Team v Chalfont

[HEAVY TRUCKER]

it has become a fact that of recent we have started to ship the odd goal generally leaving us to come from behind, i feel that this seemed to start when alex brown has been left out of the starting line up, with murphy going forward that has nessitated some one dropping back generally from mid field to cover for him which in my opinion is causing all sorts of problems in defence. i think that alex has to come back into the team ,possibly at the expense of ollie burgess (good player if a bit light) and controversially i don't think stevie sinclair has been on his best game for a while now, why not swap him for jerome anderson who i think will be a great danger down the wing with his pace. it is fine to score goals but not so good to have them scored aganst you, also i think we have to be a little more pro active during the game we are paying to much respect to the opposition we should be in their faces, on them as soon as they get the ball, today we were at times leisurely strolling around the pitch giving the ball away to chalfont then giving the player time to advance towards our goal and pick his shot or pass not good enough i'm afraid, the lower clubs allways seem to want the win more than we do.

Edited April 1, 2012 by HEAVY TRUCKER

[Bifaxman]

Yes, we struggle because teams like Chalfont are happy to be defensive, waste time, nick a goal then play with ten behind the ball. They only had two meaningful shots on goal all game. Anderson playing in a wide/free role made a big difference - if we are really going to be "gung-ho" as has been suggested we should use Jerome like that from the start.

[Bifaxman]

Yes, we struggle because teams like Chalfont are happy to be defensive, waste time, nick a goal then play with ten behind the ball. They only had two meaningful shots on goal all game. Anderson playing in a wide/free role made a big difference - if we are really going to be "gung-ho" as has been suggested we should use Jerome like that from the start.

 

Sounds familiar! Happy to be defensive, nick a goal then play with 10 behind the goal! Pot kettle black! It works well sometimes?

[Bifaxman]

Dont know what your game was like, but the game today, at St Neots, was a shocker! JUst a horrIble, horrible game! Uxbridge ended with 9 men, both sendings off in last 5 mIns! No Ambition, no idea, even their twitter guy couldn't get it right! Can't remember one clean, on target, shot in goal from them!

[3spirit]

Yes, we struggle because teams like Chalfont are happy to be defensive, waste time, nick a goal then play with ten behind the ball. They only had two meaningful shots on goal all game. Anderson playing in a wide/free role made a big difference - if we are really going to be "gung-ho" as has been suggested we should use Jerome like that from the start.

it has become a fact that of recent we have started to ship the odd goal generally leaving us to come from behind, i feel that this seemed to start when alex brown has been left out of the starting line up, with murphy going forward that has nessitated some one dropping back generally from mid field to cover for him which in my opinion is causing all sorts of problems in defence. i think that alex has to come back into the team ,possibly at the expense of ollie burgess (good player if a bit light) and controversially i don't think stevie sinclair has been on his best game for a while now, why not swap him for jerome anderson who i think will be a great danger down the wing with his pace. it is fine to score goals but not so good to have them scored aganst you, also i think we have to be a little more pro active during the game we are paying to much respect to the opposition we should be in their faces, on them as soon as they get the ball, today we were at times leisurely strolling around the pitch giving the ball away to chalfont then giving the player time to advance towards our goal and pick his shot or pass not good enough i'm afraid, the lower clubs allways seem to want the win more than we do.

 

Ian,I think you're being harsh on a well-organised, capable team as Chalfont were yesterday.First half they were better in most departments than us.

In the 2nd half we raised the tempo and put them under pressure and were the better team.Dave Woozley was inspirational and stirred the players into action right from the off in the 2nd half.We needed that,as our beloved team were lethargic 1st half !

I thought all our defence were very good yesterday,which tells a story.

We could have won that match but I thought Steve Bateman cocked up the substitions.Danny Murphy started to get a lot of room down the left and was beginning to have some success with his crosses and what do we do,Steve B takes him off !!

 

I agree with Heavy Trucker,Steve Sinclair hasn't been at his best of late but Chalfont know him well and had him well marked.Jerome Anderson should have IMO come on for Steve Sinclair

Also why wasn't Ben Abbey given a run out.He's been ace at getting us late goals and yet he wasn't used.

Danny Burnell could have easily made way,as he was ineffective, getting towards the end of the game.As we need to win every game,we could have brought on Alex Brown,too and used either him or NBH pushing them forward for their height advantage in the box.Chalfont would have been rattled,the same way as Biggleswade were when Lloyd Owusu came on late.

St Neots go and draw and we throw away 3points,I put this one down to a poor performance by Steve Bateman !

Edited April 1, 2012 by 3spirit

[Chalfontfan]

Yes, we struggle because teams like Chalfont are happy to be defensive, waste time, nick a goal then play with ten behind the ball. They only had two meaningful shots on goal all game. Anderson playing in a wide/free role made a big difference - if we are really going to be "gung-ho" as has been suggested we should use Jerome like that from the start.

 

Believe me, I have heard some garbage written on forums before but that takes the biscuit. Were you even at the game? We were a long way from defensive especially in the first half (even with several players still missing through injury) and fullly merited the interval lead as well as the final score. Your report makes that perfectly clear. Your board also agreed that a draw was a fair result so I don't know what planet you live on. They also mentioned that our substitutions resulted in us looking every bit as likely to score towards the end as you did.

 

In case you weren't aware, we play better away from home, usually because the ptiches are in better shape than ours (which admittedly isn't the greatest) which is fully shown in our results. We might have even done better yesterday were it not for the dust bowl that is Holloways Park.

 

We only had "two meaningful shots on goal all game". Well guess what, I counted the same number for you. Our keeper was frequently punching crosses clear, but he didnt exactly have many saves to make, did he? In terms of overall clear cut chances if anything we had the better ones! As for the stoppage time supposedly due to timewasting, there was a grand total of zero in the first half and 2-3 mins in the second half, perfectly normal for any game.

 

Take the blinkers off mate, and don't just assume that so called smaller sides are there to make up the numbers, because that only makes it more pleasing when they get a result against you.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Chalfontfan

[Ian]

Were they really better than us in the first half? I'm not sure. I'd liked to have seen Jerome earlier too although disagree about taking off Danny Burnell - his workrate yesterday was exceptional.

 

I do think we've become a bit one dimensional again like we were a couple of seasons ago - for the last few home games the vast majority of our focus has been down the right and teams know that Sincs is dangerous. Consequently he's marked by two or three men and becomes ineffective. Several times yesterday Danny Murphy was in acres of space on the left but nobody looked up and pinged a ball across. We need to address this. Jerome playing behind Burnell and Sonner for me in a free role (or Jerome on the right and Sincs in the free role instead).

[Ian]

Yes, we struggle because teams like Chalfont are happy to be defensive, waste time, nick a goal then play with ten behind the ball. They only had two meaningful shots on goal all game. Anderson playing in a wide/free role made a big difference - if we are really going to be "gung-ho" as has been suggested we should use Jerome like that from the start.

 

Believe me, I have heard some garbage written on forums before but that takes the biscuit. Were you even at the game? We were a long way from defensive especially in the first half (even with several players still missing through injury) and fullly merited the interval lead as well as the final score. Your report makes that perfectly clear. Your board also agreed that a draw was a fair result so I don't know what planet you live on. They also mentioned that our substitutions resulted in us looking every bit as likely to score towards the end as you did.

 

In case you weren't aware, we play better away from home, usually because the ptiches are in better shape than ours (which admittedly isn't the greatest) which is fully shown in our results. We might have even done better yesterday were it not for the dust bowl that is Holloways Park.

 

We only had "two meaningful shots on goal all game". Well guess what, I counted the same number for you. Our keeper was frequently punching crosses clear, but he didnt exactly have many saves to make, did he? In terms of overall clear cut chances if anything we had the better ones! As for the stoppage time supposedly due to timewasting, there was a grand total of zero in the first half and 2-3 mins in the second half, perfectly normal for any game.

 

Take the blinkers off mate, and don't just assume that so called smaller sides are there to make up the numbers, because that only makes it more pleasing when they get a result against you.

 

I don't think you'll find anywhere where I said we were great. We certainly weren't.

 

As for the time wasting you obviously didn't notice the correlation between CSP going 1-0 up and the amount of times players stayed down requiring treatment thereafter. Perhaps easier to notice was one of the CSP players hoofing the ball away and getting a yellow card for time wasting as early as midway through the first half.

[Cookham Rebel]

Were they really better than us in the first half? I'm not sure. I'd liked to have seen Jerome earlier too although disagree about taking off Danny Burnell - his workrate yesterday was exceptional.

 

I do think we've become a bit one dimensional again like we were a couple of seasons ago - for the last few home games the vast majority of our focus has been down the right and teams know that Sincs is dangerous. Consequently he's marked by two or three men and becomes ineffective. Several times yesterday Danny Murphy was in acres of space on the left but nobody looked up and pinged a ball across. We need to address this. Jerome playing behind Burnell and Sonner for me in a free role (or Jerome on the right and Sincs in the free role instead).

 

I agree Ian, against Bedfont I'd like to see Sinclair down the right and Anderson down the left, Sinclair is our main danger and if I'm honest his best form for us was at the time when Tyrone Seeley was down the left as teams were petrified of our wingers! Also, I would like to see Ben Abbey start!

[Chalfontfan]

Yes, we struggle because teams like Chalfont are happy to be defensive, waste time, nick a goal then play with ten behind the ball. They only had two meaningful shots on goal all game. Anderson playing in a wide/free role made a big difference - if we are really going to be "gung-ho" as has been suggested we should use Jerome like that from the start.

 

Believe me, I have heard some garbage written on forums before but that takes the biscuit. Were you even at the game? We were a long way from defensive especially in the first half (even with several players still missing through injury) and fullly merited the interval lead as well as the final score. Your report makes that perfectly clear. Your board also agreed that a draw was a fair result so I don't know what planet you live on. They also mentioned that our substitutions resulted in us looking every bit as likely to score towards the end as you did.

 

In case you weren't aware, we play better away from home, usually because the ptiches are in better shape than ours (which admittedly isn't the greatest) which is fully shown in our results. We might have even done better yesterday were it not for the dust bowl that is Holloways Park.

 

We only had "two meaningful shots on goal all game". Well guess what, I counted the same number for you. Our keeper was frequently punching crosses clear, but he didnt exactly have many saves to make, did he? In terms of overall clear cut chances if anything we had the better ones! As for the stoppage time supposedly due to timewasting, there was a grand total of zero in the first half and 2-3 mins in the second half, perfectly normal for any game.

 

Take the blinkers off mate, and don't just assume that so called smaller sides are there to make up the numbers, because that only makes it more pleasing when they get a result against you.

 

I don't think you'll find anywhere where I said we were great. We certainly weren't.

 

As for the time wasting you obviously didn't notice the correlation between CSP going 1-0 up and the amount of times players stayed down requiring treatment thereafter. Perhaps easier to notice was one of the CSP players hoofing the ball away and getting a yellow card for time wasting as early as midway through the first half.

 

I don't think you'll find anywhere where I claimed that you said that you were great. I think you must have imagined that in the same way that you seem to have imagined most of what happened yesterday.

 

Regarding the so called time wasting, we did get one booking for kicking the ball away in the first half, when we disagreed with a decision. Your side did exactly the same shortly after and the ref did nothing. You committed just as many fouls as we did in the first period, yet it took us 35 minutes to get a free kick for one! The usual homer ref that the so called bigger teams get by any chance?!?

 

I counted maybe 2-3 times our players went down for treatment in total, and funnily enough the same number for you. Odd eh?

 

Like I said, take the blinkers off.

[Ian]

Blinkers work both ways.........the "homer ref" that played on for 60 seconds giving you an opportunity to score when David Woozley was down with a head injury yet blew immediately a couple of minutes later when a CSP player went down after a bump of heads with Sean Sonner.

 

Anyway, I'm not interested in getting embroiled in an argument.

[Chalfontfan]

Looks as if your time keeping is about as good as your eyesight. It was nothing like 60 seconds (probably no more than 20), as it consisted of one attack, and our players are pretty well known for being quick on the break. And the official being slow to stop play for one instance hardly indicates bias, failing to give a free kick for a foul to the opposition for fully 35 minutes most certainly does.

 

I'll make that my final post as I have no wish to continue an argument either.

 

But if someone puts down rubbish about my village club which I have supported for well over a quarter of a century I'm certainly going to respond.

 

Enjoy the play offs, and hopefully you will get a chance to moan about our supposed negativity next season also.

[Sir Rebel1965]

Thank you for your input Chalfonfan, dont you think its time to get back to your own busy forum as benny is still waiting for a reply to his most recent post of 16-07-11.

[Windsor Rebel]

Fair result yesterday I thought, Chalfont were lively going forward, especially in the first half. Would like to see Jerome

given more game time, he made a big difference when he came on as sub I thought. Roll on Bedfont.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Windsor Rebel

[Martin]

My biggest concern is that we do not seem to be playing with a rigid shape and it seems to me too flexible. At times on Saturday we were playing with Sweeney, NBH and Wooz as a three with Murph and Sincs as wing backs and then at times Sincs was an out and out winger with Sweeney at full back but Murphy seemingly covering the whole left flank.

 

I personally think we may be better served playing a conventional 4-4-2 and asking Swifty to play a disciplined role at full back with Murph in front of him or leaving Murphy at full back and trying Jerome wide left to threaten teams with his pace.