| That 20 minutes in the second half 12:20 - Oct 17 with 1362 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
Where we had loads of the ball, passed it nicely around the midfield, spread the ball wide to the full backs.
Looked lovely on the eye, but we barely created a chance from it, it was possession for possession sake. We have to kill games off when we have that much of the ball in areas like that. It was so frustrating. |  |
| |  |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 12:24 - Oct 17 with 1319 views | jayessess |
yeah, several occasions we needed to ask ourselves "are we likely to work a better opportunity to put the ball in/shoot than this" because the answer is invariably no. |  |
| |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 12:27 - Oct 17 with 1302 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 12:24 - Oct 17 by jayessess |
yeah, several occasions we needed to ask ourselves "are we likely to work a better opportunity to put the ball in/shoot than this" because the answer is invariably no. |
Honestly, ball gets right on the edge of the box, and we who sideways again.
Their keeper looked shaky as well imo, but we barely tested him. | |
| |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 12:31 - Oct 17 with 1275 views | Fixed_It |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 12:27 - Oct 17 by TRUE_BLUE123 |
Honestly, ball gets right on the edge of the box, and we who sideways again.
Their keeper looked shaky as well imo, but we barely tested him. |
Keeper hurt his back in the second half - yet we hardly tested him after that. |  |
| |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 12:32 - Oct 17 with 1277 views | itfcjoe |
Yep, we were absolutely all over them - and playing some very nice stuff - but didn’t threaten at all |  |
| |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 12:35 - Oct 17 with 1259 views | Chrisd |
Feel this is where possession can be misleading and a little overrated, no good having 65% of the ball and doing nothing with it and then allowing the opposition to nick an equaliser or even worse a winner late on - we need to get the balance right. Also, we still seem to have that same problem under PL, where we will play well for spells and control the game, like yesterday's first half, then slowly lose our way and impetus without having the ability to wrestle it back. |  |
| |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 12:44 - Oct 17 with 1226 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 12:35 - Oct 17 by Chrisd |
Feel this is where possession can be misleading and a little overrated, no good having 65% of the ball and doing nothing with it and then allowing the opposition to nick an equaliser or even worse a winner late on - we need to get the balance right. Also, we still seem to have that same problem under PL, where we will play well for spells and control the game, like yesterday's first half, then slowly lose our way and impetus without having the ability to wrestle it back. |
Exactly, if it was like Liverpool yesterday where you have 80% possession and hammer the goal and score five then you can look at Possession as a metric.
But you are right you look at scoreline and then possession, if it is 2-2 and you have barely had a shot on goal. Possession is meaningless. | |
| |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 12:55 - Oct 17 with 1193 views | jayessess |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 12:27 - Oct 17 by TRUE_BLUE123 |
Honestly, ball gets right on the edge of the box, and we who sideways again.
Their keeper looked shaky as well imo, but we barely tested him. |
Bizarrely, we started doing the opposite in the last quarter, trying to play the killer ball from the halfway line, when just moving the whole team up the pitch and controlling play would've suited us just fine. | |
| |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 13:11 - Oct 17 with 1145 views | longtimefan |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 12:31 - Oct 17 by Fixed_It |
Keeper hurt his back in the second half - yet we hardly tested him after that. |
We hardly tested him throughout the match though did we. Only three shots on target all match, two of which were goals which came from a defensive error and a goalmouth scramble from a corner. For all the possession and attractive build up play we don’t create that many clear cut chances. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 14:17 - Oct 17 with 1032 views | strikalite |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 12:35 - Oct 17 by Chrisd |
Feel this is where possession can be misleading and a little overrated, no good having 65% of the ball and doing nothing with it and then allowing the opposition to nick an equaliser or even worse a winner late on - we need to get the balance right. Also, we still seem to have that same problem under PL, where we will play well for spells and control the game, like yesterday's first half, then slowly lose our way and impetus without having the ability to wrestle it back. |
Keeping the ball for long periods is ok as long as there are moments within that of intent in creating something, even blasting the ball over from 25 yards is better than overplaying and losing it...we still can't shoot from 25 yards can we? I watch the EFL show and rarely see the perfect worked goal but i do see strikes from 20-25yrds flying in...(see Wigan yesterday etc..) |  | | |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 14:26 - Oct 17 with 1000 views | LankHenners |
Knocking it about nicely with no penetration. Fraser wasted 2 or 3 good positions and then would have been a good time to take him off for Edwards because, as you say, we were controlling the ball and that's the sort of sub that could well turn it up a notch and get us the 3rd. By the time those attacking subs were made they were useless as we'd given up the momentum to Cambridge.
The other thing that was very noticable in that period was Bonne pulling away from his man and screaming for an early cross but both Penney and Donacien were reluctant to do it - not that we're going to score replicas of his goal at Lincoln all the time but that's clearly a quality Coulsen brings at LB that Penney doesn't.
We were still a bit slow with the ball in the 1st half but at least were making Cambridge work and put in blocks to concede corners, throw-ins, etc. In the 2nd they put 9 men behind the ball and we just played the game in front of them. |  |
| |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 14:35 - Oct 17 with 974 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 14:26 - Oct 17 by LankHenners |
Knocking it about nicely with no penetration. Fraser wasted 2 or 3 good positions and then would have been a good time to take him off for Edwards because, as you say, we were controlling the ball and that's the sort of sub that could well turn it up a notch and get us the 3rd. By the time those attacking subs were made they were useless as we'd given up the momentum to Cambridge.
The other thing that was very noticable in that period was Bonne pulling away from his man and screaming for an early cross but both Penney and Donacien were reluctant to do it - not that we're going to score replicas of his goal at Lincoln all the time but that's clearly a quality Coulsen brings at LB that Penney doesn't.
We were still a bit slow with the ball in the 1st half but at least were making Cambridge work and put in blocks to concede corners, throw-ins, etc. In the 2nd they put 9 men behind the ball and we just played the game in front of them. |
I completely agree. Especially with what you say about Edwards, In that spell at least we had the ball on the floor.
When he brought Edwards on, the ball was being headed out by the Cambridge CBs dropping in to midfield and we lost every second ball. Bring on another body in midfield then, Rekeem Harper is a big physical presence who can drive a ball forward. Bring him on, go 532, as he put Burns at RWb anyway. Dont bring on Edwards who, as good as he is, was clearly going to offer nothing to the game as we couldn't get it down. Questionable in game management. | |
| |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 14:48 - Oct 17 with 934 views | LankHenners |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 14:35 - Oct 17 by TRUE_BLUE123 |
I completely agree. Especially with what you say about Edwards, In that spell at least we had the ball on the floor.
When he brought Edwards on, the ball was being headed out by the Cambridge CBs dropping in to midfield and we lost every second ball. Bring on another body in midfield then, Rekeem Harper is a big physical presence who can drive a ball forward. Bring him on, go 532, as he put Burns at RWb anyway. Dont bring on Edwards who, as good as he is, was clearly going to offer nothing to the game as we couldn't get it down. Questionable in game management. |
Yep. I know he bangs on about wanting to make attacking changes but against MK Dons he brought Carroll on to have 3 in midfield in an attempt to stop them passing through us so easily so presumably isn't so stubborn as to be stupid but yesterday it was obvious we needed another body in there and he didn't change it.
We don't need to have the Richardson discussion every time but you've got to wonder what the coaching team is doing if they can't be reactive to a situation let alone proactive. | |
| |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 14:54 - Oct 17 with 905 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 14:48 - Oct 17 by LankHenners |
Yep. I know he bangs on about wanting to make attacking changes but against MK Dons he brought Carroll on to have 3 in midfield in an attempt to stop them passing through us so easily so presumably isn't so stubborn as to be stupid but yesterday it was obvious we needed another body in there and he didn't change it.
We don't need to have the Richardson discussion every time but you've got to wonder what the coaching team is doing if they can't be reactive to a situation let alone proactive. |
The coaching situation has to be a serious concern. I seriously want this to work for Cook, but I just feel like we know where this is going.
Plymouth away will be a fascinating one, as far as I'm aware they play a back 5, our mate Wilson is in there and have 3 bodies in midfield with two powerful striker, every aspect of that worries me. We are nowhere near penetrative to play against a strong back 5 imo. That will be the game, to tweak in game if things dont go our way, will probably be THE game for Cook I think. | |
| |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 14:57 - Oct 17 with 897 views | Wickets |
Yes i agree lots of the ball but i cant remember a second half chance , Cambridge had 2 clear chances before they scored one good save from our keeper and then a horrible miss . For me we need to mix it up in this league ,love the neat passing football but add some long ball too and find a way of supporting Bonne . |  | | |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 15:13 - Oct 17 with 840 views | Illinoisblue |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 14:57 - Oct 17 by Wickets |
Yes i agree lots of the ball but i cant remember a second half chance , Cambridge had 2 clear chances before they scored one good save from our keeper and then a horrible miss . For me we need to mix it up in this league ,love the neat passing football but add some long ball too and find a way of supporting Bonne . |
We played plenty of long balls yesterday, they just weren’t very good ones. |  |
| |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 11:38 - Oct 18 with 590 views | Wickets |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 15:13 - Oct 17 by Illinoisblue |
We played plenty of long balls yesterday, they just weren’t very good ones. |
There is a big difference to a long ball with a purpose ,a long pass if you like , than a defender just putting his foot through the ball because he is under pressure . For long periods of the game Bonne was a lone figure with no support up field and getting frustrated . | | | |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 12:03 - Oct 18 with 525 views | DavoIPB |
| That 20 minutes in the second half on 14:54 - Oct 17 by TRUE_BLUE123 |
The coaching situation has to be a serious concern. I seriously want this to work for Cook, but I just feel like we know where this is going.
Plymouth away will be a fascinating one, as far as I'm aware they play a back 5, our mate Wilson is in there and have 3 bodies in midfield with two powerful striker, every aspect of that worries me. We are nowhere near penetrative to play against a strong back 5 imo. That will be the game, to tweak in game if things dont go our way, will probably be THE game for Cook I think. |
Doncaster had a back five at the begining of the second half when we beat them 6-0. We couldn't find a way through until 70minutes into the game and that after one of their of their main defender had been subbed injured. We then found loads of space where he had been. Dreading the Portsmouth game. Paul Cook will rattle on about how good they are and what a great job their manager and coaching staff are doing. Then we will get beaten by them! | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
