Sunday, 23 October 2016
I beg to differ.
It’s not often I leave a match at Sincil Bank and pretty much disagree with everything I’m hearing and reading about the game. It happened on Saturday though.
I thought the game was a fantastic advert for National League football. The Echo described it as poor. As far as I’m concerned it was a pulsating midfield battle, full of tension and endeavour. A chess game between a wily old head and the young pretender.
Thommo said on the radio afterwards he thought the referee had a good game. Not for me. Sure he knew the rules but failed totally to find any empathy towards the game which is, I’d just like to remind him a form of entertainment for the paying public. By paying public I mean home and away supporters. He showed similar distain for both.
I reserve particular criticism for the fourth official. He seemed to have pre determined to find issue with everything the home bench did. He spent most of the time practically in the home technical area. Not impressed.
The sponsors don’t escape either. How they failed to spot the buccaneering performance of Lee Beevers I struggle to understand. Not impressed with Lee? What about Matt Rhead? I don’t think I’ve ever seen such mastery of the ball headed from height. He looked disappointed to be replaced. Don’t be. You did as much in the time you were on as anybody could expect. A masterclass in forward play and distribution.
I will say I believe my view of the match seems to accord with my fellow fans as twitter seemed to confirm. These are not the sort of games where a win is essential, although it was good to come away with a point. Don’t forget a point for City means just a point for Eastleigh who I’ve got to say looked a very useful outfit indeed.
My worry is that Tuesdays equally potentially epic encounter may end in stalemate too. That would be unfortunate and a poor return for a lot of effort. If anyone was to win yesterdays encounter it should have been City but then again I would say that wouldn’t I?