| We played well today BUT... 18:15 - Apr 17 with 3224 views | YouTubeDale |
Our goalkeeper kicks the ball up to Beesley who does well and heads the ball forwards....it goes to no one!!!!! Our players are not getting to his knock downs and that is a wasted opportunity. This has happened in quite a number of games. Why hasn't BBM put this right? |  |
| |  |
| We played well today BUT... on 18:35 - Apr 17 with 3117 views | 442Dale |
Being fair to the manager, we haven’t been able to play a proper second striker with Humphrys out and then Done’s injury. Beesley has players to link with as they joined him today and Tuesday, not running in behind as that isn’t something we could do with those on the pitch.
We can’t have Rathbone and/or Grant running beyond too often in those situations - though it did happen - as it would disrupt the shape of the midfield. Rathbone was the more advanced but it’s understandable why he isn’t up against the opposition central defenders.
We don’t often go that long, and nor should we only when required, the main thing is we get the ball into the opposition half and play from there. It’s no coincidence that is exactly what we’ve done the last two games and looked to progress into the penalty area, such a small change in the direction of play is the reason we are able to look threatening as has been shown when we’ve won games over the season. That we haven’t done that consistently is not down to personnel and injuries (the last two games prove that) or that other clubs have much better resources, but because we haven’t learnt what we are good at and looked to mould our play to that regularly. |  |
| |
| We played well today BUT... on 21:46 - Apr 17 with 2789 views | dingdangblue |
As 442 says we are desperately missing Humphrys as a natural forward to complement Beesley. In the games they've played together they have been a real threat - we all know how good Humphrys is and we have no one who can replace him. |  |
| |
| We played well today BUT... on 22:42 - Apr 17 with 2690 views | rich_dale |
We didn't play that many balls purposely for Beesley to flick on to someone (or as you say more usually no one), we were much more imaginative with our attacking play. Beesley led the line really well, you can see he's maturing and starting to come of age. Looks a shrewd signing now. |  | | |
| We played well today BUT... on 08:01 - Apr 18 with 2484 views | RooleyMoorBlue |
| We played well today BUT... on 18:35 - Apr 17 by 442Dale |
Being fair to the manager, we haven’t been able to play a proper second striker with Humphrys out and then Done’s injury. Beesley has players to link with as they joined him today and Tuesday, not running in behind as that isn’t something we could do with those on the pitch.
We can’t have Rathbone and/or Grant running beyond too often in those situations - though it did happen - as it would disrupt the shape of the midfield. Rathbone was the more advanced but it’s understandable why he isn’t up against the opposition central defenders.
We don’t often go that long, and nor should we only when required, the main thing is we get the ball into the opposition half and play from there. It’s no coincidence that is exactly what we’ve done the last two games and looked to progress into the penalty area, such a small change in the direction of play is the reason we are able to look threatening as has been shown when we’ve won games over the season. That we haven’t done that consistently is not down to personnel and injuries (the last two games prove that) or that other clubs have much better resources, but because we haven’t learnt what we are good at and looked to mould our play to that regularly. |
In other words the manager is to blame. Because there is nobody there to pick up on Beesley's headers, the long balls seem aimless, yet this must be how the players have been told to play. It isn't rocket science to read a flick on but if you are going to be negative and not play a 2nd player further forward in home games, then you can't expect to retain possession in the opposing half. |  | | |
| We played well today BUT... on 09:15 - Apr 18 with 2372 views | 442Dale |
| We played well today BUT... on 08:01 - Apr 18 by RooleyMoorBlue |
In other words the manager is to blame. Because there is nobody there to pick up on Beesley's headers, the long balls seem aimless, yet this must be how the players have been told to play. It isn't rocket science to read a flick on but if you are going to be negative and not play a 2nd player further forward in home games, then you can't expect to retain possession in the opposing half. |
On this occasion, no. Because when Lynch is going long it’s out of necessity so we aren’t getting into trouble passing it about at the back and it’s to get the ball deep into their half. With two proper strikers it’s obviously easier to then retain possession after a flick on, but with injury to Humphrys we don’t have that luxury.
It’s never been about whether we follow a philosophy of keeping the ball or not, that’s always a good plan, more how we approach games in general with the resources we have available. Yesterday and Tuesday were illustrations that it’s fine to play out from the back if the first thought is to get the ball as quickly into the opposition’s half as possible. Osho was a great example of this as was O’Connell on the other side, also the obvious tactic to get the wing-backs as high up the pitch as possible and to get the ball to them early. From there, instead of retaining the ball thirty yards from our own goal, we are looking to do it thirty yards from theirs. And then get it into the box. It’s a clear change, something we witnessed at Plymouth earlier in the season too.
It’s possible to forgive a few long clearances and flick-ons that go to nobody when, in general, the rest of the performance is effective. The responsibility does indeed lie with the manager when it comes to choosing the overall tactics though, that is why we are where we are. [Post edited 18 Apr 2021 9:17]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
