Re: flynn
 

[QUOTE=Redrobinman;2240247]In my opinion, Tuesday was not the time to change things......

The management took a huge risk on Tuesday evening, going to a new more attacking formation, which you said before kick off was “more like it”.
I’m not restating this as a criticism of you, but it strikes me that going gung ho at this stage of the season was not what was needed.......

We had got where we were by being defensively minded. It has worked, even if it isn’t pretty.
I agree that you can’t change that defensive mentality overnight, so why did Hughes try?

If you couple that new set up with the fact that Roberts was coming back from injury, had McGlashen in front of him who’s game he doesn’t know yet, (and who by all accounts was very poor on the night), rather than Rutherford who’s he does. And vice versa of course. Those singling out Roberts for criticism elsewhere on this forum, is somewhat unfair in my view.
Also, Pearson, our leader and stand out defender was out injured too. Another reason not to change formation and mentality at a crucial stage of the season.

So Management should take the flack, moreso than the players, in my view.[/QUOTE]

Given the players at his disposal, what sort of team could he have put out?

Re: flynn
 

Should have changed it after the first 10 minutes. Put Rutherford in the midfielder take Oswell off and go back to 433.

Re: flynn
 

It’s his height or lack of it that concerns me.

Re: flynn
 

[QUOTE=Gwersyllt-Robin;2240202]dear me.[/QUOTE]

Yes , precisely :(

Re: flynn
 

[QUOTE=Redrobinman;2240247]In my opinion, Tuesday was not the time to change things......

The management took a huge risk on Tuesday evening, going to a new more attacking formation, which you said before kick off was “more like it”.
I’m not restating this as a criticism of you, but it strikes me that going gung ho at this stage of the season was not what was needed.......

We had got where we were by being defensively minded. It has worked, even if it isn’t pretty.
I agree that you can’t change that defensive mentality overnight, so why did Hughes try?

If you couple that new set up with the fact that Roberts was coming back from injury, had McGlashen in front of him who’s game he doesn’t know yet, (and who by all accounts was very poor on the night), rather than Rutherford who’s he does. And vice versa of course. Those singling out Roberts for criticism elsewhere on this forum, is somewhat unfair in my view.
Also, Pearson, our leader and stand out defender was out injured too. Another reason not to change formation and mentality at a crucial stage of the season.

So Management should take the flack, moreso than the players, in my view.[/QUOTE]

I was thinking the same. I know it’s not always pretty but I think it’s a bit late and too risky in the season to be tinkering so much with our system. We tried that at the back end of last season and it blew up in our faces. The title is slipping away so think calm heads and keep going for the 1-0s and hopefully we can hang onto the playoffs, when anything can happen.

**takes cover from lack of ambition shouts**

Re: flynn
 

[QUOTE=Redrobinman;2240247]In my opinion, Tuesday was not the time to change things......

The management took a huge risk on Tuesday evening, going to a new more attacking formation, which you said before kick off was “more like it”.
I’m not restating this as a criticism of you, but it strikes me that going gung ho at this stage of the season was not what was needed.......

We had got where we were by being defensively minded. It has worked, even if it isn’t pretty.
I agree that you can’t change that defensive mentality overnight, so why did Hughes try?

If you couple that new set up with the fact that Roberts was coming back from injury, had McGlashen in front of him who’s game he doesn’t know yet, (and who by all accounts was very poor on the night), rather than Rutherford who’s he does. And vice versa of course. Those singling out Roberts for criticism elsewhere on this forum, is somewhat unfair in my view.
Also, Pearson, our leader and stand out defender was out injured too. Another reason not to change formation and mentality at a crucial stage of the season.

So Management should take the flack, moreso than the players, in my view.[/QUOTE]

Can't agree. Some players badly let the manager down, in fact nearly all of them did.
Giving the ball away so often in our own half has little to do with formation.
Conceding from a corner has nothing to do with formation.
Not marking players has nothing to do with formation.

Too easy to blame the manager and not the players.
Akil Wright constantly emptied the midfield, I doubt he was told to.
Roberts was just dreadful all round.
Lawlor and Kennedy were all over the place especially in the first half hour or so.
Lainton's kicking was poor again, putting the team under pressure.
The Strikers had nothing to work with apart from hoofed long balls.

From my point of view I place the blame with the players. The defence was all over the place and it was still a back four as it has been all season, an experience one at that.

We don't know that he didn't try to set them up defensively either. Maybe he did and they didn't carry out his instructions? Plus as Bux said he had little to choose from, being severely short of players for centre mid kinda forced his hand.

Add into all of that the players we had missing and bingo it was the perfect storm

Re: flynn
 

[QUOTE=Phils-an-alki;2240289]Can't agree. Some players badly let the manager down, in fact nearly all of them did.
Giving the ball away so often in our own half has little to do with formation.
Conceding from a corner has nothing to do with formation.
Not marking players has nothing to do with formation.

Too easy to blame the manager and not the players.
Akil Wright constantly emptied the midfield, I doubt he was told to.
Roberts was just dreadful all round.
Lawlor and Kennedy were all over the place especially in the first half hour or so.
Lainton's kicking was poor again, putting the team under pressure.
The Strikers had nothing to work with apart from hoofed long balls.

From my point of view I place the blame with the players. The defence was all over the place and it was still a back four as it has been all season, an experience one at that.

We don't know that he didn't try to set them up defensively either. Maybe he did and they didn't carry out his instructions? Plus as Bux said he had little to choose from, being severely short of players for centre mid kinda forced his hand.

Add into all of that the players we had missing and bingo it was the perfect storm[/QUOTE]

Whilst I agree with what you have said I am of the opinion that something has
happened behind closed doors to have affected the player's so badly.Was it the
realisation that non of them were being offered new contracts?Time will tell.

Re: flynn
 

[QUOTE=Phils-an-alki;2240289]Can't agree. Some players badly let the manager down, in fact nearly all of them did.
Giving the ball away so often in our own half has little to do with formation.
Conceding from a corner has nothing to do with formation.
Not marking players has nothing to do with formation.

Too easy to blame the manager and not the players.
Akil Wright constantly emptied the midfield, I doubt he was told to.
Roberts was just dreadful all round.
Lawlor and Kennedy were all over the place especially in the first half hour or so.
Lainton's kicking was poor again, putting the team under pressure.
The Strikers had nothing to work with apart from hoofed long balls.

From my point of view I place the blame with the players. The defence was all over the place and it was still a back four as it has been all season, an experience one at that.

We don't know that he didn't try to set them up defensively either. Maybe he did and they didn't carry out his instructions? Plus as Bux said he had little to choose from, being severely short of players for centre mid kinda forced his hand.

Add into all of that the players we had missing and bingo it was the perfect storm[/QUOTE]

We agree. IMHO, if we want to reduce it to just one, main reason for why it all went pear-shaped, I would say our midfield combination of Young and Wright was non-existent on the night. But, as you have identified, we were so, so poor at the basics it was almost laughable - but in a very unfunny way!:(

PS Storm GARETH!

Re: flynn
 

[QUOTE=KingBuxton_Forever red;2240248]Given the players at his disposal, what sort of team could he have put out?[/QUOTE]

Personally i would have maintained the 4-3-3 system and used Rutherford as the third midfielder with the brief to use his energy to get around the pitch harrying and harassing opponents. Ricketts used him there a few times and I thought he was pretty effective and gave us energy in the centre of the park. We then had 3 from four of Tollit, Beavon, Oswell and McGleashan up top although personally i think Holroyd deserves a chance in the front three seeing as he scored 14 goals last season.

Other options for the third midfield slot were Deverdicks and Kennedy, the latter choice meaning Tharme slotted in an centre back.

The point is he was't forced to play 4-4-2 he had three options of maintaining the team shame and system. 4-3-3 got us to the top of the league before the Orient game, the players have been playing it all season and are well drilled. The change to 4-4-2 presumably had only Monday to practice team shape as Sunday would have been a day off.

Yozzer got it horribly wrong and showed his naivety. You simply can't wing games in the National League with only two in centre midfield, they aren't good enough players to cover all of the disciplines required.