MATCH: vs Leyton Orient (A) 27/03/21

[Mayfield]

46 minutes ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

Yeah I understand that sentiment mate entirely as I said earlier in the thread their will be a time when things will change and they will. Its frustrating seeing us as we are at the moment but I don't let it get you down to much.

 

Maybe I said that because I was at a funeral yesterday of a friends mum in the grand scheme of things a defeat at Leyton Orient doesn't seem that important.

Sorry to hear your troubles Glossop.

You are right, there are more important things.

We live in hope of good times to come.

 

[disjointed]

11 minutes ago, BP1960 said:

 

False number 9..yet another trendy position, probably dreamed up by academic coaches on a chessboard.

What next a false goalkeeper?

 

BP, I like a lot of your posts on here, but sometimes you need to see the game can be played in so many different formations, Barcelona achieved multiple success with a false no 9. Rigid formations are easy to overcome. Please don't take this as criticism it just my opinion. Also in no way am I even putting us and Barcelona in the same bracket. 

[TheBigDog]

Ultimately two mistakes cost us the game today. However we should not lose sight of the fact that we only had a single out and out striker available in McAleny. And for much of the game he cut a lonely and frustrated figure.

 

At the moment there are five strikers who are missing. Dearnley, Blackwood, Grant, Barnes, Luamba  - and when you factor in Bahamboula being away on international duty it is fair to say that, whatever the merits of the absentees, Curle had limited options to change things in our attacking third.

 

While Badan did have a much improved game playing further forward, he was afforded so much space and time by the opposition. Sadly his final ball was often poorly played or he simply had no outlet.

 

Furthermore we have two or three very tidy technical midfielders who show well when on the ball but are simply not strong enough when closing down or protecting the ball. We looked far stronger when Diarra came on. 

 

It seems to me that certain players have responded well to the new manager. Piergianni, Jameson, Whelan, McAlmont and Adams look comfortable in a changed system. But by the same token others seem to have regressed - Keillor-Dunn, McAleny, Hilssner seem ill at ease with the new style of play.

 

Game management and decision making was poor today - I lost count of the number of time a player in black and gold chose to shoot when he should have passed and, when he did pass, chose the wrong ball.

 

In the end we lost a game that with a little more composure we would have surely won. 

 

 

[BP1960]

1 hour ago, disjointed said:

BP, I like a lot of your posts on here, but sometimes you need to see the game can be played in so many different formations, Barcelona achieved multiple success with a false no 9. Rigid formations are easy to overcome. Please don't take this as criticism it just my opinion. Also in no way am I even putting us and Barcelona in the same bracket. 

 

Why are rigid formations easy to overcome? With good players in all positions they will work. A false number 9 at our level is useless IMO, leave it to Barcelona.

[the_mighty_bosh]

5 hours ago, BP1960 said:

 

 

What next a false goalkeeper?

 

 

Oh Latics have been well ahead of the curve on that front.

[Pidge]

10 hours ago, BP1960 said:

 

Why are rigid formations easy to overcome? With good players in all positions they will work. A false number 9 at our level is useless IMO, leave it to Barcelona.

I think the point is there is always more then one way to achieve, and football is not an exception. Two people can actually be both be right. 
Rigid formations have their pros and cons. Producing a counter plan is easy because you know what you are up against. But BP, you may well be right because you add “with good players in all positions they will work”. So both opinions are right.

 

The obvious problem with your plan BP probably does not need pointing out, but good players in all positions we don’t have.

[GlossopLatic]

While it very much depends on.the person playing it a false 9 can be very effective as it drags the centre backs into positions they don't want to go into. If you have 1 or 2 players who play in the middle and stay in the middle upfront then most centre backs will find that easy to mark as they know they can just stay in position with false 9 it gives them a dilemma do they stay in position and leave a player unmarked or do they mark up and get dragged out of the position and the team loses its defensive structure. Its usually most effective when you have forwards usually wide ones who run beyond them too someone like Jonathan Forte who did this very effectively in recent times.

 

Their is no reason why it can't work at this level either. If he played in today's game Andy Ritchie would probably have been used more as a false 9 or a number 10 as he was technically astute enough to play the role.

[Dave_Og]

The only reason we are playing a false 9 is because we don't have a real one. 

[GlossopLatic]

37 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

The only reason we are playing a false 9 is because we don't have a real one. 

 

We don't have a traditional number 9 but we do have players who can play the false 9.

 

Their is no point asking the likes of DKD or Mcaleney to go up the middle and try and win headers against the centre backs the ball will just keep coming back at us. But if you ask them to start playing in the pockets between midfield and defence then they might get some joy playing 1-2's with the likes of McAlmont and dragging players out of position. The goal yesterday demonstrates that.

[OneSizeFitz]

41 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

The only reason we are playing a false 9 is because we don't have a real one. 

 

Exactly... What's the alternative? Play McAleny as a target man? 

[League one forever]

The thought of Curle trying to explain to any of our lot about a false 9. . .

[C.O.JONES]

Although yesterdays defeat was mainly down to defensive errors i.e. Clarke with a blind back pass and Pidge not reacting to the movement of Wilkinson for the first goal and Adams criminally going across field when there was no out ball but no one in front of him and not running into that space either didn't help. However we didn't have many attacking options, Hilssner is not comfortable out wide and wasted he needs to be in the middle, Whelan refuses to tackle and lets players walk round him and needs to be shown the door, (unfortunately not the only one). The game was crying out for runners with the ball. Yes Bambam missing was a big loss and he lack defensive work but it frees up other players to make runs off the ball. It just shows how limited our options are as there was no one on the bench who could have changed the game.

If Curly Keith wants to have a defensive set up, he will need defenders to defend and not make silly mistakes but they need a midfield who show for them. Badan was an excellent outlet yesterday and skinned their defence numerous times but his final ball found no runners or a centre forward, not a fruitless false 9. Tactically yesterday was poor but unfortunately we had few good enough players to select from. We had a lot of good chances to score yesterday but didn't take them, bad luck or poor finishing but we had enough to win and a decent striker would have seen the game off early doors. 

[LightDN123]

2 hours ago, C.O.JONES said:

Although yesterdays defeat was mainly down to defensive errors i.e. Clarke with a blind back pass and Pidge not reacting to the movement of Wilkinson for the first goal and Adams criminally going across field when there was no out ball but no one in front of him and not running into that space either didn't help. However we didn't have many attacking options, Hilssner is not comfortable out wide and wasted he needs to be in the middle, Whelan refuses to tackle and lets players walk round him and needs to be shown the door, (unfortunately not the only one). The game was crying out for runners with the ball. Yes Bambam missing was a big loss and he lack defensive work but it frees up other players to make runs off the ball. It just shows how limited our options are as there was no one on the bench who could have changed the game.

If Curly Keith wants to have a defensive set up, he will need defenders to defend and not make silly mistakes but they need a midfield who show for them. Badan was an excellent outlet yesterday and skinned their defence numerous times but his final ball found no runners or a centre forward, not a fruitless false 9. Tactically yesterday was poor but unfortunately we had few good enough players to select from. We had a lot of good chances to score yesterday but didn't take them, bad luck or poor finishing but we had enough to win and a decent striker would have seen the game off early doors. 

Show Whelan the door ? You having a laugh

[C.O.JONES]

37 minutes ago, LightDN123 said:

Show Whelan the door ? You having a laugh

Not having a laugh at all, if you think he's worth keeping then I respect your opinion it's just that I don't thinks so and its a game of opinions. He is one of many players at the club that need to be asked a few questions about their overall performances. On another point, if Curly Keith thinks he may stay after this season, (which I doubt), if he had any bollocks he would make a list of the players he thinks aren't good enough and ask the owner 'who signed this shower of shit' Then obviously he'd be sacked too, e.g. Bilboe Baggins is obviously not good enough to play between the jumpers in Curly's opinion so why not ask the question? Anybody think Taz is good enough? I could go on but I'm ready for preparing dinner with a nice glass of wine.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend chaps.

[TheBigDog]

1 hour ago, C.O.JONES said:

Not having a laugh at all, if you think he's worth keeping then I respect your opinion it's just that I don't thinks so and its a game of opinions. He is one of many players at the club that need to be asked a few questions about their overall performances. On another point, if Curly Keith thinks he may stay after this season, (which I doubt), if he had any bollocks he would make a list of the players he thinks aren't good enough and ask the owner 'who signed this shower of shit' Then obviously he'd be sacked too, e.g. Bilboe Baggins is obviously not good enough to play between the jumpers in Curly's opinion so why not ask the question? Anybody think Taz is good enough? I could go on but I'm ready for preparing dinner with a nice glass of wine.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend chaps.

 

I agree that it is a game of opinions, and mine don’t align with yours.

 

Whelan has been given a recent run of games under Keith Curle and has shown that he has good abilities. He does need to add more strength to his overall game but can pick a pass and is worth keeping. He has played fifteen games in his professional career and as such is still at a very early stage in his journey yet you have written him off already.

 

Then there is the conjecture and suggestion that a manager, six games in to his tenure, doesn’t have the ‘bollocks’ to make a list of the players he doesn’t think are good enough - and you know this how exactly?

 

I do agree that Tasdemir has shown nothing in his time on the pitch but I think that even his mum can see that  

 

Oh and finally... I tend to lose interest in any post that refers to footballers as ‘shower of shit’  - what’s that all about?

[OneSizeFitz]

Whelan was poor yesterday, but he showed enough in the couple of games before then to make me think he might come good. 

 

I'd basically written him off before Curle joined. 

[League one forever]

Whelan is one of very few of our players who can a pass a ball more often than not. 

[Flemboy]

12 hours ago, C.O.JONES said:

Although yesterdays defeat was mainly down to defensive errors i.e. Clarke with a blind back pass and Pidge not reacting to the movement of Wilkinson for the first goal and Adams criminally going across field when there was no out ball but no one in front of him and not running into that space either didn't help. However we didn't have many attacking options, Hilssner is not comfortable out wide and wasted he needs to be in the middle, Whelan refuses to tackle and lets players walk round him and needs to be shown the door, (unfortunately not the only one). The game was crying out for runners with the ball. Yes Bambam missing was a big loss and he lack defensive work but it frees up other players to make runs off the ball. It just shows how limited our options are as there was no one on the bench who could have changed the game.

If Curly Keith wants to have a defensive set up, he will need defenders to defend and not make silly mistakes but they need a midfield who show for them. Badan was an excellent outlet yesterday and skinned their defence numerous times but his final ball found no runners or a centre forward, not a fruitless false 9. Tactically yesterday was poor but unfortunately we had few good enough players to select from. We had a lot of good chances to score yesterday but didn't take them, bad luck or poor finishing but we had enough to win and a decent striker would have seen the game off early doors. 

I agree with most of that but still think  Whelan will come good.The last few games before Sat show this.

[RobinsDuckEgg]

8 hours ago, OneSizeFitz said:

Whelan was poor yesterday, but he showed enough in the couple of games before then to make me think he might come good. 

 

I'd basically written him off before Curle joined. 

Same for me.

In the last few games he’s shown that given time and space he can pick out a nice pass, but as yet I’ve never seen him win a tackle and is far too easily brushed off the ball. This essential part of his game, the ability to fight and scrap has to improve for him to make it even at this level. It’s encouraging to see that Alfie has done this since he came, so that’s one example for him.

[Lee Sinnott2]

Dull. Lots of passing around the middle third (when we got McCalmont on the ball), but impotent in attack and dreadful at the back again. Orient clocked that Badan was useless on the ball and gave him so much time but he is so thick that he didn't have a clue what to do with it. Sooner this sorry season is over the better so we can get 14 out and bring another 14 in and the conveyor belt will continue...

[Littlemoor Lad]

1 hour ago, Lee Sinnott2 said:

Dull. Lots of passing around the middle third (when we got McCalmont on the ball), but impotent in attack and dreadful at the back again. Orient clocked that Badan was useless on the ball and gave him so much time but he is so thick that he didn't have a clue what to do with it. Sooner this sorry season is over the better so we can get 14 out and bring another 14 in and the conveyor belt will continue...

So continues the inconsistency, forever and a day

[C.O.JONES]

14 hours ago, TheBigDog said:

 

I agree that it is a game of opinions, and mine don’t align with yours.

 

Whelan has been given a recent run of games under Keith Curle and has shown that he has good abilities. He does need to add more strength to his overall game but can pick a pass and is worth keeping. He has played fifteen games in his professional career and as such is still at a very early stage in his journey yet you have written him off already.

 

Then there is the conjecture and suggestion that a manager, six games in to his tenure, doesn’t have the ‘bollocks’ to make a list of the players he doesn’t think are good enough - and you know this how exactly?

 

I do agree that Tasdemir has shown nothing in his time on the pitch but I think that even his mum can see that  

 

Oh and finally... I tend to lose interest in any post that refers to footballers as ‘shower of shit’  - what’s that all about?

In reply to your post I really don't think we are that far apart, I respect anyones opinion even if it doesn't align with mine. I do agree that Whelan is early in his career but we actually need experience in certain areas at the moment and his is unfortunately one of them.  I wasn't suggesting that I knew who was in any 'shower of shit' group, I was suggesting that any manager (including if KC stays) who once they had enough time to assess the players they think are good enough and those who are not, would actually make a list and confront the person (and I think we know who) that selected and signed the said players, which is why I also suggested he would be sacked thereafter if he did.

I think we all want a manager that is allowed to sign their own players, any failure or success thereafter is down to them. At the moment we have a system that is set up to fail, the manager isn't allowed to manage if he is only classed as a coach, he probably hasn't got a clue about half the signings and has to play with what he has been lumped with and should have our sympathy.