GoalWatch vs Colchester

[Sothall_Blade]

where else would you have like him to thrown in that wasnt "dangerous"? there was three options...

Baxter square... who was also marked... (suicidal to play that ball)
Woolford up the line but slightly infield (chosen method and Woolford should have done better)
Sammons who was up the line at a further distance with 2 men on him? thus meaning if the ball dropped short or too long they would have done the exact same as if passing to Woolford and him cocking up...

the only mistake was not getting out quick enough... but considering how far he was back (corner flag) he had only 4 seconds (23sec to 27sec when the ball is played not 6 as Southall states) to get onside (yes probabaly lenough... but the defence shouldnt be letting that ball get played and woolford should have easily won it.

I actually counted one-elephant, two-elephant etc rather than using the clock supplied. Duh!
However, I agree the throw is at 23 seconds but the forward pass is at 28 seconds. 5 seconds to run 18 yards.
Usain Bolt can run 50 metres in 5 seconds, so McCeveley should be able to manage 18 yards.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Here's another angle, when McEveley makes his mind up on where to throw the ball.View attachment 13391

I think he realises he can't reach Sammon, and sees Woolford, marked by a much smaller player, has some space infield. So the plan was probably a Woolford flick to Sammon. I'd imagine we practice routines for us to get the ball upfield from such situations, and this could be one. Probably scrapped now though!

This assumes that he can't just signal for Sammon to move closer if he can't reach him.
Sammon does seem to have positioned himself too far away but McCeveley should tell him that rather than abandoning plan A and risking it.

 

[Bergen Blade]

I like your analysis Bergen but I disagree with the above statement. If Edgar doesn’t close the ball down, they get a free shot from 20-25 yards and as we’ve seen on Saturday, players get crucified for letting that happen. For me, the fault is more with Woolford, Basham and McEveley (chronological order). Woolford loses the first ball, Basham is bypassed too easily (but at least he tries to get back to his man unlike Baxter on the first) and I’d have to watch it properly from other angles but I think maybe McEveley is too slow getting out and back into the defensive line after the throw thus playing Moncur onside. By the time those 3 had committed those acts, Edgar was in a position where he had to make a decision that would either leave space behind or leave the man a free sight of goal..

This is preferable to an easy finish alone with Howard. There was also JCR and Basham who could possibly have caught up with Garvan. Regarding the offside, we should note that we are not actively trying to play an offside trap. To do that you have to have an organised flat back four. But McEveley is too deep, Collins has broken out. Edgar does so too. The fact that Garvan is also poorly closed down, dictates that it is not a situation where the back four should try an offside trap. Instead: Make sure there's no room in behind!

The first goal, I think, depending on the nature of the instructions the players received, I would hold Collins or Baxter (or a combination of the 2) responsible. The goal was scored in Collins’ zone but by the man Baxter had been “marking” (I use that term loosely) in the build up. Depending on the responsibilities allocated, Collins should have dropped off as Sordell was in Edgar’s zone and kept an eye out for a runner into his zone (Moncur) or Baxter should have continued to track his runner (Moncur) instead of simply giving up..

They would have had to switch tasks, but the main thing is that they agree on what to do, see also post #24. Notice also that Moncur is with Basham in the first image, although Baxter is further back, when does the tracking responsibility switch? Now we're on to rescue plan C or D though.

 

[BushBlade]

May be controversial but if Doyle had been playing we might not have concede any of them , the first and 3rd for certain ,he did a lot of covering for the back four that many didn't notice because they were too busy looking at his shortcomings. We very rarely conceded more than 2 goals in a game when he played.

We tended to play three in centre mid when we had Doyle.

 

[Bergen Blade]

This assumes that he can't just signal for Sammon to move closer if he can't reach him.
Sammon does seem to have positioned himself too far away but McCeveley should tell him that rather than abandoning plan A and risking it.

They must surely know roughly how far McEveley's capable of throwing, so maybe that wasn't plan A?

 

[Bergen Blade]

I think Basham could probably do that job better Doyle and push Baxer into more of an attacking midfield role, but for whatever reason Adkins seems to only want to a play a flat 4-4-2

The way we play (it was the same under Clough) the deepest midfielder does quite a bit of neat passing. Coming short for the defenders, for throw ins, trying to start off moves, etc. There is a requirement for composure, touch, accurate short passing and balance to do this, and they are not Basham's strengths. I agree that he could probably do the defensive side of the job, but there would be a change to the way we build attacks.

 

[Dnblade]

It looks like everyone thought Sordell was going to shoot on the first goal..got to say it was a well worked goal on their part,even though we should have snuffed it out...Moncur the runner is on the half way line when the ball is played in to Sordell..Bash tracks him but let's him go when Sordell turns away...if you freeze the picture at that point where he lifts his leg to play the ball...it looks like,and I think the United players thought he's going to shoot...at that point Moncur is still 2 or 3 yards away from Baxter..then he slides the ball in to Moncur who finishes well.

 

[RMBlade]

The way we play (it was the same under Clough) the deepest midfielder does quite a bit of neat passing. Coming short for the defenders, for throw ins, trying to start off moves, etc. There is a requirement for composure, touch, accurate short passing and balance to do this, and they are not Basham's strengths. I agree that he could probably do the defensive side of the job, but there would be a change to the way we build attacks.

I don't think you need to be gods gift at passing to play DM. There should be plenty of options with the full backs, wingers and Baxter all to aim for. If these lads aren't creating space for them selves then we have major issues.

I would personally leave Baxter just behind the two up top, it would give players the option to play into him then forward onto the two up top or even if we have to play long ball, we have an extra option for Sammon to play it to. He could also make runs (dont laugh at Baxter running) beyond the strikers similar to the 1st Colchester goal.

 

[Dnblade]

I don't think you need to be gods gift at passing to play DM. There should be plenty of options with the full backs, wingers and Baxter all to aim for. If these lads aren't creating space for them selves then we have major issues.

I would personally leave Baxter just behind the two up top, it would give players the option to play into him then forward onto the two up top or even if we have to play long ball, we have an extra option for Sammon to play it to. He could also make runs (dont laugh at Baxter running) beyond the strikers similar to the 1st Colchester goal.

Thing is ,you're often facing your own goal when receiving the ball...that's why you need someone with a bit of ability to drop deep and pick a pass to set the play off.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

This is preferable to an easy finish alone with Howard. There was also JCR and Basham who could possibly have caught up with Garvan. Regarding the offside, we should note that we are not actively trying to play an offside trap. To do that you have to have an organised flat back four. But McEveley is too deep, Collins has broken out. Edgar does so too. The fact that Garvan is also poorly closed down, dictates that it is not a situation where the back four should try an offside trap. Instead: Make sure there's no room in behind!



They would have had to switch tasks, but the main thing is that they agree on what to do, see also post #24. Notice also that Moncur is with Basham in the first image, although Baxter is further back, when does the tracking responsibility switch? Now we're on to rescue plan C or D though.

Bergen, do you have experience within the game? You seem to give a lot of thought to your analysis and wondered if you have experience of putting this analysis into practice? It might be that I have to bow to your greater knowledge and experience as I don’t have said experience, just an avid football fan who has only ever played at a shit level. Or it might just be that we have a different way of looking at things.

I think the 2nd goal is the one where we really disagree. Whether there is a plan to play the offside trap or not, McEveley has to get back in line with the defence. A full back should never be 10-15 yards behind the rest of the defence in a wide position as it means any runner can go beyond the CBs to be through on goal. But it only matters because Woolford loses out and Basham is gets the wrong side of Garvan.

I acknowledge what you say about the shot from distance being preferable but from Edgar’s point of view, he can’t be sure that Moncur will make the run or that he will be picked out or that nobody else will pick him up, or that McEveley will take too long to get out. He has to make a quick decision once Garvan gets the wrong side of Basham and decides to go to close down the ball and hope that the combination of run, pass and McEveley playing them on doesn’t happen. Given that those things did happen, it’s easy to say in hindsight that he should have held his position but if presented with the same situation time and time again, I think I would prefer my centre half to put pressure on the ball there. I think more often that not, that would prove to be the correct decision.


I seem to recall we also disagreed with what Edgar should have done on the goal against Peterborough where funnily enough, we were on opposite sides of the argument (you saying he should close the ball down and me saying he was right to hold his position). I suppose everybody sees these situations differently. I don’t think tactics and coaching can legislate for every such situation that could arise and players have to be given the responsibility at times to make the decision. In the 2 examples mentioned, Edgar’s decision, in hindsight hasn’t turned out to be correct on those occasions because we have conceded. However, to analyze how effective his decision making is, I suppose you would have to watch full games in detail and identify every situation where such a decision had to be made, see what decision was made and what the outcome was.

 

[Bergen Blade]

I don't think you need to be gods gift at passing to play DM. There should be plenty of options with the full backs, wingers and Baxter all to aim for. If these lads aren't creating space for them selves then we have major issues.

True, but that's the way Clough and Adkins have preferred it. I was also among those who thought Basham came to play holding midfield. But I acknowledge he's no great holding playmaker.

 

[Revolution]

True, but that's the way Clough and Adkins have preferred it. I was also among those who thought Basham came to play holding midfield. But I acknowledge he's no great holding playmaker.

More crappy transfer dealings from Clough. You have a guy who's demonstrably better in position A, you sign him and put him in position B, where he's never convinced, and you compound the problem by moving him back and forth between the 2 positions. It was a joke and remains one.

 

[sitwell]

Bergen, do you have experience within the game? You seem to give a lot of thought to your analysis and wondered if you have experience of putting this analysis into practice? It might be that I have to bow to your greater knowledge and experience as I don’t have said experience, just an avid football fan who has only ever played at a shit level. Or it might just be that we have a different way of looking at things.

I think the 2nd goal is the one where we really disagree. Whether there is a plan to play the offside trap or not, McEveley has to get back in line with the defence. A full back should never be 10-15 yards behind the rest of the defence in a wide position as it means any runner can go beyond the CBs to be through on goal. But it only matters because Woolford loses out and Basham is gets the wrong side of Garvan.

I acknowledge what you say about the shot from distance being preferable but from Edgar’s point of view, he can’t be sure that Moncur will make the run or that he will be picked out or that nobody else will pick him up, or that McEveley will take too long to get out. He has to make a quick decision once Garvan gets the wrong side of Basham and decides to go to close down the ball and hope that the combination of run, pass and McEveley playing them on doesn’t happen. Given that those things did happen, it’s easy to say in hindsight that he should have held his position but if presented with the same situation time and time again, I think I would prefer my centre half to put pressure on the ball there. I think more often that not, that would prove to be the correct decision.


I seem to recall we also disagreed with what Edgar should have done on the goal against Peterborough where funnily enough, we were on opposite sides of the argument (you saying he should close the ball down and me saying he was right to hold his position). I suppose everybody sees these situations differently. I don’t think tactics and coaching can legislate for every such situation that could arise and players have to be given the responsibility at times to make the decision. In the 2 examples mentioned, Edgar’s decision, in hindsight hasn’t turned out to be correct on those occasions because we have conceded. However, to analyze how effective his decision making is, I suppose you would have to watch full games in detail and identify every situation where such a decision had to be made, see what decision was made and what the outcome was.

I disagree on the first goal ,I know it might seem part of a vendetta against him but Baxter gave the ball away cheaply in the middle and didn't track the runner twice leaving him free to run through and score. Edgar and Collins had enough on their plate without doing Baxters job too. His body language says he knew he would be in trouble for it and Adkins hinted at it after the game.

 

[Dnblade]

I disagree on the first goal ,I know it might seem part of a vendetta against him but Baxter gave the ball away cheaply in the middle and didn't track the runner twice leaving him free to run through and score. Edgar and Collins had enough on their plate without doing Baxters job too. His body language says he knew he would be in trouble for it and Adkins hinted at it after the game.

I agree Baxter initially gave the ball away,so should take most of the blame,but he was back in front of the back line when Sordell received the ball..Moncur the runner was on the half way line when he started his run as the pass was played in,and Bash was tracking his run initially...I'm not saying Baxter shouldn't have spotted the danger...as I said in previous post it was like they were expecting Sordell to shoot when he had his back to Baxter,but slid the ball into the gap for Moncur.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Posted a version of this in another thread but I thought I'd put it here to see what others think:

The way I see it the biggest issue last night was they came out of the blocks at 100mph. As a team we weren't prepared for that, and it took us too long to up the tempo. We needed someone with leadership and authority on the pitch to go round waking everyone up.

[In response to several detailed lists of how crap everyone was] For me endlessly listing individual failings in the first half misses the point, they played at breakneck pace from the off, and maybe we were set up psychologically and tactically to break down a team parking the bus. If you're all expecting one thing, and you all get another, then you'll all make mistakes.

A Roy Keane manager-on-the-pitch type figure might've been able to go round fist-pumping and got us up to speed sooner. As it was they got a 2 goal start. (I am not a fan of Roy Keane at all, but this illustrates the point.) Also this is not a criticism of McEveley - I don't think he should be captain, but not for this reason; the game has thankfully moved on from chest-beating cavemen. For me the player who was most obviously fulfilling this role of leading through example was Collins. He was consistently winning headers, playing with an obvious passion, and even played a perfect diagonal ball through for one of Billy's assorted great chances.

Another obvious issue is finishing. Adkins said after two pre-season games we created chances and should've scored more. I posted about this at the time. I really don't know what the answer to this is. Billy can't miss that many chances again can he? This for me was another key issue: if we'd scored as many as we should have then there simply wouldn't be this one-eyed, disproportionate (and in some cases utterly nonsensical) focus on shortcomings. Our weaknesses need addressing but not to the exclusion of all else. And they certainly don't need misrepresenting and overstating. Fwiw, Yes Colchester might have had more in the first half, and 3-1 to them might have been about right, but on very good chances created (Billy had three one on ones inside the box didn't he? And a penalty. McNulty's great slalom and terrible finish.) I still think we could, and should, have won even from there.

Another technical issue is how static we are from throw ins. Again I posted on this months ago. For the first ten minutes or so it looked like we'd done something about this but then we reverted to customary poor practice. It might sound like a minor detail, and maybe it is, but last night it cost us the second goal: they gained possession from our throw, and McEveley who had taken it deep in the corner played them onside.

5-4 would've been about right, but you can only say that so many times before it looks like pleading bad luck is hiding bad failings.

Another big picture issue is we are just not going to look as solid playing 4-4-2. When Clough went for a theoretically solid 4-5-1 he was criticised as negative. I think it was just caution. We are more adventurous but less secure. We'll always be able to highlight midfield frailties, but that's part of the system we play: it's not individual's failings.

Last night should've been a classic outscoring-the-opposition game, but we couldn't put the ball in the net.

I thought we had a storming-ish second half, and what was really great was to hear some singing and support from the fans even at 2-0 down. This was very encouraging. In contrast to some slasher posts, I thought although it took too long the team eventually played with real heart and passion. And when you might have expected the fans to turn against the team instead the support was there.

Another big issue I think is Route 1 is ineffective for us. We tried it Saturday, and obviously last night, but I can't recall it producing anything in either game.

Credit to Colchester who neither parked the bus, nor kicked and cheated their way to an ugly win, but I am getting a bit fed up of feeling happy for small numbers of dedicated opposition fans who've made long journeys on a Tuesday night and then their team wins at the Lane.

Hard to read the tea leaves this early on but the picture would be better if we hadn't just lost two in a row at home - that's for sure.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Bergen, do you have experience within the game? You seem to give a lot of thought to your analysis and wondered if you have experience of putting this analysis into practice? It might be that I have to bow to your greater knowledge and experience as I don’t have said experience, just an avid football fan who has only ever played at a shit level. Or it might just be that we have a different way of looking at things.

I think the 2nd goal is the one where we really disagree. Whether there is a plan to play the offside trap or not, McEveley has to get back in line with the defence. A full back should never be 10-15 yards behind the rest of the defence in a wide position as it means any runner can go beyond the CBs to be through on goal. But it only matters because Woolford loses out and Basham is gets the wrong side of Garvan.

I acknowledge what you say about the shot from distance being preferable but from Edgar’s point of view, he can’t be sure that Moncur will make the run or that he will be picked out or that nobody else will pick him up, or that McEveley will take too long to get out. He has to make a quick decision once Garvan gets the wrong side of Basham and decides to go to close down the ball and hope that the combination of run, pass and McEveley playing them on doesn’t happen. Given that those things did happen, it’s easy to say in hindsight that he should have held his position but if presented with the same situation time and time again, I think I would prefer my centre half to put pressure on the ball there. I think more often that not, that would prove to be the correct decision.


I seem to recall we also disagreed with what Edgar should have done on the goal against Peterborough where funnily enough, we were on opposite sides of the argument (you saying he should close the ball down and me saying he was right to hold his position). I suppose everybody sees these situations differently. I don’t think tactics and coaching can legislate for every such situation that could arise and players have to be given the responsibility at times to make the decision. In the 2 examples mentioned, Edgar’s decision, in hindsight hasn’t turned out to be correct on those occasions because we have conceded. However, to analyze how effective his decision making is, I suppose you would have to watch full games in detail and identify every situation where such a decision had to be made, see what decision was made and what the outcome was.

I was a centre half, genetically mediocre, but tactically interested. My management is limited to my 7-a-side hospital team, but you can only beat what's in front of you and we went from division 6 to division 1. I am very happy doing what I do, and have never had ambitions about working full time in football.

When analysing defensive situations I use basic principles of zonal defending. Although there will be different interpretations, what I put is not just my opinion, they refer to an ideal/optimal organisation of a defence in each situation.

There will often be several "minor" individual errors before a conceded goal that I'm not too bothered about. Examples being "he should have been stronger/stopped the cross/won the header/blocked the shot". I think this causes some confusion. Our players will not win all challenges, some crosses and shots will come in. The coaches will work on technical things in training, but the manger won't achieve much by saying: "Collins, here you fail to block the shot. Next time - BLOCK THE DAMN SHOT!" Or "Hey, Jose you gave the ball away cheaply there. DO NOT DO IT AGAIN!"

However, when it comes to the team's defensive organisation, I'm extremely interested. There will be difficult situations in virtually every game, but we should deal with them with good organisation. I don't accept we should be much worse at following these principles than the top teams. Their players may be quicker, stronger, better than us, but why must we also be sloppier? The GoalWatch posts are therefore an attempt to show a) This is what went wrong and b) this is what we should have done.

When managers have team meetings this is what's being focused on and coupled with training ground drilling you may get clarification of roles, improved awareness and execution. Then hopefully, if a similar scenario arises in the next game, they deal with it better.


Regarding the first goal Tuesday and the one we conceded at Peterborough, both were examples of us failing to establish 1st defender and 2nd defender. That's a failure to follow a very basic principle of zonal defending. If Adkins tells this to his players, they work on it at Shirecliffe and do it right in the next game - and still concede from a similar situation - THEN it's time to applaud the opposition and admit they've been too good for us.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

In the second half it seemed that McEveley was often playing in quite an advanced role down our left. If I'm reading that correctly can you provide some strategic/tactical reason justification?

Thinking about it, quite often Freeman will move to an advanced position (and contrary to some posts he was covered by a very hard working Baxter on a couple of occasions) but it's unusual for it to happen down out left. Any insight into that?

(This did of course lead to one of our penaties.)

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

I was a centre half, genetically mediocre, but tactically interested. My management is limited to my 7-a-side hospital team, but you can only beat what's in front of you and we went from division 6 to division 1. I am very happy doing what I do, and have never had ambitions about working full time in football.

When analysing defensive situations I use basic principles of zonal defending. Although there will be different interpretations, what I put is not just my opinion, they refer to an ideal/optimal organisation of a defence in each situation.

There will often be several "minor" individual errors before a conceded goal that I'm not too bothered about. Examples being "he should have been stronger/stopped the cross/won the header/blocked the shot". I think this causes some confusion. Our players will not win all challenges, some crosses and shots will come in. The coaches will work on technical things in training, but the manger won't achieve much by saying: "Collins, here you fail to block the shot. Next time - BLOCK THE DAMN SHOT!" Or "Hey, Jose you gave the ball away cheaply there. DO NOT DO IT AGAIN!"

However, when it comes to the team's defensive organisation, I'm extremely interested. There will be difficult situations in virtually every game, but we should deal with them with good organisation. I don't accept we should be much worse at following these principles than the top teams. Their players may be quicker, stronger, better than us, but why must we also be sloppier? The GoalWatch posts are therefore an attempt to show a) This is what went wrong and b) this is what we should have done.

When managers have team meetings this is what's being focused on and coupled with training ground drilling you may get clarification of roles, improved awareness and execution. Then hopefully, if a similar scenario arises in the next game, they deal with it better.


Regarding the first goal Tuesday and the one we conceded at Peterborough, both were examples of us failing to establish 1st defender and 2nd defender. That's a failure to follow a very basic principle of zonal defending. If Adkins tells this to his players, they work on it at Shirecliffe and do it right in the next game - and still concede from a similar situation - THEN it's time to applaud the opposition and admit they've been too good for us.

Great post. Again.

 

[Bergen Blade]

In the second half it seemed that McEveley was often playing in quite an advanced role down our left. If I'm reading that correctly can you provide some strategic/tactical reason justification?

Thinking about it, quite often Freeman will move to an advanced position (and contrary to some posts he was covered by a very hard working Baxter on a couple of occasions) but it's unusual for it to happen down out left. Any insight into that?

(This did of course lead to one of our penaties.)

I don't think Woolford is the type of winger who can regularly fly past full backs and get crosses in. For us to create down that side he needs help and although McEveley isn't known for being a overlapping wing back, he showed quite a bit of responsibility as he really tried to contribute. In Adkins' 4-4-2 system the wingers can't be too wide, there will be too much grass to cover for the two central midfielders, but concequently this opens up some space for the full backs to run into.

Opinions are really divided about himi at the moment. When this sort of thing happens...



.. I think some will be thinking: "God, he almost cocked it up again!", and others: "That's brilliant!"

 

[Top Cat]

I do find the armchair micro analysis rather amusing. A second to make a decision during the game, but 24 hours to analyse and dissect.

 

[The Bohemian]

Posted a version of this in another thread but I thought I'd put it here to see what others think:

The way I see it the biggest issue last night was they came out of the blocks at 100mph. As a team we weren't prepared for that, and it took us too long to up the tempo. We needed someone with leadership and authority on the pitch to go round waking everyone up.

[In response to several detailed lists of how crap everyone was] For me endlessly listing individual failings in the first half misses the point, they played at breakneck pace from the off, and maybe we were set up psychologically and tactically to break down a team parking the bus. If you're all expecting one thing, and you all get another, then you'll all make mistakes.

A Roy Keane manager-on-the-pitch type figure might've been able to go round fist-pumping and got us up to speed sooner. As it was they got a 2 goal start. (I am not a fan of Roy Keane at all, but this illustrates the point.) Also this is not a criticism of McEveley - I don't think he should be captain, but not for this reason; the game has thankfully moved on from chest-beating cavemen. For me the player who was most obviously fulfilling this role of leading through example was Collins. He was consistently winning headers, playing with an obvious passion, and even played a perfect diagonal ball through for one of Billy's assorted great chances.

Another obvious issue is finishing. Adkins said after two pre-season games we created chances and should've scored more. I posted about this at the time. I really don't know what the answer to this is. Billy can't miss that many chances again can he? This for me was another key issue: if we'd scored as many as we should have then there simply wouldn't be this one-eyed, disproportionate (and in some cases utterly nonsensical) focus on shortcomings. Our weaknesses need addressing but not to the exclusion of all else. And they certainly don't need misrepresenting and overstating. Fwiw, Yes Colchester might have had more in the first half, and 3-1 to them might have been about right, but on very good chances created (Billy had three one on ones inside the box didn't he? And a penalty. McNulty's great slalom and terrible finish.) I still think we could, and should, have won even from there.

Another technical issue is how static we are from throw ins. Again I posted on this months ago. For the first ten minutes or so it looked like we'd done something about this but then we reverted to customary poor practice. It might sound like a minor detail, and maybe it is, but last night it cost us the second goal: they gained possession from our throw, and McEveley who had taken it deep in the corner played them onside.

5-4 would've been about right, but you can only say that so many times before it looks like pleading bad luck is hiding bad failings.

Another big picture issue is we are just not going to look as solid playing 4-4-2. When Clough went for a theoretically solid 4-5-1 he was criticised as negative. I think it was just caution. We are more adventurous but less secure. We'll always be able to highlight midfield frailties, but that's part of the system we play: it's not individual's failings.

Last night should've been a classic outscoring-the-opposition game, but we couldn't put the ball in the net.

I thought we had a storming-ish second half, and what was really great was to hear some singing and support from the fans even at 2-0 down. This was very encouraging. In contrast to some slasher posts, I thought although it took too long the team eventually played with real heart and passion. And when you might have expected the fans to turn against the team instead the support was there.

Another big issue I think is Route 1 is ineffective for us. We tried it Saturday, and obviously last night, but I can't recall it producing anything in either game.

Credit to Colchester who neither parked the bus, nor kicked and cheated their way to an ugly win, but I am getting a bit fed up of feeling happy for small numbers of dedicated opposition fans who've made long journeys on a Tuesday night and then their team wins at the Lane.

Hard to read the tea leaves this early on but the picture would be better if we hadn't just lost two in a row at home - that's for sure.

You make several reasonable points here, not least the 3 missed chances and penalty, all of which Sharp should have converted. To his credit, his movement and work rate is first class and as long as the chances keep coming he'll convert a decent percentage over the course of the season. He seems to be trying too hard at present hence him snatching at some chances. I guess he's feeling the pressure of being both a player and supporter, desperate to succeed.

I don't understand why Baxter, one of our best ever penalty takers, has been relieved of his duties - even more bewildering that he didn't pick up the ball after Sharp had missed one.

I like Adkins version of Route One which is based on hitting diagonal balls in behind a flat back four. Both Sammon and Sharp have come close to benefiting and one of Billy's missed chances was from one such ball in from Edgar. It's clearly been worked on in training and offers another way of penetrating a packed defense.

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

To me, Basham is heavily at fault for the first goal (having watched it over again a few times).

Regardless of whether it was Baxter who originally lost the ball in midfield, it was Basham who was tracking Moncur back only for him to inexplicably swerve over to the left leaving his runner &, for some reason, following Sordell (along with both centre backs). It was a very ugly goal to concede, albeit a neat, well-worked goal from Colchester's POV.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Great post again.

.. I think some will be thinking: "God, he almost cocked it up again!", and others: "That's brilliant!"

Exactly.

On this occasion I thought both

I think I remember this passage of play, and pointed it out to WHF Jr Sr at the time. Didn't it end with a one-on-one chance for Billy?

I thought getting McEveley into advanced positions was something new. I don't recall seeing it before, and I think it only happened after half time. I was wondering if Adkins had spotted something specific in the Colchester set-up, or whether it was just a general plan to get more players forward.

His long ball distribution can be very good, and there were a couple of decent crosses. And of course he did win the penalty.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

I don't understand why Baxter, one of our best ever penalty takers, has been relieved of his duties - even more bewildering that he didn't pick up the ball after Sharp had missed one.

Baxter is really very good at penalties. It'll be interesting to see what happens if we get another one and they're both on the pitch. If Billy doesn't take it then is it a sign of loss of confidence or professionalism? And will either passing it on, or being relieved of this responsibility affect his general play?

Both Sammon and Sharp have come close to benefiting and one of Billy's missed chances was from one such ball in from Edgar. It's clearly been worked on in training and offers another way of penetrating a packed defense.

But wasn't Sharp's chance essentially a (great) long ball to feet rather than a knock down in a crowded area? (Genuine question.)

The Route One I'm thinking of is lumping the ball towards Sammon, Higdon, even Edgar and Collins, and feeding on scraps. I don't think we've (yet) looked at all dangerous when we've tried this. Have we? Has anyone got on the end of a knockdown?

 

[The Bohemian]

Baxter is really very good at penalties. It'll be interesting to see what happens if we get another one and they're both on the pitch. If Billy doesn't take it then is it a sign of loss of confidence or professionalism? And will either passing it on, or being relieved of this responsibility affect his general play?



But wasn't Sharp's chance essentially a (great) long ball to feet rather than a knock down in a crowded area? (Genuine question.)

The Route One I'm thinking of is lumping the ball towards Sammon, Higdon, even Edgar and Collins, and feeding on scraps. I don't think we've (yet) looked at all dangerous when we've tried this. Have we? Has anyone got on the end of a knockdown?

Yes it was a very good long pass rather than a hopeful long ball. We're definitely not geared to running channels and playing percentages. I've not seen too much evidence of that to be fair.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

I do find the armchair micro analysis rather amusing. A second to make a decision during the game, but 24 hours to analyse and dissect.

Me personally: I'm not in an armchair, the decisions probably take a fraction of a second (and a lifetime of experience), and it's been more (and much less) than 24 hours.

 

[groveblade]

Here's another angle, when McEveley makes his mind up on where to throw the ball.View attachment 13391

I think he realises he can't reach Sammon, and sees Woolford, marked by a much smaller player, has some space infield. So the plan was probably a Woolford flick to Sammon. I'd imagine we practice routines for us to get the ball upfield from such situations, and this could be one. Probably scrapped now though!

When opponents are marking well and you've got a throw in in your own corner you need to be ultra careful. When nowt else is on players should come short to lay the ball back for the thrower to hammer up the line - or even better, have the quality and confidence to take the throw on the full and volley it clear. (Jagielka used to be brilliant at this).

Better movement from our own throws is essential (we often seem to be half asleep) and I hope they'll be working on it in training..

 

[sitwell]

Baxter is really very good at penalties. It'll be interesting to see what happens if we get another one and they're both on the pitch. If Billy doesn't take it then is it a sign of loss of confidence or professionalism? And will either passing it on, or being relieved of this responsibility affect his general play?



But wasn't Sharp's chance essentially a (great) long ball to feet rather than a knock down in a crowded area? (Genuine question.)

The Route One I'm thinking of is lumping the ball towards Sammon, Higdon, even Edgar and Collins, and feeding on scraps. I don't think we've (yet) looked at all dangerous when we've tried this. Have we? Has anyone got on the end of a knockdown?

They keep saying on here and Radio pig that Baxter has never missed a penalty ,obviously didn't go to Crewe last year ,I could have sworn it was him ,either that or McNultys brother.

 

[AlienBlade]

I actually counted one-elephant, two-elephant etc rather than using the clock supplied. Duh!
However, I agree the throw is at 23 seconds but the forward pass is at 28 seconds. 5 seconds to run 18 yards.
Usain Bolt can run 50 metres in 5 seconds, so McCeveley should be able to manage 18 yards.

well everyone says Mceverly is slow ;-)

as I said he probably should have been out by that point, however there are at least 2 other issues (including the fact that the two centre backs will be able to see across the line and know he was further back so they shouldnt have been trying to push the line up) there should also have been better closing down and marking of passer and eventual scorer... the other defenders/midfielders all got caught ball watching.

oh and its definitely 27 seconds (I've taken a screenshot (if I could figure out how to upload it I would of when the ball has been kicked (not when it's recieved) maybe you clock is over compensating for the size of your elephants... hahaha

I actually counted one-elephant, two-elephant etc rather than using the clock supplied. Duh!
However, I agree the throw is at 23 seconds but the forward pass is at 28 seconds. 5 seconds to run 18 yards.
Usain Bolt can run 50 metres in 5 seconds, so McCeveley should be able to manage 18 yards.

well we all know McEverley is meant to be slow.... ;-)

(as I said he should have probably done better... however I think there are 3 moments beforehand that should have all been dealt with... firstly Woolford should have won the ball, then Basham should have been able to tackle the the passer... then a defender should have been picking up the runner (and eventual scorer)

as you will see from the screen shot it's defintely 27 second when the ball is played (and thus when you would be deemed onside/offisde)

maybe your clock is over compensating for your small elepahants ;-) hahaha

 

[super_pig]

Opinions are really divided about himi at the moment. When this sort of thing happens...

I think some will be thinking: "God, he almost cocked it up again!", and others: "That's brilliant!"

and others thinking he's overplaying again in a potentially dangerous position
if he'd cut this aspect out of his game i think he could be half decent