Iain O'Connell

[DEREK]

The team had no structure or cohesion nobody took on the opposition the midfield is a disgrace including the two we have had for a couple of seasons, and one of those just runs in circles getting nowhere fast and the other (like the rest of the team) seems unable to pass. Keep IOC but is it a requirement to have an assistant who seems to be very good at shouting and swearing and from what I can see ( prove me wrong) nothing else. Back to the technical drawing board again I think. Most of the players are ok but they must play in position and above all make an effort.

 

 

[Coffin Ender]

The thing is, in terms of quality there wasn't actually a great deal of difference between our performance on Saturday and how we played against Maidstone. The main difference was Croydon played significantly better than Maidstone. Also we look more comfortable playing teams on the counter attack. Although our away record is not good, most of our best displays (Kingstonian in the league, Folkestone, Sutton) have been away.

 

 

 

[I am Spartacus]

Right my tupence worth.

 

What we are missing is a fast winger (prefably on the left). this would then eridicate the desire of the Centre Forward to go hunting the ball on the wings (all be it on the right wing) and to stay in the middle third of the field.

 

We can then resort to a 4-3-3 formation and if nessecary a 4-4-2.

 

There now you know why I am not the manager of MFC (but could do a better job at Ramsgutter than the present incumbent)

[DEREK]

Right my tupence worth.

 

What we are missing is a fast winger (prefably on the left). this would then eridicate the desire of the Centre Forward to go hunting the ball on the wings (all be it on the right wing) and to stay in the middle third of the field.

 

We can then resort to a 4-3-3 formation and if nessecary a 4-4-2.

 

There now you know why I am not the manager of MFC (but could do a better job at Ramsgutter than the present incumbent)

We played a lot better when Stubbs was wide left against Sutton, his problem is he now tends to go all over, leaving no cover for the fullback, This also confuses the other mid-fielders (not hard) and when the defenders clear who do they clear to. So stick to what you do best Dan and stay left. Dean Grant did the same job in that game and played well intandem with Lacy.

 

Then thats upto the manager no -one else

[Cookie]

Right my tupence worth.

 

What we are missing is a fast winger (prefably on the left). this would then eridicate the desire of the Centre Forward to go hunting the ball on the wings (all be it on the right wing) and to stay in the middle third of the field.

For once I entirely agree with you,you lucky half-time pools winner.Was just saying a similar thing on Saturday.Someone who "dares" to take on the defence,someone who is not afraid to run at defenders,someone who has at least a little bit of skill. Croydon showed us what results pace & running defenders can produce.(Mind you not all defenders allow them to get past like our players do).

Here we are alll too predictable & when someone does get the ball down the wing 9 times out of 10 they sprint forward a few yards then stop & check back instead of "having a go" . (Quaine was a perfect example of a player having done this on many many occasions.Those were his strengths which he failed to use to the full).

Someone like Byron Walker (at Herne Bay at present).Okay he may have done the rounds but has been at a decent club in years gone by in Dover,& holds no fears.He should come quite cheap I would imagine should he wish to move back up the pyramid. If not him then certainly someone like him. We need to "terrify" defenders more.

Edited January 10, 2011 by Cookie

[Pridders]

Hi all - This is my first post after finding the forum and thought I'd share views whilst trying to remain objective!

 

Did not understand substitution. Take off Stubbsy who was getting stuck in and bring on the lightweight Grant, go 3 up front? leave us vulnerable in midfield . End result nil pointsll. Its another relegation battle ahead i fear.

 

Quite right re: the substitution - I've got a UEFA 'A' Licence coaching qualification (Since 1993) and haven't been actively involved (through choice) in the game for a couple of years since I moved to the area, I managed at Step 7 and coached and managed representaive sides also so I have got a fair bit of licence to talk.

 

A substitution won the game for Croydon - unfortunately it was the Margate substitution. For quite a while I've suspected that O'Connell is somewhat, shall we say tactically naive amongst other things, and the post I've quoted above says it all. Dan Stubbs was the liveliest Margate midfielder player on display Saturday afternoon (albiet this was in a midfield that hadn't got a grip of the game, Wilson was was all effort but having a poor game, and was Rogers actually on the park - Saunders turned ou to be a big miss), nether-the-less he was having a better game than the rest bar non. It didn't matter who he brought on as the move unstabalised the balance of the side (who were marginally the better side during that period, and I do say marginally).

 

However if you want to get on the subject of Dean Grant I think 'lightweight' is certainly a pleasant way to describe a bloke who will never be a footballer as long as there is a hole in his backside. He has no first touch (or second come to that), can't stand up to a challenge and runs around like a headless chicken off the ball, and is lost 90% of the time when he eventually gets the ball under control, simply because it's patently obvious he has not got a single footballing brain cell in his head (a classic example of 'here's a kid with a bit of pace, let's see if he can play' - he can't). One decent volley at the start of the season does not make a footballer. Anyway don't get me started on Grant, I've gone off topic!

 

The idea with the substitution seemed to be to go three up top, but no-one apparently told the players as the same balls were being pumped into the same channel areas as before. I imagine what should have happened is Shaun Welford should have been working literally the width of the 18 yard box with Pinnock & Grant supposedly to operate off him and down the Channels. The change of tactics should have seen the ball being played into Welford, where it is bread & butter for a player of his strength and ability to hild up to link with the other two. If that wasn't the change of game plan it should have been with the way the substitution went. Even before that Welford was left to chase channels, he shouldn't be doing that - that's not his game, and you could see his frustration early on and I have to say his head dropped well before Croydon scored.

 

If I were managing against Margate there are easy areas to target (and that's where the first goal came from) - The right side is suspect and Lacey has been worked out a long time ago. He was caught flat footed and basic knowledge said show the Croydon lad outside, he's only got a right foot. And if not it Should have been coming from the dugout/bench or even the covering defender - It's basic communication defending - Lacey, show him outside, don't let him come inside - I and several others I suspect called it seconds before it happened, he was allowed to ghost inside, No challenge, I didn't see which second defender he went past but that player should have been the one immediately closing the Croydon player down as he went past Lacey, again not closed or challenged and the Croyden lad wasn't going to be asked twice to shoot from 20 yards or so in acres (unlike Lacey in the first half who was teed up perfectly by Welford only to inexplicably turn back inside rather than stride onto the ball get his knee over it and have a dig from 15 yards)! Don't get me wrong, Lacey seems like a good honest lad and I think the substitution of him before half time when he had that nightmare (against Folkestone at home??) was extremely poor man-management of the lad. The change had to be made but it could have been left to half time - credit to the lad for plonking himself on the bench and not having a hissy fit - anyway I digress.

 

If things don't pick up then it will be another relegation battle I'm afraid, but back to the OP - It doesn't look as there is a Plan B or Plan C - The players don't seem to know how they're supposed to be playing half the time, so if you haven't got a plan A, then questions have to be asked of the Manager, because despite only having certain players at your disposal you still have to work with them and even teams with overall poor technical ability can still compete with the right player management (i.e. working to the strengths of what you've got), and that doesn't seem to be happening at the moment.

[BlueGate Alan]

Some first post Pridders and welcome to the forum.

 

I must say I was at a loss as to why Dan was subbed with Dean, Dan looked as if he wanted to perform to best of his ability at least, IMO.

Edited January 10, 2011 by BlueGate Alan

[Pridders]

Some first post Pridders and welcome to the forum.

 

I must say I was at a loss as to why Dan was subbed with Dean, Dan looked as if he wanted to perform to best of his ability at least, IMO.

 

Cheers Alan, you won't get any argument from me re: Dan Stubbs - spot on IMO as well.

[Guernsey Tom]

Isnt it strange how we seem to see different games, I thought DS was taken off because he was giving the ball away regularly and his partnership with WW plainly does not work. We should have been relegated for the last two years with this combination why do we think it will work now ??

 

As stated elsewhere when dan played wide left his industry and pace were effective and i believe that is his best position either as a wide midfielder or a wing back.

 

Sorry to disagree with the above but there needs to be a result from a lot of running and i just dont see it at the moment.

[Pridders]

Sorry to disagree with the above but there needs to be a result from a lot of running and i just dont see it at the moment.

 

With respect Tom, Dan Stubbs was the only one appearing to be 'running' on Saturday - and results don't some from running, believe me - Margate lacked numerous things, but the thing that did stand out head and shoulders above the rest was any creativity going forward - There were odd occasions where Curtis had made the movement and didn't receive the pass, in the end I think he just gave up.

[BUFC]

time for him to go

 

 

 

you are probably right................only scoring once against Wealdstone FFS

 

[BlueGate Alan]

Well I think Dan proved his doubters wrong once again last night, so enough said!!!

[BlueGate Alan]

As did Iain I should also say!

[Coffin Ender]

No doubt about anyone's commitment last night. It was a man's game as they say.

[BlueGate Alan]

As it should be Neil, to many whistles on Saturday for my liking.

[I am Spartacus]

Hi all - This is my first post after finding the forum and thought I'd share views whilst trying to remain objective!

 

Did not understand substitution. Take off Stubbsy who was getting stuck in and bring on the lightweight Grant, go 3 up front? leave us vulnerable in midfield . End result nil pointsll. Its another relegation battle ahead i fear.

 

Quite right re: the substitution - I've got a UEFA 'A' Licence coaching qualification (Since 1993) and haven't been actively involved (through choice) in the game for a couple of years since I moved to the area, I managed at Step 7 and coached and managed representaive sides also so I have got a fair bit of licence to talk.

 

A substitution won the game for Croydon - unfortunately it was the Margate substitution. For quite a while I've suspected that O'Connell is somewhat, shall we say tactically naive amongst other things, and the post I've quoted above says it all. Dan Stubbs was the liveliest Margate midfielder player on display Saturday afternoon (albiet this was in a midfield that hadn't got a grip of the game, Wilson was was all effort but having a poor game, and was Rogers actually on the park - Saunders turned ou to be a big miss), nether-the-less he was having a better game than the rest bar non. It didn't matter who he brought on as the move unstabalised the balance of the side (who were marginally the better side during that period, and I do say marginally).

 

However if you want to get on the subject of Dean Grant I think 'lightweight' is certainly a pleasant way to describe a bloke who will never be a footballer as long as there is a hole in his backside. He has no first touch (or second come to that), can't stand up to a challenge and runs around like a headless chicken off the ball, and is lost 90% of the time when he eventually gets the ball under control, simply because it's patently obvious he has not got a single footballing brain cell in his head (a classic example of 'here's a kid with a bit of pace, let's see if he can play' - he can't). One decent volley at the start of the season does not make a footballer. Anyway don't get me started on Grant, I've gone off topic!

 

The idea with the substitution seemed to be to go three up top, but no-one apparently told the players as the same balls were being pumped into the same channel areas as before. I imagine what should have happened is Shaun Welford should have been working literally the width of the 18 yard box with Pinnock & Grant supposedly to operate off him and down the Channels. The change of tactics should have seen the ball being played into Welford, where it is bread & butter for a player of his strength and ability to hild up to link with the other two. If that wasn't the change of game plan it should have been with the way the substitution went. Even before that Welford was left to chase channels, he shouldn't be doing that - that's not his game, and you could see his frustration early on and I have to say his head dropped well before Croydon scored.

 

If I were managing against Margate there are easy areas to target (and that's where the first goal came from) - The right side is suspect and Lacey has been worked out a long time ago. He was caught flat footed and basic knowledge said show the Croydon lad outside, he's only got a right foot. And if not it Should have been coming from the dugout/bench or even the covering defender - It's basic communication defending - Lacey, show him outside, don't let him come inside - I and several others I suspect called it seconds before it happened, he was allowed to ghost inside, No challenge, I didn't see which second defender he went past but that player should have been the one immediately closing the Croydon player down as he went past Lacey, again not closed or challenged and the Croyden lad wasn't going to be asked twice to shoot from 20 yards or so in acres (unlike Lacey in the first half who was teed up perfectly by Welford only to inexplicably turn back inside rather than stride onto the ball get his knee over it and have a dig from 15 yards)! Don't get me wrong, Lacey seems like a good honest lad and I think the substitution of him before half time when he had that nightmare (against Folkestone at home??) was extremely poor man-management of the lad. The change had to be made but it could have been left to half time - credit to the lad for plonking himself on the bench and not having a hissy fit - anyway I digress.

 

If things don't pick up then it will be another relegation battle I'm afraid, but back to the OP - It doesn't look as there is a Plan B or Plan C - The players don't seem to know how they're supposed to be playing half the time, so if you haven't got a plan A, then questions have to be asked of the Manager, because despite only having certain players at your disposal you still have to work with them and even teams with overall poor technical ability can still compete with the right player management (i.e. working to the strengths of what you've got), and that doesn't seem to be happening at the moment.

 

 

 

 

And I thought Cookie was the only one who suffered from verbal diarrhoea.

 

Sorry Cookie you must have stopped taking the laxatives.

[BJM]

Hi all - This is my first post after finding the forum and thought I'd share views whilst trying to remain objective!

 

Did not understand substitution. Take off Stubbsy who was getting stuck in and bring on the lightweight Grant, go 3 up front? leave us vulnerable in midfield . End result nil pointsll. Its another relegation battle ahead i fear.

 

Quite right re: the substitution - I've got a UEFA 'A' Licence coaching qualification (Since 1993) and haven't been actively involved (through choice) in the game for a couple of years since I moved to the area, I managed at Step 7 and coached and managed representaive sides also so I have got a fair bit of licence to talk.

 

A substitution won the game for Croydon - unfortunately it was the Margate substitution. For quite a while I've suspected that O'Connell is somewhat, shall we say tactically naive amongst other things, and the post I've quoted above says it all. Dan Stubbs was the liveliest Margate midfielder player on display Saturday afternoon (albiet this was in a midfield that hadn't got a grip of the game, Wilson was was all effort but having a poor game, and was Rogers actually on the park - Saunders turned ou to be a big miss), nether-the-less he was having a better game than the rest bar non. It didn't matter who he brought on as the move unstabalised the balance of the side (who were marginally the better side during that period, and I do say marginally).

 

However if you want to get on the subject of Dean Grant I think 'lightweight' is certainly a pleasant way to describe a bloke who will never be a footballer as long as there is a hole in his backside. He has no first touch (or second come to that), can't stand up to a challenge and runs around like a headless chicken off the ball, and is lost 90% of the time when he eventually gets the ball under control, simply because it's patently obvious he has not got a single footballing brain cell in his head (a classic example of 'here's a kid with a bit of pace, let's see if he can play' - he can't). One decent volley at the start of the season does not make a footballer. Anyway don't get me started on Grant, I've gone off topic!

 

The idea with the substitution seemed to be to go three up top, but no-one apparently told the players as the same balls were being pumped into the same channel areas as before. I imagine what should have happened is Shaun Welford should have been working literally the width of the 18 yard box with Pinnock & Grant supposedly to operate off him and down the Channels. The change of tactics should have seen the ball being played into Welford, where it is bread & butter for a player of his strength and ability to hild up to link with the other two. If that wasn't the change of game plan it should have been with the way the substitution went. Even before that Welford was left to chase channels, he shouldn't be doing that - that's not his game, and you could see his frustration early on and I have to say his head dropped well before Croydon scored.

 

If I were managing against Margate there are easy areas to target (and that's where the first goal came from) - The right side is suspect and Lacey has been worked out a long time ago. He was caught flat footed and basic knowledge said show the Croydon lad outside, he's only got a right foot. And if not it Should have been coming from the dugout/bench or even the covering defender - It's basic communication defending - Lacey, show him outside, don't let him come inside - I and several others I suspect called it seconds before it happened, he was allowed to ghost inside, No challenge, I didn't see which second defender he went past but that player should have been the one immediately closing the Croydon player down as he went past Lacey, again not closed or challenged and the Croyden lad wasn't going to be asked twice to shoot from 20 yards or so in acres (unlike Lacey in the first half who was teed up perfectly by Welford only to inexplicably turn back inside rather than stride onto the ball get his knee over it and have a dig from 15 yards)! Don't get me wrong, Lacey seems like a good honest lad and I think the substitution of him before half time when he had that nightmare (against Folkestone at home??) was extremely poor man-management of the lad. The change had to be made but it could have been left to half time - credit to the lad for plonking himself on the bench and not having a hissy fit - anyway I digress.

 

If things don't pick up then it will be another relegation battle I'm afraid, but back to the OP - It doesn't look as there is a Plan B or Plan C - The players don't seem to know how they're supposed to be playing half the time, so if you haven't got a plan A, then questions have to be asked of the Manager, because despite only having certain players at your disposal you still have to work with them and even teams with overall poor technical ability can still compete with the right player management (i.e. working to the strengths of what you've got), and that doesn't seem to be happening at the moment.

 

 

 

 

And I thought Cookie was the only one who suffered from verbal diarrhoea.

 

Sorry Cookie you must have stopped taking the laxatives.

[BJM]

Pridders,reminds me of one of the so called pundits on MOTD - not been active in footbal for some time but plenty to say with hindsight and in the comfort of the studio. It's a different matter when you are standing in the dugout- ask Alan Shearer after his experience at Newcastle.

[Cookie]

And I thought Cookie was the only one who suffered from verbal diarrhoea.

 

Sorry Cookie you must have stopped taking the laxatives.

That ones a gem Jim coming from you. You & me alike it is then.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Cookie

[Guernsey Tom]

Perhaps I missed something my suggestion was that DS was better out wide on as a wing back !!! isnt that where he played last night? and the result was ??? we all know the forum establishments views on DS, that of he can do no wrong, sorry, play him in his most effective position as last night and look what happens !!!!!