| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! 15:50 - Nov 29 with 825 views | Bellevue_Blue |
I just cant quite get over Taylor's decision to hit a completely aimless long ball to Nunez/ Egeli, two smaller players whilst they have 8 players behind the ball.
He's been great recently but that decision is a huge reason they scored the goal and it's entirely unnecessary.
https://freeimage.host/i/fnUkuql |  | | |  |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 15:52 - Nov 29 with 791 views | DJR |
I remember saying that to my mate at the time it happened, and had forgotten it led to the goal. [Post edited 29 Nov 15:56]
|  | | |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 15:53 - Nov 29 with 772 views | portmanking |
Egeli is a short player?! Christ, I must be a dwarf. | | | |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 15:55 - Nov 29 with 753 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
He’s done that loads of times, he also given the ball away a lot the last few games he’s played and hasn’t had a decent strike at goal for about 2 years now.
Decent enough player at this level but the fact he’s starting for us again shines a bit of a light on the summer really. |  |
| |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 15:57 - Nov 29 with 727 views | Illinoisblue |
Our delivery into the box (from open play) was utterly dreadful all game. |  |
| |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 15:57 - Nov 29 with 719 views | DJR |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 15:53 - Nov 29 by portmanking |
Egeli is a short player?! Christ, I must be a dwarf. |
The problem is that it didn't get anywhere near Egeli. A ball in the air to Nunez is a complete waste of time. [Post edited 29 Nov 15:58]
| | | |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 15:58 - Nov 29 with 716 views | BlueOura |
No great but I think the bigger issue is what the hell were the players behind him doing when Oxford gained possession?
How we managed to get taken out by one ball over the top with Taylor chasing Placheta back on his own is frankly ridiculous.
Just when we seemed to have turned a corner defensively we go and concede two absolutely pathetic goals. Let's hope it was a blip and we put in a much more solid display at Blackburn. |  | | |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:02 - Nov 29 with 692 views | Dubtractor |
The 8 players behind the ball point is a bit weird - Egeli and Nunez are both against a single defender each. Using your men behind the ball argument we'd never ever play a forward pass.
The plan was clearly to aim for Egeli who would have had a 1-1 duel with his man at the back of the area, and it is a ball that you see lots of teams try every game.
The issue is that the ball from Taylor was poor, and then to compound it our defensive shape was all over the place, so one pass completely unlocked us. |  |
| |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:02 - Nov 29 with 683 views | Dubtractor |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 15:57 - Nov 29 by DJR |
The problem is that it didn't get anywhere near Egeli. A ball in the air to Nunez is a complete waste of time. [Post edited 29 Nov 15:58]
|
Like against Hull? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:05 - Nov 29 with 661 views | Bluespeed225 |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 15:58 - Nov 29 by BlueOura |
No great but I think the bigger issue is what the hell were the players behind him doing when Oxford gained possession?
How we managed to get taken out by one ball over the top with Taylor chasing Placheta back on his own is frankly ridiculous.
Just when we seemed to have turned a corner defensively we go and concede two absolutely pathetic goals. Let's hope it was a blip and we put in a much more solid display at Blackburn. |
This. The ball was ok, knocked down, but where was our midfield coming up for that second ball? Dropped nicely for someone to follow up for a shot, but their guy was in acres of space, and... | | | |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:05 - Nov 29 with 662 views | Bellevue_Blue |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:02 - Nov 29 by Dubtractor |
The 8 players behind the ball point is a bit weird - Egeli and Nunez are both against a single defender each. Using your men behind the ball argument we'd never ever play a forward pass.
The plan was clearly to aim for Egeli who would have had a 1-1 duel with his man at the back of the area, and it is a ball that you see lots of teams try every game.
The issue is that the ball from Taylor was poor, and then to compound it our defensive shape was all over the place, so one pass completely unlocked us. |
The 8 players behind the ball is more about what are you trying to achieve, If either win the header they are overwhelmingly isolated and Oxford will win the 2nd ball.
It's risk vs reward. The reward of playing that ball is limited at best and the risk is absolutely huge because they are 1 header away from having the ball in loads of space with loads of runners. | | | |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:07 - Nov 29 with 651 views | OldFart71 |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 15:53 - Nov 29 by portmanking |
Egeli is a short player?! Christ, I must be a dwarf. |
Not an angry elf I hope ? | | | |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:08 - Nov 29 with 643 views | Bellevue_Blue |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:05 - Nov 29 by Bluespeed225 |
This. The ball was ok, knocked down, but where was our midfield coming up for that second ball? Dropped nicely for someone to follow up for a shot, but their guy was in acres of space, and... |
But that is the point, nobody was expecting him to play the pass. The team wasn't set up for that type of pattern. Azor was deep, Leif was high, Hirst was out of the picture on the left.
We put ourselves in an awful awful position by giving it away at a point where the team was fragmented across the pitch. If we just wait 10 seconds, Hirst is back, Leif is back etc etc [Post edited 29 Nov 16:08]
| | | |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:17 - Nov 29 with 582 views | Dubtractor |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:05 - Nov 29 by Bellevue_Blue |
The 8 players behind the ball is more about what are you trying to achieve, If either win the header they are overwhelmingly isolated and Oxford will win the 2nd ball.
It's risk vs reward. The reward of playing that ball is limited at best and the risk is absolutely huge because they are 1 header away from having the ball in loads of space with loads of runners. |
I think the issue is less about the Oxford players behind the ball, but the lack of Ipswich players near where it was aimed to, to pick up the second ball. | |
| |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:20 - Nov 29 with 557 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 15:57 - Nov 29 by Illinoisblue |
Our delivery into the box (from open play) was utterly dreadful all game. |
Davis guilty of that a lot lately as well. | |
| |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:21 - Nov 29 with 554 views | Bellevue_Blue |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:17 - Nov 29 by Dubtractor |
I think the issue is less about the Oxford players behind the ball, but the lack of Ipswich players near where it was aimed to, to pick up the second ball. |
It's all part of the equation, its the match situation. There was no space to hit the ball, there was no support, it wasn't on and Jack Taylor still made that decision. | | | |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:27 - Nov 29 with 502 views | DJR |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:20 - Nov 29 by Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
Davis guilty of that a lot lately as well. |
It's strange but from being our best passer/crosser of the ball in recent seasons, this season he has become very erratic. [Post edited 29 Nov 16:28]
| | | |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:28 - Nov 29 with 493 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:27 - Nov 29 by DJR |
It's strange but from being our best passer/crosser of the ball in recent seasons, this season he has become very erratic. [Post edited 29 Nov 16:28]
|
Agreed but his best position is the overlap on the counter and obviously a lot less of that this year. | |
| |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:45 - Nov 29 with 428 views | Stenvict |
The problem was we didn't have a number 10 lurking on the edge of the box to pick up the 2nd ball. | |
| |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:49 - Nov 29 with 406 views | pointofblue |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:45 - Nov 29 by Stenvict |
The problem was we didn't have a number 10 lurking on the edge of the box to pick up the 2nd ball. |
I agree - there was no one lurking ready to pick it up, or at least challenge, and I don't understand why. | |
| |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:58 - Nov 29 with 368 views | Steve_M |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:02 - Nov 29 by Dubtractor |
The 8 players behind the ball point is a bit weird - Egeli and Nunez are both against a single defender each. Using your men behind the ball argument we'd never ever play a forward pass.
The plan was clearly to aim for Egeli who would have had a 1-1 duel with his man at the back of the area, and it is a ball that you see lots of teams try every game.
The issue is that the ball from Taylor was poor, and then to compound it our defensive shape was all over the place, so one pass completely unlocked us. |
Plus they both made the same run, Egeli holding back a bit would have been better placed.
So annoying to then concede from just a long ball forwards, same as Derby and Charlton this season. I thought we had got that sorted a bit before now but Kipre didn’t have a great game last night. [Post edited 29 Nov 17:00]
|  |
| |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 17:13 - Nov 29 with 272 views | DavoIPB |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:58 - Nov 29 by Steve_M |
Plus they both made the same run, Egeli holding back a bit would have been better placed.
So annoying to then concede from just a long ball forwards, same as Derby and Charlton this season. I thought we had got that sorted a bit before now but Kipre didn’t have a great game last night. [Post edited 29 Nov 17:00]
|
Kipre was awful last night. We kept a clean sheet and then changed the defence. Enough said. | | | |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 17:18 - Nov 29 with 238 views | Dubtractor |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 16:58 - Nov 29 by Steve_M |
Plus they both made the same run, Egeli holding back a bit would have been better placed.
So annoying to then concede from just a long ball forwards, same as Derby and Charlton this season. I thought we had got that sorted a bit before now but Kipre didn’t have a great game last night. [Post edited 29 Nov 17:00]
|
I'd like to see us pick a back 4 and stick with it from here, injuries and suspensions aside. I'm happy to see us swap the front 4 around, with the subs to impact and all that, keep the opposition on their toes. Just seems unnecessary and to our detriment to prevent the relationships and shapes at the back from being cemented.
Davis, Greaves, O'Shea, Furlong.
Just pick them as the base each week. Ideally pick a regular partner for Matusiwa too.
Get the defensive spine of the team as settled and reliable as possible, and build from that. | |
| |
| Oxford second goal - what were we trying to do?! on 18:00 - Nov 29 with 87 views | FrimleyBlue |
What amazed me was how shot kipre was getting back. If the bloke loses his engine despite walking for 80 minutes then hes no good being being brought in for no reason when greaves was fine on Tuesday. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
