| Just saw highlights 11:20 - Feb 8 with 6143 views | TalkingBlues |
Hirst didn't score, was clearly an own goal by the defender, good run from Jackson.
Their winning goal, my god, once again just a hit and hope 60 yard aerial ball up the middle of the park that Woolfenden somehow manages to completely screw up and let's them in to score, appalling defending. |  |
| |  |
| Just saw highlights on 15:09 - Feb 8 with 1955 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
It could be an own goal, but it's not "clearly" one. I've watched it a few times, and paused it at point of contact, and I still can't decide if Hirst or the defender gets the touch.
Why the need to always have a downer on our players? It doesn't really matter one way or the other (apart from the confidence boost a goal gives to a new striker) but I can't understand why someone would make a point of declaring the worst possible option as "clearly" the right one. What does it serve? |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Just saw highlights on 16:54 - Feb 8 with 1846 views | TractorWood |
| Just saw highlights on 13:38 - Feb 8 by TRUE_BLUE123 |
Not at all.
There is a big difference using your body shield a ball or try and hold off a defender/attacker and putting your arm in the face of an oppo player to push them away. |
He's playing the ball. Played it well.
If that was given against us, you'd be fuming. |  |
| |
| Just saw highlights on 17:15 - Feb 8 with 1792 views | NthQldITFC |
What size screen are you watching that on? From what distance? |  |
| |
| Just saw highlights on 17:30 - Feb 8 with 1760 views | clive_baker |
| Just saw highlights on 16:54 - Feb 8 by TractorWood |
He's playing the ball. Played it well.
If that was given against us, you'd be fuming. |
Must admit I can't see a world where that's a foul. It's a contact sport and good forward play. |  |
| |
| Just saw highlights on 18:25 - Feb 8 with 1702 views | pointofblue |
| Just saw highlights on 17:30 - Feb 8 by clive_baker |
Must admit I can't see a world where that's a foul. It's a contact sport and good forward play. |
If that's the case then it's another example of Woolfenden being too weak. Add into him giving away the ball for the first goal and it was a poor evening for him, on top of his error at Oxford. |  |
| |
| Just saw highlights on 18:29 - Feb 8 with 1691 views | Herbivore |
| Just saw highlights on 17:30 - Feb 8 by clive_baker |
Must admit I can't see a world where that's a foul. It's a contact sport and good forward play. |
Really? Arm right across the face like that? It's a foul all day long. Not overly bothered given the context but it's a clear foul for me. |  |
| |
| Just saw highlights on 18:32 - Feb 8 with 1674 views | TalkingBlues |
| Just saw highlights on 18:29 - Feb 8 by Herbivore |
Really? Arm right across the face like that? It's a foul all day long. Not overly bothered given the context but it's a clear foul for me. |
It was his left arm actually sweetcheeks 
(wonders if this is too subtle for him) | |
| |
| Just saw highlights on 19:02 - Feb 8 with 1622 views | ArnieM |
| Just saw highlights on 11:27 - Feb 8 by TalkingBlues |
Well, tbf to ED, Woolfenden put our defence under massive pressure by passing the ball straight to the opposition midfield and as Ed was the last defender you just have to make a lunge block and hope someone gets inside you to stop a cut back, which they didn't, cos they were all pushing forward on the attack when the Woolf squandered possession, another piece of terrible play, he's looked awful in his last few games, no wonder his not starting league games atm |
I’ve said all season that none of our CB’s are particularly good defenders . They make too many unforced errors and rarely deal with balls into our box. I’m assuming Woolfie/ Edmundson playing last night indicates perhaps they won’t be playing against SWFC Saturday? If so, maybe McKenna’s view of them both as a defensive partnership is also questionable? I couldn’t give a flying one that “ Woolfie’s good at bringing ball out of defence “. We’ve got defensive midfielders that could do thst. What we need is decent, reliable, consistent CB’s that deal with the ball in the box, make the right decisions, clear the ball, deal with their man. I don’t ANY of our CB’s do this to the level required . Just my view but there you go . Our inability to defend is costing us game after game. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Just saw highlights on 19:21 - Feb 8 with 1593 views | pointofblue |
| Just saw highlights on 19:02 - Feb 8 by ArnieM |
I’ve said all season that none of our CB’s are particularly good defenders . They make too many unforced errors and rarely deal with balls into our box. I’m assuming Woolfie/ Edmundson playing last night indicates perhaps they won’t be playing against SWFC Saturday? If so, maybe McKenna’s view of them both as a defensive partnership is also questionable? I couldn’t give a flying one that “ Woolfie’s good at bringing ball out of defence “. We’ve got defensive midfielders that could do thst. What we need is decent, reliable, consistent CB’s that deal with the ball in the box, make the right decisions, clear the ball, deal with their man. I don’t ANY of our CB’s do this to the level required . Just my view but there you go . Our inability to defend is costing us game after game. |
Three of the four centre backs put in very secure defensive performances at the end of last season into the start of this season under McKenna, so have to ask what has changed? | |
| |
| Just saw highlights on 19:23 - Feb 8 with 1593 views | TalkingBlues |
| Just saw highlights on 19:02 - Feb 8 by ArnieM |
I’ve said all season that none of our CB’s are particularly good defenders . They make too many unforced errors and rarely deal with balls into our box. I’m assuming Woolfie/ Edmundson playing last night indicates perhaps they won’t be playing against SWFC Saturday? If so, maybe McKenna’s view of them both as a defensive partnership is also questionable? I couldn’t give a flying one that “ Woolfie’s good at bringing ball out of defence “. We’ve got defensive midfielders that could do thst. What we need is decent, reliable, consistent CB’s that deal with the ball in the box, make the right decisions, clear the ball, deal with their man. I don’t ANY of our CB’s do this to the level required . Just my view but there you go . Our inability to defend is costing us game after game. |
They were doing really well at the start of the season, but over the last 2 or 3 months there’s been a massive amount of inconsistency amongst the CB’s, which I don’t know how to explain at all. Same all over the park really, players are superb one game, then rubbish the next, there’s no consistency to performances anywhere on the pitch as far as I can see, it’s baffling to say the least. | |
| |
| Just saw highlights on 19:30 - Feb 8 with 1584 views | pointofblue |
| Just saw highlights on 19:23 - Feb 8 by TalkingBlues |
They were doing really well at the start of the season, but over the last 2 or 3 months there’s been a massive amount of inconsistency amongst the CB’s, which I don’t know how to explain at all. Same all over the park really, players are superb one game, then rubbish the next, there’s no consistency to performances anywhere on the pitch as far as I can see, it’s baffling to say the least. |
To be honest, I think our central midfield has looked shaky across the recent run of patchy form; unable to control tempo or possession when leading, not really covering the backline, not assisting the attack as much as they used to. I think that's the starting point of our issues. It doesn't explain every goal conceded, but some of the issues we've been having, yes. | |
| |
| Just saw highlights on 19:37 - Feb 8 with 1575 views | ArnieM |
| Just saw highlights on 19:23 - Feb 8 by TalkingBlues |
They were doing really well at the start of the season, but over the last 2 or 3 months there’s been a massive amount of inconsistency amongst the CB’s, which I don’t know how to explain at all. Same all over the park really, players are superb one game, then rubbish the next, there’s no consistency to performances anywhere on the pitch as far as I can see, it’s baffling to say the least. |
Maybe this is why McK is starting to chop n change the defensive partnerships? I said atcsrartbif Jan window we needed defenders in through the door . We got one.
Theirs is an argument to made that too much rotation of players ( mostly the strikers it seems) doesn’t allow for partnerships / understanding to develop . But conversely it seems the way of football these days to rotate the team. Rotation also keeps players legs fresh . Makes me laugh though , because the year we won the UEFA Cup I think the team/ squad played something like 69 games that season. Pitches were heavy , muddy in winter not the billiard table surfaces they play on today. The profession’s gone soft . | |
| |
| Just saw highlights on 19:43 - Feb 8 with 1569 views | TalkingBlues |
| Just saw highlights on 19:30 - Feb 8 by pointofblue |
To be honest, I think our central midfield has looked shaky across the recent run of patchy form; unable to control tempo or possession when leading, not really covering the backline, not assisting the attack as much as they used to. I think that's the starting point of our issues. It doesn't explain every goal conceded, but some of the issues we've been having, yes. |
Yep, the central midfield pairings haven’t been getting forward anywhere near as much as they were, but not sitting back either, just hovering in the middle. You could see something had changed significantly in the team from the stats, because overnight we went from having 30+ shots a game and driving directly at oppo teams, to 10/12 shots a game and passing sideways between CB’s 1000 times in our own half, which of course was a big deviation from the style we had been playing and we lost all our frenetic tempo, eg 1st half against Cambridge, compared to 2nd half, 2 completely different halves of football that sums up our Jekyll and Hyde performances. | |
| |
| Just saw highlights on 20:48 - Feb 8 with 1516 views | runaround |
Just seen highlights. It’s Hirst’s goal |  | | |
| Just saw highlights on 21:24 - Feb 8 with 1482 views | ArnieM |
| Just saw highlights on 19:43 - Feb 8 by TalkingBlues |
Yep, the central midfield pairings haven’t been getting forward anywhere near as much as they were, but not sitting back either, just hovering in the middle. You could see something had changed significantly in the team from the stats, because overnight we went from having 30+ shots a game and driving directly at oppo teams, to 10/12 shots a game and passing sideways between CB’s 1000 times in our own half, which of course was a big deviation from the style we had been playing and we lost all our frenetic tempo, eg 1st half against Cambridge, compared to 2nd half, 2 completely different halves of football that sums up our Jekyll and Hyde performances. |
Do you think opponents have just worked out best to nullify us now? Eg sit back in numbers and let us play with the ball amongst ourselves , mostly in our half. Cambridge clearly weren’t interested in that first half, in venturing over that half way line, except for the odd probing run (which end in two shots and the ball in the net twice but one disallowed)…. It’s the same story nearly every game. It’s such a predictable pattern it must be driving McKenna nuts. But how do we deal with teams that sit back in numbers? I wish we’d play the game in the opponents half . Trying to draw teams out clearly didn’t work at Cambridge . They just said, “ no, it’s ok, you play around with ball we’re happy sitting here, thanks”. The only time we really threatened was when Edwards ran at them and committed their players. I think Aluko had a major role to play in the remaining games because he’s clever on the ball and makes things happen . Burns doesn’t ( or hasn’t in a consistent way for most of this season ) | |
| |
| Just saw highlights on 21:40 - Feb 8 with 1462 views | TalkingBlues |
| Just saw highlights on 21:24 - Feb 8 by ArnieM |
Do you think opponents have just worked out best to nullify us now? Eg sit back in numbers and let us play with the ball amongst ourselves , mostly in our half. Cambridge clearly weren’t interested in that first half, in venturing over that half way line, except for the odd probing run (which end in two shots and the ball in the net twice but one disallowed)…. It’s the same story nearly every game. It’s such a predictable pattern it must be driving McKenna nuts. But how do we deal with teams that sit back in numbers? I wish we’d play the game in the opponents half . Trying to draw teams out clearly didn’t work at Cambridge . They just said, “ no, it’s ok, you play around with ball we’re happy sitting here, thanks”. The only time we really threatened was when Edwards ran at them and committed their players. I think Aluko had a major role to play in the remaining games because he’s clever on the ball and makes things happen . Burns doesn’t ( or hasn’t in a consistent way for most of this season ) |
For such a dramatic change in such a short space of time, you’d think the gaffer must have asked them to do a different job, but his pressers suggest otherwise. We have really struggled against teams that sit back and so far have completely failed to come up with a way to overcome them. I am surprised that we continue to do the same thing, with the same poor results, because it seems an easy fix IMO and we have the ideal players for the job too. McK plays Ladapo in the same role every game, he sits in front of the defence as a hold up man, which allows oppo defenders to hold a higher line, which in turn compresses space all over the pitch for the rest of our side, that’s why we’ve needed a Broadhead, or Hirst up front, players who like to get in behind, to force the defences to drop back and make holes on the pitch and thus more space for our midfielders to work in. It’s not rocket science, but for reasons unknown, McK is either unwilling, or unable to make the necessary formation changes. | |
| |
| Just saw highlights on 21:52 - Feb 8 with 1442 views | Herbivore |
| Just saw highlights on 21:40 - Feb 8 by TalkingBlues |
For such a dramatic change in such a short space of time, you’d think the gaffer must have asked them to do a different job, but his pressers suggest otherwise. We have really struggled against teams that sit back and so far have completely failed to come up with a way to overcome them. I am surprised that we continue to do the same thing, with the same poor results, because it seems an easy fix IMO and we have the ideal players for the job too. McK plays Ladapo in the same role every game, he sits in front of the defence as a hold up man, which allows oppo defenders to hold a higher line, which in turn compresses space all over the pitch for the rest of our side, that’s why we’ve needed a Broadhead, or Hirst up front, players who like to get in behind, to force the defences to drop back and make holes on the pitch and thus more space for our midfielders to work in. It’s not rocket science, but for reasons unknown, McK is either unwilling, or unable to make the necessary formation changes. |
So your solution to us struggling against teams that sit back is to play in a way that forces sides to drop back? Footballing genius you, amazed McKenna hasn't tried to get you on the books. | |
| |
| Just saw highlights on 22:08 - Feb 8 with 1396 views | TalkingBlues |
| Just saw highlights on 21:52 - Feb 8 by Herbivore |
So your solution to us struggling against teams that sit back is to play in a way that forces sides to drop back? Footballing genius you, amazed McKenna hasn't tried to get you on the books. |
You haven’t really got much of a clue about football from a technical perspective have you chap? By dropping the defence, it opens space between them and their midfield, which allows us more room to play in, allows our midfielders to push up and either have space to play through balls to the forward/s getting in behind, or whipping in crosses which are being attacked and also opens up the edge of the box for longer range efforts.
The last thing you want is a high lined defence, combined with a sit back midfield and your forward being a hold up man sitting in front of the defence, there’s no space to work in, ala Cambridge first half. | |
| |
| Just saw highlights on 22:18 - Feb 8 with 1357 views | Herbivore |
| Just saw highlights on 22:08 - Feb 8 by TalkingBlues |
You haven’t really got much of a clue about football from a technical perspective have you chap? By dropping the defence, it opens space between them and their midfield, which allows us more room to play in, allows our midfielders to push up and either have space to play through balls to the forward/s getting in behind, or whipping in crosses which are being attacked and also opens up the edge of the box for longer range efforts.
The last thing you want is a high lined defence, combined with a sit back midfield and your forward being a hold up man sitting in front of the defence, there’s no space to work in, ala Cambridge first half. |
 | |
| |
| Just saw highlights on 22:29 - Feb 8 with 1316 views | BarcaBlue |
| Just saw highlights on 22:08 - Feb 8 by TalkingBlues |
You haven’t really got much of a clue about football from a technical perspective have you chap? By dropping the defence, it opens space between them and their midfield, which allows us more room to play in, allows our midfielders to push up and either have space to play through balls to the forward/s getting in behind, or whipping in crosses which are being attacked and also opens up the edge of the box for longer range efforts.
The last thing you want is a high lined defence, combined with a sit back midfield and your forward being a hold up man sitting in front of the defence, there’s no space to work in, ala Cambridge first half. |
That's complete nonsense, Cambridge weren't playing a high line, they were camped on the edge of the 18 yard box for long periods. You make it sound so easy as you're proposing a scenario thst didn't exist. |  | | |
| Just saw highlights on 22:34 - Feb 8 with 1307 views | Herbivore |
| Just saw highlights on 22:29 - Feb 8 by BarcaBlue |
That's complete nonsense, Cambridge weren't playing a high line, they were camped on the edge of the 18 yard box for long periods. You make it sound so easy as you're proposing a scenario thst didn't exist. |
Quite. | |
| |
| Just saw highlights on 22:38 - Feb 8 with 1294 views | TalkingBlues |
| Just saw highlights on 22:29 - Feb 8 by BarcaBlue |
That's complete nonsense, Cambridge weren't playing a high line, they were camped on the edge of the 18 yard box for long periods. You make it sound so easy as you're proposing a scenario thst didn't exist. |
Their defenders were extremely comfortable knowing that we played a hold up man that doesn’t try to get in behind them, their midfield sat in front leaving no space to work in centrally, which allowed them to man mark out wide and completely close us down all over the pitch, which is exactly what happened. Had we opted for pace up front and a forward that tries to work behind the line, the defenders would have been pulled out or shape, creating holes for our midfielders to play in, it’s the same story every time we play a side who are happy to let us have the ball and we play into their hands by using a hold up man. Pacey forwards looking to get in behind are what’s required in that scenario and we do the exact opposite, repeatedly and then wonder why we can’t get a result, it’s mental. [Post edited 8 Feb 2023 22:39]
| |
| |
| Just saw highlights on 22:49 - Feb 8 with 1252 views | SheffordBlue |
| Just saw highlights on 22:38 - Feb 8 by TalkingBlues |
Their defenders were extremely comfortable knowing that we played a hold up man that doesn’t try to get in behind them, their midfield sat in front leaving no space to work in centrally, which allowed them to man mark out wide and completely close us down all over the pitch, which is exactly what happened. Had we opted for pace up front and a forward that tries to work behind the line, the defenders would have been pulled out or shape, creating holes for our midfielders to play in, it’s the same story every time we play a side who are happy to let us have the ball and we play into their hands by using a hold up man. Pacey forwards looking to get in behind are what’s required in that scenario and we do the exact opposite, repeatedly and then wonder why we can’t get a result, it’s mental. [Post edited 8 Feb 2023 22:39]
|
The approach we use to attack has only seen us fail to score in 2 league games. In both of these games we created decent xG and with better finishing would have scored. This compares with 4 occasions for both Plymouth and Sheff Weds and 9 for Derby where they have failed to score.
It's the soft goals that have cost us and are the reason we've only won 1-0 twice. | |
| |
| Just saw highlights on 22:52 - Feb 8 with 1247 views | Herbivore |
| Just saw highlights on 22:38 - Feb 8 by TalkingBlues |
Their defenders were extremely comfortable knowing that we played a hold up man that doesn’t try to get in behind them, their midfield sat in front leaving no space to work in centrally, which allowed them to man mark out wide and completely close us down all over the pitch, which is exactly what happened. Had we opted for pace up front and a forward that tries to work behind the line, the defenders would have been pulled out or shape, creating holes for our midfielders to play in, it’s the same story every time we play a side who are happy to let us have the ball and we play into their hands by using a hold up man. Pacey forwards looking to get in behind are what’s required in that scenario and we do the exact opposite, repeatedly and then wonder why we can’t get a result, it’s mental. [Post edited 8 Feb 2023 22:39]
|
So these pacey forwards are running in behind defences that are sat very deep? Are they making their runs into the terraces? | |
| |
| Just saw highlights on 22:53 - Feb 8 with 1240 views | BarcaBlue |
| Just saw highlights on 22:38 - Feb 8 by TalkingBlues |
Their defenders were extremely comfortable knowing that we played a hold up man that doesn’t try to get in behind them, their midfield sat in front leaving no space to work in centrally, which allowed them to man mark out wide and completely close us down all over the pitch, which is exactly what happened. Had we opted for pace up front and a forward that tries to work behind the line, the defenders would have been pulled out or shape, creating holes for our midfielders to play in, it’s the same story every time we play a side who are happy to let us have the ball and we play into their hands by using a hold up man. Pacey forwards looking to get in behind are what’s required in that scenario and we do the exact opposite, repeatedly and then wonder why we can’t get a result, it’s mental. [Post edited 8 Feb 2023 22:39]
|
That's what I mean by nonsense. Your previous post was saying Hirst or Broadhead should have played in place of Ladapo but neither of those are the pacy forwards you later talk about. Jackson is a pacy forward but wouldn't have had any space to run into. Makes no sense at all. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
