesday.
[quote][p][bold]YorkCityLuke[/bold] wrote: We were awful. Might as well start off with the positives, I thought Ben Davies was put under a lot of pressure and played like a real professional, and put in some superb first half tackles. I also thought Fletcher worked hard (as usual) and showed flashes of skill and control. On the other hand, I thought Penn was poor, his distribution and pace were dreadful and he was caught in possession far too often. For me, he's no better than Platt (and Platt has youth/energy in his favour). I also thought McGurk and Lowe were fairly poor, not so much for their defending (which for 80 minutes was just about adequate) but for the woeful distribution from the back and the frankly baffling constant high/ long balls. Long ball football is ugly and ineffective enough in perfect conditions, but it should have been clear after 5 minutes today that it was the worst tactic possible. I'm all for 'simple' clearences, but I counted at least 5 times today when they had the opportunity to control the ball under no pressure, but just booted it up field (almost always onto the head of a Hartlepool player). NW said after the game that we were good for 80 minutes - we were nowhere near good for the whole 90 minutes in my opinion. Vast improvemenets for Tuesday please.[/p][/quote]A poor game I agree but to apportion so much blame on Mcgurk and Lowe is frankly rubbish.Both were very solid throughout and quite honestly as others have said it is in central midfield where we need more creativity.If you are expecting a Worthington team to build from the back "a la Mills" you are not going to see it. Coulson again worked hard - particularly in the first half, before fading, but I have increasingly become concerned over Carson' s lack of progress. He is no longer the bubbly character prepared to take his man on one to one and as a result the quality has gone downhill.I am still , and never have been, convinced with Davies. We are however more solid (never pretty!) and I would not be at all surprised if we beat Chesterfield Tuesday. sixtyfourfive

7:35am Sun 26 Jan 14

beeryjack5on says...

openallhours wrote:
Whilst there's been short a respite, if we lose again on Tuesday the 'sack Nigel brigade' will be out in force again, just as they were 3 weeks ago. Today was disappointing, but 3 straight wins highlights the potential of this group of players.
Objective, positive comment why the negatives?
[quote][p][bold]openallhours[/bold] wrote: Whilst there's been short a respite, if we lose again on Tuesday the 'sack Nigel brigade' will be out in force again, just as they were 3 weeks ago. Today was disappointing, but 3 straight wins highlights the potential of this group of players.[/p][/quote]Objective, positive comment why the negatives? beeryjack5on

10:16am Sun 26 Jan 14

pip007 says...

I worry that when we win, Worthington doesn't really know why we've won, so he can't replicate the performances or results in subsequent matches. Whether we win, lose or draw feels like pot luck. He's put together what looks like a strong and very hard working squad, but there's no spark of magic and no creativity. So I also worry that players are being stifled or demotivated. And FFS give MacDonald 15 minutes on the pitch and see what he can do. Maybe he can turn a match.
I worry that when we win, Worthington doesn't really know why we've won, so he can't replicate the performances or results in subsequent matches. Whether we win, lose or draw feels like pot luck. He's put together what looks like a strong and very hard working squad, but there's no spark of magic and no creativity. So I also worry that players are being stifled or demotivated. And FFS give MacDonald 15 minutes on the pitch and see what he can do. Maybe he can turn a match. pip007

10:27am Sun 26 Jan 14

duffy says...

Don't think anything has really changed. This is pretty much a midtable league two team now, for every game we win, we will probably lose another. The biggest downside to Worthington is the style of football and I'm afraid that not going to change regardless in my view.
Don't think anything has really changed. This is pretty much a midtable league two team now, for every game we win, we will probably lose another. The biggest downside to Worthington is the style of football and I'm afraid that not going to change regardless in my view. duffy

10:47am Sun 26 Jan 14

Budgie says...

York were poor, too many misplaced passes but I will be there on Tuesday, the only good thing I really liked as that the ground had a combination of seating and standing areas, Lets hope the planners of our new stadium take note. Back to the game ,Pope ,Davies, Banjo, McGurk, Lowe, Coulson were ok ,midfield poor,not impressed with Penn so far Carson poor and the forwards
did not receive any creative service.
York were poor, too many misplaced passes but I will be there on Tuesday, the only good thing I really liked as that the ground had a combination of seating and standing areas, Lets hope the planners of our new stadium take note. Back to the game ,Pope ,Davies, Banjo, McGurk, Lowe, Coulson were ok ,midfield poor,not impressed with Penn so far Carson poor and the forwards did not receive any creative service. Budgie

11:20am Sun 26 Jan 14

THETELLEROFTALES says...

It's no secret.

NW said from the very beginning he believes football should be played in the final third of the pitch.

So in any football language that translates as 'the long ball game.'

We all knew what we were going to get, I'm amazed supporters did'nt cotton on months ago.
It's no secret. NW said from the very beginning he believes football should be played in the final third of the pitch. So in any football language that translates as 'the long ball game.' We all knew what we were going to get, I'm amazed supporters did'nt cotton on months ago. THETELLEROFTALES

11:47am Sun 26 Jan 14

dadster says...

Whilst we would all love to see attractive expansive football the main priority for us is to get to 52 points as quickly as possible to virtually ensure safety. If it means we get there by playing a certain way which is not pleasing on the eye then so be it.

I have yet to see another team in L2 play particularly attractive football. The fact is that its a league with which you have to be able to mix it physically and with the pitches cutting up badly for most of the winter it is difficult to play great passing football.

We tried that last season under GM and IMO would have gone down if we had continued with that type of football.

The main priority is to consolidate ourselves as a league club and if that means a pragmatic approach which delivers the end result we need then so be it.
Whilst we would all love to see attractive expansive football the main priority for us is to get to 52 points as quickly as possible to virtually ensure safety. If it means we get there by playing a certain way which is not pleasing on the eye then so be it. I have yet to see another team in L2 play particularly attractive football. The fact is that its a league with which you have to be able to mix it physically and with the pitches cutting up badly for most of the winter it is difficult to play great passing football. We tried that last season under GM and IMO would have gone down if we had continued with that type of football. The main priority is to consolidate ourselves as a league club and if that means a pragmatic approach which delivers the end result we need then so be it. dadster

11:58am Sun 26 Jan 14

23rdApril1966 says...

THETELLEROFTALES wrote:
It's no secret.

NW said from the very beginning he believes football should be played in the final third of the pitch.

So in any football language that translates as 'the long ball game.'

We all knew what we were going to get, I'm amazed supporters did'nt cotton on months ago.
For me it's not about long ball or short ball but the right ball. Let's face it even Wenger's team play long when it's needed. And long ball can be effective and exciting, I'd rather we got ball into the box than play sideways for 90 minutes. Also remember that under GM we did concede through over playing at the back without the personnel to do it, as will be the case at this level.
I just think that the negativity shows in the way that we appear to set up and I always think that he' take 0 0 away from home and doesn't seem to want to change regardless of the match situation....sometim
es when we are up against it then fine but on others like yesterday I would argue that there comes a time when the chance of 3 points over 1 is a gamble worth taking and NW just doesn't seem to have that mentality.
I would argue that there was little to choose between our performances at Accrington, Bury, Northampton and Hartlepool......one win, one draw and two defeats. Four points. I do think a more ambitious approach could have seen us win at least one more....two wins two defeats = 6 points. Simple really.
And I repeat that having Dickinson on the bench but using McCombe was odd but not as odd as being unable to find a place for MCDonald - given the fanfare of his arrival - amongst 7 subs at a team winless in 2014 and without a home win since Nov 24th.
Surely others agree?
But fear not the unbeaten jumper is drying nicely and will be there on Tuesday!
[quote][p][bold]THETELLEROFTALES[/bold] wrote: It's no secret. NW said from the very beginning he believes football should be played in the final third of the pitch. So in any football language that translates as 'the long ball game.' We all knew what we were going to get, I'm amazed supporters did'nt cotton on months ago.[/p][/quote]For me it's not about long ball or short ball but the right ball. Let's face it even Wenger's team play long when it's needed. And long ball can be effective and exciting, I'd rather we got ball into the box than play sideways for 90 minutes. Also remember that under GM we did concede through over playing at the back without the personnel to do it, as will be the case at this level. I just think that the negativity shows in the way that we appear to set up and I always think that he' take 0 0 away from home and doesn't seem to want to change regardless of the match situation....sometim es when we are up against it then fine but on others like yesterday I would argue that there comes a time when the chance of 3 points over 1 is a gamble worth taking and NW just doesn't seem to have that mentality. I would argue that there was little to choose between our performances at Accrington, Bury, Northampton and Hartlepool......one win, one draw and two defeats. Four points. I do think a more ambitious approach could have seen us win at least one more....two wins two defeats = 6 points. Simple really. And I repeat that having Dickinson on the bench but using McCombe was odd but not as odd as being unable to find a place for MCDonald - given the fanfare of his arrival - amongst 7 subs at a team winless in 2014 and without a home win since Nov 24th. Surely others agree? But fear not the unbeaten jumper is drying nicely and will be there on Tuesday! 23rdApril1966

12:07pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Jono1966 says...

pip007 wrote:
I worry that when we win, Worthington doesn't really know why we've won, so he can't replicate the performances or results in subsequent matches. Whether we win, lose or draw feels like pot luck. He's put together what looks like a strong and very hard working squad, but there's no spark of magic and no creativity. So I also worry that players are being stifled or demotivated. And FFS give MacDonald 15 minutes on the pitch and see what he can do. Maybe he can turn a match.
I suspect that Shaquille needs to get himself fitter before being introduced and that is why he has yet to feature. My concern would be that we would then need a midfield playmaker to play the type of balls through the channels that he would thrive on. At present our back four tend to take the long ball option so that would only benefit Shaquille if Bowman can flick on. I believe the players we have do have the ability to play a more fluid passing game - we saw one glimpse of that in the first half when we strung 5 or 6 passes together and then got a shot in on goal. Sometimes the long ball is the right option but you need to also have the confidence the play it to feet and mix it up now and again. Hoping we up the tempo on Tuesday and start to knock the ball around a bit and also make more of the set pieces (Josh Carson free kick first half was woeful)
[quote][p][bold]pip007[/bold] wrote: I worry that when we win, Worthington doesn't really know why we've won, so he can't replicate the performances or results in subsequent matches. Whether we win, lose or draw feels like pot luck. He's put together what looks like a strong and very hard working squad, but there's no spark of magic and no creativity. So I also worry that players are being stifled or demotivated. And FFS give MacDonald 15 minutes on the pitch and see what he can do. Maybe he can turn a match.[/p][/quote]I suspect that Shaquille needs to get himself fitter before being introduced and that is why he has yet to feature. My concern would be that we would then need a midfield playmaker to play the type of balls through the channels that he would thrive on. At present our back four tend to take the long ball option so that would only benefit Shaquille if Bowman can flick on. I believe the players we have do have the ability to play a more fluid passing game - we saw one glimpse of that in the first half when we strung 5 or 6 passes together and then got a shot in on goal. Sometimes the long ball is the right option but you need to also have the confidence the play it to feet and mix it up now and again. Hoping we up the tempo on Tuesday and start to knock the ball around a bit and also make more of the set pieces (Josh Carson free kick first half was woeful) Jono1966

12:08pm Sun 26 Jan 14

RooBeck says...

We lacked any guile and creativity in the final third/opposition 18 yard box and hardly stretched Hartlepool in open play. Fletcher had very little support and we must try better to get the right passes into our strikers - they are certainly feeding off scraps because other than Dagenham, it's been penalties and the odd goal and now two consecutive games without a goal. Not too sure if we were right in returning Brobbel back to Boro - he is the kind of attacking player that we missed yesterday and certainly we need Adam Reed in the starting Xl to provide/link the attacking play. All in all, we were disjointed and gave a below average performance with little to cheer and made all the worse, by that cold wind that makes Victoria Park a hard place for any visiting team!! So, put this one behind us but look at some fresh tactics for Tuesday, so that we don't invite a good passing team like Chesterfield to take the initiative. COYR.
We lacked any guile and creativity in the final third/opposition 18 yard box and hardly stretched Hartlepool in open play. Fletcher had very little support and we must try better to get the right passes into our strikers - they are certainly feeding off scraps because other than Dagenham, it's been penalties and the odd goal and now two consecutive games without a goal. Not too sure if we were right in returning Brobbel back to Boro - he is the kind of attacking player that we missed yesterday and certainly we need Adam Reed in the starting Xl to provide/link the attacking play. All in all, we were disjointed and gave a below average performance with little to cheer and made all the worse, by that cold wind that makes Victoria Park a hard place for any visiting team!! So, put this one behind us but look at some fresh tactics for Tuesday, so that we don't invite a good passing team like Chesterfield to take the initiative. COYR. RooBeck

12:30pm Sun 26 Jan 14

YorkCityLuke says...

sixtyfourfive wrote:
YorkCityLuke wrote:
We were awful.

Might as well start off with the positives, I thought Ben Davies was put under a lot of pressure and played like a real professional, and put in some superb first half tackles. I also thought Fletcher worked hard (as usual) and showed flashes of skill and control.
On the other hand, I thought Penn was poor, his distribution and pace were dreadful and he was caught in possession far too often. For me, he's no better than Platt (and Platt has youth/energy in his favour). I also thought McGurk and Lowe were fairly poor, not so much for their defending (which for 80 minutes was just about adequate) but for the woeful distribution from the back and the frankly baffling constant high/ long balls. Long ball football is ugly and ineffective enough in perfect conditions, but it should have been clear after 5 minutes today that it was the worst tactic possible. I'm all for 'simple' clearences, but I counted at least 5 times today when they had the opportunity to control the ball under no pressure, but just booted it up field (almost always onto the head of a Hartlepool player). NW said after the game that we were good for 80 minutes - we were nowhere near good for the whole 90 minutes in my opinion. Vast improvemenets for Tuesday please.
A poor game I agree but to apportion so much blame on Mcgurk and Lowe is frankly rubbish.Both were very solid throughout and quite honestly as others have said it is in central midfield where we need more creativity.If you are expecting a Worthington team to build from the back "a la Mills" you are not going to see it. Coulson again worked hard - particularly in the first half, before fading, but I have increasingly become concerned over Carson' s lack of progress. He is no longer the bubbly character prepared to take his man on one to one and as a result the quality has gone downhill.I am still , and never have been, convinced with Davies. We are however more solid (never pretty!) and I would not be at all surprised if we beat Chesterfield Tuesday.
I'm not advocating a return to excessive passing across the back, every time we used to do that I think my life-span shortened from anxiety. Simple clearences are great. Even accurate long-balls are ok. But in a game where a ball kicked into the air will go literally anywhere depending on the wind, I just can't understand where two experienced centre-backs like Lowe and McGurk would hoof it as high as possible at every opportunity, even when under no pressure. They were 'solid' enough in keeping the Pools out, but they did nothing to help out our upfield play.
[quote][p][bold]sixtyfourfive[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YorkCityLuke[/bold] wrote: We were awful. Might as well start off with the positives, I thought Ben Davies was put under a lot of pressure and played like a real professional, and put in some superb first half tackles. I also thought Fletcher worked hard (as usual) and showed flashes of skill and control. On the other hand, I thought Penn was poor, his distribution and pace were dreadful and he was caught in possession far too often. For me, he's no better than Platt (and Platt has youth/energy in his favour). I also thought McGurk and Lowe were fairly poor, not so much for their defending (which for 80 minutes was just about adequate) but for the woeful distribution from the back and the frankly baffling constant high/ long balls. Long ball football is ugly and ineffective enough in perfect conditions, but it should have been clear after 5 minutes today that it was the worst tactic possible. I'm all for 'simple' clearences, but I counted at least 5 times today when they had the opportunity to control the ball under no pressure, but just booted it up field (almost always onto the head of a Hartlepool player). NW said after the game that we were good for 80 minutes - we were nowhere near good for the whole 90 minutes in my opinion. Vast improvemenets for Tuesday please.[/p][/quote]A poor game I agree but to apportion so much blame on Mcgurk and Lowe is frankly rubbish.Both were very solid throughout and quite honestly as others have said it is in central midfield where we need more creativity.If you are expecting a Worthington team to build from the back "a la Mills" you are not going to see it. Coulson again worked hard - particularly in the first half, before fading, but I have increasingly become concerned over Carson' s lack of progress. He is no longer the bubbly character prepared to take his man on one to one and as a result the quality has gone downhill.I am still , and never have been, convinced with Davies. We are however more solid (never pretty!) and I would not be at all surprised if we beat Chesterfield Tuesday.[/p][/quote]I'm not advocating a return to excessive passing across the back, every time we used to do that I think my life-span shortened from anxiety. Simple clearences are great. Even accurate long-balls are ok. But in a game where a ball kicked into the air will go literally anywhere depending on the wind, I just can't understand where two experienced centre-backs like Lowe and McGurk would hoof it as high as possible at every opportunity, even when under no pressure. They were 'solid' enough in keeping the Pools out, but they did nothing to help out our upfield play. YorkCityLuke

12:55pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Southern Exile says...

Time to get Reed into that midfield as he will create...
Time to get Reed into that midfield as he will create... Southern Exile

1:32pm Sun 26 Jan 14

bill bailey says...

23rdApril1966 wrote:
THETELLEROFTALES wrote:
It's no secret.

NW said from the very beginning he believes football should be played in the final third of the pitch.

So in any football language that translates as 'the long ball game.'

We all knew what we were going to get, I'm amazed supporters did'nt cotton on months ago.
For me it's not about long ball or short ball but the right ball. Let's face it even Wenger's team play long when it's needed. And long ball can be effective and exciting, I'd rather we got ball into the box than play sideways for 90 minutes. Also remember that under GM we did concede through over playing at the back without the personnel to do it, as will be the case at this level.
I just think that the negativity shows in the way that we appear to set up and I always think that he' take 0 0 away from home and doesn't seem to want to change regardless of the match situation....sometim

es when we are up against it then fine but on others like yesterday I would argue that there comes a time when the chance of 3 points over 1 is a gamble worth taking and NW just doesn't seem to have that mentality.
I would argue that there was little to choose between our performances at Accrington, Bury, Northampton and Hartlepool......one win, one draw and two defeats. Four points. I do think a more ambitious approach could have seen us win at least one more....two wins two defeats = 6 points. Simple really.
And I repeat that having Dickinson on the bench but using McCombe was odd but not as odd as being unable to find a place for MCDonald - given the fanfare of his arrival - amongst 7 subs at a team winless in 2014 and without a home win since Nov 24th.
Surely others agree?
But fear not the unbeaten jumper is drying nicely and will be there on Tuesday!
I agree 100%.I will also add unless you get in the last third of the pitch you cant break down a defence,I know I keep on about PURI but he hasn't been used enough in the past , its no good using him in bits and pieces he needs like others a decent run, ok he's injured but he has the talent to do many attacking moves for the team and can draw defenders out of position, I didn't see yesterdays match only listened on the radio , So I cant comment on the performance but the wind didn't help for either side .
[quote][p][bold]23rdApril1966[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]THETELLEROFTALES[/bold] wrote: It's no secret. NW said from the very beginning he believes football should be played in the final third of the pitch. So in any football language that translates as 'the long ball game.' We all knew what we were going to get, I'm amazed supporters did'nt cotton on months ago.[/p][/quote]For me it's not about long ball or short ball but the right ball. Let's face it even Wenger's team play long when it's needed. And long ball can be effective and exciting, I'd rather we got ball into the box than play sideways for 90 minutes. Also remember that under GM we did concede through over playing at the back without the personnel to do it, as will be the case at this level. I just think that the negativity shows in the way that we appear to set up and I always think that he' take 0 0 away from home and doesn't seem to want to change regardless of the match situation....sometim es when we are up against it then fine but on others like yesterday I would argue that there comes a time when the chance of 3 points over 1 is a gamble worth taking and NW just doesn't seem to have that mentality. I would argue that there was little to choose between our performances at Accrington, Bury, Northampton and Hartlepool......one win, one draw and two defeats. Four points. I do think a more ambitious approach could have seen us win at least one more....two wins two defeats = 6 points. Simple really. And I repeat that having Dickinson on the bench but using McCombe was odd but not as odd as being unable to find a place for MCDonald - given the fanfare of his arrival - amongst 7 subs at a team winless in 2014 and without a home win since Nov 24th. Surely others agree? But fear not the unbeaten jumper is drying nicely and will be there on Tuesday![/p][/quote]I agree 100%.I will also add unless you get in the last third of the pitch you cant break down a defence,I know I keep on about PURI but he hasn't been used enough in the past , its no good using him in bits and pieces he needs like others a decent run, ok he's injured but he has the talent to do many attacking moves for the team and can draw defenders out of position, I didn't see yesterdays match only listened on the radio , So I cant comment on the performance but the wind didn't help for either side . bill bailey

3:04pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Boyer for England says...

dadster wrote:
Whilst we would all love to see attractive expansive football the main priority for us is to get to 52 points as quickly as possible to virtually ensure safety. If it means we get there by playing a certain way which is not pleasing on the eye then so be it.

I have yet to see another team in L2 play particularly attractive football. The fact is that its a league with which you have to be able to mix it physically and with the pitches cutting up badly for most of the winter it is difficult to play great passing football.

We tried that last season under GM and IMO would have gone down if we had continued with that type of football.

The main priority is to consolidate ourselves as a league club and if that means a pragmatic approach which delivers the end result we need then so be it.
Very good post. The best football I have seen this season is Gateshead ( v. Oxford ) Are they top of their league and will they take Div 2 by storm next season ? No and almost certainly no. Deserve better crowds though !
[quote][p][bold]dadster[/bold] wrote: Whilst we would all love to see attractive expansive football the main priority for us is to get to 52 points as quickly as possible to virtually ensure safety. If it means we get there by playing a certain way which is not pleasing on the eye then so be it. I have yet to see another team in L2 play particularly attractive football. The fact is that its a league with which you have to be able to mix it physically and with the pitches cutting up badly for most of the winter it is difficult to play great passing football. We tried that last season under GM and IMO would have gone down if we had continued with that type of football. The main priority is to consolidate ourselves as a league club and if that means a pragmatic approach which delivers the end result we need then so be it.[/p][/quote]Very good post. The best football I have seen this season is Gateshead ( v. Oxford ) Are they top of their league and will they take Div 2 by storm next season ? No and almost certainly no. Deserve better crowds though ! Boyer for England

4:31pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Edsoni says...

Poor, very poor. You have to question the manager's hoof ball tactics in a bitter swirling wind. Especially given the evidence of the one passing move late in the first half which created an opportunity. Apart from that we were pretty clueless. The strikers were starved of any service due to the tactics employed. It was very easy to see why we had gone so long without a win before Christmas and worryingly the risk of a similar run in future. Hartlepool are an average team but were better in all aspects. For me, with an improved squad at his disposal, the boss should be getting better performances and the crowd more offensive action.
Poor, very poor. You have to question the manager's hoof ball tactics in a bitter swirling wind. Especially given the evidence of the one passing move late in the first half which created an opportunity. Apart from that we were pretty clueless. The strikers were starved of any service due to the tactics employed. It was very easy to see why we had gone so long without a win before Christmas and worryingly the risk of a similar run in future. Hartlepool are an average team but were better in all aspects. For me, with an improved squad at his disposal, the boss should be getting better performances and the crowd more offensive action. Edsoni

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree