WORTHING GAME

[Radders]

I thought it was an excellent game of football and thought we played really well even in the 2nd half. When it was 2-2 we got back in the ascendensy and then they broke away and got a 3rd which killed us off. If Josh's lob had gone in it could have all been very different. Wilko was my MOTM closely followed by Mason and Miller, and yes, Alexis did play very well when he came on. Agree with the Ballard situation, now that Mets is injured for a while I wouldn't mind seeing Ballard pushed into midfield with Lovegrove at the back. At least he is a bit more natural on the left side of the defence. All in all not a positive result, but a positive display and something to build on. Bring on Staines on Tuesday night!

[Guest]

Oh bloody hell not Staines, looks like I shall need another drink.

 

Do you think we could have more vocal input from our male friends at the next game Emma and I nearly lost our voices last night.

 

God help any one who says good !!!!!!!

 

 

Sue

[Martin]

Good. Just kidding. You did a sterling job with very little support.

 

At half time we all thought it was vital to keep it tight for the first fifteen minutes of the second half. We did not even manage 180 seconds. The defence is a huge problem - one clean sheet so far this season is not good enough. We have always been dodgy at the back but in our last four away games in the league we have scored eight goals and picked up just one point. That is not a good enough return and is frustrating for everyone. I don't think a three of Daly, Avery and Ballard is working. We need to be looking for someone else but am not sure we have the budget. I think we could be in for a very "entertaining" season.

[Ian]

Martin's right although I would point the finger at our defending, not only defenders, if you know what I mean. However we do it though we certainly need to concede less as we're not going to outscore teams when we let in 2 or 3 every game.

 

I haven't thought which personnel would play where but what about Wilko as sweeper behind a back four? I think he'd make quite a good sweeper - he reads the game well, can tackle and passes well. Just a random thought!

[Martin]

True you should defend from one to eleven. My feeling is that if we hold a high line we get beaten for pace over the top and if we sit deep we are inviting the opposition to attack wave after wave. One of our big problems is the lack of pace among the centre backs - Wilko could do a sweeper role but would need to be supported by someone quick.

[BFR]

With Metcalfe on the sidelines with injury, Wilko going to sweeper would leave us short of bite in midfield, unless Ballard was pushed forward

[GarySTFC]

Ballard forward, Lovegrove into defence between two ball winning defenders (Avery and Daly) so he can sweep round and pick up the pieces.

[Matt]

Yep, Ballard in Metcalfe's place and Lovegrove in at the back. Would work well I think. Ballard came to us as a midfield player anyway, so he should do well.

[A Rebel and a Saint]

whens brooks due back anyway? maybe eddie could try playing him in an attacking midfield

[Matt]

We shouldn't need Brooks in attacking midfield with Harris, Mason and Alexis fit... Brooks is an out and out striker and having him in the squad presents good competition to the promising Hodges/Miller partnership. Plus, we don't know how badly Hodges has hurt his back - shouldn't be too serious though.