Match Thread vs. Hartlepool United 10.04.21 [NL]

[PedroTheFisherman66]

Are you sure Mr Burchnall has any influence on signings? There seems to be an assumption that this was his signing. He could have been having his say on the transfer, by making the substutution so early!

The substitution was purely a tactical decision bringing a forward on for a midfielder to nullify their center backs, who were apparently bringing the ball from deep and dictating the play. Changing personnel, formations and tactics during the first half (possibly first 70 mins) was something completely alien to Mr Ardley.

[i961pie]

The substitution was purely a tactical decision bringing a forward on for a midfielder to nullify their center backs, who were apparently bringing the ball from deep and dictating the play. Changing personnel, formations and tactics during the first half (possibly first 70 mins) was something completely alien to Mr Ardley.

We still don't know if the previous manager and this one have had or will have a lot of influence on signings?
Somehow I can't see Ardley knowing much about the likes of Sam and Rodders for instance.

[LaxtonLad]

Dodgy timing of his substitutes yesterday. One lesson he should have learned is not to bring on a player with iffy fitness as your third and last sub. Another one might be that Wooton and Knowles don't seem to pair well, but as there was such a gap between those two and the rest of the team they could hardly be blamed for so few chances. I would also say there was no variation, imagination or creation at all from his midfield. Also, a blind man on a galloping horse could see placing Enzio in a defensive role was a MAJOR fault, not rectified till Hartlepool had taken full advantage and peppered our penalty area with crosses. I hope IB's learning curve veers sharply upwards after seeing this plan(?) collapse. Expect transfer requests from Roberts and Enzio.

[Notts78]

The substitution was purely a tactical decision bringing a forward on for a midfielder to nullify their center backs, who were apparently bringing the ball from deep and dictating the play. Changing personnel, formations and tactics during the first half (possibly first 70 mins) was something completely alien to Mr Ardley.

Did the change alter the course of the game? 0-0 when made.

Burchnall out.

[ThaiPie]

The substitution was purely a tactical decision bringing a forward on for a midfielder to nullify their center backs, who were apparently bringing the ball from deep and dictating the play. Changing personnel, formations and tactics during the first half (possibly first 70 mins) was something completely alien to Mr Ardley.

I'm not ready to buy that tactical argument. I think a better tactical argument is that the team was set up wrong from the beginning. Three centre backs. Two wingbacks, one of which has hardly ever played anywhere other than attack.

It was noticeable from the start, Hartlepool were targeting the flanks and getting crosses in.

By my maths, a goalkeeper, five defenders and three attackers leaves, eer, two midfielders neither of whom are the quickest!

Kel surprise the team is starting to lose more matches!

I was disappointed Neal Ardely was relieved of his duties and nothing I've seen so far changes my mind on that.

[LaxtonLad]

I'm not ready to buy that tactical argument. I think a better tactical argument is that the team was set up wrong from the beginning. Three centre backs. Two wingbacks, one of which has hardly ever played anywhere other than attack.

It was noticeable from the start, Hartlepool were targeting the flanks and getting crosses in.

By my maths, a goalkeeper, five defenders and three attackers leaves, eer, two midfielders neither of whom are the quickest!

Kel surprise the team is starting to lose more matches!

I was disappointed Neal Ardely was relieved of his duties and nothing I've seen so far changes my mind on that.

To sum up then, we were set up to defend, not to control midfield or sustained attacks and with the right players in wrong positions. I wonder if IB had had Hartlepools watched or if he thought his plan would work anyway.

Too early to give him too much hammer but we'll see what he does next.

[jacobncfc]

I'm not ready to buy that tactical argument. I think a better tactical argument is that the team was set up wrong from the beginning. Three centre backs. Two wingbacks, one of which has hardly ever played anywhere other than attack.

It was noticeable from the start, Hartlepool were targeting the flanks and getting crosses in.

By my maths, a goalkeeper, five defenders and three attackers leaves, eer, two midfielders neither of whom are the quickest!

Kel surprise the team is starting to lose more matches!

I was disappointed Neal Ardely was relieved of his duties and nothing I've seen so far changes my mind on that.

I mean, I don’t much like the 3-5-2 with Enzio at wing back either, but it was very much a Neal Ardley invention.

[nw6pie]

Are you sure Mr Burchnall has any influence on signings? There seems to be an assumption that this was his signing. He could have been having his say on the transfer, by making the substutution so early!

As I recall, he was presented with a number of options for midfield and opted for Griffiths having spoken to Crewe’s manager. I don’t want to be seen as blaming Griffiths as he’s only a young kid - but that’s part of the problem. He’s got no experience at all so was always going to be a bit of a punt, much like Matty Wolfe.

As for a related post about the 3-5-2, we were always going to struggle matching up against a team that is well drilled in playing 3-5-2, but it’s been our most effective formation in recent weeks so I’m not sure there were many options.

Ultimately, we’ve come up short against one of the best teams in the division - not a huge surprise given our levels of performance this year. Main thing now is to bounce back on Tuesday and maintain the gap between us and 8th place. A 5th-place finish seems to be our best hope this season as things stand.

[ThaiPie]

I mean, I don’t much like the 3-5-2 with Enzio at wing back either, but it was very much a Neal Ardley invention.

That may be. But you can make a couple of counter punches then.
1. So we're defending the new manager's tactics by saying he's copied the old managers. I think we have to assume IB come to the 3-5-2 independently.
2. My original point was about the player buying policy, but the Griffiths substitution ended up having quite a few consequences.

- The formation ended up being 5-2-3 (The wing backs were more back than wing)
- We ran out of substitutes when we gambled on Roberts, due to the Griffiths early substitution.
- As another poster has said, Wooten and Knowles aren't playing as a pair, and it would have been better to bring Knight on as the impact player, with 20 minutes to go.

Having said all this, supporters need to get behind the new Manager, even if my match rating for IB yesterday would be a 3.

[LaxtonLad]

As I recall, he was presented with a number of options for midfield and opted for Griffiths having spoken to Crewe’s manager. I don’t want to be seen as blaming Griffiths as he’s only a young kid - but that’s part of the problem. He’s got no experience at all so was always going to be a bit of a punt, much like Matty Wolfe.

I never could see the point in taking inexperienced youngsters on loan. Sign them on permanently and bring them on, OK, but for temporary use and straight in the side you might as well get a player with experience. A young lad is still learning his trade and we can't afford to carry someone who is basically an apprentice.