Accrington Web - Bournemouth Match Thread

Accrington Web (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/index.php)

- Accrington Stanley (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f93/)

- - Bournemouth Match Thread (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f93/bournemouth-match-thread-45591.html)

Re: Bournemouth Match Thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revived Red (Post 680276)

Kenny Arthur kept us in the game with at least three superlative saves, and Cav and Phil Edwards played quite well..

I would have said world class... had that been a premier****e game they would be showing them saves over and over.. close range change direction tip of the hand wonder saves.

Subs where made due to injuries to all three players.. Miles was holding his back well before he went off.. bench where asking mullin if he was ok before he finally got taken off.. am told leam was playing with a slight problem as welll.. so all forced..

Quite a few stanley fans there.. southerners always make up the numbers but I also recognised quite a few FES regulars..

Re: Bournemouth Match Thread

Southerner making up the numbers here .. a hundred and thirty something Stanleyites according to their stewards. Ultras led us to make a fair bit of noise on and off, well done lads.

I thought PM won quite a lot in the air but until Lindfield came on there was no-one within miles to have any hope of picking up the flick-ons - Lindfield added a lot of pace but looked a little lightweight still. In fact I thought all 3 subs, forced or not, improved things - I agree Bell's tackle was awful (holding my breath against a straight red) but otherwise looked OK, and McConville brought some much-needed drive into midfield. Kissock was the disappointment to me after last week's rave reviews - run ragged defensively in the opening quarter of an hour (Cav did well to shore things up a bit after that, their left winger was electric) and never able to find space going forward.

Kenny was just brilliant.

Bournemouth's fans are keeping their faith and I think they will get their reward - hopefully not at our expense.

Re: Bournemouth Match Thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revived Red (Post 680276)

A hugely disappointing performance. We seemed to be back to the old ploy of hoofing the ball down the middle and expecting a flick-on from Paul Mullin. Sadly PM won virtually nothing in the air...

...I saw no attempt to draw Bournemouth defenders and midfielders out of position. Cav made a couple of forays forward but I can recall only one from Leam. I wonder if he is fully fit. He was replaced by James Bell whose sole contribution was a dreadful foul. We rarely won the second ball - or the first, for that matter!

This is harsh. I agree that we didn't show much of the fluency evident at Bradford and Wycombe, but this was a different sort of game. When we have teams come at us, we are able to exploit the space this creates. Bournemouth kept it tight yesterday, relying themselves on the long punt to the beanpole up front. The only exception to this was in the opening 30 minutes when they attacked down our right through Thomson, who I thought looked a good player. The opening half-hour was as poor as I have seen us play for a while, but apart from that overhead kick, which deserved a goal to be honest, for all their pressure we defended well. And for the reaction save that Kenny made, Jalal's at the end of the first-half was just as good. We could easily have gone in a goal up.

The second-half was more even, and, of course, we should have taken the lead from the pen. I agree that it wasn't the best display, and we started very slowly. Kissock was closed down very quickly and they weren't averse to a bit of needle either, so he wasn't as effective as might have been hoped. Leam didn't do much attacking, he did look a little off the pace, as did John Mullin. The arrival of McConville definitely gave us more incision.

Criticism is easy, but what other options does Coley have right now? There is a tiny bit of leeway for trying something new - Miles in the central attacking hole was a forced improvisation that happened to work okay; Ryan in the middle of midfield is one that the jury is still out on. What else? More perseverance with Turner or Grant? Back to 4-4-2 with McConville up front? Whatever you think, can you honestly assert that any of these hold out a clear prospect for an improvement in results?

If so, I'd be glad to have explained to me the trick that Coley is obviously missing.

Re: Bournemouth Match Thread

I'm not sure that it's necessarily a change of personnel, Phil. It's a change of approach.

I watched Kissock with great interest in view of the comments about his contribution last week. He must have been totally bemused. In the first half hour, he was the only player coming short to collect - but no-one ever passed the ball to him. It was the same story when Coley told him to swap wings in the first half. I don't think he played badly - he was just never given a chance to play well.

What do I mean by change of approach? Well, let's start with this. EVERY time that Kenny Arthur has the ball, all defenders and midfielders turn their back on him. The expectation is that it will be a long kick through the middle, and it usually is. (If Kenny has a weakness, it must be his kicking.) For the opposition, this lack of variation must be a dream come true. A throw-out to a full-back, even if used occasionally, would make the opposition think more. It would also begin to draw opposing players out of position. A midfielder coming deep to collect from the full-back would draw more of the opposition and create spaces which we could then utilise.

Nor does the throw-out have to be to a full-back. When Kenny collects after an attack breaks down, we need a forward or midfielder to be anticipating this and to be finding space to collect a throw. It works for other teams - why not for us?

As I said earlier, the personnel hardly matter. It is the approach that needs attention.

Harking back to yesterday, I counted at least three occasions where Stanley players stopped awaiting a refereeing decision that never happened. In a league where the standard of the officials is so poor, that is a risky strategy. On one occasion in the first half, three of the back four paused and waited for an offside decision; it never came because the fourth member of that back four was playing the Bournemouth player on by about 6 metres!

I do agree, Phil, that Bournemouth played it tight. But we made it so easy for them to play that way.

Re: Bournemouth Match Thread

Bournemouth player disputes penalty but their press praise Kenny:

RHOYS REVELS IN CHERRIES SUCCESS (From Bournemouth Echo)

Re: Bournemouth Match Thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revived Red (Post 680649)

Harking back to yesterday, I counted at least three occasions where Stanley players stopped awaiting a refereeing decision that never happened. In a league where the standard of the officials is so poor, that is a risky strategy. On one occasion in the first half, three of the back four paused and waited for an offside decision; it never came because the fourth member of that back four was playing the Bournemouth player on by about 6 metres!

This happens every game, Stanley players either standing still or running around with their arms up in the air claiming for offside. At one point at Bournemouth Leam Richardson had his arm up claiming for offside and was arguing with the liner whilst play was still continuing. One of the first things we were told at school was "play to the whistle". I wish Coley would drum that into their little brains.

Re: Bournemouth Match Thread