TaiwanGas
Paul Bannon
Tom Ramasuts Left Foot.
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,537 
|
Post by TaiwanGas on Feb 16, 2020 13:56:26 GMT
My take on the game is slightly different from some on here. For anyone watching on iplayer or listening on the radio, you need to understand just how bad the conditions were and how a driving southerly wind meant Blackpool were dominant in the first half, but it was in Rovers favour in the second. The other thng that needs to be understood is how game dynamics work. I accept that our defending was poor for their goal. The first ball should have been cleared properly and Little needed to put his body on the line to prevent the shot. But my point is that being 1:0 up and with the sending off, plus the wind meant that Blackpool decided to play 10 men behind the ball all half. As most people know this can be difficult to unlock if the condiitions are good, but with such a disruptive wind, crafted approach play is out of the window. We were frustrated until Alfie's wonder strike - although I was surprised that we didn't attempt more shots from distance against a good, but small keeper with the wind directly behind (Rodman did from out wide to be fair and caused trouble). So why did Blackpool get the chances they did in the second half? I am a bit worried by the ease with which Blackpool were able to cut through, but with Rovers pushing forward to get an equaliser, we were always vulnerable to a break away. Additionally, Rovers were playing with the tension of a team that hasn't won for a long time and being one down adds to the urgency, but led to mistakes. One thing that did infuriate me was how naive we were in not running the clock down once we were 2:1 up. Blackpool had wasted time all game. Feigning injury on half a dozen occasions. Telling ball boys not to retrieve the ball. Arguing every decision with the Ref (even getting him to change his mind with one decision because of this pressure!!!) it all runs the clock down. But we seem to be the nice guys, playing with some sort of Corinthian spirit. Into injury time, one goal up, don't quickly pass the ball back to the thrower so he can get it in play sooner, take as much time as the ref will allow to take every restart, go down with cramp, etc. etc. This is professional football not some garden tea party. Given the conditions, and the pattern of the game, I was pretty pleased with the way we coped and the outcome. There will be the odd game where we will stroll to a comfortable victory, but overwhelmingly teams in this division will offer some threat as Blackpool did, for the reasons I have outlined. Ha ha, A good read!, I watched on ifollow, the camera is high up and the view angle is wide. Blackpools first goal was not really the fault of the defence, it was a fast high ball in, that was going forward, got held up in the wind, then it got blown backwards and if by some Jedi power came to land slowly and directly on the boot of the onrushing Blackpool player, it was incredible luck rather than any judgement. |
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,361
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Feb 16, 2020 14:24:12 GMT
Only 5013 in attendance yesterday. That is much worse than I thought and will need addressing. Are you sure about this figure KP? I thought the announcement was more like 6600?
Not that that is much better, but the weather was a massive factor in the poor attendance yesterday.
Was just going to post that I got it wrong. I looked at the attendance at Tranmere. Apologies to all. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2020 14:27:25 GMT
Are you sure about this figure KP? I thought the announcement was more like 6600?
Not that that is much better, but the weather was a massive factor in the poor attendance yesterday.
Was just going to post that I got it wrong. I looked at the attendance at Tranmere. Apologies to all. Still big gaps everywhere in the ground. Having said that, with the run we've been on, our support is fantastic, always has been. |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Feb 16, 2020 14:32:24 GMT
My take on the game is slightly different from some on here. For anyone watching on iplayer or listening on the radio, you need to understand just how bad the conditions were and how a driving southerly wind meant Blackpool were dominant in the first half, but it was in Rovers favour in the second. The other thng that needs to be understood is how game dynamics work. I accept that our defending was poor for their goal. The first ball should have been cleared properly and Little needed to put his body on the line to prevent the shot. But my point is that being 1:0 up and with the sending off, plus the wind meant that Blackpool decided to play 10 men behind the ball all half. As most people know this can be difficult to unlock if the condiitions are good, but with such a disruptive wind, crafted approach play is out of the window. We were frustrated until Alfie's wonder strike - although I was surprised that we didn't attempt more shots from distance against a good, but small keeper with the wind directly behind (Rodman did from out wide to be fair and caused trouble). So why did Blackpool get the chances they did in the second half? I am a bit worried by the ease with which Blackpool were able to cut through, but with Rovers pushing forward to get an equaliser, we were always vulnerable to a break away. Additionally, Rovers were playing with the tension of a team that hasn't won for a long time and being one down adds to the urgency, but led to mistakes. One thing that did infuriate me was how naive we were in not running the clock down once we were 2:1 up. Blackpool had wasted time all game. Feigning injury on half a dozen occasions. Telling ball boys not to retrieve the ball. Arguing every decision with the Ref (even getting him to change his mind with one decision because of this pressure!!!) it all runs the clock down. But we seem to be the nice guys, playing with some sort of Corinthian spirit. Into injury time, one goal up, don't quickly pass the ball back to the thrower so he can get it in play sooner, take as much time as the ref will allow to take every restart, go down with cramp, etc. etc. This is professional football not some garden tea party. Given the conditions, and the pattern of the game, I was pretty pleased with the way we coped and the outcome. There will be the odd game where we will stroll to a comfortable victory, but overwhelmingly teams in this division will offer some threat as Blackpool did, for the reasons I have outlined. Ha ha, A good read!, I watched on ifollow, the camera is high up and the view angle is wide. Blackpools first goal was not really the fault of the defence, it was a fast high ball in, that was going forward, got held up in the wind, then it got blown backwards and if by some Jedi power came to land slowly and directly on the boot of the onrushing Blackpool player, it was incredible luck rather than any judgement. Disagree. Their goal was avoidable. A clearance that held up in the wind wasn't dealt with, nor was any marking at all from us....Little tried in vain but was too late to challenge, but where was the marking? Unfortunately, much like Akinfenwa v Wycombe, our defending has gone to boot. We aren't stopping the crosses, we aren't marking up in area, we aren't blocking shots. That's why Blackman had such a good game.. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2020 14:47:22 GMT
Ha ha, A good read!, I watched on ifollow, the camera is high up and the view angle is wide. Blackpools first goal was not really the fault of the defence, it was a fast high ball in, that was going forward, got held up in the wind, then it got blown backwards and if by some Jedi power came to land slowly and directly on the boot of the onrushing Blackpool player, it was incredible luck rather than any judgement. Disagree. Their goal was avoidable. A clearance that held up in the wind wasn't dealt with, nor was any marking at all from us....Little tried in vain but was too late to challenge, but where was the marking? Unfortunately, much like Akinfenwa v Wycombe, our defending has gone to boot. We aren't stopping the crosses, we aren't marking up in area, we aren't blocking shots. That's why Blackman had such a good game.. Yep. Leahy stands off and allows crosses. This one was hit with spin, it was always going to curve back towards anybody running towards the goal. When the ball comes in we are second to it, if you do that with crosses you are always likely to concede, at best, attempts that the keeper has to deal with, at worst goals. It wasn't too different to one of the Coventry goals in the way that an attacker was able to get to a ball from that side and get a shot off with no physical pressure on him at all. |
|
jqgas
Joined: September 2014
Posts: 79
|
Post by jqgas on Feb 16, 2020 15:52:08 GMT
One thing that did infuriate me was how naive we were in not running the clock down once we were 2:1 up. Blackpool had wasted time all game. Feigning injury on half a dozen occasions. Telling ball boys not to retrieve the ball. Arguing every decision with the Ref (even getting him to change his mind with one decision because of this pressure!!!) it all runs the clock down. But we seem to be the nice guys, playing with some sort of Corinthian spirit. Into injury time, one goal up, don't quickly pass the ball back to the thrower so he can get it in play sooner, take as much time as the ref will allow to take every restart, go down with cramp, etc. etc. This is professional football not some garden tea party. This has been mentioned a number of times in the past but it's still an issue for us. While nobody wants to watch a team of cynical cheats I think you're right to say we're a bit naive at times, and events - like the goal kick morphing into a corner kick yesterday - show that if the opposition and their manager make a concerted effort to get into the referee's face at every opportunity it tends to pay off, at this level anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Feb 16, 2020 16:18:34 GMT
Disagree. Their goal was avoidable. A clearance that held up in the wind wasn't dealt with, nor was any marking at all from us....Little tried in vain but was too late to challenge, but where was the marking? Unfortunately, much like Akinfenwa v Wycombe, our defending has gone to boot. We aren't stopping the crosses, we aren't marking up in area, we aren't blocking shots. That's why Blackman had such a good game.. Yep. Leahy stands off and allows crosses. This one was hit with spin, it was always going to curve back towards anybody running towards the goal. When the ball comes in we are second to it, if you do that with crosses you are always likely to concede, at best, attempts that the keeper has to deal with, at worst goals. It wasn't too different to one of the Coventry goals in the way that an attacker was able to get to a ball from that side and get a shot off with no physical pressure on him at all. Absolutely agree. I wonder if it's where I watch the game from affect opinion? I'm this season in East Stand. It looks to me up there our defending has gone to pot under BG. Before....you could draw a technical drawing trajectory line impeccable with 3 / 5 defence, high up, simbiant understanding which was a big difference from the DC days.. We definitely miss the James Clarke right sided defence set piece defending. We are targeted on our left, but this is when THD isn't appearing. We did have a defence system, stats and confidence to be proud of. Something's changed.. |
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Feb 16, 2020 19:09:57 GMT
 nice to see so many happy faces on here tonight It's because everybody who went knows that nothing has changed. If that was 11 Vs 11, or even a team in any kind of form with 10 players, we would have lost again. No movement or urgency from midfield. Static front line. Leahy nowhere near the man crossing the ball, when it does come in everybody watches it rather than attacks it, and of course it ends up in our net. Midfield and defence undone time after time by opposition running straight at them. Happy with the win, but Garner is still Garner and unfortunately is still here. That was Tony Craig. I personally don't think Leahy was to blame at all for the goal. It came about from a poor clearance by Alfie, straight to the opposition. LL was faced with having to deal with 2 Blackpool players down that flank. He did the right thing by stepping up to challenge the man on the ball, but it was slipped further down the wing. TC came across to challenge the overlapping player, but didn't manage to get close enough. I felt ML could have done much better to get to the ball first, or at least get a block in. The only thing that slightly excuses him is the ball appears to curve away from him at the last minute. After giving away possession we were always one step behind in that move. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2020 21:36:03 GMT
Sorry to interject here, but the person you're making rude assertions about is one of my closest friends, is a thoroughly decent human being and doesn't suffer from shortcomings. I'm not sure why you chose (again) to make snide personal remarks about someone you obviously don't know, but it's not big or clever. Because he jumped in shouting his mouth off yesterday, that's why. I'm entitled to respond however I feel appropriate, with or without your permission. You are indeed and I'm able to point out that you're being unpleasant for no discernible reason. Have fun. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2020 21:44:29 GMT
Because he jumped in shouting his mouth off yesterday, that's why. I'm entitled to respond however I feel appropriate, with or without your permission. You are indeed and I'm able to point out that you're being unpleasant for no discernible reason. Have fun. I think that we've called a truce? I hope so. |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Feb 16, 2020 21:48:24 GMT
I hope so too...?
4-3-3 anybody?
Crap formation again even after 10 men??
Jeez.
This manager needs some help..
|
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Feb 16, 2020 21:51:51 GMT
I mean... Down to 10, why don't you push 2 up?
That means they have to commit 3, yea at the back?
Na.
Keep narrow.
Until the minutes where you have to sub..
Lucky, but too late.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,361
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Feb 17, 2020 10:46:09 GMT
Was just going to post that I got it wrong. I looked at the attendance at Tranmere. Apologies to all. Still big gaps everywhere in the ground. Having said that, with the run we've been on, our support is fantastic, always has been. It’s a strange thing that when our crowds get lower, it seems that those that do turn up are more volubly expressive. We had a good couple of times when we really got behind the team and they responded. The biggest problem as I saw it, was that we have no midfield player that will drive forward with the ball. It’s as if there is an invisible forcefield that they stop at and either pass it sideways or lose it. There were several occasions when everyone was shouting run with it but they just do not. We have no one in midfield who has that ability or mentality and I’m sure it could have been much more interesting if we did. |
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,600
|
Post by eppinggas on Feb 17, 2020 12:18:15 GMT
Still big gaps everywhere in the ground. Having said that, with the run we've been on, our support is fantastic, always has been. It’s a strange thing that when our crowds get lower, it seems that those that do turn up are more volubly expressive. We had a good couple of times when we really got behind the team and they responded. The biggest problem as I saw it, was that we have no midfield player that will drive forward with the ball. It’s as if there is an invisible forcefield that they stop at and either pass it sideways or lose it. There were several occasions when everyone was shouting run with it but they just do not. We have no one in midfield who has that ability or mentality and I’m sure it could have been much more interesting if we did. Good point KP. Maybe Barrett could be the person who can actually drive forward? If Sercs is out - none of Ogogo, Clarke or Upson are capable of it. |
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Feb 17, 2020 15:33:29 GMT
My take on the game is slightly different from some on here. For anyone watching on iplayer or listening on the radio, you need to understand just how bad the conditions were and how a driving southerly wind meant Blackpool were dominant in the first half, but it was in Rovers favour in the second. The other thng that needs to be understood is how game dynamics work. I accept that our defending was poor for their goal. The first ball should have been cleared properly and Little needed to put his body on the line to prevent the shot. But my point is that being 1:0 up and with the sending off, plus the wind meant that Blackpool decided to play 10 men behind the ball all half. As most people know this can be difficult to unlock if the condiitions are good, but with such a disruptive wind, crafted approach play is out of the window. We were frustrated until Alfie's wonder strike - although I was surprised that we didn't attempt more shots from distance against a good, but small keeper with the wind directly behind (Rodman did from out wide to be fair and caused trouble). So why did Blackpool get the chances they did in the second half? I am a bit worried by the ease with which Blackpool were able to cut through, but with Rovers pushing forward to get an equaliser, we were always vulnerable to a break away. Additionally, Rovers were playing with the tension of a team that hasn't won for a long time and being one down adds to the urgency, but led to mistakes. One thing that did infuriate me was how naive we were in not running the clock down once we were 2:1 up. Blackpool had wasted time all game. Feigning injury on half a dozen occasions. Telling ball boys not to retrieve the ball. Arguing every decision with the Ref (even getting him to change his mind with one decision because of this pressure!!!) it all runs the clock down. But we seem to be the nice guys, playing with some sort of Corinthian spirit. Into injury time, one goal up, don't quickly pass the ball back to the thrower so he can get it in play sooner, take as much time as the ref will allow to take every restart, go down with cramp, etc. etc. This is professional football not some garden tea party. Given the conditions, and the pattern of the game, I was pretty pleased with the way we coped and the outcome. There will be the odd game where we will stroll to a comfortable victory, but overwhelmingly teams in this division will offer some threat as Blackpool did, for the reasons I have outlined. This is how I saw it too.
Conditions were so awful that I don't think you can read anything very much into where we are re; the Garner revolution etc. It was just a day for digging in and hoping the breaks wen our way rather than theirs which they did. Yes they niggled and timewasted and generally tried every trick in the book after they went down to 10 but any team would have done the same in the circumstance. We needed to be cuter at times-too many young, keen players getting frustrated steaming into challenges and giving the opposition what they wanted; ie. excuses to go down, react, break up the flow etc.
Until Alfie's thunderblaster we were playing very tight and the crowd was understandably getting on the back of the team. After that we were the better team apart form that awful late giveaway from JCH which they should have equalised from.
The only 2 things I thought were worth noting was;
1. Garner is clearly obsessed with imposing this 4-3-3 pattern of play. It was particularly odd in the second half when we just didn't seem to have the width against a side who were clearly primarily concerned with defending their own 18 yard. We were still working it down the middle rather than trying to get the overlap. I didn't understand why we didn't have attacking players hugging the toucline. Instead it was clear that the instruction was to wait for full back get the ball and then try and make a run outside him. I didn't get that at all. Leahy kept getting the ball outside 10 yards into their half with no one in front of him, only then would one of the forwards (Mitchell-Lawson and then Ginelly most of the time) go wide. Don't get that at all.
2.I agree it's worrying they were able to be so much of a threat on the counter. All BG's signings with the exception of the goalie have been forward players which I can understand as the squad was clearly light on creativity. But I think our defence lacks pace and is very vulnerable to even fairly basic counter attacks.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Feb 17, 2020 15:48:40 GMT
My take on the game is slightly different from some on here. For anyone watching on iplayer or listening on the radio, you need to understand just how bad the conditions were and how a driving southerly wind meant Blackpool were dominant in the first half, but it was in Rovers favour in the second. The other thng that needs to be understood is how game dynamics work. I accept that our defending was poor for their goal. The first ball should have been cleared properly and Little needed to put his body on the line to prevent the shot. But my point is that being 1:0 up and with the sending off, plus the wind meant that Blackpool decided to play 10 men behind the ball all half. As most people know this can be difficult to unlock if the condiitions are good, but with such a disruptive wind, crafted approach play is out of the window. We were frustrated until Alfie's wonder strike - although I was surprised that we didn't attempt more shots from distance against a good, but small keeper with the wind directly behind (Rodman did from out wide to be fair and caused trouble). So why did Blackpool get the chances they did in the second half? I am a bit worried by the ease with which Blackpool were able to cut through, but with Rovers pushing forward to get an equaliser, we were always vulnerable to a break away. Additionally, Rovers were playing with the tension of a team that hasn't won for a long time and being one down adds to the urgency, but led to mistakes. One thing that did infuriate me was how naive we were in not running the clock down once we were 2:1 up. Blackpool had wasted time all game. Feigning injury on half a dozen occasions. Telling ball boys not to retrieve the ball. Arguing every decision with the Ref (even getting him to change his mind with one decision because of this pressure!!!) it all runs the clock down. But we seem to be the nice guys, playing with some sort of Corinthian spirit. Into injury time, one goal up, don't quickly pass the ball back to the thrower so he can get it in play sooner, take as much time as the ref will allow to take every restart, go down with cramp, etc. etc. This is professional football not some garden tea party. Given the conditions, and the pattern of the game, I was pretty pleased with the way we coped and the outcome. There will be the odd game where we will stroll to a comfortable victory, but overwhelmingly teams in this division will offer some threat as Blackpool did, for the reasons I have outlined. This is how I saw it too.
Conditions were so awful that I don't think you can read anything very much into where we are re; the Garner revolution etc. It was just a day for digging in and hoping the breaks wen our way rather than theirs which they did. Yes they niggled and timewasted and generally tried every trick in the book after they went down to 10 but any team would have done the same in the circumstance. We needed to be cuter at times-too many young, keen players getting frustrated steaming into challenges and giving the opposition what they wanted; ie. excuses to go down, react, break up the flow etc.
Until Alfie's thunderblaster we were playing very tight and the crowd was understandably getting on the back of the team. After that we were the better team apart form that awful late giveaway from JCH which they should have equalised from.
The only 2 things I thought were worth noting was;
1. Garner is clearly obsessed with imposing this 4-3-3 pattern of play. It was particularly odd in the second half when we just didn't seem to have the width against a side who were clearly primarily concerned with defending their own 18 yard. We were still working it down the middle rather than trying to get the overlap. I didn't understand why we didn't have attacking players hugging the toucline. Instead it was clear that the instruction was to wait for full back get the ball and then try and make a run outside him. I didn't get that at all. Leahy kept getting the ball outside 10 yards into their half with no one in front of him, only then would one of the forwards (Mitchell-Lawson and then Ginelly most of the time) go wide. Don't get that at all.
2.I agree it's worrying they were able to be so much of a threat on the counter. All BG's signings with the exception of the goalie have been forward players which I can understand as the squad was clearly light on creativity. But I think our defence lacks pace and is very vulnerable to even fairly basic counter attacks.
the thing with the 4-3-3 is not the wide players/lack of width as such, it's that with Upson, Ogogo and Clarke there aren't enough runs from midfield and anyone breaking beyond the line. It's literally 4-3-3 but the midfield creates no fluidity or doesn't offer any creativity as that unit.
When Barrett came on you instantly had a player who wanted the ball and wanted to do something with it
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Feb 17, 2020 16:33:51 GMT
This is how I saw it too.
Conditions were so awful that I don't think you can read anything very much into where we are re; the Garner revolution etc. It was just a day for digging in and hoping the breaks wen our way rather than theirs which they did. Yes they niggled and timewasted and generally tried every trick in the book after they went down to 10 but any team would have done the same in the circumstance. We needed to be cuter at times-too many young, keen players getting frustrated steaming into challenges and giving the opposition what they wanted; ie. excuses to go down, react, break up the flow etc.
Until Alfie's thunderblaster we were playing very tight and the crowd was understandably getting on the back of the team. After that we were the better team apart form that awful late giveaway from JCH which they should have equalised from.
The only 2 things I thought were worth noting was;
1. Garner is clearly obsessed with imposing this 4-3-3 pattern of play. It was particularly odd in the second half when we just didn't seem to have the width against a side who were clearly primarily concerned with defending their own 18 yard. We were still working it down the middle rather than trying to get the overlap. I didn't understand why we didn't have attacking players hugging the toucline. Instead it was clear that the instruction was to wait for full back get the ball and then try and make a run outside him. I didn't get that at all. Leahy kept getting the ball outside 10 yards into their half with no one in front of him, only then would one of the forwards (Mitchell-Lawson and then Ginelly most of the time) go wide. Don't get that at all.
2.I agree it's worrying they were able to be so much of a threat on the counter. All BG's signings with the exception of the goalie have been forward players which I can understand as the squad was clearly light on creativity. But I think our defence lacks pace and is very vulnerable to even fairly basic counter attacks.
the thing with the 4-3-3 is not the wide players/lack of width as such, it's that with Upson, Ogogo and Clarke there aren't enough runs from midfield and anyone breaking beyond the line. It's literally 4-3-3 but the midfield creates no fluidity or doesn't offer any creativity as that unit.
When Barrett came on you instantly had a player who wanted the ball and wanted to do something with it
Yes - I'd agree with that. The attacking balance with those 3 in the middle doesn't really work. Barrett looks a player to me.
I still say it's odd to play so narrow when up against 10 though and it does perhaps speak of Garner's absolute determination to embed this system for good or ill.
|
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Feb 17, 2020 16:45:28 GMT
This is how I saw it too.
Conditions were so awful that I don't think you can read anything very much into where we are re; the Garner revolution etc. It was just a day for digging in and hoping the breaks wen our way rather than theirs which they did. Yes they niggled and timewasted and generally tried every trick in the book after they went down to 10 but any team would have done the same in the circumstance. We needed to be cuter at times-too many young, keen players getting frustrated steaming into challenges and giving the opposition what they wanted; ie. excuses to go down, react, break up the flow etc.
Until Alfie's thunderblaster we were playing very tight and the crowd was understandably getting on the back of the team. After that we were the better team apart form that awful late giveaway from JCH which they should have equalised from.
The only 2 things I thought were worth noting was;
1. Garner is clearly obsessed with imposing this 4-3-3 pattern of play. It was particularly odd in the second half when we just didn't seem to have the width against a side who were clearly primarily concerned with defending their own 18 yard. We were still working it down the middle rather than trying to get the overlap. I didn't understand why we didn't have attacking players hugging the toucline. Instead it was clear that the instruction was to wait for full back get the ball and then try and make a run outside him. I didn't get that at all. Leahy kept getting the ball outside 10 yards into their half with no one in front of him, only then would one of the forwards (Mitchell-Lawson and then Ginelly most of the time) go wide. Don't get that at all.
2.I agree it's worrying they were able to be so much of a threat on the counter. All BG's signings with the exception of the goalie have been forward players which I can understand as the squad was clearly light on creativity. But I think our defence lacks pace and is very vulnerable to even fairly basic counter attacks.
the thing with the 4-3-3 is not the wide players/lack of width as such, it's that with Upson, Ogogo and Clarke there aren't enough runs from midfield and anyone breaking beyond the line. It's literally 4-3-3 but the midfield creates no fluidity or doesn't offer any creativity as that unit.
When Barrett came on you instantly had a player who wanted the ball and wanted to do something with it I thought Upson was the best of the three on Saturday, whereas I would have thought the game was ideal for Ogogo to roll his sleeves up and get stuck in, he seemed less effective. However, all previous comments about conditions apply.
I agree to a certain extent re Barrett, but I fear he has a tendency to over play it. He has a tendency to receive the ball and twist and turn a couple of times. OK if it creates a new opening, but it does slow the play, a la Kyle Bennett.
I was impressed by Abraham's brief appearance and would like to see a JCH/ Abraham front 2, with JML/Ginelly wide left and Rodman wide right. Upson + 1 (Clarke or Ogogo) in the middle.
Tony Craig has proven me wrong with his excellent early season appearances in a back 3/5, but I fear that his lack of pace is exposed more in a back four. He didn't do anything particularly wrong on Saturday though.
|
|
GasMacc1
Les Bradd
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,423
|
Post by GasMacc1 on Feb 17, 2020 17:04:04 GMT
On the other hand, if your approach is to make sure you stay in the game for the first hour, then loosen up and "unleash your potential" (to coin a phrase), the Clarke / Ogogo / Upson triumvirate is a good bet to start. Bringing on Barrett and/or Abraham for the last phase of the match fits that strategy perfectly.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Feb 17, 2020 17:10:21 GMT
On the other hand, if your approach is to make sure you stay in the game for the first hour, then loosen up and "unleash your potential" (to coin a phrase), the Clarke / Ogogo / Upson triumvirate is a good bet to start. Bringing on Barrett and/or Abraham for the last phase of the match fits that strategy perfectly. I think Barrett or Sercombe gets in the midfield 3 injuries/fitness dependent in general, but I can easily see why Upson, Ogogo, Clarke would be picked against Tranmere on that pitch and Blackpool in those conditions. Those games are as much about graft and battling against the pitch and/or the elements |
|
nice to see so many happy faces on here tonight 
