Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frosty]

Rowley out

[RMS Hale]

Right - I've taken time to calm down and think since I got back from Alfreton - I missed the post match protest as I left at the final whistle to dash for my train, but the people who bothered to go are perfectly entitled to react as they think fit.

We murdered Alfreton for 85 minutes and should have finished them off well before the frantic finale. The starting 11 (of whom only McWilliams was brought in by JH) were excellent - they showed effort. commitment and desire today, as much as anyone could possibly wish for - Hannigan makes a massive difference, not least to Cyrus, who looked twice the player he has recently today. And then.....

Someone once told me "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and today JH tried and dismally failed to fix something that wasn't broken. His substitutions (or lack of them) fill me with confusion. Last week he let Obeng on for 90 minutes of utter ineptitude out of position when he had Richman (who was really good today) sitting on the bench, as he so often has to. Today he took off Lawrie (who was playing well) and McWilliams (who was playing really well) and put on Obeng to play on the right up front again (was JH not watching last week?) and Goodall to play in a back 3. Why? I feel gutted for the lads who started the match, who really deserved the 3 points. The starting line up (except Andy McW) was all there when JH arrived, so what else exactly has he brought to the party since early September? I find it hard to argue that today's starting line up is not our strongest, and they played like it while they were allowed to by JH.

The upshot of the substitutions was that we lost to an awful team, who for 85 minutes looked no better than Stalybridge and way inferior to us (I think I have seen the 3rd relegated team this season, and I do not mean us!) and who should have been on their last legs at the end after going to extra time against a league team on Tuesday with the smallest squad in the N.L.N. (sometimes they have only had 2 or 3 subs this season). Why did we voluntarily give up the initiative in a match we were winning with ease?

The other phrase that came to mind today was "lions led by donkeys" - I was so proud of the starting 11 and I feel like they have been kicked in the teeth. We are not good enough for the management to make crass mistakes in team selection and substitutions. Unless JH starts the same 11 next week (fitness permitting) I will regretfully have to conclude that he does not have a clue what he is doing. I believe he said recently that he still didn't know wha t his best starting line up is - well I do and we saw it today. I know he was sold one hell of a pup by Neil Young, but JH is not helping himself at the moment. Young's brief reign was characterised by panic signings, wholesale team changes and woeful substitutions, and at the moment I am struggling to see enough of a difference under JH. We HAVE to beat the rubbish sides around us, and there are enough of them to keep us up, but we have to stop shooting ourselves in the foot. I cannot recall a more frustrating end to a more promising performance.

[wayno]

Right - I've taken time to calm down and think since I got back from Alfreton - I missed the post match protest as I left at the final whistle to dash for my train, but the people who bothered to go are perfectly entitled to react as they think fit.

We murdered Alfreton for 85 minutes and should have finished them off well before the frantic finale. The starting 11 (of whom only McWilliams was brought in by JH) were excellent - they showed effort. commitment and desire today, as much as anyone could possibly wish for - Hannigan makes a massive difference, not least to Cyrus, who looked twice the player he has recently today. And then.....

Someone once told me "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and today JH tried and dismally failed to fix something that wasn't broken. His substitutions (or lack of them) fill me with confusion. Last week he let Obeng on for 90 minutes of utter ineptitude out of position when he had Richman (who was really good today) sitting on the bench, as he so often has to. Today he took off Lawrie (who was playing well) and McWilliams (who was playing really well) and put on Obeng to play on the right up front again (was JH not watching last week?) and Goodall to play in a back 3. Why? I feel gutted for the lads who started the match, who really deserved the 3 points. The starting line up (except Andy McW) was all there when JH arrived, so what else exactly has he brought to the party since early September? I find it hard to argue that today's starting line up is not our strongest, and they played like it while they were allowed to by JH.

The upshot of the substitutions was that we lost to an awful team, who for 85 minutes looked no better than Stalybridge and way inferior to us (I think I have seen the 3rd relegated team this season, and I do not mean us!) and who should have been on their last legs at the end after going to extra time against a league team on Tuesday with the smallest squad in the N.L.N. (sometimes they have only had 2 or 3 subs this season). Why did we voluntarily give up the initiative in a match we were winning with ease?

The other phrase that came to mind today was "lions led by donkeys" - I was so proud of the starting 11 and I feel like they have been kicked in the teeth. We are not good enough for the management to make crass mistakes in team selection and substitutions. Unless JH starts the same 11 next week (fitness permitting) I will regretfully have to conclude that he does not have a clue what he is doing. I believe he said recently that he still didn't know wha t his best starting line up is - well I do and we saw it today. I know he was sold one hell of a pup by Neil Young, but JH is not helping himself at the moment. Young's brief reign was characterised by panic signings, wholesale team changes and woeful substitutions, and at the moment I am struggling to see enough of a difference under JH. We HAVE to beat the rubbish sides around us, and there are enough of them to keep us up, but we have to stop shooting ourselves in the foot. I cannot recall a more frustrating end to a more promising performance.

great post. We do have an attraction issue at the club though sadly now . Who in their right mind would want to join a club destined for a 2nd successive relegation. Does not look good on the CV

[wayno]

And that's if we can even afford them of course ....

[Leon]

JH also brought in Wilkinson but that is a very good post.

[cheshire cat]

Fair enough. I wasn't there today. I respect what you say.

[Brian Flynn]

Its no good the commentators saying on RR that we played well,
We lost 3-2 ffs
The team is sh*t and that's a fact
End of

We can only call it as we see it, Ray.

Looking at our games this season, I think that is the first time that we have played well & lost when we should have won. I would also suggest that we have won three games that easily could have ended differently (Morpeth, Stalybridge, Matlock). The only game that I believe that we deserved to win was against Gainsborough in the FA Cup & we didn't play as well in that game or dominate it as much as we dominated yesterday.

[RMS Hale]

100% correct Brian

[John Edwards]

I interviewed Jim after the game and would like to make one point, before it appears later, in the interests of clarity. I didn't ask him about the substitutions simply because I didn't see them as the cause of our downfall. Much as we were the better side for most of the game, Alfreton were always going to throw everything at us in those last few minutes, after going behind, and, to my mind, we failed to hold on simply because of a chronic inability to defend one long throw hoisted high into our six-yard box from the right and another from the left. I asked Jim about that, and he didn't hold back with his answer. Sorry to those who have been highlighting the substitutions. I would never duck out of asking a question, but I just didn't think that was what cost us. We should have seen it out, and Jim addresses that in an interview that should be on the website later today.
Just one other point, adding to Brian's response to a post by distance traveller. Ray, you are absolutely right it's no good playing well if you then throw it away with abject defending at the end, but that is precisely what I said in my post-match summary. Don't know whether you had switched off in disgust by then, but, honesty, I could scarcely have made the point more forcibly.

[RMS Hale]

Thank you for that clarification John. The point that we have been making about the substitutions is that for long periods of the game Alfreton had not laid a glove on us,and we commendably kept trying to get a second when we were 1-0 up. I agree entirely that we were always going to have problems if Alfreton threw the kitchen sink at us, but surely the best way of avoiding that was to carry on going forward and get a third goal, given the 'quality' of much of our defending this season - we were all saying behind the goal that we needed to score 3 to win (we were of course wrong!) What upset us about the substitutions is that they were negative (we saw enough of Curtis Obeng on the right wing for a lifetime in the Salford match, thank you) and in the case of taking off AMcW incomprehensible. The best way of protecting a vulnerable defence is not settling in for a late siege, but carrying on playing the football that had got us into the winning position in the first place. "Defence is the best form of attack"? That was the problem in my view.

[wayno]

I do wonder however if we had been 2 1 down and made 2 substitutions and won 3 2 if that would have talked about as a pivotal thing that won the game.

[oneedham]

I interviewed Jim after the game and would like to make one point, before it appears later, in the interests of clarity. I didn't ask him about the substitutions simply because I didn't see them as the cause of our downfall. Much as we were the better side for most of the game, Alfreton were always going to throw everything at us in those last few minutes, after going behind, and, to my mind, we failed to hold on simply because of a chronic inability to defend one long throw hoisted high into our six-yard box from the right and another from the left. I asked Jim about that, and he didn't hold back with his answer. Sorry to those who have been highlighting the substitutions. I would never duck out of asking a question, but I just didn't think that was what cost us. We should have seen it out, and Jim addresses that in an interview that should be on the website later today.
Just one other point, adding to Brian's response to a post by distance traveller. Ray, you are absolutely right it's no good playing well if you then throw it away with abject defending at the end, but that is precisely what I said in my post-match summary. Don't know whether you had switched off in disgust by then, but, honesty, I could scarcely have made the point more forcibly.

I wanst there but surely the subs had a huge impact. He brought defensive players on with only a one goal margin.I read he went 3 at the back,that naturally invites pressure on a defence that is conceding a lot of goals. I personally would never defend a one goal lead. If they were not causing us any trouble until those subs then why not still go at them or bring on attack minded players. To me he has to take some of the blame.

[oneedham]

To add I would always defend from the front. With high wide players constantly closing down their defence, but unfortunately Lawrie and Miller haven't got that in their tanks. Silly comparison but England against Spain for 75 mins had awesome tempo and pressing high up the pitch. The subs and drop in energy levels also messed that result up.

[Alty Bri]

Whilst I appreciate that everyone is entitled to their opinion, my view is that the substitutions did directly impact on yesterday's game. By taking the energy levels of McWilliams and Lawrie from the team, we effectively invited a very poor Alfreton team onto us. In which planet would Goodall and Obeng have tightened our defence up? I'm still very upset after yesterday and even more upset that the question of substitutions wasn't put to Jim Harvey in the interview.

[distancetraveller]

I interviewed Jim after the game and would like to make one point, before it appears later, in the interests of clarity. I didn't ask him about the substitutions simply because I didn't see them as the cause of our downfall. Much as we were the better side for most of the game, Alfreton were always going to throw everything at us in those last few minutes, after going behind, and, to my mind, we failed to hold on simply because of a chronic inability to defend one long throw hoisted high into our six-yard box from the right and another from the left. I asked Jim about that, and he didn't hold back with his answer. Sorry to those who have been highlighting the substitutions. I would never duck out of asking a question, but I just didn't think that was what cost us. We should have seen it out, and Jim addresses that in an interview that should be on the website later today.
Just one other point, adding to Brian's response to a post by distance traveller. Ray, you are absolutely right it's no good playing well if you then throw it away with abject defending at the end, but that is precisely what I said in my post-match summary. Don't know whether you had switched off in disgust by then, but, honesty, I could scarcely have made the point more forcibly.

John/Brian. Fair point . I did turn off before your summary was finished... it was a post born out of frustration at another loss, and was written in haste.

I will give it 10 minutes before I hit the keyboard in future...

You do offer  good service at RR, I hope the team offer a similar service very soon