[dalekpete]

I don’t really know what changed other than Oxford pressed midfield when behind and marked well. We then played at a slower and slower tempo and put no pressure on them.

We started very well and scored a scuffed goal. They got a free-kick after twenty-odd minutes and I remarked that it was the first time they had touched the ball in our last third. We continued to have a host of chances despite allowing them possession and I thought it was going to be a case of how many we won by.

Our shape was good and because they were not a direct team Gregor had few issues as a CB. Evening into the second half I expected more goals as they pushed forward. However after they scored and sat back we didn’t do enough to break them down particularly as we were too slow with the ball; ther was no pinging of the passes and no one tried to force the issue by beating a man.

It was the right thing to gamble with 4-3-3 to try and force a result but they got the second before we settled. It was the sort of goal we normally score.

The injury to Lomax showed that Robertson is right to play there but by then he was almost a wing-back. We should have salvaged a point at the death when Ford hit the bar.

The main problem was our slow play, an unwillingness to seek an early diadonal ball and the fact that our nine attempts off target were all from positions that we might usually have scored.

[S18Spireite]

It was puzzling. The ultimate puzzler being had Jack and Craig stuck away their chances we'd have been walking home with another 4 or 5 goals bemoaning our defensive lapses. As it is, we're just bemoaning our defensive lapses.

What is getting to me is the continued hospital passes out of defence and midfield that are simply going nowhere. I can see that we would rather keep possession a little than boot it long all the time (Davies is no target man and Futcher will beat Jack 9 times out of 10) but at least it would give us a chance to win second balls further up the field rather than allowing them to pressure us in our own half.

[Jud]

dalekpete, on 23 November 2010 - 10:40 PM, said:

I don’t really know what changed other than Oxford pressed midfield when behind and marked well. We then played at a slower and slower tempo and put no pressure on them.

We started very well and scored a scuffed goal. They got a free-kick after twenty-odd minutes and I remarked that it was the first time they had touched the ball in our last third. We continued to have a host of chances despite allowing them possession and I thought it was going to be a case of how many we won by.

Our shape was good and because they were not a direct team Gregor had few issues as a CB. Evening into the second half I expected more goals as they pushed forward. However after they scored and sat back we didn’t do enough to break them down particularly as we were too slow with the ball; ther was no pinging of the passes and no one tried to force the issue by beating a man.

It was the right thing to gamble with 4-3-3 to try and force a result but they got the second before we settled. It was the sort of goal we normally score.

The injury to Lomax showed that Robertson is right to play there but by then he was almost a wing-back. We should have salvaged a point at the death when Ford hit the bar.

The main problem was our slow play, an unwillingness to seek an early diadonal ball and the fact that our nine attempts off target were all from positions that we might usually have scored.

As I live in Leeds Pete, I usually miss evening games and tonight was no exception so there is a limit to what I can comment on. Still, you raise some good points here...it's rare for us not to concede and, if we really did hit the bar and have another 8 or 9 attempts which might have snuck in on another day, then there we go, a(nother) bad day at the office, but nothing more serious. We do need to sort out our leakiness, but let's not freak out here. A couple of good results and we could be clear at the top again! Stay positive people!

[dazcarrlegend]

For me the difference is in the full-backs. As far as I can remember, Hunt only over-lapped once and Lomax not at all. Robertson once. On the two times it happened, we carved them open.

I think Sheridan may have instructed the full-backs not to overlap as an attempt to tighten up our defence. This lack of width was our un-doing, as lumping it up to our strikers vs. their big defence clearly didn't work.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.....

[BlueRover52]

dazcarrlegend, on 24 November 2010 - 09:09 AM, said:

For me the difference is in the full-backs. As far as I can remember, Hunt only over-lapped once and Lomax not at all. Robertson once. On the two times it happened, we carved them open.

I think Sheridan may have instructed the full-backs not to overlap as an attempt to tighten up our defence. This lack of width was our un-doing, as lumping it up to our strikers vs. their big defence clearly didn't work.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.....

Dearly missed Mattis in the back 4.Ford clearly isn't strong enough unless he has somebody with him.That isn't Gregor!Apart from Allott midfield disappeared 2nd half.Whitaker couldn't make the simplest of passes.And I know he scored but for most of the game Morris was like a headless chicken.