Reply With QuoteWintle for me, as usual, but I thought Powell showed Charlie how hard a wide man can work if things aren’t quite coming off. A word for Chuma too, who seems a much more complete footballer than he was when he played his first match for us.
Hall Of Fame
Wintle for me, second Nottingham, joint third Lowery and Green.
Hall Of Fame
Wintle for me, as usual, but I thought Powell showed Charlie how hard a wide man can work if things aren’t quite coming off. A word for Chuma too, who seems a much more complete footballer than he was when he played his first match for us.
Hall Of Fame
Totally agree on all counts. Really impressed by new guy, he saw a lot of the ball. Also a threat at the back post for dead ball situations.
Hall Of Fame
Very impressed with Nottingham playing in his first game for us. Hunt was outstanding next to him as well and this looks like a good pairing as long as Hunt can stay free from injury. Wintle was back to his best in midfield and Powel put in a shift on the wing. The only negative I can find is Charlie Kirk . He does not deliver what we know he can do . He had numerous opportunities to take on the full back but nearly always choose to cut inside and pass the ball. Do not get me going his lack of ability to tackle. A couple of times he pulled out and pressure was then put on our fullback. In the last few minutes when Cheltenham were pushing for a goal and had numerous corners we had all 11 players in our own area for the in swinging corner. Tommy Lowery the smallest home player was was right there in the middle of this group, not sure if he could win a header. We had no player near the half way line to keep possession when the ball was cleared, this is where he should have been and they would have to had players marking him . On numerous occasions we cleared the ball only for it to be pumped back into our area. Cheltenham had there two wingers hugging the touch line on the halfway line when we had corners.Pickering would come to take an in swinging corner kick on the right hand side and as soon as the keeper caught the ball he would kick it out to there player on the right wing , They had done there home work well on is and only by some good defending did this not lead to them scoring. Pickering then had a long run to get back into position,
Hall Of Fame
Totally agree JD re our defending corners. Even on a mathematical point of view putting 2 players on the half way line works.
The way we currently play.
Us. Goalkeeper, 10 players defending. Them. 1 goalkeeper, 1 corner taker, 9 players attacking. Advantage of 1 to us. Or 2 if you include keeper.
Keep 2 on halfway line.
Us. Goalkeeper, 8 players defending. Them. Goalkeeper, 3 policing our advanced players, 1 corner taker, 6 attackers. This means we have an advantage of 2. (Or 3 including keeper)
Simplistic I know, and greater tacticians may pick fault.
Hall Of Fame
I don’t see why we can’t leave a player up when defending a corner either, although the temptation to do so in the last 5 minutes when you’re defending a one goal lead must be very strong and understandable. My only difference would be to leave Dale rather than Lowery upfield, if only because he’s quicker - as witnessed with the last couple of bits of action in the game where he first closed the keeper down on the half way line and then when he was brought down for Perry’s attempt to justify a buzzcut.
A word for how well Will fought through the crowd scene to punch the ball clear too.
Hall Of Fame
I think Perry had asked the ref how long was left, having been told 'that's it' it was a shot to nothing/just blast it over the bar.
Hall Of Fame
The issue of having all 11 players back in the box has long been a bug ear of mine.
One of our biggest problems for years has been the 'second phase' after clearing an incoming set piece. With all 11 defending, the opposition are encouraged to press forward and fill the spaces where a second phase ball may land. If we had even one player on the half-way line, the opposition would be obliged to pull two back to cover. Therefore, those two players would be removed from the press on our defence. Further, should we put some distance on a clearance then there might at least be some chance that our upfield player can delay/obstruct the return of the ball in to our box.
While we're at it, another bugbear is at goal kicks (which are going long) or when Will is kicking upfield, why do we compress everyone into a small area on one side of the pitch? Surely one player (preferably someone with pace) could stay on the opposite side? This would occupy the minds of the opposition defence. It could also be a quick let-out/source of attack should we win the ball from the keeper's kick
Hall Of Fame
Agree. And to repeat myself, its simple maths.Originally Posted by gazan
And re our goal kicks, why, just because we can, do we have 3/4 players in our own penalty area. When it goes tits up, as it does half the time, all the opposition forwards who have stayed upfield are onside.
Hall Of Fame
Totally agree. I would leave 1 player up on either wing and let WJ and the team know where he is etc and then they know where to play the quick ball if possible. I would suggest Kirk or Dale if playing. It means the opposition have to leave 2 back. Cheltenham did it with 2 y/day.
I think the only reason all back is it makes space limited
Also as you say there is so much space on one side with goal kicks why not utilise it? Mind as Danny Blanchflowere used to say, it is no longer space if someone fills it !!
Posting Permissions