The Grimsby Town FC


League Two Form Guide

3Cambridge Utd6313
6Notts County6210
9Accrington Stanley619
10Crawley Town619
21Leyton Orient6-44
24Newport County6-71

Full Form Table

Latest Results (all divisions)

Question of the Week

How long before new manager arrives?

By weekend
Two weeks
Three weeks
Four weeks


Rotherham Report Card

By: Dr Fishy
Date: 30/01/2002

DR FISHY has compiled match statistics and a report card for the Grimsby Town side that drew 1-1 with Rotherham on Tuesday night at Millmoor.

Home > 2001-2002 Season > Report Cards > Rotherham (a)

Coyne. Had plenty of touches but wasn't tested at all. Most of his touches came from 20 yard headers that were mainly down his throat, a couple of crosses caused problems but not much more. Would be unfair to mark him down because his ‘saves’ were easy

Grade: B-

Butterfield. Playing at wing-back doesn't suit Danny at all and again it showed, whilst defensively he is fine, the attacking option is almost non-existent. Made a few decent runs into the middle of nowhere.

Grade: C

Willems. Menno at wing-back, why not play me instead? I'm sure I'd have done a better job. To be fair he coped reasonably well until anyone ran at him with pace (or no pace even). He did try and he did break up a few dangerous attacks, ran forward 10 yards to find no-one else within acres of him.

Grade: C

Gally. Struggled a little in the air but other than that a solid enough game, to be honest I can't remember him doing all that much which has to be a good thing.

Grade: C+

Groves. Despite what everyone else seems to think, I thought Groves was ordinary, he made a few good headers but little else, his distribution was also poor, maybe his tactics are blinkering my view on him as a player!!

Grade: C-

Ford. Another strong game at the back, he no longer needs to be looked after as part of a 5 man defence. He’s strong enough to play part of a 4 man defence. Great goal line clearance and looked the most commanding in the air of the 3 centre backs.

Grade: B-

Burnett. Ughhhhh, will someone please tell me what Burnett’s role in the team is, I assume that he’s a ‘creative’ influence. Well he offered no creativity at Millmoor and was easily knocked off the ball etc. Playing as part of a 3 man midfield doesn't suit Wayne and I hope that a return to 4-4-2 will bring the form of 3 years ago out of Burnett.

Grade: C-

Coldicott. Did his job in that he sat deep and got the tackles in when needed. Sat a little (lot actually) bit too deep for my liking but he’s playing to tactics. Seemed to struggle at times to clear the ball and his forward play was poor/non-existent, delete as you please.

Grade: C

Campbell. Still doesn't look fit but getting there, slowly. Offered a few glimpses of what he can do but like the other two sat far too deep. Best when running at people yet he doesn't get many chances in his own 18 yard box.

Grade: C+

Taylor. Ahhhh a target man at last, someone who can actually hold the ball and get flick-on’s. Caused problems with his presence and never stopped running, disappointed that he was dragged back to defend as I felt him been up front cause more Rotherham players to stay back

Grade: B-

Boulding. Taylor and Boulding seem to have a good understanding and gelled instantly, Taylor knows, unlike the rest of the team, that Boulding's pace doesn't mean he can produce a goal from a big hoof. Boulding was at his best when chasing and beating a man. In the 2nd half he was our only outlet and he almost produced goal of the season just after their equaliser, beat 3 men, turned beat another and shot only to see Pollitt snatch the ball on the way to the top corner.

Grade: B-

Grade Guide

A*This is almost impossible to achieve as I will refuse to give anyone this grade - unless they score six goals and get opposing players sent off.
AThis is more possible to achieve, although the player must have had a brilliant game i.e. he can't have put a foot wrong all match.
A-The player must have performed superbly, setting up goals, scoring goals, making match-winning tackles etc.
B+The player played to a very high standard indeed having been influential throughout the 90 minutes.
BThis can be achieved if the player had a very good game overall but could be forgiven for making one or two minor mistakes.
B-The player put in a performance worthy of special mention for his efforts on the pitch or otherwise having a good game.
C+A mark for players who have had an average game but at the same time played well in patches and may have had an impact on the final score.
CAn average performance but not worthy of being dropped for the next game - a competent performance.
C-Start thinking about the player's attitude and commitment on the pitch. Showed little effort and was probably invisible for most of the match.
D+Poor game and realistically shouldn't feature in the next game.
DThis player shouldn't be playing in the near future.
D-The player deserves to be fined for his abysmal performance
EThe player should be sacked
F And then shot

Add To Facebook

This site is by the fans, for the fans, and we will consider articles on any subject relating to the Mariners whether it be related to current news, a nostalgic look back in the past, a story about a player, a game or games in the past, something about Blundell Park or football in general. Click here to submit your article!

Related Stories

Message Board Latest
TitlePostsLatest Post
Blades Fixture Switch16promotion plaice25/10 14:45
Shortlist of 6167WestLeedsMariner25/10 14:42
Town Legends23Mariner_0925/10 14:34
Lincoln city 43dapperz fun pub25/10 14:25
Theme for Saturday......15chipsandgravy25/10 14:17
Very reliably informed19The Old Codger25/10 13:56
Alan knoll being interviewed today?15forza ivano25/10 13:56
Next Manager Poll88Bigdog25/10 13:54
Watkiss18Mikey_34525/10 13:52
Word Association Game36,432topuphere66625/10 13:43

News  | Features  | Submit Article  |   | 
© 2016