|
|
Post by lordwilliam on Jan 1, 2011 17:17:51 GMT
We have had 3 results recently but against sideswho were poor themselves. Today simply shows when we come up against a side who like to play the ball around, when we want to hoof it up, we always seem to be found out. We were outclassed all over the park, especially though in midfiedld, with no-one bossing the game and without any playmaker.
No fightback, as is usual when we go a goal behind, but no-one wanted to put themselves out, in any way shape or form.
Why did wilder change the team from Tuesday?
The substitutes today were comical, in their selection
|
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Jan 1, 2011 17:24:05 GMT
We have had 3 results recently but against sideswho were poor themselves. Today simply shows when we come up against a side who like to play the ball around, when we want to hoof it up, we always seem to be found out. We were outclassed all over the park, especially though in midfiedld, with no-one bossing the game and without any playmaker. No fightback, as is usual when we go a goal behind, but no-one wanted to put themselves out, in any way shape or form. Why did wilder change the team from Tuesday? The substitutes today were comical, in their selectionIn what way? Payne was having a shocker and had to go off, hall was the obvious replacement. Wright needs game time, and Futcher was playing badly and on a yellow. We were chasing the game so taking off a defender for a forward was a logical decision. The subs might not have helped the performance, but i can't see what was wrong with the choices themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by captainox on Jan 1, 2011 17:26:00 GMT
well in my opinion, Batt was not good on Tuesday, that was the only change so merited in my opinion.
The Payne change didn't make sense - if injured, surely , leave him on for the 2 minutes until half time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Long Live Clarkey on Jan 1, 2011 17:27:12 GMT
We have had 3 results recently but against sideswho were poor themselves. Today simply shows when we come up against a side who like to play the ball around, when we want to hoof it up, we always seem to be found out. We were outclassed all over the park, especially though in midfiedld, with no-one bossing the game and without any playmaker. No fightback, as is usual when we go a goal behind, but no-one wanted to put themselves out, in any way shape or form. Why did wilder change the team from Tuesday? The substitutes today were comical, in their selection What the hell is your problem? Will you stop at nothing to criticise wilder and oxford? Every single game we lose you're on here gloating and doom mongering, the moment we win you go missing until somebody criticises you for doing so! IT WASN'T THAT BAD! The subs were a good choice, but we were let down by poor performances from Clist, Heslop and Maclean. That's it. |
|
|
|
Post by junior1 on Jan 1, 2011 17:34:45 GMT
Not that bad? Your having a laugh. It was shocking...
|
|
|
|
Post by junior1 on Jan 1, 2011 17:35:16 GMT
We have had 3 results recently but against sideswho were poor themselves. Today simply shows when we come up against a side who like to play the ball around, when we want to hoof it up, we always seem to be found out. We were outclassed all over the park, especially though in midfiedld, with no-one bossing the game and without any playmaker. No fightback, as is usual when we go a goal behind, but no-one wanted to put themselves out, in any way shape or form. Why did wilder change the team from Tuesday? The substitutes today were comical, in their selection What the hell is your problem? Will you stop at nothing to criticise wilder and oxford? Every single game we lose you're on here gloating and doom mongering, the moment we win you go missing until somebody criticises you for doing so! IT WASN'T THAT BAD! The subs were a good choice, but we were let down by poor performances from Clist, Heslop and Maclean. That's it. You missed out Clarke... |
|
browny
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by browny on Jan 1, 2011 17:36:47 GMT
The substitutes today were comical, in their selection I thought the timing of the 1st one was bizarre, 30 seconds before half time. Sadly Hall's forst touch was a poor pass straight to the guy who scored That could have been avoided by waiting until half time, there was absolutely no need to make a change that close to half time |
|
|
|
Post by Long Live Clarkey on Jan 1, 2011 17:37:43 GMT
No, it really wasn't that bad. Remember Gillingham? THAT was bad. We actually made chances in this game. We came up against a side far better than we expected and had a few key players totally off form. Southend definitely didn't deserve to win by 2 goals.
Tomorrow you'll be seeing this differently, I think. Football fans and Oxford fans in particular are so quick to say 'everything's terrible, we're shocking, we're going to lose every game for the rest of the season' the moment one single thing goes wrong. The crowd didn't help by being 99% silent, either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Long Live Clarkey on Jan 1, 2011 17:38:43 GMT
What the hell is your problem? Will you stop at nothing to criticise wilder and oxford? Every single game we lose you're on here gloating and doom mongering, the moment we win you go missing until somebody criticises you for doing so! IT WASN'T THAT BAD! The subs were a good choice, but we were let down by poor performances from Clist, Heslop and Maclean. That's it. You missed out Clarke... What, because he got lobbed? He was expecting a cross, quite rightly. If clist had closed the fullback down, as he should have done, that wouldn't have been a goal. |
|
|
|
Post by junior1 on Jan 1, 2011 17:51:36 GMT
What, because he got lobbed? He was expecting a cross, quite rightly. If clist had closed the fullback down, as he should have done, that wouldn't have been a goal. Not just that but he was very indecisive all day... |
|
|
|
Post by 'Beav' on Jan 1, 2011 18:01:14 GMT
Nice to see you back lordwilliam after 3 straight wins ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Long Live Clarkey on Jan 1, 2011 18:03:53 GMT
So you have no answer to me? If what I just said is true, then the goal wasn't a mistake. Counter it, then you can say ' not just that'.
And no, he wasn't very indecisive. Time after time he charged into the melee to make a punch. His distribution was faster than usual, and his kicking was better. The header into the sidelines was both his and Futcher's fault, as Futcher made no clear sign of what he was doing, didn't shout or anything. I couldn't see whether Clarke did, but he should have been able to communicate what he was doing to Futcher, but he didn't. Both their faults.
However, 1 moment of indecision that cost us nothing more than a throw-in is not an excuse to say he had a poor game.
|
|
|
|
Post by 'Beav' on Jan 1, 2011 18:10:57 GMT
LLC - I know i'm generally as optimistic as you. But we were awful.
However I would point out that Southend were very very good defensively.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigman2 on Jan 1, 2011 18:11:54 GMT
LLC, made chances in this game?? Really, Potter hitting one wide and a good save on his post from the keeper, not many is it?
It was poor, very poor but I know we can do better, my confusion lies with why we aren't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Long Live Clarkey on Jan 1, 2011 18:14:16 GMT
LLC, made chances in this game?? Really, Potter hitting one wide and a good save on his post from the keeper, not many is it? It was poor, very poor but I know we can do better, my confusion lies with why we aren't. There was Beano's header int he first half too that he probably should have scored and Maclean's DREADFUL miss just after they got their second when he was free on goal. However, I'm prepared to concede this because it seems like everyone's seen this game differently to me. I'm no football expert. As per usual, I'm going to remain optimistic though (as Beav says  . 9 points out of 12, can't be all doom and gloom! |
|
|
|
Post by irishterrier on Jan 1, 2011 18:25:40 GMT
we were pants! here are my thoughts!
why have wright on the bench? if fit PLAY HIM,,if not rest him.
the bench looked unbalanced today. cant understand wilder with matt green , if we are to go forwad then i think chris must get thebalance better . people were moaning about futcher again today , well if he is that bad then get rid but he was the scape goat today and for me any of the back 4 could have been subbed . Beano must make the keeper work more with his half chances . mclean got found out by 2 solid center-halfs who had our forwads in their pockets all game. we will learn from this and move on ,torquay on monday will be tough ,so well see. oh and long live clarky ,,,,,,im still worried about clarkes form , i for one think he stands to far off his line most of the game so it was only a` matter of time before he got caught out!
|
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Jan 1, 2011 18:30:48 GMT
Yes we were poor today but good old Lordwilliam loves it when that is the case so he can say "I told you so"!
The next two games will show if this is a one off or a real reflection of the game. So many players had a bad day that I think it does not give a true indication of how poor/good we are but it is a but worrying that we appeared to be almost as bad as we were six weeks ago.
I felt that we missed Batt. I know Potter was playing as a forward but he was too central and as a result most of the players were playing in the two thirds of the pitch to our left so we were easy to defend against. There was acres of space on the right at many times in the game but this was not exploited ecpecially when the cumbersome Purkiss received the ball and it ended overhit almost every time he launched it forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by chippy on Jan 1, 2011 18:41:56 GMT
That was such a non-event of a game after the first 15 mins where we looked really bright.
For me, Worley, Wright, Clarke and Potter can be happy with their displays. The rest were way off their usual standards.
I'm not getting carried away but I think today has shown me quite clearly that we are not good enough to have any realistic hopes of any sort of promotion push. Too many weaknesses to be consistent.
Kiiniburgh cannot play a forward pass to save his life. People were getting on at Purkiss, but at least he was looking to play the ball forward. Tonkin has to start on Tuesday.
I still can't see what Asa Hall brings to the team either. I like his workrate, and willingness to get involved, but he just huffs and puffs with no end product.
On to Torquay, don't back against us going there and turning them over. We need to get something out of the next two away games.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterdevo on Jan 1, 2011 18:43:13 GMT
Batt was the weak link on Tuesday.
from what Beav is saying our formation has been found wanting again and they had a great defence.
didn't need Midson today
|
|
|
|
Post by oxontop on Jan 1, 2011 18:59:18 GMT
We have had 3 results recently but against sideswho were poor themselves. Today simply shows when we come up against a side who like to play the ball around, when we want to hoof it up, we always seem to be found out. We were outclassed all over the park, especially though in midfiedld, with no-one bossing the game and without any playmaker. [glow=red,2,300]No fightback, as is usual when we go a goal behind, but no-one wanted to put themselves out, in any way shape or form. [/glow] [glow=red,2,300]Why did wilder change the team from Tuesday?[/glow] The substitutes today were comical, in their selection Err, very recently you muppet. One change, you muppet. |
|
. 9 points out of 12, can't be all doom and gloom!
