Disappointing to say the least, they were far more up for it than we were. Why do we have games where the players lack that determination to get on top of the opposition?
Disappointing to say the least, they were far more up for it than we were. Why do we have games where the players lack that determination to get on top of the opposition?
Well I am still a little perplexed as to how that game finished 3-2 to Gloucester after being 0-0 at half time! Suffice to say their game management was far far better than ours throughout the game and they were very clinical with their finishing (especially with the second goal!) It was never going to be a pretty game in those conditions but, as the manager alluded to in his interview, there were far too many players below par and not doing the simple things properly. It wasn't a game for passing/dribbling in certain areas of the pitch but for turning the other team round, putting them on the back foot and taking advantage of mistakes. We got back into the game twice due to some suspect goalkeeping and suspect refereeing yet we still didn't have the nous to get a point out of the game?! A sign of a good team is to play poorly yet still pick up results and we had a point gifted to us twice on Saturday only to give them back the extra two points.
There were signs in the first half of defensive problems and it was always going to take a few games to try and bed in yet another keeper. Johnson made a couple of very late interceptions and was probably our best player first half. And how many times have you seen a National South centre half trying Cruyff turns on the edge of his own penalty area ffs?! It was not a game for pretty stuff but for doing the basics and some of our defending would not have looked out of place over Danson Park on a Sunday morning...I thought that the new fella Hall certainly tried hard and offered plenty of commitment but some of his delivery was poor and he tried to dribble the ball too many times in the wrong areas. On the other hand he offered more than the other winger - I trust someone took 12 quid off him after the game as that is the going rate these days for watching a game at PVR.
We only have a squad of 16 currently but normally we have got some good impact from players off the bench but, if anything, it got worse after the changes. Bradbrook was a real threat in the air earlier in the season but he only won one header that I can recall on Saturday and didn't get hold off the ball at all - his form and/or fitness seem to have deserted him. I am not quite sure what Nanetti was trying to do for their second goal but I have never seen him connect with a shot like that at the other end! One of the things I don't understand with the substitutions is that basically we end up moving one of our best players (and biggest goal threats) from the number 10 role to left midfield and then to central midfield all in a little over 10 minutes...?!
Some big decisions to make for tomorrow's game but we are limited in the changes to personnel and shape simply by the numbers we are currently running with. The manager wanted to take a back seat and manage and now he has to do that and pick the right team to do the job regardless of sentiment. Bognor have been struggling all season and haven't won at home for ever so we need to go there, play positively, do the basics properly and, above all, adapt far more quickly to the conditions than we did at the weekend.
Following the previous game against Braintree, I don't see how a player should be able to just walk into the side (Hall).
What sort of message does that send to your team?
Thought that performance (Braintree) was one of the best of the season.
So how do you reward your team, by starting with a new player.
That will no doubt get the players all wanting to play for you.
Jamie Coyle said that Nanetti had taken a knock so Hall got the nod over him. He was disappointed as he has yet to field an unchanged team (although there was a goalkeeper on debut too).