By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
As a rule out team generally goes for it the first 60 minutes of the games, thus there have been so many goals up the churchman's end. Do you think it would be prudent to attack the North first half to get ourselves out of sight by the break. We haven't seen that many goals up the north stand end. I think it would be a cunning idea.
[Post edited 28 Dec 2023 18:54]
1
Attack North first half on 19:02 - Dec 28 with 1803 views
Wasn't there a few games last season where the opposition 'turned us around'? Don't know for sure if it was to counter the attacking most vociferous end 2nd half tactic or if it was something as simple as wind direction or low sun glare for the keeper.
I will always remember the 86-87 season where where we had an exemplary record defending the North Stand end, not conceding a single goal in fact.
Wasn't there a few games last season where the opposition 'turned us around'? Don't know for sure if it was to counter the attacking most vociferous end 2nd half tactic or if it was something as simple as wind direction or low sun glare for the keeper.
I will always remember the 86-87 season where where we had an exemplary record defending the North Stand end, not conceding a single goal in fact.
I remember a year around that time where we didn't concede at churchman's end. Don't remember it happening at the north too?
0
Attack North first half on 19:59 - Dec 28 with 1694 views
Attack North first half on 19:54 - Dec 28 by RIPbobby
I remember a year around that time where we didn't concede at churchman's end. Don't remember it happening at the north too?
I think we are thinking of the same season. I can certainly picture opposition goals at the Churchmans end during 86-87. Not sure we were good enough in that era to repeat a similar feat!
I've found one piece of supporting evidence. And a reminder of a comedy penalty from Mark Brennan.
I think we are thinking of the same season. I can certainly picture opposition goals at the Churchmans end during 86-87. Not sure we were good enough in that era to repeat a similar feat!
I've found one piece of supporting evidence. And a reminder of a comedy penalty from Mark Brennan.
That's not Portman Road - look at the state of that pitch!
0
Attack North first half on 20:28 - Dec 28 with 1635 views
Wasn't there a few games last season where the opposition 'turned us around'? Don't know for sure if it was to counter the attacking most vociferous end 2nd half tactic or if it was something as simple as wind direction or low sun glare for the keeper.
I will always remember the 86-87 season where where we had an exemplary record defending the North Stand end, not conceding a single goal in fact.
We prefer to attack NS second half, but KM said he had started( last season) to change that at times because he felt we'd become dependant on it, I'm sure that's what he said....Phil?
0
Attack North first half on 20:35 - Dec 28 with 1603 views
Wasn't there a few games last season where the opposition 'turned us around'? Don't know for sure if it was to counter the attacking most vociferous end 2nd half tactic or if it was something as simple as wind direction or low sun glare for the keeper.
I will always remember the 86-87 season where where we had an exemplary record defending the North Stand end, not conceding a single goal in fact.
We started to turn ourselves around, KM and the team wanted quick starts and that helped it, was after a couple of teams turned us around and it went horribly wrong for them.
Attack North first half on 20:35 - Dec 28 by SitfcB
We started to turn ourselves around, KM and the team wanted quick starts and that helped it, was after a couple of teams turned us around and it went horribly wrong for them.
Attack North first half on 20:28 - Dec 28 by strikalite
We prefer to attack NS second half, but KM said he had started( last season) to change that at times because he felt we'd become dependant on it, I'm sure that's what he said....Phil?
My point was we have mostly got the finishers on in the second half and we have been much less effective. Gone are the days when most players do 90 minutes. We deliberately tell our starters to max out for and hour.
Hence not many goals at the north this season.
0
Attack North first half on 08:24 - Dec 29 with 1136 views
Those of us that sit down the other end have done our time, served our sentence and now we deserve our rewards!
Under the latter days of Mick we went god knows how many home games without scoring a first half goal. There were four home games in a row where our first shot was after 70 minutes, all down the North Stand end.
Used to become a game to count how many times we'd looked like we might shoot rather than actually shot down Churchmans, such was the boredom.
Last season it was the total reverse and it was lovely!
In the spirit of fairness maybe the boys can agree to score 3 per half in each home match. Everyone wins!
1
Attack North first half on 08:34 - Dec 29 with 1115 views
Attack North first half on 20:35 - Dec 28 by SitfcB
We started to turn ourselves around, KM and the team wanted quick starts and that helped it, was after a couple of teams turned us around and it went horribly wrong for them.
The ball is also in play longer, on average, in the 1st half. Especially last season with the level of sh1thousery we saw at PR.
0
Attack North first half on 08:59 - Dec 29 with 1065 views
I think we are thinking of the same season. I can certainly picture opposition goals at the Churchmans end during 86-87. Not sure we were good enough in that era to repeat a similar feat!
I've found one piece of supporting evidence. And a reminder of a comedy penalty from Mark Brennan.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
