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.
I was thinking about the sort of changes that bolster a dodgy defence at 2-1 or even 2-2 with a view to winning or at least drawing, rather than the sort of change that takes a midfielder off and brings on a forward for 20 minutes or whatever it was, especially with our talent for shipping goals in the 90th-plus minute and playing away where a draw would have been an OK result.
Your last paragraph sums it up perfectly. Our full backs simply can't stop crosses. Keohane should be played as a sort of wing half, but certainly shouldn't be anywhere near full back because of his lack of pace. The number of times he allows crosses to pass him is alarming. Oduroh just isn't good enough based on what I've seen. Neither of them can regularly stop balls into the box, which thus puts increased pressure on the centre backs (who I thing are ok for this level...nothing more)
Jim, as a very experienced central defender should have recognised this from day one. It's his team, his players and his tactics. He needs to change them quickly.
Which brings me on to the mindless passing in our own penalty area from dead ball situations. It was obvious from the first pre season friendly that it's not a tactic to use more than occasionally, but in the second half today we must have attempted it 7 or 8 times, and they knew exactly what was coming, and thus set up to deny us space.
We really didn't seem to vary our approach to this too much I'm afraid, and again, it's down to Jim whether it continues, and indeed how often it is used. Certainly we shouldn't have four players in our own box for a goal kick, whilst the opposition rub their hands in anticipation.
I actually thought that Moulden made several decent saves today but most came from them being willing to attack and shoot when in position to do so.
Sticks in my throat to say so, but they beat us tactically as well as physically today. Our recent form is highly worrying when you consider that Hartlepool really could and probably should have at least drawn against us...our only recent win.
Some of their fans were explaining that the part time bit on crowds of about a thousand. Today's attandance was 1,400.
Wage budget is £600,000 a season, most of the players and some of the coaches have Monday to Friday jobs and do the work for Wealdstone voluntarily.
Boreham Wood apparently cherry pick the better players as they are full time each season but they have aspirations to go full time in a couple of years.
19 games in and 1 points separates them from us and Oldham.
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
Football club in making the most of what they have, working within a known model that works for them SHOCKER!
Get the structure right, continuous focus on improving processes, ensure that those coming into the club are aware of how it works. Money helps, but it’s never been completely vital at Rochdale to on-field success.
It’s a shame so many opportunities were missed over so many years and the eye was taken off the ball.
But we have a thin squad and an allegedly low budget. Yet we have a top 6 average attendance and revenue. And a parachute payment and acadamy funding for this season. Something doesn't add up and we need to hear more on our budgets. The Trust AGM next Saturday will be interesting
I am sure the Ebbsfleet manager said that Rochdale operated the Zonal marking system, which he said allowed his players more room in the Rochdale's penalty box.
But the more we have the ball the less opportunities for the opposition to have the ball wide and therefore the less chance to put a dangerous ball into the box.
'Only happy when you've got it often makes you miss the journey'
It’s not just from set pieces that we’re vulnerable through. Anything whipped into the penalty area is dangerous. Just think of Chesterfield’s second goal the other Tuesday for example when perhaps the smallest man on the pitch made a late run and scored.
It was very noticeable yesterday how often Wealdstone put the ball into the box very early, and they always went into a dangerous place. The highlights only show a few examples other than the goals- their second is the best example. I imagine the key to playing against them is to stop the crosses as the quality was very good.
In contrast we usually passed the ball around in the same positions trying to get a perfect angle but this gave then time to set their defence. However, elsewhere someone said that we are the fifth top scorers so really despite complaints about our style that is only a problem because we can't defend. Because of this, missing chances becomes critical whereas if we could keep the opposition to 0 or 1 occasionally we would be doing OK. Perhaps Cameron John coming back will help shore things up.
I really don't understand why we seem to have gone back to these short goal kicks. On one occasion in the first half it did work and we got the ball out to create a passing move resulting in a chance but usually it fails. On at least one occasion in the first half we had 5 men in the box for a goal kick and Wealdstone put 3 on the edge of the box putting us under instant pressure. At Boreham Wood we had three in the box to draw them towards the goal at which point Moulden did a long pass to Mitchell or a winger to create space up there, but this was not the tactic yesterday.
On a completely separate note I did enjoy reading their programme yesterday.
Frustrating that their manager thought their team was fitter than ours and were able to push on for the win. Part time players who have to get up for away games at 6am because they can't afford hotels......and he thinks they are fitter than an ex EFL club who are full time and pampered.
It's irrelevant how much of the ball we have if we concede the minute it eventually finds its way into our box, seem to remember us playing someone like Peterborough away a few years back and we had like 75% possession whilst being 3.0 down.
I'd say that is mind games along with comments about zonal marking it is to sew doubt into the minds of the team and supporters of a club who are a rival for a playoff place.
'Only happy when you've got it often makes you miss the journey'
The parachute payments are intended to help the club reduce it overheads by allowing contracts to be honoured and to gradually align with our new status as a non- league club. Its interesting that the NL will not allow us to accept a loan secured on the pitch which they may presume is intended to be used to bring in more players. Maybe the NL thinks we should be cutting overheads faster but it does seem odd that we cannot exploit a major asset, the ground, in an hour of need. Not a comfortable position for the NL to be in if the club goes bust, considering how it has created a recent precident, for allowing loans not to mention a barely raised an eyebrow at the ownership shenanigans at Scunthorpe, Southend etc. Football is farcked
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
