Page 1 of 1
Our sleepy defence.
Posted:
Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:15 am
by Aspers
How do you fix something like this.
I mean it happens every week, we take our foot off and
they score. Not discounting the quality of the finish yesterday, but we did go to sleep.
Sammy admits this every week. He's a top manager and tells them not to lose concentration yet they still do.
If in my business I had a few people letting my team down constantly I'd replace them.
Harsh maybe but one has to do something to make sure this constant lack of concentration is stopped now. Time to raid the reserves!!.
I'm not a boo boy just a realist. It's cost us too many points.
I would like to say a big thanks to Roachy, already a contender for player of the season.
Cold wet and windy over here. 17C today BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!.
Re: Our sleepy defence.
Posted:
Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:25 am
by Abbo
We do it nearly every time we score first it happened in the 2 games we played at Chester, get in front and sit back and let the other team dominate play, it happened yesterday, Exeter should have been dead and buried but we sat back and let them back into it, we seem to think that if we score first we are good enough to hold on to the lead but we cant do that. 2 points thrown away and a really poor performance in the second half after playing so well in the first.
Re: Our sleepy defence.
Posted:
Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:31 am
by P/T Indie
It all went wrong when Jimbo went off we just seemed to be disorganised and a shambles.
Re: Our sleepy defence.
Posted:
Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:49 am
by Jody
I wouldn't say the defence were sleepy..quite the opposite. We were rarely troubled by Exeter advances all afternoon. After Jimbo went off, yes there seemed to be less organisation - but wasn't that down to a complete change in formation? Their goal was very well taken, and Roche couldn't do much about it. I wouldn't blame the defence one bit.
Re: Our sleepy defence.
Posted:
Sun Nov 23, 2008 12:17 pm
by George Dawes
i would blame Mcgivern for not doing as his told and that was to replace Jim Bentley
and not to carry on in attacking bombing down that left-wing
Re: Our sleepy defence.
Posted:
Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:06 pm
by Jody
I thought Artell and McStay went as the 2 centre backs with McCann on the right, and McGivern on the left?
Re: Our sleepy defence.
Posted:
Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:20 pm
by outsider
I still think the loss of Fraser was the main cause, he sits just in front of the back 4 breaking up play. This allows the rest of midfield to push forward. When he went off we went back to 442 and the midfield sat on top of the defence.
Re: Our sleepy defence.
Posted:
Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:37 pm
by George Dawes
I thought Artell and McStay went as the 2 centre backs with McCann on the right, and McGivern on the left?
we played a 5 3 2. then after Bentleys sendiing off, Mcgivern went as a 3rd center-back alongside Artel and Mcstay with Waintwright doing MCgivern's role as the left wing-back/fullback and McCann as the right wing-back/fullback on the other side
either that or it was a free for all
Re: Our sleepy defence.
Posted:
Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:51 pm
by Jody
I thought that. But then, a short while later when O'Carroll came on, and Danny went on the left wing, with Wainwright on the right- who was left back then?
I thought we went 442 after Jimbo went off thats all.
Re: Our sleepy defence.
Posted:
Sun Nov 23, 2008 2:14 pm
by PottedShrimp
Aspers wrote:How do you fix something like this.
I mean it happens every week, we take our foot off and
they score. Not discounting the quality of the finish yesterday, but we did go to sleep.
Sammy admits this every week. He's a top manager and tells them not to lose concentration yet they still do.
If in my business I had a few people letting my team down constantly I'd replace them.
Harsh maybe but one has to do something to make sure this constant lack of concentration is stopped now. Time to raid the reserves!!.
I'm not a boo boy just a realist. It's cost us too many points.
Couldn't agree more. Missed this one with flu, but groaned that bit more when I saw the predictable equaliser. The defence does collapse in utter, complete panic at times. If we're lucky it's for five minutes, if we're unlucky for virtually all the match like at Gillingham. We need to sort this out. Taking our foot off it is another thing - the best form of defence is ATTACK another lesson that needs to be learnt
Re: Our sleepy defence.
Posted:
Sun Nov 23, 2008 2:30 pm
by George Dawes
the best form of defence is ATTACK another lesson that needs to be learnt
that's exactly what went wrong. when we should have shut up shop[time wasting] and just played the long ball over the top for the pace of Howe & Carlton everytime Exeter pushed up
i think we only had 2 players defending & outnumbered when 10-man Exeter pushed up & scored
Re: Our sleepy defence.
Posted:
Sun Nov 23, 2008 2:40 pm
by sandgrown
outsider wrote:I still think the loss of Fraser was the main cause, he sits just in front of the back 4 breaking up play. This allows the rest of midfield to push forward. When he went off we went back to 442 and the midfield sat on top of the defence.
I said at the time that taking Fraser off was a big mistake, his holding role is vital to our set up, and could have prevented Panther from getting his shot in, Sammy usually realises his mistakes, hope he saw that one.
Re: Our sleepy defence.
Posted:
Sun Nov 23, 2008 2:48 pm
by DTSJim
Personally I think the defence has looked a little sharper with the inclusion of McStay, now that he's settled in maybe it needs another shakeup just to keep the players from getting complacent.
If they keep on letting in late goals but still get picked the next game then they'll surely just assume they're first name on the team sheet.
Re: Our sleepy defence.
Posted:
Sun Nov 23, 2008 2:55 pm
by sandgrown
DTSJim wrote:Personally I think the defence has looked a little sharper with the inclusion of McStay, now that he's settled in maybe it needs another shakeup just to keep the players from getting complacent.
If they keep on letting in late goals but still get picked the next game then they'll surely just assume they're first name on the team sheet.
spot on, McStay has been the key to our recent run, we have some pace now in central defence.
he was MOTM for me yesterday.
Re: Our sleepy defence.
Posted:
Sun Nov 23, 2008 4:42 pm
by Keith
PottedShrimp wrote:...Missed this one with flu, but groaned that bit more when I saw the predictable equaliser.
"Man Flu"?
"Bad Cold"?
The best definition for the difference between a cold and the flu is...
you're sat in your front room, feeling like crap, wrapped in a duvet, when a fifty pound note blows up against the window. With a cold you struggle up and go to get it, possibly even feeling a bit better when you get hold of it.
With the flu you just say f*** it.
Oh, and flu lasts about three weeks!
Re: Our sleepy defence.
Posted:
Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:27 pm
by PottedShrimp
DawZi wrote:the best form of defence is ATTACK another lesson that needs to be learnt
that's exactly what went wrong. when we should have shut up shop[time wasting] and just played the long ball over the top for the pace of Howe & Carlton everytime Exeter pushed up
i think we only had 2 players defending & outnumbered when 10-man Exeter pushed up & scored
Alas that's just what we can't do - we're not good enough. If we give let the opposition come at us all the time, it's just a matter of time before they score. The safest place for the ball to be is in the opposition's penalty area
Re: Our sleepy defence.
Posted:
Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:08 pm
by OvertheBar
We competed well in the first half, despite Artell trying to reintroduce the 'long ball to nowhere' tactic. Sitting back after the break slowed us right down and we became ponderous. A right moaning git near me was often unfortunately correct as he bellowed time and again 'make the obvious pass' 'keep it simple'.
Give Exeter some credit too, they worked hard and when the inevitable goal went in I was left nibbling my nails.
It was a frustrating result, however other results from the teams below mostly went in our favour and we lost no ground.
Bournemouth is a game where we could get a result if we have enough healthy bodies. I will take another draw.
Re: Our sleepy defence.
Posted:
Mon Nov 24, 2008 11:01 am
by P/T Indie
The one person that has benefited the most from the new formation is McStay IMO. Him and Fraser seem to have done really well since we changed it about.
Re: Our sleepy defence.
Posted:
Mon Nov 24, 2008 11:45 am
by marky
I've always been impressed with McStay. Our defence certainly looks more assured with him in it. As for Artell, he worries me every time he gets the ball and I'll be interested to see what team Sammy picks tomorrow.
Re: Our sleepy defence.
Posted:
Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:09 pm
by Harry
Artell is a brilliant header of the ball and for me was MOTM in the first half when we played Chester in the JPT. Unfortunately this is by far the best part of his game. He backs off attackers too much, not cutting out threats early and for me seems too much like Bentley. Despite being an inch or two taller and a few years younger, I'd rather have Jimbo at the heart of defence, with McStay and hopefully in the future a bit of a faster defender which can help us stop these point-losses.
Re: Our sleepy defence.
Posted:
Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:39 pm
by OvertheBar
Artell tries his hardest and I wouldn't knock him for that, however when he is in the team I worry that he gives the ball away so much that we spend ages trying to get it back. Dave humped the ball into empty space time and again on Saturday when he started on the left of Jim.
Hopefully Adamski will be back in tomorra night, Jim will be fit to play and Henry will make up the back trio. Who Sammy plays in place of McGivern is key, because when we sort of reverted to 442 on Saturday the show came off the rails big style.
What chance Twissy will be fit to plug the gap?
Re: Our sleepy defence.
Posted:
Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:21 pm
by P/T Indie
Artell was in the News of the World team of the week this week
Re: Our sleepy defence.
Posted:
Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:34 pm
by marky
Just proves what a pointless rag it is