[azul]

h again, on 25 January 2015 - 09:31 PM, said:

I was wondering if Evatt might have got a header in and prevented their first goal yesterday, but we'll never know. I'd be a lot happier with Magreiter in there,especially if we aren't going to strengthen the attack. I think we can score enough goals with who we've got to get into the play-offs - but that's only if we can make a habit of a few clean sheets.

Some intervention, any intervention would have graciously received. That goal was absolutely appalling

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

azul, on 25 January 2015 - 10:48 PM, said:

Some intervention, any intervention would have graciously received. That goal was absolutely appalling

Did you think Tommy could have done better with it?

[h again]

azul, on 25 January 2015 - 10:48 PM, said:

Some intervention, any intervention would have graciously received. That goal was absolutely appalling

I've just watched the highlights, and sadly it's even worse than it looked at the time. We might have a small defence, but their bloke didn't even have to jump. Shade lucky it then went to Bent, but if we can't defend those we've had it.
And it looks like the second was caused by Clucas not being able to welly it away with his right foot, though by that time legs were starting to go. You can see why PC is not a happy bunny.

[60s 70s Spireite]

h again, on 25 January 2015 - 10:56 PM, said:

I've just watched the highlights, and sadly it's even worse than it looked at the time. We might have a small defence, but their bloke didn't even have to jump. Shade lucky it then went to Bent, but if we can't defend those we've had it.
And it looks like the second was caused by Clucas not being able to welly it away with his right foot, though by that time legs were starting to go. You can see why PC is not a happy bunny.

He didn't make great contact though did he? Cookie said it was our concentration that's lets us down in such situations and you can see what he means. Who do we leave all on his own in our six yard box? None other than Darren Bent, a guy with a record of almost a goal every two games, most probably scored in the six yard box.

[azul]

h again, on 25 January 2015 - 10:56 PM, said:

I've just watched the highlights, and sadly it's even worse than it looked at the time. We might have a small defence, but their bloke didn't even have to jump. Shade lucky it then went to Bent, but if we can't defend those we've had it.
And it looks like the second was caused by Clucas not being able to welly it away with his right foot, though by that time legs were starting to go. You can see why PC is not a happy bunny.

First goal was absolutely atrociously feeble defending. Their first threat from their first corner appalling. Reminded me of the JPT final goals

Second goals we were chasing the game in the ascendancy and pinging the ball around for fun. Everyone around was me was howling in delight at the way we were passing the ball, then in a split second it went horribly wrong. Not as bad as the first. I'll forgive Clucas as long as he doesn't habit of it.

The trouble is we all know that first goal will happen again and again and again

This post has been edited by azul: 25 January 2015 - 11:09 PM

[h again]

60s 70s Spireite, on 25 January 2015 - 11:00 PM, said:

He didn't make great contact though did he? Cookie said it was our concentration that's lets us down in such situations and you can see what he means. Who do we leave all on his own in our six yard box? None other than Darren Bent, a guy with a record of almost a goal every two games, most probably scored in the six yard box.

I think Raglan was marking Bent,but he was moving in on the ball almost before the header - see another thread about 'prescience', which is why top strikers are so lethal in front of goal. The fact is that it should have been cleared before it ever got to the stage of it bouncing in front of the goal, because at that point anything can happen, usually the worst.
if Tommy had managed to get there first it would have been a blinder of a save - I can't see much blame attached there.

[philtooleycfss]

h again, on 25 January 2015 - 11:28 PM, said:

I think Raglan was marking Bent,but he was moving in on the ball almost before the header - see another thread about 'prescience', which is why top strikers are so lethal in front of goal. The fact is that it should have been cleared before it ever got to the stage of it bouncing in front of the goal, because at that point anything can happen, usually the worst.
if Tommy had managed to get there first it would have been a blinder of a save - I can't see much blame attached there.

Bent was Doyle's man.

Phil

[azul]

philtooleycfss, on 25 January 2015 - 11:33 PM, said:

Bent was Doyle's man.

Phil

So are you blaming Doyle for he goal

Damage was well and truly done well before Bent's header, crap defending from a ball that dropped into the six yard box shoulder height?

Hird (weak) and Lee (statue) culpable before Doyle left Bent unmarked

[sophocles]

It did show up glaringly our main defensive weakness, I'm expecting us to concede every time anybody puts a high ball into our area. Tommy, otherwise a brilliant keeper, just doesn't command his area. In this particular instance, I think the finger is pointing mainly at whoever (Doyle? ) was taking Bent, as he let him stroll unchecked into our 6 yard box. I thought Hird actually did pretty well with the player who got the initial header because he put enough pressure on to make him head the ball almost vertically downwards, and it wouldn't have been a threat if Bent had been blocked off.

[Goku]

why on earth did we have doyle marking bent? what sort of backward set piece defending is that?

[azul]

Goku, on 26 January 2015 - 12:10 AM, said:

why on earth did we have doyle marking bent? what sort of backward set piece defending is that?

If Doyle had followed Bent in he probably would've ended in the bak of the net with the ball

Shortage of physical presence that is the problem

[DIFH]

h again, on 25 January 2015 - 10:56 PM, said:

I've just watched the highlights, and sadly it's even worse than it looked at the time. We might have a small defence, but their bloke didn't even have to jump. Shade lucky it then went to Bent, but if we can't defend those we've had it.
And it looks like the second was caused by Clucas not being able to welly it away with his right foot, though by that time legs were starting to go. You can see why PC is not a happy bunny.

Reminds me of our poor defence prior to Evatt joining, people saying we got bullied and no real height at the back.

[DIFH]

Goku, on 25 January 2015 - 02:57 PM, said:

Gary knows he cant take corners. Paul Cook knows he cant take corners. We just dont have a decent set piece taker.

Boco was fair from corner kicks but he's history.

[dallyduncan]

h again, on 25 January 2015 - 11:28 PM, said:

I think Raglan was marking Bent,but he was moving in on the ball almost before the header - see another thread about 'prescience', which is why top strikers are so lethal in front of goal. The fact is that it should have been cleared before it ever got to the stage of it bouncing in front of the goal, because at that point anything can happen, usually the worst.
if Tommy had managed to get there first it would have been a blinder of a save - I can't see much blame attached there.

Doyle was marking Bent you could tell that by the way he put his head in his hands as soon as Bent scored, sometimes think that Tommy should do more at set pieces seems to stand on his line too much ( is this down to Nixon,s coaching?).

However it was great performance against a top championship side and we shouldn't be really be looking to blame anybody

[h again]

sophocles, on 25 January 2015 - 11:58 PM, said:

It did show up glaringly our main defensive weakness, I'm expecting us to concede every time anybody puts a high ball into our area. Tommy, otherwise a brilliant keeper, just doesn't command his area. In this particular instance, I think the finger is pointing mainly at whoever (Doyle? ) was taking Bent, as he let him stroll unchecked into our 6 yard box. I thought Hird actually did pretty well with the player who got the initial header because he put enough pressure on to make him head the ball almost vertically downwards, and it wouldn't have been a threat if Bent had been blocked off.

A ball bouncing that near the goal is always going to be big threat - even more so if a big Premiership striker is being marked by a small L1 forward.
If we can't cope with corners like that we might as well pack up; it should have been cleared before it got anywhere near Bent.

philtooleycfss, on 25 January 2015 - 11:33 PM, said:

Bent was Doyle's man.

Phil

What an original approach.

[Westbars Spireite]

philtooleycfss, on 25 January 2015 - 11:33 PM, said:

Bent was Doyle's man.

Phil

That's crackers if so. Why would you put a centre forward who isn't the physically dominant type up against a one time England striker?

[warfey is a spireite]

Westbars Spireite, on 27 January 2015 - 07:19 AM, said:

That's crackers if so. Why would you put a centre forward who isn't the physically dominant type up against a one time England striker?

agree tim gnando should have matched up , either way doyle totally left bent

[60s 70s Spireite]

Westbars Spireite, on 27 January 2015 - 07:19 AM, said:

That's crackers if so. Why would you put a centre forward who isn't the physically dominant type up against a one time England striker?

On paper looks a reasonable argument. Except Bent was stood utterly and completely on his own. Doyle wasn't out muscled, he was out thought. A Sunday League side would be disappointed with that level of concentration. As has been said an England international, scorer of a goal in virtually every two games, stood all on his own by the six yard box? Not good.

[Westbars Spireite]

He isn't a defender so you can't expect him to think like one. Bent wouldn't have believed his luck.

[Westbars Spireite]

warfey is a spireite, on 27 January 2015 - 07:23 AM, said:

agree tim gnando should have matched up , either way doyle totally left bent

Hird and Raglan on him and Martin for me unless that's too simple.