Wasn't expecting much with Oxford's form, league position and our performance Tuesday night. I wasn't there today but listened to Nigel's commentary, excellent as usual, sounded like we weren't really in the second half. I suppose it could have been different if the pen went in. Seemed like another round of changes with Chi and Barnes back in.
League tables are great, as they show the true overall picture. And for us, the reality just now is we are an inconsistent average side, so get the resulting midtable position. We have pretty much equally won, drawn or lost our games, its like buying a lottery ticket, a losing dross game, or a winning performance to thoroughly enjoy. Our inconsistency shows in us having wins or draws against 4 of the top 7 teams in the league, which were fine results so show we sometimes have quality, but we have dropped points to all 6 of the bottom 7 teams we have played so far this season, which are games one has to consistently win if one wants to challenge in the top half of the table.
That inconsistency shows in this match, last time we beat them 5 0, this time we lost 0 3. I wonder what Riverstown makes of this latest twist?!
On the positive side, we've taken a big step forward compared to last 2 seasons, on the negative side inconsistency holds us back from taking a further step forward. I start to wonder the big question just how many players will want to stay with us for another season, as I really enjoy the team's commitment and quality and hope they stay together, as inconsistency will stop once they are coached to push up and pressurise more, as only 4 stayed from last season, so hopefully more will stay next season. Folks, screw Oxford, there is only one solution... another beer!
Pretty even first half, marred by Miles's mistake for their first goal.
The second goal just after half time took the stuffing out of us and we weren't in it afterwards. Their scorer (Zac Mcerchran) was the best player on the pitch) and did well to withstand the challenge and poke it pasy Miles.
Pity the penalty didn't go in.
Third goal was in injury time on a break.
One thing that surprised me was that Oxford appeared fitter.
One thing that surprised me was that Oxford appeared fitter.
This is not meant as an excuse, but we did have a big derby match last Saturday followed by a midweek game. There are a number of players carrying knocks so that could be part of the reason that the team faded so badly in the second half.
One thing that surprised me was that Oxford appeared fitter.
This is not meant as an excuse, but we did have a big derby match last Saturday followed by a midweek game. There are a number of players carrying knocks so that could be part of the reason that the team faded so badly in the second half.
It came across as an excuse Lol We are mid table, we are bang average. We will lose one week, we will win the next. Fair play to the fans that travelled today.
__________________
"Passion for the game.......is Passion for the game" 'Have you got the Spills to pay the bills?'
Tactics appear to be lump it up the pitch in the general direction of Azeez who didnt win a single headed challenge the whole of the first half and only a few in the second half. As for Feeneys comment in his post match interview what match was he watching? We were totally outplayed.
__________________
All postings lubricated by The Door Hinge Ale House 11 Welling High Street
Bookmakers are shrewd at higher divisions, but are much less knowledgeable about our division, this creates good betting opportunities. I think they look at the table too much and don't factor in the very latest form. Over Christmas Dartford beat Ebbsfleet 4 -1 and Ebbsfleet were in a little slump. They met again a few days later, and Dartford were odds of 4 - 1 to win, which was crazy bearing in mind they had just easily won the match before, and sure enough Dartford won again, 4 - 0. But my awareness of our inconsistency may possibly have first come to my notice after betting on our results and realising we are impossible to consistently predict! But our games are fab in showing us opposition abilities, so seeing how bad Hungerford were meant I bet against them in most matches, as the bookies weren't aware of just how bad they were.
With us, Warren has a blind spot about how overly defensively he sets the team out. In our last home game I knew we'd play a midfield diamond formation, so I really looked forward to that, as having a guy just behind the front 2 is not the front 3 I have advocated all season that Warren is too negative and cautious to use, but it is nearly a front 3 as the top player in the midfield diamond can push up to join the strikers. But when we played it was so disappointing, as Stefan was the top of the diamond, but was so deep that he hardly connected with the front 2.
And that is the root of lots of our problems, we have Taylor M and Stefan who could very well play a top of a diamond behind Ade and Alexander, or have both as central attacking midfielders, but Warren seems to turn his midfield into 4 defensive holding midfielders, so our 1 or 2 strikers are heavily outnumbered by defenders, and we dont have enough players forward to make an impact in attack. Match after match he makes this mistake, it is why we dont score enough to win more consistently. The top 3 teams have scored about 20 more goals than the other teams, so if we want to compete at the high end of the table we need to have scored 20 more goals, but the negative way he sets his team out means after 29 league games in our squad still only Stefan, Taylor and Ade have scored more than 1 goal. Add the shape of the team is wrong, as he sets the players to play too deep, and you have the reasons why we don't win more. Last season we lost most games, now we are only losing 1 in 3, but we should be doing much better with this squad, even though we have met our goal of mid table. Oh, hello Odin!
A change I think we need to consider is our defensive formation. When I set teams up I always played a back 4, who moved forward and back in a line. But as time went on I realised committing 4 players to only defend left me short elsewhere in the pitch, so my wide defenders changed to playing as wing backs. That meant there were only 2 fixed defenders, the central defenders. And the teams played better with an extra player higher up the pitch.
So it has been really interesting to watch us play with a back 3, as it is something I wanted us to play so I could see for myself how it works in practice, and how it compares with a back 4. Back 3s are seen as an attacking formation, as you are only using 3 in defence rather than 4. But the problem with a back 3 is they have to be in defence all the time, so you always play with 3 defending, whereas in a back 4 you are often using only 2 in defence, as the 2 wide defenders push up. So I have seen that back 3 is actually more defensive than is widely recognised, and a back 4 with wing backs is much more attacking.
The mark of a successful team is that it plays to its own strengths, rather than compromising those to cancel out the opposition. Our records against the lowest teams is poor, and that is partly because of this 3 at the back tactics. When we know the opponents are bad, we dont need to have 3 fixed defenders, we can free one up by playing a back 4, and use that freed up player to help attack in numbers. I get why a back 3 can be useful against the best sides who attack better, but against lower sides who offer much less in attack, a back 2 is fine. We won 8 - 0 last night, and played 3 at the back, but they offered so little in attack we could easily have benefitted from just playing 2 at the back, with 2 wing backs.
