Reply With Quote
My impression today was that the players individually were trying much harder to do the right things defensively and put in more meaningful challenges, and for much of the game it worked, but ultimately it was ruined by Rawlinson's rather ridiculous own goal from a 'long-throw threat' we knew all about.
I thought Aaron Nemane in particular showed more appetite to track and tackle back than I've ever seen from him before, that the defensive midfield pairing of O'Brien and Robertson continued to look effective, and that Cameron and Baldwin generally did better than they have recently, except for one really poor piece of defending in the second half where they were two on one with a Wimbledon forward and almost let him beat them both, until a last-ditch cynical foul that got Cameron booked.
I thought Macauley Langstaff chose a really bad day not to wear his shooting boots. To my mind he missed at least three great scoring opportunities while we were still at 0-0, when we were desperate for a goal to reinforce what had been mostly a solid performance for the first 75 minutes. I think if we had gone 1-0 up then the confidence boost would probably have seen us go on to win the game, but the longer it went at 0-0, and especially after O'Brien ran out of steam and Baldwin went off, we looked increasingly vulnerable.
My biggest criticism today would be the formation, where we deployed a number of players in positions that are not their best, and consequently diminished some of our attacking potential.
When I heard the team I thought it was certain to a 4-2-3-1 formation with Macari and Chicksen as orthodox fullbacks, Crowley in the number 10 role behind Langstaff, and Nemane and Jones attacking from wide right and left. I think this would have been a balanced set-up in view of the selected personnel:
----------------Slocombe
Macari-----Baldwin-----Cameron---Chicksen
-----------O'Brien------Robertson
Nemane----------Crowley-----------Jones
------------------Langstaff
Instead, we had Chicksen returning as a wing-back, despite the fact he is as uncomfortable from an attacking viewpoint in that position as Jodi Jones is from a defensive viewpoint, while Jones himself was forced mostly in-field, stifling 50% of his attacking ability to go past people and leaving him looking frankly rather ordinary, which he isn't.
What is this obsession with continuing with a wing-back system that simply isn't working as well at this level as it did in the weaker National League, with players who can only do half of the job a wing-back is required to do? Are the coaching staff overthinking things and not seeing the obvious? I hope it changes at Crawley on Tuesday and we can go back to what worked beautifully at Newport.
Originally Posted by MAD_MAGPIE
