Bergen Blade
Well-Known Member
I don't think you should always sack managers on merit. That's in the past. You sack managers because you lose hope that they're going to get it right.
The Preston match was probably the second best I've seen us play this season, and therefore does give a little hope that we may improve. We were not more than average, but it is true to say that we looked better than the opposition and there were some encouraging signs.
Weir has made changes. In this game we mixed it up a bit more, played a few longer passes, attempting to play more of our football in the final third of the pitch. With the way we play we're vulnerable when key players aren't performing to their maximum ability.
Some players' touch were off - Baxter (quickly closed down, they knew he's key to us), and King in particular. Baxter needed just a little more space to get his dribbles and through balls right. Not worried about him, it will come and he will do well for us.
King was poor, disappointingly unfit and it made his touches worse and he looked unable/unwilling to get the ball down and run with it. There was one occasion, a good chance for a break (after 14 minutes) where Hill intercepted and ran on the ball before he found King down the channel. King could have taken on their lanky centre half Huntington, and I'm sure he would have done in his best days, but this time he passed it backwards to Doyle. It's going to take him time to get match fit, and we'd better hope he's still got it.
Hall has a sweet left foot, should be able to cross the ball into good areas for a target man, but he didn't look very pacey. Not convinced he's someone we should be signing permanently, but a wide addition was needed after losing both McFadzean and Murphy. Both Hall and Brandy kept cutting inside to cross, and as the full backs rarely overlapped first half we didn't have enough width.
Full backs were clearly instructed to go forward more, something that a lot of people have wanted. I don't think McMahon and Hill will every do this really well, but yesterday was the best efforts I've seen in a long time. Hill even had a couple of efforts on goal and made a few crosses second half, sadly his accuracy is not good. McMahon's crosses were also disappointing.
Let's remember that it was the first game for King and Hall and the first game in central midfield for Cuvelier. Baxter is also quite new. They should hopefully improve as they settles into the team.
Regarding our style, we still aren't good enough at taking opportunities to break, counter attack with pace and numbers. When we win the ball in good areas (when the opposition is going forward, i.e. is most vulnerable) we need to bomb forward with real determination. The King situation was one example, another was ruined by a dwelling Doyle.
To sum up, these were the pluses:
The Preston match was probably the second best I've seen us play this season, and therefore does give a little hope that we may improve. We were not more than average, but it is true to say that we looked better than the opposition and there were some encouraging signs.
Weir has made changes. In this game we mixed it up a bit more, played a few longer passes, attempting to play more of our football in the final third of the pitch. With the way we play we're vulnerable when key players aren't performing to their maximum ability.
Some players' touch were off - Baxter (quickly closed down, they knew he's key to us), and King in particular. Baxter needed just a little more space to get his dribbles and through balls right. Not worried about him, it will come and he will do well for us.
King was poor, disappointingly unfit and it made his touches worse and he looked unable/unwilling to get the ball down and run with it. There was one occasion, a good chance for a break (after 14 minutes) where Hill intercepted and ran on the ball before he found King down the channel. King could have taken on their lanky centre half Huntington, and I'm sure he would have done in his best days, but this time he passed it backwards to Doyle. It's going to take him time to get match fit, and we'd better hope he's still got it.
Hall has a sweet left foot, should be able to cross the ball into good areas for a target man, but he didn't look very pacey. Not convinced he's someone we should be signing permanently, but a wide addition was needed after losing both McFadzean and Murphy. Both Hall and Brandy kept cutting inside to cross, and as the full backs rarely overlapped first half we didn't have enough width.
Full backs were clearly instructed to go forward more, something that a lot of people have wanted. I don't think McMahon and Hill will every do this really well, but yesterday was the best efforts I've seen in a long time. Hill even had a couple of efforts on goal and made a few crosses second half, sadly his accuracy is not good. McMahon's crosses were also disappointing.
Let's remember that it was the first game for King and Hall and the first game in central midfield for Cuvelier. Baxter is also quite new. They should hopefully improve as they settles into the team.
Regarding our style, we still aren't good enough at taking opportunities to break, counter attack with pace and numbers. When we win the ball in good areas (when the opposition is going forward, i.e. is most vulnerable) we need to bomb forward with real determination. The King situation was one example, another was ruined by a dwelling Doyle.
To sum up, these were the pluses:
- Quicker build up, more varied attacking play
- Full backs going forward more
- Team having more attack minded players than before
- We had more shots
- A couple of times we could actually blame the final ball (in some games we haven't been so close!)
- King may get fitter, Baxter will have slightly more luck, Cuvelier and Hall may improve as they play more.
- Preston rarely looked threatening
- Weir is showing a willingness to make tweaks
- Not enough real chances
- Not enough focus on exploiting chances to break/counter attack
- King's fitness
- Fans are losing patience