Wycombe game

[mab]

A terrific match? Well that's just silly.

Well i thought this was a cracking game and a good advert for L/2 football!! Lets not forget this wycombe team were in L/1 last season and with a bit more luck we could have won this one,thought there keeper was the busyer of the two and kept wycombe in the game with some excellent saves specialy the one from J Ryans long range effort. the linner on the main stand side was a joke big time All in all a good point for stanley

[cashman]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

We must have been watching an entirely different game.



A terrific match? Well that's just silly.[/SIZE]

well shaker everyone musta been watching a different game, cos loads of folk around us n folk we walked off wi, all commented what a good game it was, were ya stoned?

[football19]

shakermaker,normally your posts are constructive but i just cant agree with you on how to play the style of footy acci are trying to adopt.
You say you lost count of the times the ball was passed square and back?,this is called retaining possession!
Look forward,if the pass is not on,keep the ball moving,sideways and back if you have to.
If you have the ball the opposition cant score!!
Its not possible to hit the lone striker everytime or a midfielder who is marked tightly.
I presume you have been brought up on the " get it forward" early principle,it doesnt work with one up front
For 15 mins in the second half they tried and just surrendered possession,indeed hessey played 4 long balls on the run which wycombe got the ball back.
Shakey start to the season?mmmm how many have they conceeded and lost?.
If you watch corners and set pieces,deano always picks up the opposions dangerman,just remind me how many have scored?
Over 60 games and none!!! ( andy carroll at newcastle was the last over two years ago ).
Not bad for a shaky fullback,

[Pendle Red]

I understand about the need to tuck in with defenders but when you play a five man midfield my philosophy would be to play with two natural wide men Putterill to a degree has filled that role on the left and tracks back effectively you are doubling up on the attacking threat down the flanks threat maybe that's what went missing with him being out?

The right side is still an area I would like to see Chris Turner fill on a more regular basis to give us more natural width on the flanks creating chances and like Putterill getting back when needed.

With two natural wide men it also gives the full backs a liscence to bomb on while the flank midfielders can track back and fill the holes if needed.

I think the new 4 5 1 system is great maybe you can argue it would be more suited to away games and a more cavalier 4 4 2 at home?

But's that football its all about peoples peceptions and opinions everybodies vary slightly but that what makes it all the more interesting

[shakermaker]

Originally Posted by football19

You say you lost count of the times the ball was passed square and back?,this is called retaining possession!

I fully appreciate that you know much more than I on the technical nitty gritty of the beautiful game. However, what I saw yesterday was Winnard more often than not bottling the through ball and squaring to Hessey, who's only option was to punt. Big difference from his best form. Of course there has to be a marriage in each pass with a movement from a midfield man to meet an exchange from the back. However with a five man midfield how hard can it be to pick a forward pass?

Originally Posted by football19

Shakey start to the season?mmmm how many have they conceeded and lost? If you watch corners and set pieces,deano always picks up the opposions dangerman,just remind me how many have scored? Over 60 games and none!!! ( andy carroll at newcastle was the last over two years ago ). Not bad for a shaky fullback,

You've taken a leap from 'shaky start' to 'shaky full back'. Unfair. You know that throughout last season I've fully appreciated Winnard's remarkable fitness and consistency (only surpassed by Phil Edwards), and willingness to be versatile. I continue to admire his talents and assert that he is the first choice left back in our squad. If I'm the only one on here who has noted a dip in Deano's form from last season to this, then fair enough, must be an early onset of some neurological party. Insane in the membrane, p'raps. But as Pendle Red says, "that football its all about peoples peceptions and opinions everybodies vary slightly but that what makes it all the more interesting".

Pendle Red in his post has also articulated my thoughts on the formation and potential problems far better than I could.

[shillelagh]

Originally Posted by Outback Ozzy

Though there may have been a few more today, but 1,600+ not bad. With no premiership and championship games, thought a few more Rovers and Burnley fans would have come to get their weekly fix.

i was there with one rovers supporter (brother) and one burnley supporter (nephew)

[cashman]

the speed in which wycombe closed stanley down, made it very difficult at times to make a forward pass shaker. IMHO. think yer missing, they were a very fair side? think there will be quite a few sides who come to the crown, not as fluent as them?

[Whalley Red]

On the team formation ...

I'm a big fan of the 4-2-3-1 formation; a look at our goals against tally is proof that two players in front of the central defence was necessary to stop the goals through the middle that we have typically conceded in recent seasons.

Watching the highlights from yesterday, their goal was farcical. Bateson is picking up no-one from the throw and we then have a 3-on-3 situation in the box with our three being Jimmy Ryan, Charlie Barnett and Dean Winnard. Where were Phil and Sean Hessey? I think their throw-in came from a long ball upfield after one of our attacks broke down, but it was very poor organisation which is something that we have not been guilty of this season.

Back to the team formation, long balls to Boulding, Lindfield or Gornell are never going to work and that showed yesterday when Gornell was faced with two big centre-backs. However, our formation means that we have lots of short, quick passes in midfield and that is what opens up the defences. In this respect, we have lots of small, quick (and quick-footed) players in comparison to the much bigger (and very physical) Wycombe side. We created lots of chances in the first 60 minutes against a well-organised side and on another day, we could have scored four by half-time. I think Gornell just needs to bring himself closer to the midfielders and interchange with them better to be the sole striker that we need (more Rooney than Van Nistelroy).

What about against weaker teams? I don't foresee a return to 4-4-2 with this team - we would need one big and one quick striker for this to be effective. What I would favour is a move from 4-2-3-1 to 4-3-2-1 instead (such as Arsenal play). There isn't the same protection in front of the defence, but pushing Putterill and Ryan to play just off Gornell would make us a lot more of an attacking force but within the same style of play - quick, short passes that open up a defence through the middle of the pitch.

[Larry Lobster]

The Wycombe goal came through a bit of quick thinking from Wanderers and a bit of naivety from a ball boy (they were all getting a bit of a rocket at the end of the match for the incident).

Bateson put in a tackle from a Wycombe break which went out for a throw in, the ball boy who had another ball in his hands immediately through the ball to the Wanderers player who had it back in play instantly with Bateson still getting up from the tackle, hence he appeared to be marking no one. Stanley where stretched and they scored.

Not sure why people are looking to find fault in a defence that as so far conceeded just ONE league goal.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Larry Lobster

Not sure why people are looking to find fault in a defence that as so far conceeded just ONE league goal.

gotta say it beats the crap outa me as well.

[shakermaker]

Originally Posted by Larry Lobster

Not sure why people are looking to find fault in a defence that as so far conceeded just ONE league goal.

No one's "looking to find fault". It's a discussion forum. For... discussion.

Indeed before yesterday's game there was a consensus among many that Wycombe would be the first to score against us in the league, so there's no disappointment or surprise in the goal itself. However the fact of the matter is that before yesterday we hadn't conceded in the league, after the game we had. Even though a goal against was inevitable - certainly when facing the better teams in the league - when it happens one is inclined to ask the question, 'what happened in order to break the spell?' I can guarantee that Coley will be asking the same question of the lads in training and will be working on how to plug the hole before any great big gaping gaps appear.

The best teams are always looking to improve and none of those will ever look at themselves and say, 'well, it's only one goal against...'. To reiterate an earlier point, it's not about expectation (it's really not), rather the quest for positive consistency and its paramount importance in relation to success.

[maccawozzagod]

in fairness to Shakey, I also think that Deano hasn't looked as assured as he was last year. Whether that means he set himself very high standards last year remains to be seen. It's not that he can't defend all of a sudden, but he has looked a little more unsure in distribution and hasn't been able to give himself as much time on the ball as last year.

Some of this is probably attrituble to a change in formation and tactics, where the golden rule of hump it down the line to the big 'un has changed to give and go with the little 'un

[cashman]

however ya look at it, the defensive play has been a damn sight meaner n the opening 5 games last season.

[Grimps]

all im going to say is 1pt is better than no point. unbeaten still.

[smudgie]

Id agree.

Any1 who is critising the defence just needs to take a look at the goals against column.