bluesfansince1952
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2014
- Messages
- 1,179
Watched the game on I Follow.
I am sure I will not be alone in saying the match changed following the departure of White from the from the field following him sustaining what seemed to be a hamstring injury. The team that played following White's substitution might have been made up of completely different players from the ones who started the match. It was hard to believe that a change of shape could have produced such an instant negative impact on so many performances.
I have a lot of sympathy with CP as on Tuesday the formation was changed following the introduction of Kightly and this generated an immediate improvement. It is easy to be wise after the event but at the time today's substitution was made it was surely hard to predict what was to follow, especially with Tuesday's events fresh in the mind.
I thought we looked really good before White went off, and, our performance instantly dropped after he left the field and then it became progressively worse. Also of no help to us was the fact that they were a seriously niggly side and the referee was of the permissive persuasion. As the game went on the officials seemed less inclined to give us anything and this disrupted our efforts further. Add the weather and the recipe for chaos was complete.
For me the game confirmed that we need to play a derivation of 5-3-2 as our wingers are just not playing well or consistently enough to justify 4-4-2. 5-3-2 also allows us to play Dieng, Yearwood and Mantom together in midfield and one would think that CP will want to start games with all three on the field.
In the second half we were quite dismal, but, despite the mediocrity all around him Moore was composed, intelligent and skilfull and bailed out our defence on numerous occasions. Without him, and a good save by Oxley near the end, we might well have lost the game.
The season is long and it will include some poor performances. This was not good but was not a disaster, and, a point is a point.
Ratings:
Oxley 6.5. Mixed in some respects. A particularly good save near the end but some moments of real indecision also.
JD: 6. One who was less effective after White's departure.
Coker: 6.5. Heavily involved in the first half and less so in the second.
White: 7. Until he went off I thought he was playing really well.
Turner: 6.5. Did not always inspire confidence.
Moore: 8.5. Head and shoulders above his colleagues, especially in the second half. Would have been 9 but for a couple of shonky backpasses.
Mantom: 6.5. Tried hard and did some good things but was one of those seemingly disrupted by the formation change.
Dieng: 6. Did some good things but thought distribution was below usual standard, especially in the second half.
Cox: 7. Was everywhere and never stopped running and did some really good work, especially before White's departure. Unlucky when he hit the underside of the bar in the first half.
Yearwood: 6. Better than Tuesday but still not quite match fit. It is coming though.
Hopper: 6. Given some protection by the referee early on but less and less as the game went on. As our performance deteriorated he received little or no support.
Substitutions:
Kightly: 5. Had one or two nice touches but struggled to get into the game and made no real impact.
Mc Coulsky: 5.5. Did nothing either way to resolve the debate that surrounds him. Showed pace but found it hard to make any real impression. Like Hopper in the second half he received little in the way of support.
Theo: 5. Did nothing to catch my eye for the short time he was on the pitch.
A game best forgotten and let us hope such performances are a rarity.
I am sure I will not be alone in saying the match changed following the departure of White from the from the field following him sustaining what seemed to be a hamstring injury. The team that played following White's substitution might have been made up of completely different players from the ones who started the match. It was hard to believe that a change of shape could have produced such an instant negative impact on so many performances.
I have a lot of sympathy with CP as on Tuesday the formation was changed following the introduction of Kightly and this generated an immediate improvement. It is easy to be wise after the event but at the time today's substitution was made it was surely hard to predict what was to follow, especially with Tuesday's events fresh in the mind.
I thought we looked really good before White went off, and, our performance instantly dropped after he left the field and then it became progressively worse. Also of no help to us was the fact that they were a seriously niggly side and the referee was of the permissive persuasion. As the game went on the officials seemed less inclined to give us anything and this disrupted our efforts further. Add the weather and the recipe for chaos was complete.
For me the game confirmed that we need to play a derivation of 5-3-2 as our wingers are just not playing well or consistently enough to justify 4-4-2. 5-3-2 also allows us to play Dieng, Yearwood and Mantom together in midfield and one would think that CP will want to start games with all three on the field.
In the second half we were quite dismal, but, despite the mediocrity all around him Moore was composed, intelligent and skilfull and bailed out our defence on numerous occasions. Without him, and a good save by Oxley near the end, we might well have lost the game.
The season is long and it will include some poor performances. This was not good but was not a disaster, and, a point is a point.
Ratings:
Oxley 6.5. Mixed in some respects. A particularly good save near the end but some moments of real indecision also.
JD: 6. One who was less effective after White's departure.
Coker: 6.5. Heavily involved in the first half and less so in the second.
White: 7. Until he went off I thought he was playing really well.
Turner: 6.5. Did not always inspire confidence.
Moore: 8.5. Head and shoulders above his colleagues, especially in the second half. Would have been 9 but for a couple of shonky backpasses.
Mantom: 6.5. Tried hard and did some good things but was one of those seemingly disrupted by the formation change.
Dieng: 6. Did some good things but thought distribution was below usual standard, especially in the second half.
Cox: 7. Was everywhere and never stopped running and did some really good work, especially before White's departure. Unlucky when he hit the underside of the bar in the first half.
Yearwood: 6. Better than Tuesday but still not quite match fit. It is coming though.
Hopper: 6. Given some protection by the referee early on but less and less as the game went on. As our performance deteriorated he received little or no support.
Substitutions:
Kightly: 5. Had one or two nice touches but struggled to get into the game and made no real impact.
Mc Coulsky: 5.5. Did nothing either way to resolve the debate that surrounds him. Showed pace but found it hard to make any real impression. Like Hopper in the second half he received little in the way of support.
Theo: 5. Did nothing to catch my eye for the short time he was on the pitch.
A game best forgotten and let us hope such performances are a rarity.