Ratings Vs Dover

[kill_the_drum]

I agree with most of those ratings, but I remember saying at the game that I'm glad I didn't have to choose the MOM because nobody stood out. What disappointed me most was that when they dropped very deep in the last 10 minutes, we didn't throw men forward (I'm thinking throwing either Rawlinson or Lacey up front) and put the ball in their box. It's always a bit of a gamble, but it's a gamble worth taking. I'm always going on about only gambling when the odds are in your favour, but in situations like yesterday they definitely are in our favour. By that I mean rather than settle for a draw, take a risk and go for the win, because the reward is double the loss. Even if it backfires in half the games and succeeds in the other half, it is still worthwhile. As an example, take our 7 draws at home this season which have yielded 7 points. Even if we had gambled and lost 4 and only won 3 games, we would have gained 9 points. I know drawing some games is inevitable, but I'm just putting forward a principle.

Sadly, I think Ardley would rather 'respect the point' than take a risk.

He did take a risk. When Tyson came on we went 4-3-3 with Enzio playing just behind them.
Not sure how much more you can throw at it.
Putting a defender up top permanently in a game is just plain stupid IMO!

[Elite_Pie]

He did take a risk. When Tyson came on we went 4-3-3 with Enzio playing just behind them.
Not sure how much more you can throw at it.
Putting a defender up top permanently in a game is just plain stupid IMO!

Yes, I would agree that "putting a defender up top permanently in a game is just plain stupid", but I only suggested it as an option when they quite obviously dropped very deep in the last 10 minutes. What bit of that did you fail to understand?

[navypie]

Yes, I would agree that "putting a defender up top permanently in a game is just plain stupid", but I only suggested it as an option when they quite obviously dropped very deep in the last 10 minutes. What bit of that did you fail to understand?

" What bit of that did you fail to understand" . I wish I had a pound .......................

[kill_the_drum]

Yes, I would agree that "putting a defender up top permanently in a game is just plain stupid", but I only suggested it as an option when they quite obviously dropped very deep in the last 10 minutes. What bit of that did you fail to understand?

I totally understood it, just think it’s a stupid idea to permanently throw a defender up top even for 10 minutes.
If playing a defender up top created more chances then that defender would be a striker.
The likelihood of it creating us a goal Vs the likelihood of it costing us a goal isn’t worth the gamble.
You made the comment that Ardley would rather take a point than take a risk because he didn’t put a defender up top? We finished the game with three strikers on the pitch and Enzio just behind them.
He absolutely took a risk and it was a risk that involved having all of our top goal scorers on the pitch!

[gozzie321]

I thought we played pretty well, they never had a shot on target, whilst we had 4 excellent chances. Finishing was the negative for me, its always tempting to give low marks when we don't win. Maybe if Enzio's free kick had gone in some would have felt differently.

[navypie]

I totally understood it, just think it’s a stupid idea to permanently throw a defender up top even for 10 minutes.
If playing a defender up top created more chances then that defender would be a striker.
The likelihood of it creating us a goal Vs the likelihood of it costing us a goal isn’t worth the gamble.
You made the comment that Ardley would rather take a point than take a risk because he didn’t put a defender up top? We finished the game with three strikers on the pitch and Enzio just behind them.
He absolutely took a risk and it was a risk that involved having all of our top goal scorers on the pitch!

" all of our top goal scorers on the pitch". I thought he sprung a surprise and replaced Thomas in the 70th.

[kill_the_drum]

" all of our top goal scorers on the pitch". I thought he sprung a surprise and replaced Thomas in the 70th.

You’re quite right, he did.
I completely forgot because it was so unexpected.

[navypie]

I thought we played pretty well, they never had a shot on target, whilst we had 4 excellent chances. Finishing was the negative for me, its always tempting to give low marks when we don't win. Maybe if Enzio's free kick had gone in some would have felt differently.

There is no "Maybe" about it , I wouldn't have gone home and kicked the dog if it had. That is a joke by the way, I know it's a snowflakes market out there.

[SwalePie]

They were rubbish yesterday. A decent side would have torn them apart.

To be fair, 5th placed Notts County, clearly a decent side on the back of a long unbeaten run home and away, didn't.

[Elite_Pie]

I totally understood it, just think it’s a stupid idea to permanently throw a defender up top even for 10 minutes.

I'm afraid you've lost me here. How can you permanently throw a defender up top for 10 minutes????? If it's permanent, then surely by definition it has to be for 90 minutes plus. If by permanently you mean every game, again it's perfectly obvious that I wasn't saying that at all. I thought I had explained quite clearly the rewards v losses gamble thing, but obviously not clear enough for you.

The likelihood of it creating us a goal Vs the likelihood of it costing us a goal isn’t worth the gamble.

How the f@@k do you work that out? If it works, we gain two two points, it doesn't and we lose one point. We don't even need to win half of the time to be in profit. You seem to be struggling here, so let me put it another way. We repeatedly toss a coin, and if you guess right I give you a quid, but if I guess right you give me two quid. Again, what part of that are you struggling with?

He absolutely took a risk and it was a risk that involved having all of our top goal scorers on the pitch!

Apart from being incorrect, if you see that as a risk we'll have to agree to differ.