MATCHDAY LIVE: Swindon Town v Notts County (From The Wiltshire Gazette and Herald)

vikingred wrote:
Delighted this game is on. Flown over from Norway for this and taking 5 family members with me today. A big three points would send me back a very happy bunny tomorrow. COYR...

vikingred wrote:
Delighted this game is on. Flown over from Norway for this and taking 5 family members with me today. A big three points would send me back a very happy bunny tomorrow. COYR...

Rebel_phish wrote:
With a great result mid-week at Yeovil, this is the game that we turn our home furunes around and get hold of this league by the scruff of the neck.

SAPFanSTFC wrote:
Interesting given a 4-5-1 with Navarro sitting deeper....would have though it would have been a 4-5-1 with 2 of the midfielders pushing forwards...can't under-estimate this Notts Co team but we MUST get the 3pts today!

Rebel_phish wrote:
Scunny fighting back 1-2 doncaster

SAPFanSTFC wrote:

Rebel_phish wrote:
Scunny fighting back 1-2 doncaster

YAY!!!...another sick-note to keep me company!! :-)

the wizard wrote:

SAPFanSTFC wrote:

Rebel_phish wrote:
Scunny fighting back 1-2 doncaster

YAY!!!...another sick-note to keep me company!! :-)

Good afternoon Ian, sorry you feel all alone. Seems Town have the better of the play but Notts defending with some bodies back getting in the way, spoil sports, LOL.

Sounds like Roberts is having one of his better games, I hope that continues.

SAPFanSTFC wrote:

the wizard wrote:

SAPFanSTFC wrote:

Rebel_phish wrote:
Scunny fighting back 1-2 doncaster

YAY!!!...another sick-note to keep me company!! :-)

Good afternoon Ian, sorry you feel all alone. Seems Town have the better of the play but Notts defending with some bodies back getting in the way, spoil sports, LOL.

Sounds like Roberts is having one of his better games, I hope that continues.

Hi there Wiz! :-)
.
Just surprised at no-one else being around....this man-flu may take my last breath at any moment so desperate to hear of a winning goal from....errr
....anyone really - we sound good but can't get any luck with where the ball drops.

1STFC! wrote:
Here we go Collins on for Roberts, lets see what he can do

1STFC! wrote:
Here we go Collins on for Roberts, lets see what he can do

1STFC! wrote:
Two points dropped

Rebel_phish wrote:
2 points dropped? Probably

But no need to panic. I said earlier. 9 points fron the next four games inc this one, would be a good haul. As long as we win at Sheff and Donny. So win the next 3 then thats 10 and still on track.

I know other have been saying it all season, but all we seem to lack is a killer/poaching goalscorer. If we could have converted 50% of the chances we've missed, we would be out of site at the top.

CAROLYN1962 wrote:

Rebel_phish wrote:
2 points dropped? Probably

But no need to panic. I said earlier. 9 points fron the next four games inc this one, would be a good haul. As long as we win at Sheff and Donny. So win the next 3 then thats 10 and still on track.

I know other have been saying it all season, but all we seem to lack is a killer/poaching goalscorer. If we could have converted 50% of the chances we've missed, we would be out of site at the top.

paul benson

the wizard wrote:
On the minus side I thought we would have been on the score sheet by now, but on the positive side it seems Navarro and Roberts have had better games.

London Red wrote:
Though Wiz if it is not lifted - I wont suddenly turn on them if they provide a full and detailed explanation as why not
.
I know most on here don't think it is - but it could be out if their hands - the FL are the ones who decide if it is lifted or not
.
I would urge the Adver to please try and get the board to hold a Q&A before Oldham (also not at 12:00 maybe 13:30 to give more a chance to make it)
.
That would give them to answer any other questions of concern if it is lifted or address why not if not

SAPFanSTFC wrote:
Oh Burger!! 2-0 to Donny!
.
At least Bury have equalised I guess.
.
WHY of WHY can we not score from corners or free-kicks!!?

ciclosporindorset wrote:
My tip is Jason Roberts if the embargo is lifted

ciclosporindorset wrote:
My tip is Jason Roberts if the embargo is lifted

Oi Den! wrote:
Cracking game of football today - one of the best this season. Some great saves by their keeper, the one with his right foot probably the pick of the bunch.

We weren't quite good enough to do it today. Maybe we're not quite good enough to go up, but we're having a good crack at it and there's less hoofball now. In all the circs, I think we're doing pretty well - on the ptch anyway.

jayden wrote:

ciclosporindorset wrote:
My tip is Jason Roberts if the embargo is lifted

OUT FOR THE REST OF THE SEASON.

mowey33 wrote:
i got criticised the other match for saying we f*cked it up and cant win when we can put real pressure on other teams and we have done it again today could of put real pressure on other teams with the 3 points but after listening to it today again we had plenty of chances to put the 3 points in the bag and haven't. before getting criticised again i want promotion as badly as any town fan does but macdonald has to change it round starting with 4-5-1 at home just no good we have to chase 3 points and have more up front than williams who just isnt scoring need to try something different especially at home, on the plus side another clean sheet but if we want auto promotion 1 point not good enough. but onto fridays game against oldham which we must pick up 3 points before the donny game on tv

newburymike wrote:
We are second, we were promoted last season, played well, didn't get the breaks. Everyone keeps on about getting the embargo lifted, then get a prolific striker in. Where from? The striker tree, we have the best goal difference & defence in league one. Sit back, go to the games, support the lads vocally for the last few games & enjoy the bumpy rollercoaster ride!!

sp1dersw3b wrote:

mowey33 wrote:
i got criticised the other match for saying we f*cked it up and cant win when we can put real pressure on other teams and we have done it again today could of put real pressure on other teams with the 3 points but after listening to it today again we had plenty of chances to put the 3 points in the bag and haven't. before getting criticised again i want promotion as badly as any town fan does but macdonald has to change it round starting with 4-5-1 at home just no good we have to chase 3 points and have more up front than williams who just isnt scoring need to try something different especially at home, on the plus side another clean sheet but if we want auto promotion 1 point not good enough. but onto fridays game against oldham which we must pick up 3 points before the donny game on tv

Don't know your circumstances as to why you only listened to the match today but please read the comments of those that actually attended the match.

I was there also and IMO only we deserved to win and it was not through the lack of any players giving their all OR the tactics.

We played some good football throughout with Macca my MoM and a far better performance from Navarro was also great to see after the poison he had to take from some sections of the home support on his last outing.

Many others chipped in too along with our excellent defence but just for a moment in the second half I thought County had nicked it - would not have been deserved if the attempt had gone in but as someone once said football is a funny old game.

A Rooney was the main focal point of the attack with Williams more used as a wide man until the last quarter of the match so not sure what you heard to suggest differently. In fact Williams and Roberts switched wings on a few occasions, leaving A Rooney in the more central role upfront until replaced by Collins.

Hope you can get down to the CG on Friday and you may also see a different game as to the one listened to although as always we all have our own opinions and interpretations and are entitled to them, I guess.

Rebel_phish wrote:

newburymike wrote:
We are second, we were promoted last season, played well, didn't get the breaks. Everyone keeps on about getting the embargo lifted, then get a prolific striker in. Where from? The striker tree, we have the best goal difference & defence in league one. Sit back, go to the games, support the lads vocally for the last few games & enjoy the bumpy rollercoaster ride!!

We have scored 63 times without a prolific striker.

Whats the problem people.

Jets there'd wrote:
Very unlucky today.
If we keep playing like that we'll be fine.
Of course everyone is nervous but if everyone sticks together it will be more productive.
Notts County came for the draw & their 'keeper had a blinder. On another day we could have won 3-0

Oi Den! wrote:
I don't see why there's this desperation to get the embargo lifted. It might be useful, but who knows whether we'd be be able to sign anyone who's going to improve on what we've got? - and what we've got has been pretty successful.

Surely the bigger concern is what the embargo might say about the state of the club? If the FL will not lift it, it can only be because they have serious concerns. If the club has not satisfied them that we have sufficient funding to operate normally, then I for one am grateful to the League for not allowing the club's future to be put at risk.

sp1dersw3b wrote:

mowey33 wrote:
i got criticised the other match for saying we f*cked it up and cant win when we can put real pressure on other teams and we have done it again today could of put real pressure on other teams with the 3 points but after listening to it today again we had plenty of chances to put the 3 points in the bag and haven't. before getting criticised again i want promotion as badly as any town fan does but macdonald has to change it round starting with 4-5-1 at home just no good we have to chase 3 points and have more up front than williams who just isnt scoring need to try something different especially at home, on the plus side another clean sheet but if we want auto promotion 1 point not good enough. but onto fridays game against oldham which we must pick up 3 points before the donny game on tv

Don't know your circumstances as to why you only listened to the match today but please read the comments of those that actually attended the match.

I was there also and IMO only we deserved to win and it was not through the lack of any players giving their all OR the tactics.

We played some good football throughout with Macca my MoM and a far better performance from Navarro was also great to see after the poison he had to take from some sections of the home support on his last outing.

Many others chipped in too along with our excellent defence but just for a moment in the second half I thought County had nicked it - would not have been deserved if the attempt had gone in but as someone once said football is a funny old game.

A Rooney was the main focal point of the attack with Williams more used as a wide man until the last quarter of the match so not sure what you heard to suggest differently. In fact Williams and Roberts switched wings on a few occasions, leaving A Rooney in the more central role upfront until replaced by Collins.

Hope you can get down to the CG on Friday and you may also see a different game as to the one listened to although as always we all have our own opinions and interpretations and are entitled to them, I guess.

Di kanny oh wrote:

Rebel_phish wrote:

newburymike wrote:
We are second, we were promoted last season, played well, didn't get the breaks. Everyone keeps on about getting the embargo lifted, then get a prolific striker in. Where from? The striker tree, we have the best goal difference & defence in league one. Sit back, go to the games, support the lads vocally for the last few games & enjoy the bumpy rollercoaster ride!!

We have scored 63 times without a prolific striker.

Whats the problem people.

Because with a natural goalscorer we would be out of site by now with the rest eating our dust.

Stratton Red wrote:
4-5-1 away - fine. 4-5-1 at home when the vast majority of teams play one up top against us - NO!
*
Another two points dropped again today.

Wilesy wrote:
Great performance with ball played on the ground, missed chances as usual, 2 points dropped. As a one off you could say we we're unlucky, but it's not a one-off. We need a striker and a winger. I don't see why we are still in embargo. The issues can only be down to not paying money to creditors, whoever they may be or how old the debt may be. So the question is why have we not paid the money, I suspect I know the answer. It's one thing being all chummy chummy in the legends bar, but we have players out there who need a rest or are clearly not 100% fit, and since Martin, Hollands and Ritchie have left the goals have dried up. We need recruits now.

Rebel_phish wrote:

Di kanny oh wrote:

Rebel_phish wrote:

newburymike wrote:
We are second, we were promoted last season, played well, didn't get the breaks. Everyone keeps on about getting the embargo lifted, then get a prolific striker in. Where from? The striker tree, we have the best goal difference & defence in league one. Sit back, go to the games, support the lads vocally for the last few games & enjoy the bumpy rollercoaster ride!!

We have scored 63 times without a prolific striker.

Whats the problem people.

Because with a natural goalscorer we would be out of site by now with the rest eating our dust.

Agreed. Did say that earlier. But what I'm getting at is that we are scoring, even without an out and out striker.

Have one of those and, yes this league would have already been won.

International Robin2 wrote:
Here's a breakdown of the big deciding matches from now until the end of the season... It's going to go down to the wire! It's far from over yet!!

Friday, 29 March 2013
Brentford v Notts County (Tough Game)
Coventry v Doncaster (Tough Match)
Tranmere v Sheffield Utd (MASSIVE MATCH)
Yeovil v Walsall (Tough Game)

Monday, 1 April 2013
Doncaster v Swindon (MASSIVE MATCH)
MK Dons v Brentford (BIG MATCH)
Notts County v Yeovil (Tough Game)

Saturday, 6 April 2013
Bournemouth v Notts County (Tough Game)
Coventry v Brentford (Tough Match)
Doncaster v Tranmere (MASSIVE MATCH)
Walsall v Sheffield Utd (BIG MATCH)
Yeovil v Shrewsbury (Tough Match)

Tuesday, 9 April 2013
MK Dons v Swindon (BIG MATCH)

Saturday, 13 April 2013
Sheffield Utd v Swindon (MASSIVE MATCH)
Tranmere v Hartlepool (Tough Match)

Saturday, 20 April 2013
Doncaster v Notts County (Tough Match)
Preston v Tranmere (Tough Match)
Yeovil v Crewe (Tough Match)

Saturday, 27 April 2013
Brentford v Doncaster (MASSIVE MATCH)
Tranmere v Bournemouth (MASSIVE MATCH)

Date Unknown
Sheffield Utd v Brentford (MASSIVE MATCH)

It ain't over by a long shot!

Oi Den! wrote:

Stratton Red wrote: 4-5-1 away - fine. 4-5-1 at home when the vast majority of teams play one up top against us - NO! * Another two points dropped again today.

But Stratton, do you really think the tactics caused the dropped points today? I don't. We swarmed all over them for most of the game, we got down the flanks (admittedly mostly the left) and we got plenty of bodies into the box. I'd say we dropped the points because sometimes we made poor decisions, sometimes the ball just didn't drop for us and most of the time their keeper played like a man possessed. One of those days.

red white wrote:
What was the atmosphere like at the CG today? And the pitch,how was that after the Yovo allotment.

Wilesy wrote:
Not sure why people are criticising the 4-5-1. It's definitely not a negative style, it encourages wing play and suits the attack minded Williams and Roberts well.

As KMac said on interview, playing one striker in between the usually strong centre backs gives the opposition food for thought rather than 2 centre backs winning headers all day long, plus gives us a chance to build rather than hoofing it forward which we don't have the strikers for.

The Paul Hart era was a more negative form of 4-5-1, playing hoofball to Calvin '1 in 13' Andrew with no one within 40 yards of him. but what we saw today was completely different and enjoyable to watch, (except the missed chances of course)

the wizard wrote:

CAROLYN1962 wrote:

Rebel_phish wrote:
2 points dropped? Probably

But no need to panic. I said earlier. 9 points fron the next four games inc this one, would be a good haul. As long as we win at Sheff and Donny. So win the next 3 then thats 10 and still on track.

I know other have been saying it all season, but all we seem to lack is a killer/poaching goalscorer. If we could have converted 50% of the chances we've missed, we would be out of site at the top.

paul benson

Indeed, why not.

Oxon-Red wrote:

red white wrote:
What was the atmosphere like at the CG today? And the pitch,how was that after the Yovo allotment.

Bast Saturday atmosphere for a long time. Town End singing virtually the whole second half with the Don Rogers chipping in to help out. Good ovation at the end as well which was nice to see.

Pitch was perfect, when players slid it left the odd mark and certainly didn't leave holes like Tuesday.

Plenty to offer encouragement even if the final result was frustrating.

COYMR

Rebel_phish wrote:

Di kanny oh wrote:

Rebel_phish wrote:

newburymike wrote:
We are second, we were promoted last season, played well, didn't get the breaks. Everyone keeps on about getting the embargo lifted, then get a prolific striker in. Where from? The striker tree, we have the best goal difference & defence in league one. Sit back, go to the games, support the lads vocally for the last few games & enjoy the bumpy rollercoaster ride!!

We have scored 63 times without a prolific striker.

Whats the problem people.

Because with a natural goalscorer we would be out of site by now with the rest eating our dust.

Agreed. Did say that earlier. But what I'm getting at is that we are scoring, even without an out and out striker.

Have one of those and, yes this league would have already been won.

SimonPrice351 wrote:
A striker might be available - 25 year old Esteban Casagolda:

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=MmWefy_-_

aI

Has previously played for Motherwell, and the guy who uploaded the video is also his agent.

Oi Den! wrote:
I don't see why there's this desperation to get the embargo lifted. It might be useful, but who knows whether we'd be be able to sign anyone who's going to improve on what we've got? - and what we've got has been pretty successful.

Surely the bigger concern is what the embargo might say about the state of the club? If the FL will not lift it, it can only be because they have serious concerns. If the club has not satisfied them that we have sufficient funding to operate normally, then I for one am grateful to the League for not allowing the club's future to be put at risk.

joey butler wrote:

International Robin2 wrote:
Here's a breakdown of the big deciding matches from now until the end of the season... It's going to go down to the wire! It's far from over yet!!

Friday, 29 March 2013
Brentford v Notts County (Tough Game)
Coventry v Doncaster (Tough Match)
Tranmere v Sheffield Utd (MASSIVE MATCH)
Yeovil v Walsall (Tough Game)

Monday, 1 April 2013
Doncaster v Swindon (MASSIVE MATCH)
MK Dons v Brentford (BIG MATCH)
Notts County v Yeovil (Tough Game)

Saturday, 6 April 2013
Bournemouth v Notts County (Tough Game)
Coventry v Brentford (Tough Match)
Doncaster v Tranmere (MASSIVE MATCH)
Walsall v Sheffield Utd (BIG MATCH)
Yeovil v Shrewsbury (Tough Match)

Tuesday, 9 April 2013
MK Dons v Swindon (BIG MATCH)

Saturday, 13 April 2013
Sheffield Utd v Swindon (MASSIVE MATCH)
Tranmere v Hartlepool (Tough Match)

Saturday, 20 April 2013
Doncaster v Notts County (Tough Match)
Preston v Tranmere (Tough Match)
Yeovil v Crewe (Tough Match)

Saturday, 27 April 2013
Brentford v Doncaster (MASSIVE MATCH)
Tranmere v Bournemouth (MASSIVE MATCH)

Date Unknown
Sheffield Utd v Brentford (MASSIVE MATCH)

It ain't over by a long shot!

A helpful post and many thanks for your efforts on that.

You just missed one 'massive match',

SWINDON V NOTTS COUNTY.

Realistically, today was our last chance to hang on to the hope of automatic promotion and despite everyone's very best efforts, we were simply not good enough.

Recall Benson, last roll of the dice!!

Rebel_phish wrote:
2 points dropped? Probably

But no need to panic. I said earlier. 9 points fron the next four games inc this one, would be a good haul. As long as we win at Sheff and Donny. So win the next 3 then thats 10 and still on track.

I know other have been saying it all season, but all we seem to lack is a killer/poaching goalscorer. If we could have converted 50% of the chances we've missed, we would be out of site at the top.

the wizard wrote:
Pewsham,

I know what you are saying but sometimes it needs somebody like PB just to go for 15 minutes and run around and get into those goal scoring positions, and he does indeed seem to know where they are. With the decent service of the ball being on the deck instead of launched from defense it would surely suit his play. Lets face it, he isn't going to be any worse.

The Jockster wrote:

Rebel_phish wrote:
2 points dropped? Probably

But no need to panic. I said earlier. 9 points fron the next four games inc this one, would be a good haul. As long as we win at Sheff and Donny. So win the next 3 then thats 10 and still on track.

I know other have been saying it all season, but all we seem to lack is a killer/poaching goalscorer. If we could have converted 50% of the chances we've missed, we would be out of site at the top.

Piece of cake then Phish win v Blades and Donny and we're home and dry then? No problem with our deadly strike force points in the bag already - you know what I think I'll go out now and celebrate winning promotion.

Sorry but we're not good enough end of.

jayden wrote:
A good effort from the lads we should have scored.A.N. GOOD GAME. Message to a few pratts in the stand stop moaning at young players because you better get used to it as next season the team will be full of them.Also we wont get new players in these are what we have so just get behind them .Also told you lot last night the players were only paid half their wages in jan also been told that only l thompson will get a new deal as he is only on£900 a week and will be offerd £3000 the others wages a to high.And i am not the guv for anyone asks. The wage thing is on a web site.Times are changing get use to it.But well done lads neat football just need one of the strikers to start hitting the net.

jayden wrote:

The Jockster wrote:

Rebel_phish wrote:
2 points dropped? Probably

But no need to panic. I said earlier. 9 points fron the next four games inc this one, would be a good haul. As long as we win at Sheff and Donny. So win the next 3 then thats 10 and still on track.

I know other have been saying it all season, but all we seem to lack is a killer/poaching goalscorer. If we could have converted 50% of the chances we've missed, we would be out of site at the top.

Piece of cake then Phish win v Blades and Donny and we're home and dry then? No problem with our deadly strike force points in the bag already - you know what I think I'll go out now and celebrate winning promotion.

Sorry but we're not good enough end of.

Hey jock why all the doom and gloom ?Cheer up you might win your case sir.

the wizard wrote:
I have noticed earlier that a Russian Oiligarch has died, see link,

http://news.uk.msn.c

om/guardian/boris-be

rezovsky-found-dead-

4


This isn't by any chance the guy that is involved with Bormuff is it ???

The Jockster wrote:

Rebel_phish wrote:
2 points dropped? Probably

But no need to panic. I said earlier. 9 points fron the next four games inc this one, would be a good haul. As long as we win at Sheff and Donny. So win the next 3 then thats 10 and still on track.

I know other have been saying it all season, but all we seem to lack is a killer/poaching goalscorer. If we could have converted 50% of the chances we've missed, we would be out of site at the top.

Piece of cake then Phish win v Blades and Donny and we're home and dry then? No problem with our deadly strike force points in the bag already - you know what I think I'll go out now and celebrate winning promotion.

Sorry but we're not good enough end of.

bearwoodred wrote:

the wizard wrote:
I have noticed earlier that a Russian Oiligarch has died, see link,

http://news.uk.msn.c


om/guardian/boris-be


rezovsky-found-dead-


4


This isn't by any chance the guy that is involved with Bormuff is it ???

don't think so

bearwoodred wrote:

the wizard wrote:
I have noticed earlier that a Russian Oiligarch has died, see link,

http://news.uk.msn.c


om/guardian/boris-be


rezovsky-found-dead-


4


This isn't by any chance the guy that is involved with Bormuff is it ???

don't think so

bearwoodred wrote:

the wizard wrote:
I have noticed earlier that a Russian Oiligarch has died, see link,

http://news.uk.msn.c


om/guardian/boris-be


rezovsky-found-dead-


4


This isn't by any chance the guy that is involved with Bormuff is it ???

don't think so

The Jockster wrote:

Rebel_phish wrote:
2 points dropped? Probably

But no need to panic. I said earlier. 9 points fron the next four games inc this one, would be a good haul. As long as we win at Sheff and Donny. So win the next 3 then thats 10 and still on track.

I know other have been saying it all season, but all we seem to lack is a killer/poaching goalscorer. If we could have converted 50% of the chances we've missed, we would be out of site at the top.

Piece of cake then Phish win v Blades and Donny and we're home and dry then? No problem with our deadly strike force points in the bag already - you know what I think I'll go out now and celebrate winning promotion.

Sorry but we're not good enough end of.

bearwoodred wrote:

jayden wrote:
A good effort from the lads we should have scored.A.N. GOOD GAME. Message to a few pratts in the stand stop moaning at young players because you better get used to it as next season the team will be full of them.Also we wont get new players in these are what we have so just get behind them .Also told you lot last night the players were only paid half their wages in jan also been told that only l thompson will get a new deal as he is only on£900 a week and will be offerd £3000 the others wages a to high.And i am not the guv for anyone asks. The wage thing is on a web site.Times are changing get use to it.But well done lads neat football just need one of the strikers to start hitting the net.

Which website?
Does this mean we only have a few players as half are out of contract?
If we did have to sell players then you need them to be in contract!
Did the new board not state the money available in the future was the same as it is now?
If the players only had half pay in Jan this would be more public knowledge and stated as the reason for not have the embargo lifted.

Pewsham Red wrote:

Wilesy wrote:
Not sure why people are criticising the 4-5-1. It's definitely not a negative style, it encourages wing play and suits the attack minded Williams and Roberts well.

As KMac said on interview, playing one striker in between the usually strong centre backs gives the opposition food for thought rather than 2 centre backs winning headers all day long, plus gives us a chance to build rather than hoofing it forward which we don't have the strikers for.

The Paul Hart era was a more negative form of 4-5-1, playing hoofball to Calvin '1 in 13' Andrew with no one within 40 yards of him. but what we saw today was completely different and enjoyable to watch, (except the missed chances of course)

I think it's pretty negative, especially when the majority of our wing play came from our full backs and Williams doesn't look like a wide player to me

First half Rooney kept drifting out wide leaving no-one up front and when Roberts went off we didn't have a winger on until de Vita came on with about 5 minutes left.

That said, I thought we should have easily won and Navarro looked really good and wasn't far behind Alan Macormack for MOTM.

jayden wrote:

The Jockster wrote:

Rebel_phish wrote:
2 points dropped? Probably

But no need to panic. I said earlier. 9 points fron the next four games inc this one, would be a good haul. As long as we win at Sheff and Donny. So win the next 3 then thats 10 and still on track.

I know other have been saying it all season, but all we seem to lack is a killer/poaching goalscorer. If we could have converted 50% of the chances we've missed, we would be out of site at the top.

Piece of cake then Phish win v Blades and Donny and we're home and dry then? No problem with our deadly strike force points in the bag already - you know what I think I'll go out now and celebrate winning promotion.

Sorry but we're not good enough end of.

Hey jock why all the doom and gloom ?Cheer up you might win your case sir.

jayden wrote:

bearwoodred wrote:

jayden wrote:
A good effort from the lads we should have scored.A.N. GOOD GAME. Message to a few pratts in the stand stop moaning at young players because you better get used to it as next season the team will be full of them.Also we wont get new players in these are what we have so just get behind them .Also told you lot last night the players were only paid half their wages in jan also been told that only l thompson will get a new deal as he is only on£900 a week and will be offerd £3000 the others wages a to high.And i am not the guv for anyone asks. The wage thing is on a web site.Times are changing get use to it.But well done lads neat football just need one of the strikers to start hitting the net.

Which website?
Does this mean we only have a few players as half are out of contract?
If we did have to sell players then you need them to be in contract!
Did the new board not state the money available in the future was the same as it is now?
If the players only had half pay in Jan this would be more public knowledge and stated as the reason for not have the embargo lifted.

Now this is intresting i looked again and it is now gone it was on Wikipedia their was aline about it 2 days ago ill just see if it was on another site and get back.Its not made up.

Wilesy wrote:

Pewsham Red wrote:

Wilesy wrote:
Not sure why people are criticising the 4-5-1. It's definitely not a negative style, it encourages wing play and suits the attack minded Williams and Roberts well.

As KMac said on interview, playing one striker in between the usually strong centre backs gives the opposition food for thought rather than 2 centre backs winning headers all day long, plus gives us a chance to build rather than hoofing it forward which we don't have the strikers for.

The Paul Hart era was a more negative form of 4-5-1, playing hoofball to Calvin '1 in 13' Andrew with no one within 40 yards of him. but what we saw today was completely different and enjoyable to watch, (except the missed chances of course)

I think it's pretty negative, especially when the majority of our wing play came from our full backs and Williams doesn't look like a wide player to me

First half Rooney kept drifting out wide leaving no-one up front and when Roberts went off we didn't have a winger on until de Vita came on with about 5 minutes left.

That said, I thought we should have easily won and Navarro looked really good and wasn't far behind Alan Macormack for MOTM.

Fair do's Pewsham but I thought we created lots of chances and I thoroughly enjoyed the game. Playing with one main striker works for Barcelona, Chelsea, Spurs, and is a modern way to play.

Unfortunately our finishing once again let us down, and clearly the clubs above have better players, but I can't say the system was at fault for why we didn't score today.

In fact on a positive note it is good to see KMac has a plan B (4-5-1) and a plan C (switching wingers). PDC was very predictable with his 4-4-2, and you could generally predict the subs he would use.

the wizard wrote:

bearwoodred wrote:

the wizard wrote:
I have noticed earlier that a Russian Oiligarch has died, see link,

http://news.uk.msn.c



om/guardian/boris-be



rezovsky-found-dead-



4


This isn't by any chance the guy that is involved with Bormuff is it ???

don't think so

Shame innit.

International Robin2 wrote:
Here's a breakdown of the big deciding matches from now until the end of the season... It's going to go down to the wire! It's far from over yet!!

Friday, 29 March 2013
Brentford v Notts County (Tough Game)
Coventry v Doncaster (Tough Match)
Tranmere v Sheffield Utd (MASSIVE MATCH)
Yeovil v Walsall (Tough Game)

Monday, 1 April 2013
Doncaster v Swindon (MASSIVE MATCH)
MK Dons v Brentford (BIG MATCH)
Notts County v Yeovil (Tough Game)

Saturday, 6 April 2013
Bournemouth v Notts County (Tough Game)
Coventry v Brentford (Tough Match)
Doncaster v Tranmere (MASSIVE MATCH)
Walsall v Sheffield Utd (BIG MATCH)
Yeovil v Shrewsbury (Tough Match)

Tuesday, 9 April 2013
MK Dons v Swindon (BIG MATCH)

Saturday, 13 April 2013
Sheffield Utd v Swindon (MASSIVE MATCH)
Tranmere v Hartlepool (Tough Match)

Saturday, 20 April 2013
Doncaster v Notts County (Tough Match)
Preston v Tranmere (Tough Match)
Yeovil v Crewe (Tough Match)

Saturday, 27 April 2013
Brentford v Doncaster (MASSIVE MATCH)
Tranmere v Bournemouth (MASSIVE MATCH)

Date Unknown
Sheffield Utd v Brentford (MASSIVE MATCH)

It ain't over by a long shot!

International Robin2 wrote:
Here's a breakdown of the big deciding matches from now until the end of the season... It's going to go down to the wire! It's far from over yet!!

Friday, 29 March 2013
Brentford v Notts County (Tough Game)
Coventry v Doncaster (Tough Match)
Tranmere v Sheffield Utd (MASSIVE MATCH)
Yeovil v Walsall (Tough Game)

Monday, 1 April 2013
Doncaster v Swindon (MASSIVE MATCH)
MK Dons v Brentford (BIG MATCH)
Notts County v Yeovil (Tough Game)

Saturday, 6 April 2013
Bournemouth v Notts County (Tough Game)
Coventry v Brentford (Tough Match)
Doncaster v Tranmere (MASSIVE MATCH)
Walsall v Sheffield Utd (BIG MATCH)
Yeovil v Shrewsbury (Tough Match)

Tuesday, 9 April 2013
MK Dons v Swindon (BIG MATCH)

Saturday, 13 April 2013
Sheffield Utd v Swindon (MASSIVE MATCH)
Tranmere v Hartlepool (Tough Match)

Saturday, 20 April 2013
Doncaster v Notts County (Tough Match)
Preston v Tranmere (Tough Match)
Yeovil v Crewe (Tough Match)

Saturday, 27 April 2013
Brentford v Doncaster (MASSIVE MATCH)
Tranmere v Bournemouth (MASSIVE MATCH)

Date Unknown
Sheffield Utd v Brentford (MASSIVE MATCH)

It ain't over by a long shot!

stigger wrote:
One of best 0-0's i've seen and i thought was a good performance for the most part from Swindon and goalie was in inspired mood. Played alot of good football along the deck which bodes well for the new regime and football purists. But also we could have lost it, great save from Wes and tWilliams deflecting one onto underside of the bar. Nathan was good again today so wanted him to score when Robbo played him in, some ferocious well timed tackles again and judging by a few of his younger brothers that is a family trait! Flint was very good and Ward was solid also albeit a few shaky moments. Macca was absolutely magnificent, fully deserved MOM, ran all day, regularly beating his man, deserved an assist when teed up Rooney and when teed up Collins, couple of megs as well! Miller was better than Yeovil, less aimless balls into air and decent shot from free kick. Ferry while not playing badly has certainly dropped off from his normal mom form and think this is either (a) carrying an injury or (b) doesn't like the 4-5-1 system or maybe a bit of both. Then onto Navarro, what can i say?? was this the same player? Best game for him probably of the season (although he did get 2 against Brighton and was v good at Pompey). perhaps the 4 -5-1 suits him, just sitting in front of cb's and allowing full backs to bomb on. Was calm and composed on ball and some v decent passing. Robbo was threatening but still infuriating at times, some decent incisive passing but also not enough decent balls put into the box. Williams i thought was disappointing for the most part, some poor control and touches. Rooney worked hard but for me Collins looked far more likelier to score when he was on. How the keeper saved that one from Collins i'm not sure?? think it may have just hit his legs. Louis Thompson did well, some good tackles, looked confident on ball even willing to take people onn and good effort that was deflected. We still have it to play for, COYR!

Oldhamred wrote:

jayden wrote:

bearwoodred wrote:

jayden wrote:
A good effort from the lads we should have scored.A.N. GOOD GAME. Message to a few pratts in the stand stop moaning at young players because you better get used to it as next season the team will be full of them.Also we wont get new players in these are what we have so just get behind them .Also told you lot last night the players were only paid half their wages in jan also been told that only l thompson will get a new deal as he is only on£900 a week and will be offerd £3000 the others wages a to high.And i am not the guv for anyone asks. The wage thing is on a web site.Times are changing get use to it.But well done lads neat football just need one of the strikers to start hitting the net.

Which website?
Does this mean we only have a few players as half are out of contract?
If we did have to sell players then you need them to be in contract!
Did the new board not state the money available in the future was the same as it is now?
If the players only had half pay in Jan this would be more public knowledge and stated as the reason for not have the embargo lifted.

Now this is intresting i looked again and it is now gone it was on Wikipedia their was aline about it 2 days ago ill just see if it was on another site and get back.Its not made up.

Jayden, I have just taken this from the wiki site.

It was a spoof update I did about a month ago to show a friend how unreliable wiki is.

Wiki is not a good source of accurate information.

Season 2012-2013

Season 2012-2013 Fast forward to March 2013. AFCB, having had yet another poor run of results found themselves in the deserved position of having to reduce the number of staff on the payroll at Dean Court. Over the coming weeks this first batch of redundancies would pale into insignificance once the full impact of what was to follow became known. All playing staff were sold for around 15% of their incoming transfer value in a fire sale that can only be described as being on a biblical scale. The club was put up for sale, but unfortunately a buyer could not be found so owner Maxim Demin (one time saviour of AFCB) placed the club in administration and subsequently sold the land the ground was built on to a local developer. The developer (known as Mr M) has yet to decide whether the plans for a residential project consisting mainly of 3 storey houses would be the best way forward. His opinion is that given the local population for the most part are unable to manage stairs, bungalows may be more in keeping with local requirements. The fanbase were initially a little disappointed at their clubs demise, but soon realised that supporting a bigger club like Poole Town FC was far more rewarding.

jayden wrote:

Oldhamred wrote:

jayden wrote:

bearwoodred wrote:

jayden wrote:
A good effort from the lads we should have scored.A.N. GOOD GAME. Message to a few pratts in the stand stop moaning at young players because you better get used to it as next season the team will be full of them.Also we wont get new players in these are what we have so just get behind them .Also told you lot last night the players were only paid half their wages in jan also been told that only l thompson will get a new deal as he is only on£900 a week and will be offerd £3000 the others wages a to high.And i am not the guv for anyone asks. The wage thing is on a web site.Times are changing get use to it.But well done lads neat football just need one of the strikers to start hitting the net.

Which website?
Does this mean we only have a few players as half are out of contract?
If we did have to sell players then you need them to be in contract!
Did the new board not state the money available in the future was the same as it is now?
If the players only had half pay in Jan this would be more public knowledge and stated as the reason for not have the embargo lifted.

Now this is intresting i looked again and it is now gone it was on Wikipedia their was aline about it 2 days ago ill just see if it was on another site and get back.Its not made up.

Jayden, I have just taken this from the wiki site.

It was a spoof update I did about a month ago to show a friend how unreliable wiki is.

Wiki is not a good source of accurate information.

Season 2012-2013

Season 2012-2013 Fast forward to March 2013. AFCB, having had yet another poor run of results found themselves in the deserved position of having to reduce the number of staff on the payroll at Dean Court. Over the coming weeks this first batch of redundancies would pale into insignificance once the full impact of what was to follow became known. All playing staff were sold for around 15% of their incoming transfer value in a fire sale that can only be described as being on a biblical scale. The club was put up for sale, but unfortunately a buyer could not be found so owner Maxim Demin (one time saviour of AFCB) placed the club in administration and subsequently sold the land the ground was built on to a local developer. The developer (known as Mr M) has yet to decide whether the plans for a residential project consisting mainly of 3 storey houses would be the best way forward. His opinion is that given the local population for the most part are unable to manage stairs, bungalows may be more in keeping with local requirements. The fanbase were initially a little disappointed at their clubs demise, but soon realised that supporting a bigger club like Poole Town FC was far more rewarding.

Fair enough ill fish around a bit more and find the truth.

Pewsham Red wrote:

Wilesy wrote: Not sure why people are criticising the 4-5-1. It's definitely not a negative style, it encourages wing play and suits the attack minded Williams and Roberts well. As KMac said on interview, playing one striker in between the usually strong centre backs gives the opposition food for thought rather than 2 centre backs winning headers all day long, plus gives us a chance to build rather than hoofing it forward which we don't have the strikers for. The Paul Hart era was a more negative form of 4-5-1, playing hoofball to Calvin '1 in 13' Andrew with no one within 40 yards of him. but what we saw today was completely different and enjoyable to watch, (except the missed chances of course)

I think it's pretty negative, especially when the majority of our wing play came from our full backs and Williams doesn't look like a wide player to me First half Rooney kept drifting out wide leaving no-one up front and when Roberts went off we didn't have a winger on until de Vita came on with about 5 minutes left. That said, I thought we should have easily won and Navarro looked really good and wasn't far behind Alan Macormack for MOTM.

The Jockster wrote:

jayden wrote:

Oldhamred wrote:

jayden wrote:

bearwoodred wrote:

jayden wrote:
A good effort from the lads we should have scored.A.N. GOOD GAME. Message to a few pratts in the stand stop moaning at young players because you better get used to it as next season the team will be full of them.Also we wont get new players in these are what we have so just get behind them .Also told you lot last night the players were only paid half their wages in jan also been told that only l thompson will get a new deal as he is only on£900 a week and will be offerd £3000 the others wages a to high.And i am not the guv for anyone asks. The wage thing is on a web site.Times are changing get use to it.But well done lads neat football just need one of the strikers to start hitting the net.

Which website?
Does this mean we only have a few players as half are out of contract?
If we did have to sell players then you need them to be in contract!
Did the new board not state the money available in the future was the same as it is now?
If the players only had half pay in Jan this would be more public knowledge and stated as the reason for not have the embargo lifted.

Now this is intresting i looked again and it is now gone it was on Wikipedia their was aline about it 2 days ago ill just see if it was on another site and get back.Its not made up.

Jayden, I have just taken this from the wiki site.

It was a spoof update I did about a month ago to show a friend how unreliable wiki is.

Wiki is not a good source of accurate information.

Season 2012-2013

Season 2012-2013 Fast forward to March 2013. AFCB, having had yet another poor run of results found themselves in the deserved position of having to reduce the number of staff on the payroll at Dean Court. Over the coming weeks this first batch of redundancies would pale into insignificance once the full impact of what was to follow became known. All playing staff were sold for around 15% of their incoming transfer value in a fire sale that can only be described as being on a biblical scale. The club was put up for sale, but unfortunately a buyer could not be found so owner Maxim Demin (one time saviour of AFCB) placed the club in administration and subsequently sold the land the ground was built on to a local developer. The developer (known as Mr M) has yet to decide whether the plans for a residential project consisting mainly of 3 storey houses would be the best way forward. His opinion is that given the local population for the most part are unable to manage stairs, bungalows may be more in keeping with local requirements. The fanbase were initially a little disappointed at their clubs demise, but soon realised that supporting a bigger club like Poole Town FC was far more rewarding.

Fair enough ill fish around a bit more and find the truth.

Well done Sherlock :)

Stratton Red wrote:

Pewsham Red wrote:

Wilesy wrote: Not sure why people are criticising the 4-5-1. It's definitely not a negative style, it encourages wing play and suits the attack minded Williams and Roberts well. As KMac said on interview, playing one striker in between the usually strong centre backs gives the opposition food for thought rather than 2 centre backs winning headers all day long, plus gives us a chance to build rather than hoofing it forward which we don't have the strikers for. The Paul Hart era was a more negative form of 4-5-1, playing hoofball to Calvin '1 in 13' Andrew with no one within 40 yards of him. but what we saw today was completely different and enjoyable to watch, (except the missed chances of course)

I think it's pretty negative, especially when the majority of our wing play came from our full backs and Williams doesn't look like a wide player to me First half Rooney kept drifting out wide leaving no-one up front and when Roberts went off we didn't have a winger on until de Vita came on with about 5 minutes left. That said, I thought we should have easily won and Navarro looked really good and wasn't far behind Alan Macormack for MOTM.

For me it was absolutley the classic negative Paul Hart 4-5-1 don't lose the only difference being we have a much better team that can attack. Luke Rooney has played really well in the few short appearances he's made so if you wanted to set out to win why wouldn't you put him and Da Vita out wide to really stretch them?
*
Miller and Navarro really good - really? Did their defencive jobs well yes but did either of them actually ever get in the oppo box? Did they create anything - No. At home would expect two attacking CMs as part of the 5 with lots of width and one holding.
*
Said it for some time, when teams only play with 1 up top against us, we should play 3-5-2 / 5-3-2 and really take it to them...
*
Yesterday we were very disappointingly set up not to lose rather than win and whilst I think this is a good tactic for away games it's a poor tactic for home games when you have the chance to go to of the league!

jayden wrote:

Stratton Red wrote:

Pewsham Red wrote:

Wilesy wrote: Not sure why people are criticising the 4-5-1. It's definitely not a negative style, it encourages wing play and suits the attack minded Williams and Roberts well. As KMac said on interview, playing one striker in between the usually strong centre backs gives the opposition food for thought rather than 2 centre backs winning headers all day long, plus gives us a chance to build rather than hoofing it forward which we don't have the strikers for. The Paul Hart era was a more negative form of 4-5-1, playing hoofball to Calvin '1 in 13' Andrew with no one within 40 yards of him. but what we saw today was completely different and enjoyable to watch, (except the missed chances of course)

I think it's pretty negative, especially when the majority of our wing play came from our full backs and Williams doesn't look like a wide player to me First half Rooney kept drifting out wide leaving no-one up front and when Roberts went off we didn't have a winger on until de Vita came on with about 5 minutes left. That said, I thought we should have easily won and Navarro looked really good and wasn't far behind Alan Macormack for MOTM.

For me it was absolutley the classic negative Paul Hart 4-5-1 don't lose the only difference being we have a much better team that can attack. Luke Rooney has played really well in the few short appearances he's made so if you wanted to set out to win why wouldn't you put him and Da Vita out wide to really stretch them?
*
Miller and Navarro really good - really? Did their defencive jobs well yes but did either of them actually ever get in the oppo box? Did they create anything - No. At home would expect two attacking CMs as part of the 5 with lots of width and one holding.
*
Said it for some time, when teams only play with 1 up top against us, we should play 3-5-2 / 5-3-2 and really take it to them...
*
Yesterday we were very disappointingly set up not to lose rather than win and whilst I think this is a good tactic for away games it's a poor tactic for home games when you have the chance to go to of the league!

Dont agree dont want to sound rude but you dont understand how that system works Navarro who had a great game provides cover to both full backs hence A.M get foward more ann nathen having the first shot at on goal on sat.Navarro breif is to pick it up off the center backs and feed the full backs,its Ferrys job to get to box to box and he did but is carrying a injury so limited millers job is to pick up the 2 balls around he box again carrying a injury then when Louis came on Navarro switched with ferry and thompson became the one going box to box its the fowards that need to sharpen their game and i would bench Williams but thats hard because he gives us the only pace up front .

red steam zulu wrote:
How much longer will Miles Storey be out for ?will he make a come back for the run in ,Luke Rooney should be given another go on the wing he has been warming the seat recently and should be fresh with little game time ,also couldnt we recall Benson and tinker with formation to utilise him up front as he is a decent finisher ,better than we curently have ,i know money plays a part but for the final push with not alot more options open to us this is worth a punt surely ,if we get promoted alot can happen in the close season i.e new investment may be an arab billionaire will buy us who knows !!

Rebel_phish wrote:
Just checking the remaining fixtures.

I thought that Coventry v Doncaster was sheduled for Sat 30, 2 days before our encounter.

Yet I see that it must have been brought forward 24 hrs as its being listed that its on Good Friday, both on the BBC and thier official site.

mancrobin wrote:

stigger wrote:
One of best 0-0's i've seen and i thought was a good performance for the most part from Swindon and goalie was in inspired mood. Played alot of good football along the deck which bodes well for the new regime and football purists. But also we could have lost it, great save from Wes and tWilliams deflecting one onto underside of the bar. Nathan was good again today so wanted him to score when Robbo played him in, some ferocious well timed tackles again and judging by a few of his younger brothers that is a family trait! Flint was very good and Ward was solid also albeit a few shaky moments. Macca was absolutely magnificent, fully deserved MOM, ran all day, regularly beating his man, deserved an assist when teed up Rooney and when teed up Collins, couple of megs as well! Miller was better than Yeovil, less aimless balls into air and decent shot from free kick. Ferry while not playing badly has certainly dropped off from his normal mom form and think this is either (a) carrying an injury or (b) doesn't like the 4-5-1 system or maybe a bit of both. Then onto Navarro, what can i say?? was this the same player? Best game for him probably of the season (although he did get 2 against Brighton and was v good at Pompey). perhaps the 4 -5-1 suits him, just sitting in front of cb's and allowing full backs to bomb on. Was calm and composed on ball and some v decent passing. Robbo was threatening but still infuriating at times, some decent incisive passing but also not enough decent balls put into the box. Williams i thought was disappointing for the most part, some poor control and touches. Rooney worked hard but for me Collins looked far more likelier to score when he was on. How the keeper saved that one from Collins i'm not sure?? think it may have just hit his legs. Louis Thompson did well, some good tackles, looked confident on ball even willing to take people onn and good effort that was deflected. We still have it to play for, COYR!

Great report Stigger. Thanks.

Disappointed that A Rooney didn't do better. Was it the service?

Looks like left back is definitely Macca's best position at the moment and also that he is probably the best left back we've got at the moment?

Stratton Red wrote:

Pewsham Red wrote:

Wilesy wrote: Not sure why people are criticising the 4-5-1. It's definitely not a negative style, it encourages wing play and suits the attack minded Williams and Roberts well. As KMac said on interview, playing one striker in between the usually strong centre backs gives the opposition food for thought rather than 2 centre backs winning headers all day long, plus gives us a chance to build rather than hoofing it forward which we don't have the strikers for. The Paul Hart era was a more negative form of 4-5-1, playing hoofball to Calvin '1 in 13' Andrew with no one within 40 yards of him. but what we saw today was completely different and enjoyable to watch, (except the missed chances of course)

I think it's pretty negative, especially when the majority of our wing play came from our full backs and Williams doesn't look like a wide player to me First half Rooney kept drifting out wide leaving no-one up front and when Roberts went off we didn't have a winger on until de Vita came on with about 5 minutes left. That said, I thought we should have easily won and Navarro looked really good and wasn't far behind Alan Macormack for MOTM.

For me it was absolutley the classic negative Paul Hart 4-5-1 don't lose the only difference being we have a much better team that can attack. Luke Rooney has played really well in the few short appearances he's made so if you wanted to set out to win why wouldn't you put him and Da Vita out wide to really stretch them?
*
Miller and Navarro really good - really? Did their defencive jobs well yes but did either of them actually ever get in the oppo box? Did they create anything - No. At home would expect two attacking CMs as part of the 5 with lots of width and one holding.
*
Said it for some time, when teams only play with 1 up top against us, we should play 3-5-2 / 5-3-2 and really take it to them...
*
Yesterday we were very disappointingly set up not to lose rather than win and whilst I think this is a good tactic for away games it's a poor tactic for home games when you have the chance to go to of the league!

Stratton Red wrote:

Pewsham Red wrote:

Wilesy wrote: Not sure why people are criticising the 4-5-1. It's definitely not a negative style, it encourages wing play and suits the attack minded Williams and Roberts well. As KMac said on interview, playing one striker in between the usually strong centre backs gives the opposition food for thought rather than 2 centre backs winning headers all day long, plus gives us a chance to build rather than hoofing it forward which we don't have the strikers for. The Paul Hart era was a more negative form of 4-5-1, playing hoofball to Calvin '1 in 13' Andrew with no one within 40 yards of him. but what we saw today was completely different and enjoyable to watch, (except the missed chances of course)

I think it's pretty negative, especially when the majority of our wing play came from our full backs and Williams doesn't look like a wide player to me First half Rooney kept drifting out wide leaving no-one up front and when Roberts went off we didn't have a winger on until de Vita came on with about 5 minutes left. That said, I thought we should have easily won and Navarro looked really good and wasn't far behind Alan Macormack for MOTM.

For me it was absolutley the classic negative Paul Hart 4-5-1 don't lose the only difference being we have a much better team that can attack. Luke Rooney has played really well in the few short appearances he's made so if you wanted to set out to win why wouldn't you put him and Da Vita out wide to really stretch them?
*
Miller and Navarro really good - really? Did their defencive jobs well yes but did either of them actually ever get in the oppo box? Did they create anything - No. At home would expect two attacking CMs as part of the 5 with lots of width and one holding.
*
Said it for some time, when teams only play with 1 up top against us, we should play 3-5-2 / 5-3-2 and really take it to them...
*
Yesterday we were very disappointingly set up not to lose rather than win and whilst I think this is a good tactic for away games it's a poor tactic for home games when you have the chance to go to of the league!

Oi Den! wrote:
Just one other thought on MacDonald's tactics... It's noticeable how much more often Ferry pops up in the box now - and he's got a couple of goals.

SAPFanSTFC wrote:

Rebel_phish wrote:
Just checking the remaining fixtures.

I thought that Coventry v Doncaster was sheduled for Sat 30, 2 days before our encounter.

Yet I see that it must have been brought forward 24 hrs as its being listed that its on Good Friday, both on the BBC and thier official site.

Yep - it moved a day or so ago...as per my post above not sure where it will be played thought as there has been a right bit of shenanigans up there.
.
How you feeling today matey!?...still feel like I've been swallowing cacti and hollybush leaves.

Stratton Red wrote:

Pewsham Red wrote:

Wilesy wrote: Not sure why people are criticising the 4-5-1. It's definitely not a negative style, it encourages wing play and suits the attack minded Williams and Roberts well. As KMac said on interview, playing one striker in between the usually strong centre backs gives the opposition food for thought rather than 2 centre backs winning headers all day long, plus gives us a chance to build rather than hoofing it forward which we don't have the strikers for. The Paul Hart era was a more negative form of 4-5-1, playing hoofball to Calvin '1 in 13' Andrew with no one within 40 yards of him. but what we saw today was completely different and enjoyable to watch, (except the missed chances of course)

I think it's pretty negative, especially when the majority of our wing play came from our full backs and Williams doesn't look like a wide player to me First half Rooney kept drifting out wide leaving no-one up front and when Roberts went off we didn't have a winger on until de Vita came on with about 5 minutes left. That said, I thought we should have easily won and Navarro looked really good and wasn't far behind Alan Macormack for MOTM.

For me it was absolutley the classic negative Paul Hart 4-5-1 don't lose the only difference being we have a much better team that can attack. Luke Rooney has played really well in the few short appearances he's made so if you wanted to set out to win why wouldn't you put him and Da Vita out wide to really stretch them?
*
Miller and Navarro really good - really? Did their defencive jobs well yes but did either of them actually ever get in the oppo box? Did they create anything - No. At home would expect two attacking CMs as part of the 5 with lots of width and one holding.
*
Said it for some time, when teams only play with 1 up top against us, we should play 3-5-2 / 5-3-2 and really take it to them...
*
Yesterday we were very disappointingly set up not to lose rather than win and whilst I think this is a good tactic for away games it's a poor tactic for home games when you have the chance to go to of the league!

stigger wrote:

Stratton Red wrote:

Pewsham Red wrote:

Wilesy wrote: Not sure why people are criticising the 4-5-1. It's definitely not a negative style, it encourages wing play and suits the attack minded Williams and Roberts well. As KMac said on interview, playing one striker in between the usually strong centre backs gives the opposition food for thought rather than 2 centre backs winning headers all day long, plus gives us a chance to build rather than hoofing it forward which we don't have the strikers for. The Paul Hart era was a more negative form of 4-5-1, playing hoofball to Calvin '1 in 13' Andrew with no one within 40 yards of him. but what we saw today was completely different and enjoyable to watch, (except the missed chances of course)

I think it's pretty negative, especially when the majority of our wing play came from our full backs and Williams doesn't look like a wide player to me First half Rooney kept drifting out wide leaving no-one up front and when Roberts went off we didn't have a winger on until de Vita came on with about 5 minutes left. That said, I thought we should have easily won and Navarro looked really good and wasn't far behind Alan Macormack for MOTM.

For me it was absolutley the classic negative Paul Hart 4-5-1 don't lose the only difference being we have a much better team that can attack. Luke Rooney has played really well in the few short appearances he's made so if you wanted to set out to win why wouldn't you put him and Da Vita out wide to really stretch them? * Miller and Navarro really good - really? Did their defencive jobs well yes but did either of them actually ever get in the oppo box? Did they create anything - No. At home would expect two attacking CMs as part of the 5 with lots of width and one holding. * Said it for some time, when teams only play with 1 up top against us, we should play 3-5-2 / 5-3-2 and really take it to them... * Yesterday we were very disappointingly set up not to lose rather than win and whilst I think this is a good tactic for away games it's a poor tactic for home games when you have the chance to go to of the league!

you may have a point re the formation but to suggest Navarro did not have a good game is ridiculous, he played excellently in the position he was asked to, he has had a number of poor games and taken a lot of stick off fans so i think he deserves the credit for a good performance yesterday, Macca himself pointed out that Navarro was one of the main reasons for his good performance as he allowed him to bomb on and sitting in front of the cb's he was hardly likely to be in opposition's pen area. By this token Claude Makelele never had a good game!

tally38 wrote:

Stratton Red wrote:

Pewsham Red wrote:

Wilesy wrote: Not sure why people are criticising the 4-5-1. It's definitely not a negative style, it encourages wing play and suits the attack minded Williams and Roberts well. As KMac said on interview, playing one striker in between the usually strong centre backs gives the opposition food for thought rather than 2 centre backs winning headers all day long, plus gives us a chance to build rather than hoofing it forward which we don't have the strikers for. The Paul Hart era was a more negative form of 4-5-1, playing hoofball to Calvin '1 in 13' Andrew with no one within 40 yards of him. but what we saw today was completely different and enjoyable to watch, (except the missed chances of course)

I think it's pretty negative, especially when the majority of our wing play came from our full backs and Williams doesn't look like a wide player to me First half Rooney kept drifting out wide leaving no-one up front and when Roberts went off we didn't have a winger on until de Vita came on with about 5 minutes left. That said, I thought we should have easily won and Navarro looked really good and wasn't far behind Alan Macormack for MOTM.

For me it was absolutley the classic negative Paul Hart 4-5-1 don't lose the only difference being we have a much better team that can attack. Luke Rooney has played really well in the few short appearances he's made so if you wanted to set out to win why wouldn't you put him and Da Vita out wide to really stretch them? * Miller and Navarro really good - really? Did their defencive jobs well yes but did either of them actually ever get in the oppo box? Did they create anything - No. At home would expect two attacking CMs as part of the 5 with lots of width and one holding. * Said it for some time, when teams only play with 1 up top against us, we should play 3-5-2 / 5-3-2 and really take it to them... * Yesterday we were very disappointingly set up not to lose rather than win and whilst I think this is a good tactic for away games it's a poor tactic for home games when you have the chance to go to of the league!

HAVE NOT GOT TIME FOR THIS, BUT WHAT MATCH WERE YOU WATCHING THE BEST THEY HAVE PLAYED FOR A LONG TIME,JUST VERY POOR FINISHING LET THEM DOWN AGAIN. PLAYERS PLAYING WITH INJURIES ETC THEY WONT BE ABLE TO KEEP THIS UP FOR ANOTHER 7 GAMES EFFORT YOU CANNOT FAULT,BAR A COUPLE THEY KNOW WHO

Stratton Red wrote:

stigger wrote:

Stratton Red wrote:

Pewsham Red wrote:

Wilesy wrote: Not sure why people are criticising the 4-5-1. It's definitely not a negative style, it encourages wing play and suits the attack minded Williams and Roberts well. As KMac said on interview, playing one striker in between the usually strong centre backs gives the opposition food for thought rather than 2 centre backs winning headers all day long, plus gives us a chance to build rather than hoofing it forward which we don't have the strikers for. The Paul Hart era was a more negative form of 4-5-1, playing hoofball to Calvin '1 in 13' Andrew with no one within 40 yards of him. but what we saw today was completely different and enjoyable to watch, (except the missed chances of course)

I think it's pretty negative, especially when the majority of our wing play came from our full backs and Williams doesn't look like a wide player to me First half Rooney kept drifting out wide leaving no-one up front and when Roberts went off we didn't have a winger on until de Vita came on with about 5 minutes left. That said, I thought we should have easily won and Navarro looked really good and wasn't far behind Alan Macormack for MOTM.

For me it was absolutley the classic negative Paul Hart 4-5-1 don't lose the only difference being we have a much better team that can attack. Luke Rooney has played really well in the few short appearances he's made so if you wanted to set out to win why wouldn't you put him and Da Vita out wide to really stretch them? * Miller and Navarro really good - really? Did their defencive jobs well yes but did either of them actually ever get in the oppo box? Did they create anything - No. At home would expect two attacking CMs as part of the 5 with lots of width and one holding. * Said it for some time, when teams only play with 1 up top against us, we should play 3-5-2 / 5-3-2 and really take it to them... * Yesterday we were very disappointingly set up not to lose rather than win and whilst I think this is a good tactic for away games it's a poor tactic for home games when you have the chance to go to of the league!

you may have a point re the formation but to suggest Navarro did not have a good game is ridiculous, he played excellently in the position he was asked to, he has had a number of poor games and taken a lot of stick off fans so i think he deserves the credit for a good performance yesterday, Macca himself pointed out that Navarro was one of the main reasons for his good performance as he allowed him to bomb on and sitting in front of the cb's he was hardly likely to be in opposition's pen area. By this token Claude Makelele never had a good game!

Stigger, Please read my re-post, where am I suggesting that Navarro did not have a good game? I clearly state he did his job i.e. played well, this is clearly different from having a "really good" game, even Makelele managed to get in the box a few times in a game to support the front two but all Miller and Navarro did was hold in open play. If this is peoples definition of playing "really well" then I maybe I have much higher expectations of a central midfielder... I also think it's an unfair comparison to use Makelele. In a team where we don't have Lampards and Zolas to balance creativity with holding we need all our CMs to support the front play and certainly don't need two holding, at home, against a mid table team when we could go top... * If we had played 4-4-2 yesterday or put out a genuine attacking 5-4-1 I'm sure we would have won but I guess we'll never know...

DarrenSTFCRomain wrote:

Stratton Red wrote:

stigger wrote:

Stratton Red wrote:

Pewsham Red wrote:

Wilesy wrote: Not sure why people are criticising the 4-5-1. It's definitely not a negative style, it encourages wing play and suits the attack minded Williams and Roberts well. As KMac said on interview, playing one striker in between the usually strong centre backs gives the opposition food for thought rather than 2 centre backs winning headers all day long, plus gives us a chance to build rather than hoofing it forward which we don't have the strikers for. The Paul Hart era was a more negative form of 4-5-1, playing hoofball to Calvin '1 in 13' Andrew with no one within 40 yards of him. but what we saw today was completely different and enjoyable to watch, (except the missed chances of course)

I think it's pretty negative, especially when the majority of our wing play came from our full backs and Williams doesn't look like a wide player to me First half Rooney kept drifting out wide leaving no-one up front and when Roberts went off we didn't have a winger on until de Vita came on with about 5 minutes left. That said, I thought we should have easily won and Navarro looked really good and wasn't far behind Alan Macormack for MOTM.

For me it was absolutley the classic negative Paul Hart 4-5-1 don't lose the only difference being we have a much better team that can attack. Luke Rooney has played really well in the few short appearances he's made so if you wanted to set out to win why wouldn't you put him and Da Vita out wide to really stretch them? * Miller and Navarro really good - really? Did their defencive jobs well yes but did either of them actually ever get in the oppo box? Did they create anything - No. At home would expect two attacking CMs as part of the 5 with lots of width and one holding. * Said it for some time, when teams only play with 1 up top against us, we should play 3-5-2 / 5-3-2 and really take it to them... * Yesterday we were very disappointingly set up not to lose rather than win and whilst I think this is a good tactic for away games it's a poor tactic for home games when you have the chance to go to of the league!

you may have a point re the formation but to suggest Navarro did not have a good game is ridiculous, he played excellently in the position he was asked to, he has had a number of poor games and taken a lot of stick off fans so i think he deserves the credit for a good performance yesterday, Macca himself pointed out that Navarro was one of the main reasons for his good performance as he allowed him to bomb on and sitting in front of the cb's he was hardly likely to be in opposition's pen area. By this token Claude Makelele never had a good game!

Stigger, Please read my re-post, where am I suggesting that Navarro did not have a good game? I clearly state he did his job i.e. played well, this is clearly different from having a "really good" game, even Makelele managed to get in the box a few times in a game to support the front two but all Miller and Navarro did was hold in open play. If this is peoples definition of playing "really well" then I maybe I have much higher expectations of a central midfielder... I also think it's an unfair comparison to use Makelele. In a team where we don't have Lampards and Zolas to balance creativity with holding we need all our CMs to support the front play and certainly don't need two holding, at home, against a mid table team when we could go top... * If we had played 4-4-2 yesterday or put out a genuine attacking 5-4-1 I'm sure we would have won but I guess we'll never know...

Sorry chaps but all this boils down is in the final 3rd we are shocking and the serves in to the box was poor.
We need to start drilling balls into the box instead of just floating then in...
Williams to me just looks rubbish and uninterested
Yes there keeper made 3 good saves but so did Wes

Oi Den! wrote:

Stratton Red wrote:

Pewsham Red wrote:

Wilesy wrote: Not sure why people are criticising the 4-5-1. It's definitely not a negative style, it encourages wing play and suits the attack minded Williams and Roberts well. As KMac said on interview, playing one striker in between the usually strong centre backs gives the opposition food for thought rather than 2 centre backs winning headers all day long, plus gives us a chance to build rather than hoofing it forward which we don't have the strikers for. The Paul Hart era was a more negative form of 4-5-1, playing hoofball to Calvin '1 in 13' Andrew with no one within 40 yards of him. but what we saw today was completely different and enjoyable to watch, (except the missed chances of course)

I think it's pretty negative, especially when the majority of our wing play came from our full backs and Williams doesn't look like a wide player to me First half Rooney kept drifting out wide leaving no-one up front and when Roberts went off we didn't have a winger on until de Vita came on with about 5 minutes left. That said, I thought we should have easily won and Navarro looked really good and wasn't far behind Alan Macormack for MOTM.

For me it was absolutley the classic negative Paul Hart 4-5-1 don't lose the only difference being we have a much better team that can attack. Luke Rooney has played really well in the few short appearances he's made so if you wanted to set out to win why wouldn't you put him and Da Vita out wide to really stretch them?
*
Miller and Navarro really good - really? Did their defencive jobs well yes but did either of them actually ever get in the oppo box? Did they create anything - No. At home would expect two attacking CMs as part of the 5 with lots of width and one holding.
*
Said it for some time, when teams only play with 1 up top against us, we should play 3-5-2 / 5-3-2 and really take it to them...
*
Yesterday we were very disappointingly set up not to lose rather than win and whilst I think this is a good tactic for away games it's a poor tactic for home games when you have the chance to go to of the league!

I agree with you that the system is exactly the same as Hart's. Where we differ is that I thought there was nothing wrong with the system then and I don't think there's anything wrong with it now.

It is working much better now than it did under Hart but that's because MacDonald is operating with a group of fit, motivated players and all Hart had to work with was a bunch of losers who were largely incapable of getting results under ANY system - which they'd proved over several months.

4-5-1 can be a powerful attacking formation and a strong defensive set-up - but you need the midfield players to be fit enough and flexible enough to be both attacking and defending midfielders. Wilson's legacy was a shambles of a squad. PDC's legacy is a strong group of players with a couple of gaps in it.

As a footnote, though, I'd guess that MacDonald would have more faith in 4-4-2 (which I do prefer) if we had a combative midfielder who can take the game by the scruff of the neck. To give Navarro his due, I thought he came pretty close to doing that yesterday, but I'm not convinced he's the answer.

ya mums got facial hair wrote:
have we scoed yet? yawn

Stratton Red wrote:

tally38 wrote:

Stratton Red wrote:

Pewsham Red wrote:

Wilesy wrote: Not sure why people are criticising the 4-5-1. It's definitely not a negative style, it encourages wing play and suits the attack minded Williams and Roberts well. As KMac said on interview, playing one striker in between the usually strong centre backs gives the opposition food for thought rather than 2 centre backs winning headers all day long, plus gives us a chance to build rather than hoofing it forward which we don't have the strikers for. The Paul Hart era was a more negative form of 4-5-1, playing hoofball to Calvin '1 in 13' Andrew with no one within 40 yards of him. but what we saw today was completely different and enjoyable to watch, (except the missed chances of course)

I think it's pretty negative, especially when the majority of our wing play came from our full backs and Williams doesn't look like a wide player to me First half Rooney kept drifting out wide leaving no-one up front and when Roberts went off we didn't have a winger on until de Vita came on with about 5 minutes left. That said, I thought we should have easily won and Navarro looked really good and wasn't far behind Alan Macormack for MOTM.

For me it was absolutley the classic negative Paul Hart 4-5-1 don't lose the only difference being we have a much better team that can attack. Luke Rooney has played really well in the few short appearances he's made so if you wanted to set out to win why wouldn't you put him and Da Vita out wide to really stretch them? * Miller and Navarro really good - really? Did their defencive jobs well yes but did either of them actually ever get in the oppo box? Did they create anything - No. At home would expect two attacking CMs as part of the 5 with lots of width and one holding. * Said it for some time, when teams only play with 1 up top against us, we should play 3-5-2 / 5-3-2 and really take it to them... * Yesterday we were very disappointingly set up not to lose rather than win and whilst I think this is a good tactic for away games it's a poor tactic for home games when you have the chance to go to of the league!

HAVE NOT GOT TIME FOR THIS, BUT WHAT MATCH WERE YOU WATCHING THE BEST THEY HAVE PLAYED FOR A LONG TIME,JUST VERY POOR FINISHING LET THEM DOWN AGAIN. PLAYERS PLAYING WITH INJURIES ETC THEY WONT BE ABLE TO KEEP THIS UP FOR ANOTHER 7 GAMES EFFORT YOU CANNOT FAULT,BAR A COUPLE THEY KNOW WHO

Where in my post does it say we didn't play well??? My point that some do not seem to be able to comprehend is quite simpe. In my opinion the team was selected not to lose rather than win and that is not good enough when you need 3 points.
*
Whilst I agree with you poor finishing is a problem more worrying was a distinct lack of chances - one on target in the first half. Like I said in my earlier post great formation when playing away, at home I would expect a more attacking formation line-up when playing a mid table team with a chance to go top! Whilst you may not agree, really not hard to understand the viewpoint...

ya mums got facial hair wrote:

ya mums got facial hair wrote:
have we scoed yet? yawn

have we scored yet?
yawn

Oi Den! wrote:

ya mums got facial hair wrote:

ya mums got facial hair wrote:
have we scoed yet? yawn

have we scored yet?
yawn

Yep - 2 against Coventry, 2 against Walsall, 1 against Brentford, 2 against Yeovil. None yesterday but a cracking game of football. Yawn?

Oi Den! wrote:

ya mums got facial hair wrote:

ya mums got facial hair wrote:
have we scoed yet? yawn

have we scored yet?
yawn

Yep - 2 against Coventry, 2 against Walsall, 1 against Brentford, 2 against Yeovil. None yesterday but a cracking game of football. Yawn?

DarrenSTFCRomain wrote:

Stratton Red wrote:

stigger wrote:

Stratton Red wrote:

Pewsham Red wrote:

Wilesy wrote: Not sure why people are criticising the 4-5-1. It's definitely not a negative style, it encourages wing play and suits the attack minded Williams and Roberts well. As KMac said on interview, playing one striker in between the usually strong centre backs gives the opposition food for thought rather than 2 centre backs winning headers all day long, plus gives us a chance to build rather than hoofing it forward which we don't have the strikers for. The Paul Hart era was a more negative form of 4-5-1, playing hoofball to Calvin '1 in 13' Andrew with no one within 40 yards of him. but what we saw today was completely different and enjoyable to watch, (except the missed chances of course)

I think it's pretty negative, especially when the majority of our wing play came from our full backs and Williams doesn't look like a wide player to me First half Rooney kept drifting out wide leaving no-one up front and when Roberts went off we didn't have a winger on until de Vita came on with about 5 minutes left. That said, I thought we should have easily won and Navarro looked really good and wasn't far behind Alan Macormack for MOTM.

For me it was absolutley the classic negative Paul Hart 4-5-1 don't lose the only difference being we have a much better team that can attack. Luke Rooney has played really well in the few short appearances he's made so if you wanted to set out to win why wouldn't you put him and Da Vita out wide to really stretch them? * Miller and Navarro really good - really? Did their defencive jobs well yes but did either of them actually ever get in the oppo box? Did they create anything - No. At home would expect two attacking CMs as part of the 5 with lots of width and one holding. * Said it for some time, when teams only play with 1 up top against us, we should play 3-5-2 / 5-3-2 and really take it to them... * Yesterday we were very disappointingly set up not to lose rather than win and whilst I think this is a good tactic for away games it's a poor tactic for home games when you have the chance to go to of the league!

you may have a point re the formation but to suggest Navarro did not have a good game is ridiculous, he played excellently in the position he was asked to, he has had a number of poor games and taken a lot of stick off fans so i think he deserves the credit for a good performance yesterday, Macca himself pointed out that Navarro was one of the main reasons for his good performance as he allowed him to bomb on and sitting in front of the cb's he was hardly likely to be in opposition's pen area. By this token Claude Makelele never had a good game!

Stigger, Please read my re-post, where am I suggesting that Navarro did not have a good game? I clearly state he did his job i.e. played well, this is clearly different from having a "really good" game, even Makelele managed to get in the box a few times in a game to support the front two but all Miller and Navarro did was hold in open play. If this is peoples definition of playing "really well" then I maybe I have much higher expectations of a central midfielder... I also think it's an unfair comparison to use Makelele. In a team where we don't have Lampards and Zolas to balance creativity with holding we need all our CMs to support the front play and certainly don't need two holding, at home, against a mid table team when we could go top... * If we had played 4-4-2 yesterday or put out a genuine attacking 5-4-1 I'm sure we would have won but I guess we'll never know...

Sorry chaps but all this boils down is in the final 3rd we are shocking and the serves in to the box was poor.
We need to start drilling balls into the box instead of just floating then in...
Williams to me just looks rubbish and uninterested
Yes there keeper made 3 good saves but so did Wes

jayden wrote:

DarrenSTFCRomain wrote:

Stratton Red wrote:

stigger wrote:

Stratton Red wrote:

Pewsham Red wrote:

Wilesy wrote: Not sure why people are criticising the 4-5-1. It's definitely not a negative style, it encourages wing play and suits the attack minded Williams and Roberts well. As KMac said on interview, playing one striker in between the usually strong centre backs gives the opposition food for thought rather than 2 centre backs winning headers all day long, plus gives us a chance to build rather than hoofing it forward which we don't have the strikers for. The Paul Hart era was a more negative form of 4-5-1, playing hoofball to Calvin '1 in 13' Andrew with no one within 40 yards of him. but what we saw today was completely different and enjoyable to watch, (except the missed chances of course)

I think it's pretty negative, especially when the majority of our wing play came from our full backs and Williams doesn't look like a wide player to me First half Rooney kept drifting out wide leaving no-one up front and when Roberts went off we didn't have a winger on until de Vita came on with about 5 minutes left. That said, I thought we should have easily won and Navarro looked really good and wasn't far behind Alan Macormack for MOTM.

For me it was absolutley the classic negative Paul Hart 4-5-1 don't lose the only difference being we have a much better team that can attack. Luke Rooney has played really well in the few short appearances he's made so if you wanted to set out to win why wouldn't you put him and Da Vita out wide to really stretch them? * Miller and Navarro really good - really? Did their defencive jobs well yes but did either of them actually ever get in the oppo box? Did they create anything - No. At home would expect two attacking CMs as part of the 5 with lots of width and one holding. * Said it for some time, when teams only play with 1 up top against us, we should play 3-5-2 / 5-3-2 and really take it to them... * Yesterday we were very disappointingly set up not to lose rather than win and whilst I think this is a good tactic for away games it's a poor tactic for home games when you have the chance to go to of the league!

you may have a point re the formation but to suggest Navarro did not have a good game is ridiculous, he played excellently in the position he was asked to, he has had a number of poor games and taken a lot of stick off fans so i think he deserves the credit for a good performance yesterday, Macca himself pointed out that Navarro was one of the main reasons for his good performance as he allowed him to bomb on and sitting in front of the cb's he was hardly likely to be in opposition's pen area. By this token Claude Makelele never had a good game!

Stigger, Please read my re-post, where am I suggesting that Navarro did not have a good game? I clearly state he did his job i.e. played well, this is clearly different from having a "really good" game, even Makelele managed to get in the box a few times in a game to support the front two but all Miller and Navarro did was hold in open play. If this is peoples definition of playing "really well" then I maybe I have much higher expectations of a central midfielder... I also think it's an unfair comparison to use Makelele. In a team where we don't have Lampards and Zolas to balance creativity with holding we need all our CMs to support the front play and certainly don't need two holding, at home, against a mid table team when we could go top... * If we had played 4-4-2 yesterday or put out a genuine attacking 5-4-1 I'm sure we would have won but I guess we'll never know...

Sorry chaps but all this boils down is in the final 3rd we are shocking and the serves in to the box was poor. We need to start drilling balls into the box instead of just floating then in... Williams to me just looks rubbish and uninterested Yes there keeper made 3 good saves but so did Wes

Hi Darren hows it going yes williams confidence is shot to pieces time to bring luke rooney in imo.Are you going on friday mate?

Stratton Red wrote:

stigger wrote:

Stratton Red wrote:

Pewsham Red wrote:

Wilesy wrote: Not sure why people are criticising the 4-5-1. It's definitely not a negative style, it encourages wing play and suits the attack minded Williams and Roberts well. As KMac said on interview, playing one striker in between the usually strong centre backs gives the opposition food for thought rather than 2 centre backs winning headers all day long, plus gives us a chance to build rather than hoofing it forward which we don't have the strikers for. The Paul Hart era was a more negative form of 4-5-1, playing hoofball to Calvin '1 in 13' Andrew with no one within 40 yards of him. but what we saw today was completely different and enjoyable to watch, (except the missed chances of course)

I think it's pretty negative, especially when the majority of our wing play came from our full backs and Williams doesn't look like a wide player to me First half Rooney kept drifting out wide leaving no-one up front and when Roberts went off we didn't have a winger on until de Vita came on with about 5 minutes left. That said, I thought we should have easily won and Navarro looked really good and wasn't far behind Alan Macormack for MOTM.

For me it was absolutley the classic negative Paul Hart 4-5-1 don't lose the only difference being we have a much better team that can attack. Luke Rooney has played really well in the few short appearances he's made so if you wanted to set out to win why wouldn't you put him and Da Vita out wide to really stretch them? * Miller and Navarro really good - really? Did their defencive jobs well yes but did either of them actually ever get in the oppo box? Did they create anything - No. At home would expect two attacking CMs as part of the 5 with lots of width and one holding. * Said it for some time, when teams only play with 1 up top against us, we should play 3-5-2 / 5-3-2 and really take it to them... * Yesterday we were very disappointingly set up not to lose rather than win and whilst I think this is a good tactic for away games it's a poor tactic for home games when you have the chance to go to of the league!

you may have a point re the formation but to suggest Navarro did not have a good game is ridiculous, he played excellently in the position he was asked to, he has had a number of poor games and taken a lot of stick off fans so i think he deserves the credit for a good performance yesterday, Macca himself pointed out that Navarro was one of the main reasons for his good performance as he allowed him to bomb on and sitting in front of the cb's he was hardly likely to be in opposition's pen area. By this token Claude Makelele never had a good game!

Stigger, Please read my re-post, where am I suggesting that Navarro did not have a good game? I clearly state he did his job i.e. played well, this is clearly different from having a "really good" game, even Makelele managed to get in the box a few times in a game to support the front two but all Miller and Navarro did was hold in open play. If this is peoples definition of playing "really well" then I maybe I have much higher expectations of a central midfielder... I also think it's an unfair comparison to use Makelele. In a team where we don't have Lampards and Zolas to balance creativity with holding we need all our CMs to support the front play and certainly don't need two holding, at home, against a mid table team when we could go top...
*
If we had played 4-4-2 yesterday or put out a genuine attacking 5-4-1 I'm sure we would have won but I guess we'll never know...

red white wrote:

Oi Den! wrote:

ya mums got facial hair wrote:

ya mums got facial hair wrote:
have we scoed yet? yawn

have we scored yet?
yawn

Yep - 2 against Coventry, 2 against Walsall, 1 against Brentford, 2 against Yeovil. None yesterday but a cracking game of football. Yawn?

Hope we are not doing an Arsenal.

Lovely to watch but eventually will send you mental as nothing happens.

So ultimately not lovely to watch.

Oi Den! wrote:

red white wrote:

Oi Den! wrote:

ya mums got facial hair wrote:

ya mums got facial hair wrote:
have we scoed yet? yawn

have we scored yet?
yawn

Yep - 2 against Coventry, 2 against Walsall, 1 against Brentford, 2 against Yeovil. None yesterday but a cracking game of football. Yawn?

Hope we are not doing an Arsenal.

Lovely to watch but eventually will send you mental as nothing happens.

So ultimately not lovely to watch.

Don't think we're doing an Arsenal and don't think it's fair to say nothing happens. We've only failed to score in one of MacDonald's games and the football has been better than most of the season under Di Canio. I'll take cautious football played on the deck over hit n hope any day.

Also I think allowances should be made for what material the manager has to work with. It seems to be the general consensus that we're not strong in midfield, so it makes sense to strengthen it with numbers. You never know - the four points from the last two games might easily have been none if we'd played an adventurous 4-4-2. Considering all that, and how poor we were in the 2 games before MacDonald arrived, I find it hard to fault his work so far.

Oi Den! wrote:
jayden, half time on Friday?

DarrenSTFCRomain wrote:

jayden wrote:

DarrenSTFCRomain wrote:

Stratton Red wrote:

stigger wrote:

Stratton Red wrote:

Pewsham Red wrote:

Wilesy wrote: Not sure why people are criticising the 4-5-1. It's definitely not a negative style, it encourages wing play and suits the attack minded Williams and Roberts well. As KMac said on interview, playing one striker in between the usually strong centre backs gives the opposition food for thought rather than 2 centre backs winning headers all day long, plus gives us a chance to build rather than hoofing it forward which we don't have the strikers for. The Paul Hart era was a more negative form of 4-5-1, playing hoofball to Calvin '1 in 13' Andrew with no one within 40 yards of him. but what we saw today was completely different and enjoyable to watch, (except the missed chances of course)

I think it's pretty negative, especially when the majority of our wing play came from our full backs and Williams doesn't look like a wide player to me First half Rooney kept drifting out wide leaving no-one up front and when Roberts went off we didn't have a winger on until de Vita came on with about 5 minutes left. That said, I thought we should have easily won and Navarro looked really good and wasn't far behind Alan Macormack for MOTM.

For me it was absolutley the classic negative Paul Hart 4-5-1 don't lose the only difference being we have a much better team that can attack. Luke Rooney has played really well in the few short appearances he's made so if you wanted to set out to win why wouldn't you put him and Da Vita out wide to really stretch them? * Miller and Navarro really good - really? Did their defencive jobs well yes but did either of them actually ever get in the oppo box? Did they create anything - No. At home would expect two attacking CMs as part of the 5 with lots of width and one holding. * Said it for some time, when teams only play with 1 up top against us, we should play 3-5-2 / 5-3-2 and really take it to them... * Yesterday we were very disappointingly set up not to lose rather than win and whilst I think this is a good tactic for away games it's a poor tactic for home games when you have the chance to go to of the league!

you may have a point re the formation but to suggest Navarro did not have a good game is ridiculous, he played excellently in the position he was asked to, he has had a number of poor games and taken a lot of stick off fans so i think he deserves the credit for a good performance yesterday, Macca himself pointed out that Navarro was one of the main reasons for his good performance as he allowed him to bomb on and sitting in front of the cb's he was hardly likely to be in opposition's pen area. By this token Claude Makelele never had a good game!

Stigger, Please read my re-post, where am I suggesting that Navarro did not have a good game? I clearly state he did his job i.e. played well, this is clearly different from having a "really good" game, even Makelele managed to get in the box a few times in a game to support the front two but all Miller and Navarro did was hold in open play. If this is peoples definition of playing "really well" then I maybe I have much higher expectations of a central midfielder... I also think it's an unfair comparison to use Makelele. In a team where we don't have Lampards and Zolas to balance creativity with holding we need all our CMs to support the front play and certainly don't need two holding, at home, against a mid table team when we could go top... * If we had played 4-4-2 yesterday or put out a genuine attacking 5-4-1 I'm sure we would have won but I guess we'll never know...

Sorry chaps but all this boils down is in the final 3rd we are shocking and the serves in to the box was poor. We need to start drilling balls into the box instead of just floating then in... Williams to me just looks rubbish and uninterested Yes there keeper made 3 good saves but so did Wes

Hi Darren hows it going yes williams confidence is shot to pieces time to bring luke rooney in imo.Are you going on friday mate?

Im in Wales for 4 days mate...
Haveing a little break with a mate
who lives there..

BUT the STFC top will be on and all the taffs in the club will be watching Swindon stuff donny on the monday...

red white wrote:

Oi Den! wrote:

red white wrote:

Oi Den! wrote:

ya mums got facial hair wrote:

ya mums got facial hair wrote:
have we scoed yet? yawn

have we scored yet?
yawn

Yep - 2 against Coventry, 2 against Walsall, 1 against Brentford, 2 against Yeovil. None yesterday but a cracking game of football. Yawn?

Hope we are not doing an Arsenal.

Lovely to watch but eventually will send you mental as nothing happens.

So ultimately not lovely to watch.

Don't think we're doing an Arsenal and don't think it's fair to say nothing happens. We've only failed to score in one of MacDonald's games and the football has been better than most of the season under Di Canio. I'll take cautious football played on the deck over hit n hope any day.

Also I think allowances should be made for what material the manager has to work with. It seems to be the general consensus that we're not strong in midfield, so it makes sense to strengthen it with numbers. You never know - the four points from the last two games might easily have been none if we'd played an adventurous 4-4-2. Considering all that, and how poor we were in the 2 games before MacDonald arrived, I find it hard to fault his work so far.

Yep,I think Kev MacD is an inspired choice.

Credit to them upstairs.

No one saw it coming which is a Swindon Town tradition.

I still feel we could beat most teams in the championship too.

We are 2nd,so we should be and will be Championes at the end of the season!

Good work fellas!

Chish and Fips wrote:
Leon Clarke by any chance ?

Glad to see on the Sky L1 website it shows Matt in a STFC shirt - where probably he earned the award.
Well done Matt it is just a shame you are lumbered with a wannabe club now.