No match posts

[Bill Kent]

Quiet today.

I listened to a poor match commentary. It would appear that all the commentary team had to talk about was a bus passing the ground.An eight foot wall at one end and, two boys running off with the match ball when it cleared the wall. Suddenly came to life with "Curtis has just missed the right hand post" Didn't even know that Morecombe were building an attack. Have the lads lost interest?

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[jc]

Well, to sate your curiosity, Bill...

 

As has happened many times this season, we played our best football at the start of the game, but were unable to sustain it. The closest we came in this spell was a Slatter volley from outside the box which hit Sodje almost on the goal-line, but despite a few decent attacking moves we didn't create too many clear-cut chances. Also, despite some late pressure at the end of the game, the only decent effort on target was a MacDonald shot on the turn that Drench held down low. It was particularly frustrating that we didn't make the most of what we had in that second period, as shown by a botched free-kick routine and some disappointing corners.

 

Compare all this with the two or three fine one-on-one saves Lance made in the second half, a few other close efforts throughout the game from Morecambe that went just wide, and their general dominance in the second half after a fairly even first period which we perhaps shaded, and it has to be said that Morecambe just about deserved the win.

 

Although it was Ross who scored the own-goal, the central cause of this was Lance's initial fumble, which caused confusion in the defence as he went for the ball for a second time.

 

With Opinel but no Keeling (until the 75th minute) on the left-hand side, and no orthodox attacking wingers on the right (despite a few decent runs in that area by Long, who was one of our better performers) we badly lacked natural width going forward, and so resorted too often to those lofted passes down the middle again which man-mountain Bentley, like Manuella last week, was going to deal with all day. Indeed, we only really threatened in the second half once Keeling was introduced. Hopefully Anderson, once fully fit and if good enough, will come into the first team frame to help alleviate this problem.

 

Also interesting to note that Moore, in the first team only last week, didn't even make an appearance from the bench with us chasing the game.

 

After our first back-to-back defeats of the season, it's vital that we don't slip into the post-FA Cup exit slump we suffered in the last two years. That said, we are probably over-achieving in sixth place at the moment, and a slip of a few places down to mid-table by the end of the season would still be a perfectly acceptable final position and an improvement on last year.

 

Well done to the circa 40 Fleet fans who made the long trek.

[Hannah]

over-achieving?

 

There's no such thing.

 

Each season starts with a blank sheet.

We didn't have half the players last season that we have this season, so who's to say we are over-achieving?

 

We're 6th and deserve to be there. Whatever happens next is anyones guess.

[jc]

Perhaps 'over-achieving' wasn't the best choice of word. What I meant was that, in contrast to previous Conference seasons and indeed historically, we are positioned higher in the league than we have been in almost all seasons in our history. I didn't mean to say that our current set of players are overachieving - after all, having never seen many of them play on a regular basis before, who am I to say what Conference finish they are capable of attaining?

 

As you quite rightly say, we deserve to be 6th at the moment. However, in comparison with last season, a mid-table finish would still be an improvement and a sign of progress and thus satisfactory.

 

Apologies for any confusion caused.

[Bill Kent]

Well done JC. An interesting report without bias, puts all into perspective and makes enjoyable reading.Thanks for that.

 

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/applaus.gif" alt="" />

[Hempstead Gaz]

Didn't see or hear the game so cannot comment majorly on it.

What I would hope is that we do not slide into the tactics of last year - the big hoof, not the right "system" and pointless tactical substitutions after 85 minutes.

There is some evidence that this is starting to happen.

As JC said, we do need width down both flanks, which really means 442 with proper defensive full backs and attacking wingers.

Personel are not so important as formation.

A lopsided 352 or 532 will never work as well as a balanced 442, which has been discussed at length previously.

[Slartibartfast]

I thought you were in favour of the 3:5:2 earlier in the season C.G.?

 

The simple truth is we can play some decent football when we are on top in a game but the moment we come under pressure, i.e. go a goal down, all thoughts of football dissapear in favour of the big hoof.

 

It is very dissapointing when we have all seen the quality our players are capable of producing when the ball is played on the floor and we have never once seen a long punt from James Smith to whichever 6ft 4in lump is marking Charlie produce anything other than an elbow in the back of the neck for Charlie.

 

On the plus side it was good to see that Stacy Long started a game and Sodge was pretty lively in the first half.

[Hempstead Gaz]

Quote:

Slartibartfast said:
I thought you were in favour of the 3:5:2 earlier in the season C.G.?

The simple truth is we can play some decent football when we are on top in a game but the moment we come under pressure, i.e. go a goal down, all thoughts of football dissapear in favour of the big hoof.

It is very dissapointing when we have all seen the quality our players are capable of producing when the ball is played on the floor and we have never once seen a long punt from James Smith to whichever 6ft 4in lump is marking Charlie produce anything other than an elbow in the back of the neck for Charlie.

On the plus side it was good to see that Stacy Long started a game and Sodge was pretty lively in the first half.

Nothing wrong with 352 persay- so long as it is working for you.
When it goes wrong, it go horribly wrong.
It has shown signs that it is not now working for us as well as it might - therefore now is the time for flexiblity and to change to 442.

I am a big advocate of the philosophy of if it ain't broke don't fix it, but when is looks like it is broke , we need to mend it.
As has been said, 2 defensive full backs + 2 attacking wingers, one holding and one attacking central midfielder does give a lot better balance.

[Slartibartfast]

I always think that systems are fairly irrelevant, if the players are on top of their game we will look good in any system and if they play crap then we will look awful whatever the system.

 

That said I would prefer to see us play 4:4:2.

 

Whatever formation we line up with the only player we have who is likely to cause problems from a long high ball is Danny Ekoku, if he isn't on the field we shouldn't play that kind of ball.

[Hempstead Gaz]

Quote:

Slartibartfast said:
I thought you were in favour of the 3:5:2 earlier in the season C.G.?

I should have added the caveat that 352 works well when it is balanced - the important palyers being the wing backs who are equally happy defending and attacking the flanks.
Unfortunately in Keeling, Opinel and Ricketts, we have players who are excellent in 1 area, whilst lacking in the other.
It is for this reason I would opt for a 442 with Ricketts and Anderson/Long on the right with Opinel and Keeling on the left.

[ColtheJock]

Well I think the more worrying point at the moment is that the goals appeared to have dried up. Not scored not for over 2 games and is too much pressure on Charlie Mac? I agree with CG above, if you play 3-5-2 you need balance and it seems at time that we don't have that. I have seem evidence at Charlton when they have played 4-5-1 that if you have a Central midfielder playing wide they tend to drift in-field and then the width is gone. I also agree with the comment above that if the payers are all on their game then any system that the manager decides to employ should work. Think next weeks re-arranged games becomes a big test before facing Oxford.

 

:-)

[Bernard]

From what I've seen, the problem is not with taking chances but with creating them. If the service isn't there, we won't score, especially with no 'Bollers' to score from long-range to get us out of trouble...