Colchester Highlights

[SwissBlade]

Looking at the highlights properly I think Porter is a lucky boy that the defender knocked in his cross. I don't think it was getting to Miller

The other side of that coin is that he put it into the danger zone and it forced the error.

 

[Pittsburg Blade]

The other side of that coin is that he put it into the danger zone and it forced the error.

Also it was a superb piece of work to pressure the defender and cut out his pass back...I can't see Fatboy Marlon chasing that one down.

 

[sitwell]

Looking at the highlights properly I think Porter is a lucky boy that the defender knocked in his cross. I don't think it was getting to Miller

Are you really that one eyed ?

 

[Damski]

Actually looked a pretty decent game, both sides scoring good goals. We got that bit of good luck Weir never enjoyed to send us through. First away win this season, against a team in our division, and onto a (supposedly) easier 2nd round tie. A lot of positives to be taken back to BDTBL, where we need to pick up 3 points on Saturday. No more excuses now.

 

[sheffielder]

Are you really that one eyed ?

Yes, he's not good enough

 

[Dnblade]

Yes,definately a Pen.Harry will be in double figures by Christmas at this rate..good header.
Second goal,well done to Porter,good backing up by Doyle when you see it from the behind the goal view..he looked like a good option for Porter to pick out aswell.

 

[Damski]

Harsh penalty, but by the letter of the law, referee has no choice but to award it. You raise arms in the box, you take the risk. If it hits your arm, doesn't matter if it's 1 yard or 100 yards away, that's a penalty.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Fair enough, but again it still took a cracking shot to score. No doubt though, we failed to clear our lines, but in that position with the way the back four lined up we stopped them getting in behind. The long shot from 20 + yards is speculative rather than being a clear cut chance (at this level any road)

We have conceded a lot of long shots this season, so it's something we should have a look at. Look at the photo below, our players get sucked into our own box and we forget to mark the space/player centrally outside the box. Wolves' last goal against us was similar.

 

[sitwell]

Is there a worst blade of grass he could have put that free header ,and it wasn't his fault ?

 

[Bergen Blade]

As I said at the time on Twitter, I think he was caught out by the flick on, he really should have followed his man though.

David Weir seemingly thought we could score all our goals by building slowly from the back. However some (slightly old) stats showed that it took on average 234 attacks to score a goal when you started building from the back. When the ball was won in the opposition's half it took 34 attacks to score a goal.

For Colchester's first goal we were on the attack, had plenty of players forward and McGinn on the ball trying to pass a through ball. It was intercepted, and from then on we didn't take any of several attempts to stop Colchester before the ball was in the net:

1. Straight away, McGinn looks likely to win the ball back, but the Colchester player plays the ball through his legs, and they bomb forward
2. Seconds later they are getting near our box, Doyle gets a foot in, but fails to clear the danger
3. Coady (off camera) seems to lose a tackle and the ball goes out wide to their left footer who crosses
4. Maguire gets his head to it, but can only flick it on
5. To Bonne, who Hill has left unmarked

So, in one attack we have five players with a chance to stop the attack, though only the last one, Hill, makes a huge error.

A personal theory:

I think when defenders see that teammates have a chance to clear, they are often likely to lose concentration for a split second. This is one of the reasons it's so effective to try and score goals immediately after winning possession high up the pitch. If this happens a couple of times in a row, the chance is even bigger. It makes defenders switch off, they become ball watching, get sucked into wrong positions and lose the players they should be marking. It's probably human nature, and exhaustion doesn't help.

Training ground advice

Get it hammered into all players, certainly defenders, how important it is to stay EXTRA focused in the key situations where the team has lost possession in our own half. If it happens more than once in a row, alarm bells should be ringing.

 

[pommpey]

Looked a good game. A lot better than we have played and at least we looked like we wanted to move forward and attack. Their goals - first one was Hills. No challenge at all and six feet away from the man about to head it from a dead ball is unforgivable.

Loving Hill's attempt from range.

Was that Greenwich in the crowd shot centre left, red/black beanie?

pommpey

 

[Bergen Blade]

Is there a worst blade of grass he could have put that free header ,and it wasn't his fault ?

Similar poor marking of space at Wolves. Note how many players we have so deep, watching three opponents.

 

[Balham]

Similar poor marking of space at Wolves. Note how many players we have so deep, watching three opponents.

To me, the Wolves one was tactical - Weir's instructions involved getting as many players behind the ball once we'd lost it as possible.

The Colchester one (and all the others) highlights how crucial it is that we focus on getting a mobile, dynamic central midfielder in as a priority come January.

One other problem this is causing is that the long shots are coming through a crowd of players and that's not giving Long enough time to get down to make the saves - they're basically at the penalty spot before he sees them. That said, I'd like to see the coaching team working on Long's athleticism as he does seem slow to react occasionally.

 

[Bergen Blade]

To me, the Wolves one was tactical - Weir's instructions involved getting as many players behind the ball once we'd lost it as possible.

The Colchester one (and all the others) highlights how crucial it is that we focus on getting a mobile, dynamic central midfielder in as a priority come January.

Both goals came following set pieces (corner/throw in) that were half cleared and we end up leaving the shooter/scorer unmarked. Coady at the time was playing right midfield, but our entire midfield have pushed over too far. Where our players are positioned for set pieces must be organised on the training ground, and the plan should include what we do when the opposition do not have as many players in the box as expected.

One other problem this is causing is that the long shots are coming through a crowd of players and that's not giving Long enough time to get down to make the saves - they're basically at the penalty spot before he sees them. That said, I'd like to see the coaching team working on Long's athleticism as he does seem slow to react occasionally.

My theory on the amount of long shots conceded is that our slow defence are afraid of strikers getting in behind them. Therefore they defend very deep, and are sometimes slow to push up when they should. This means our midfielders get an awful lot of ground to cover, and several times this season they've been unable to do it.

 

[Balham]

My theory on the amount of long shots conceded is that our slow defence are afraid of strikers getting in behind them. Therefore they defend very deep, and are sometimes slow to push up when they should. This means our midfielders get an awful lot of ground to cover, and several times this season they've been unable to do it.

I agree with you. Normally, you can get away with slow centre halves if you've got at least one lightning quick full back who can cover. We have four slow players at the back.

At the end of both of the last two seasons I've said that we should be looking for a pacy centre half to replace Collins. I know that Collins is one of the senior players and also that he's not being playing that badly as an individual. However, the pairing of him and Maguire doesn't work that well at this level and would be found out in the Championship. As we should be building around our younger players, it's Collins I'd look to move on rather than Maguire.

 

[MobileBlade]

Harsh penalty, but by the letter of the law, referee has no choice but to award it. You raise arms in the box, you take the risk. If it hits your arm, doesn't matter if it's 1 yard or 100 yards away, that's a penalty.

Exactly where in the Laws of Association Football does it state that?

 

[Darren]

Exactly where in the Laws of Association Football does it state that?

You have to "deliberately" handle the ball for it to be handball. so throwing your arms up and the ball hitting them would not be enough.

Most penalties given for handball. on a strict interpretation of that rule, should not be given, as it must be a very stupid player who would deliberately handle the ball in the box, given the consequences*

* It might be thought to be an exception where someone handles to prevent a certain goal, but given that this would also result in a sending off, that is also very rare - compare Patterson at Oxford in 1996 with Suarez v Ghana in 2010.

 

[MobileBlade]

You have to "deliberately" handle the ball for it to be handball. so throwing your arms up and the ball hitting them would not be enough.

Most penalties given for handball. on a strict interpretation of that rule, should not be given, as it must be a very stupid player who would deliberately handle the ball in the box, given the consequences*

* It might be thought to be an exception where someone handles to prevent a certain goal, but given that this would also result in a sending off, that is also very rare - compare Patterson at Oxford in 1996 with Suarez v Ghana in 2010.

My point exactly!

 

[Darren]

My point exactly!

But then if the rule were strictly interpreted you would then get players deliberately handling the ball and saying "come on ref, that wasn't deliberate, I wouldn't be so daft"

Would a better rule be that "handball" is defined as any hand or arm touching ball unless
(a) it is the ref's opinion it was deliberately kicked or headed or thrown against a hand or arm; or
(b) the player involuntarily raised his arms to protect himself.

 

[MobileBlade]

But then if the rule were strictly interpreted you would then get players deliberately handling the ball and saying "come on ref, that wasn't deliberate, I wouldn't be so daft"

Believe me, that is what they say now. Even when they do deliberately handle.

Whenever there is a change in a Laws, the first thing managers do is look at how they can use it to their advance and get round it. One of the reasons handball is interpreted like it is now is because players were raising their arms and became good at making it look accidental.

Look at Jamie Ward's sending off in the Play-Off final of 2009 for example (probably the only decision Mike Dean got right that day).

But to say it is the letter of the law that if you raise your arms in the penalty area then if the ball hits them it is handball is completely wrong. I would say the decision United got on Saturday was at best fortuitous. But we were due one in our favour for once so not arguing!