York City match thread.

hairy j wrote:

The officials were really bad yesterday. Not an excuse but they were. I'm fairly unbiaised in that respect but they were feckin awful.

Of course they were Hairy. And of course you're an unbiased observer.  

watched the" highlights" it looked a penalty to me a stupid challenge by trottman, did he deserve to go? not sure but having giving the penalty the ref had little choice. its all excuses though, because according to the league table york are rubbish! there are no foundations being laid,banton looks a disasterous signing along with sicknote parsons, i dont blame sheridan for the shite clueless team,i blame the shite clueless owner for this sad collection of losers and no hopers disgracing the shirt.

Ginster men o-4 Minster men

Highlights.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Jack Sheppard wrote:

Highlights.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From the limited angle the cameras gave, I'd have no issue with the penalty. Poor defending for the second. Badly out of position by Cole for the third. Defender (Berry?) laid off too far for their third - he took it well but shouldn't have had the opportunity.

I left at 0-3 - it was pretty awful. York didn't look a bad side- two experienced CB's who had Reid fairly well contained and two lively forwards. They passed the ball around well and didn't look to have anyone who couldn't- we had Blanchard who twatted everything that came near him (I would put the second goal down to him after another abysmal clearance).

Despite being in Block 14 it looked a penalty- and I thought Trotman should go.

Sheridan's subs (Berry and Thomas for Boco and Banton) made us worse. Berry played RM/ RWB and was utter shit- I would have kept Boco or Banton on. We lost all momentum after that change.

I'm not really sure why there is uproar about the penalty. Trotman hacked the bloke from behind when he was just about to round the keeper.

My personal view is that a combination of the advancing Cole and covering Nelson means he wouldn't have scored, but Trotman never gave him the chance.

It was a silly challenge and hardly worth disputing the red as it was virtually last man, it was a foul, and it denied a goalscoring chance.

Hardly controversial in the grand scheme of things. Blanchard's red away at Rochdale was a far worse decision.

ejh wrote:

I'm not really sure why there is uproar about the penalty. Trotman hacked the bloke from behind when he was just about to round the keeper.

My personal view is that a combination of the advancing Cole and covering Nelson means he wouldn't have scored, but Trotman never gave him the chance.

It was a silly challenge and hardly worth disputing the red as it was virtually last man, it was a foul, and it denied a goalscoring chance.

Hardly controversial in the grand scheme of things. Blanchard's red away at Rochdale was a far worse decision.

I agree. I don't think he'd have scored either if Trotman hadn't gone in with an idiotic challenge. I like Trotman, but he was feckin stupid to make that tackle.

Personally the loss of McCormick who marshalls his defence superbly will be critical for the remainder of the Season......
Wont take too many disastrous performances like this one to drag us back down into the hind quarter    

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

We have 39 points with 16 games to go. Assuming 68 points will notch 7th place* we need 29 more points.

10W + any other 6
9W 2D 5L
8W 5D 3L
7W 8D 1L

Not impossible but very unlikely and getting unlikelier every week.

*It might not.

Since then we have taken 12 points from 6 games (WWWLWL)

We now have 56 points from 36 games. Still assuming that we will need 68 points* we now need a further 17 points to hit the play offs.

4W 5D 1L
5W 2D 3L
6W 1D 3L
7W and any 3 others
8W and any 2 others
9W and any 2 others
10W

Automatic promotion needed 78 points (Port Vale) last season meaning we need another 27* points.

9W and any other
10W








*We might not.