www.altyfans.co.uk
General Category => Altrincham FC First Team => Topic started by: Stan Hibbert on October 22, 2011, 04:23:44 PM
-
Nobody's to blame, we weren't good enough.
-
No league game now for two weeks I believe, plenty for Lee to ponder. Stalybridge have slowly built this team up since last summer and it is clear that we still have a long way to go yet. If you are going to get thrashed doing it at the side that will be league champions is some tiny consolation.
-
No league game now for two weeks I believe, plenty for Lee to ponder. Stalybridge have slowly built this team up since last summer and it is clear that we still have a long way to go yet. If you are going to get thrashed doing it at the side that will be league champions is some tiny consolation.
Totally agree...the friendly next saturday is just what we need....good chance to try other options ( if we have any!)
-
We were awfull simples
-
If we just simply kept it at 2-1 till half time at least then we could have had a chance of taking a point. Oh well, best forget it.....
-
That's what would happen every week if we were promoted back to the BSP with this current squad.
We should have scored a couple more, but every mistake was punished. It could have been more, a totally new defence is needed.
-
No argument about the result, they were best side by a mile we have played. The score flattered them but we defended very naively and gave them far too much space in midfield. We were a little unfortunate that Reevesy couldnt turn in the back pass that would have made it 1-1 as it wouldhave been closer. We missed too many good chances especially second half but they killed the game off well. Our defence was turned too easily a few times. Still a work in progress for Sinnott clearly. I think we should have approached this game with a slightly more defensive mentality like Colwyn did last week.
In the scheme of things the defeat isnt too serious. I would be amazed if Staly dont win this league.
-
No argument about the result, they were best side by a mile we have played. The score flattered them but we defended very naively and gave them far too much space in midfield. We were a little unfortunate that Reevesy couldnt turn in the back pass that would have made it 1-1 as it wouldhave been closer. We missed too many good chances especially second half but they killed the game off well. Our defence was turned too easily a few times. Still a work in progress for Sinnott clearly. I think we should have approached this game with a slightly more defensive mentality like Colwyn did last week.
In the scheme of things the defeat isnt too serious. I would be amazed if Staly dont win this league.
I do not think the score flattered them at all.
-
Correct, Stalybridge will win the league and we will not. I think we all knew really that we weren't good enough to compete at the very top. I'm not too bothered though; I still think we can reach the play offs but we will probably have more of a chance of going up next year.
-
Going forward we were no worse than Stalybridge, they put there chances away - we didn't. Clee, Twiss and Reeves in 2nd half should all have scored - 2 of those chances were in the 6 yard box. The big difference today was desire. Stalybridge, young lads who wanted to win, their game plan was to give it to the 8 (worthington?).. who pinged it around. Their 2 full backs were solid and their attackers clinical.
My issue is with the desire of some of our players. For me Densmore and Flynn are not interested, others' heads go down when we go behind.. Maybe adopting the Stalybridge approach, clearing the decks and starting afresh is the way to go.
We desperately need a box to box player too.
-
Time to practice corners I.e where the ball actually clears the first defender and change the free kick takers. Too many times we completely concede possession from a dead ball opportunity. Also get Stuart to practice kicking a diagonal ball with accuracy may also help.
Today was poor but Staylybridge played some neat crisp football which for some reason completely deserted Alty today. That said, an home fixture versus Eastwood should get us back on track as they are imploding with the financial backers now riding off into the sunset!
-
Going forward we were no worse than Stalybridge, they put there chances away - we didn't. Clee, Twiss, redhead in 2nd half should all have scored - 2 of those chances were in the 6 yard box. The big difference today was desire. Stalybridge, young lads who wanted to win, there game plan was to give it to the 8 (worthington?).. who longed it around. There 2 full backs were solid and their attackers clinical.
My issue is with the desire of some of our players. For me Densmore and Flynn are not interested, others' heads go down when we go behind.. Maybe adopting the Stalybridge approach, clearing the decks and starting afresh is the way to go.
We desperately Need a box to box player too.
Wasn't there today so I can't comment on the performance THIS AFTERNOON
However I would strongly dispute your assertion (if this is what you actually mean) that Densmore is generally disinterested. When things were going poorly against Witton he looked the most interested player we had and during our recent good run (remember the four consecutive league wins, 17 goals etc) his energy and "interest" have been vital components.
Adam Flynn is just coming back from an injury so I think it is both unfair (and also quite difficult) to evaluate how interested he is.
I'd suggest though that on what I have seen so far of Lee Sinnott a disinterested player would not be getting a game
-
I think today we were hammered by a team that will probably go on to be the league champions, and I do not think the score flattered them at all.
Stalybridge were simply better than us and we should give them credit for a clinical performance.
Having said that I thought some of our players were poor today. We were muscled off the ball too easily too many times, by a team that were always looking to pass and move forward. It must have been fantastic for the home fans to watch.
I really think we need a midfielder of the Steve Connors mould to come in and stop the opposition playing and allow us to take the game to them.
We created chances today, but how many saves did their goalie make? I cannot remember any and that can only be down to bad finishing.
On a more positive note I am looking forward to watching Jack Redshaw, he looks a good player and I am sure he will get a start soon.
Todays game has gone, and with it 3 points. We have now played the top 3 teams once and only gained 1 point, so perhaps we are not as good as we thought.
Some consistencey and clean sheets are needed in my opinion.
-
We were taught a lesson today by the team that i think will be the champions , still think we can make the playoffs , its a strange league with teams
taking points from each other , like colwyn losing to us then beating Stalybridge 2-0 .
-
Going forward we were no worse than Stalybridge, they put there chances away - we didn't. Clee, Twiss, redhead in 2nd half should all have scored - 2 of those chances were in the 6 yard box. The big difference today was desire. Stalybridge, young lads who wanted to win, there game plan was to give it to the 8 (worthington?).. who longed it around. There 2 full backs were solid and their attackers clinical.
My issue is with the desire of some of our players. For me Densmore and Flynn are not interested, others' heads go down when we go behind.. Maybe adopting the Stalybridge approach, clearing the decks and starting afresh is the way to go.
We desperately Need a box to box player too.
Wasn't there today so I can't comment on the performance THIS AFTERNOON
However I would strongly dispute your assertion (if this is what you actually mean) that Densmore is generally disinterested. When things were going poorly against Witton he looked the most interested player we had and during our recent good run (remember the four consecutive league wins, 17 goals etc) his energy and "interest" have been vital components.
Adam Flynn is just coming back from an injury so I think it is both unfair (and also quite difficult) to evaluate how interested he is.
I'd suggest though that on what I have seen so far of Lee Sinnott a disinterested player would not be getting a game
Phil,
As one pedant to another, I feel that I have to point out that the correct adjective is 'uninterested' and not 'disinterested.'
Meanwhile, I don't think that Flynn is uninterested, I just think that he's too slow.
-
Going forward we were no worse than Stalybridge, they put there chances away - we didn't. Clee, Twiss, redhead in 2nd half should all have scored - 2 of those chances were in the 6 yard box. The big difference today was desire. Stalybridge, young lads who wanted to win, there game plan was to give it to the 8 (worthington?).. who longed it around. There 2 full backs were solid and their attackers clinical.
My issue is with the desire of some of our players. For me Densmore and Flynn are not interested, others' heads go down when we go behind.. Maybe adopting the Stalybridge approach, clearing the decks and starting afresh is the way to go.
We desperately Need a box to box player too.
Wasn't there today so I can't comment on the performance THIS AFTERNOON
However I would strongly dispute your assertion (if this is what you actually mean) that Densmore is generally disinterested. When things were going poorly against Witton he looked the most interested player we had and during our recent good run (remember the four consecutive league wins, 17 goals etc) his energy and "interest" have been vital components.
Adam Flynn is just coming back from an injury so I think it is both unfair (and also quite difficult) to evaluate how interested he is.
I'd suggest though that on what I have seen so far of Lee Sinnott a disinterested player would not be getting a game
Phil,
As one pedant to another, I feel that I have to point out that the correct adjective is 'uninterested' and not 'disinterested.'
Meanwhile, I don't think that Flynn is uninterested, I just think that he's too slow.
Barry,
To be even more pedantic, I think he means ' not very interested' rather than uninterested per se
Whatever the case, the team wasn't good enough to win against a yound skillful side who look a good bet for the title. That's not to say that we ever though (well most of us) that winning the title was on the agenda this season.
For what it's worth, I believe that when everyone is fully fit (if that ever happens) and the manager has had more time to 'school' them, the play-offs are not beyond us.
-
We were awfull simples
I didn't think you were that bad the differance between the two sides was the finishing
of Celtic. I thought at times you played some good football an created plenty of chances
and you brought the biggest away following i've seen for a few years.
-
you brought the biggest away following i've seen for a few years.
Does that include games against Hyde?
-
you brought the biggest away following i've seen for a few years.
Does that include games against Hyde?
Yes it does last season Hyde brought less than 200 and Droylsden bring less than that.
-
Going forward we were no worse than Stalybridge, they put there chances away - we didn't. Clee, Twiss, redhead in 2nd half should all have scored - 2 of those chances were in the 6 yard box. The big difference today was desire. Stalybridge, young lads who wanted to win, there game plan was to give it to the 8 (worthington?).. who longed it around. There 2 full backs were solid and their attackers clinical.
My issue is with the desire of some of our players. For me Densmore and Flynn are not interested, others' heads go down when we go behind.. Maybe adopting the Stalybridge approach, clearing the decks and starting afresh is the way to go.
We desperately Need a box to box player too.
Wasn't there today so I can't comment on the performance THIS AFTERNOON
However I would strongly dispute your assertion (if this is what you actually mean) that Densmore is generally disinterested. When things were going poorly against Witton he looked the most interested player we had and during our recent good run (remember the four consecutive league wins, 17 goals etc) his energy and "interest" have been vital components.
Adam Flynn is just coming back from an injury so I think it is both unfair (and also quite difficult) to evaluate how interested he is.
I'd suggest though that on what I have seen so far of Lee Sinnott a disinterested player would not be getting a game
Phil,
As one pedant to another, I feel that I have to point out that the correct adjective is 'uninterested' and not 'disinterested.'
Meanwhile, I don't think that Flynn is uninterested, I just think that he's too slow.
Barry,
To be even more pedantic, I think he means ' not very interested' rather than uninterested per se
Whatever the case, the team wasn't good enough to win against a yound skillful side who look a good bet for the title. That's not to say that we ever though (well most of us) that winning the title was on the agenda this season.
For what it's worth, I believe that when everyone is fully fit (if that ever happens) and the manager has had more time to 'school' them, the play-offs are not beyond us.
But to be both pedantic and correct, disinterested doesn't mean 'not very interested'. It means impartial or neutral.
-
you brought the biggest away following i've seen for a few years.
Does that include games against Hyde?
Yes it does last season Hyde brought less than 200 and Droylsden bring less than that.
That's frightening! :)
-
you brought the biggest away following i've seen for a few years.
Does that include games against Hyde?
Yes it does last season Hyde brought less than 200 and Droylsden bring less than that.
That's frightening! :)
why?
-
you brought the biggest away following i've seen for a few years.
Does that include games against Hyde?
Yes it does last season Hyde brought less than 200 and Droylsden bring less than that.
That's frightening! :)
why?
Because they should be capable of bringing more fans than that to what is, to all intents and purposes, a home game.
-
you brought the biggest away following i've seen for a few years.
Does that include games against Hyde?
Yes it does last season Hyde brought less than 200 and Droylsden bring less than that.
That's frightening! :)
why?
Because they should be capable of bringing more fans than that to what is, to all intents and purposes, a home game.
Previous seasons Hyde have only averaged about 300 at home games. This season their attendances have gone up
because they were top of the league. Their attendances will get back to normal when they start sliding down the
league.
-
you brought the biggest away following i've seen for a few years.
Does that include games against Hyde?
Yes it does last season Hyde brought less than 200 and Droylsden bring less than that.
That's frightening! :)
why?
Because they should be capable of bringing more fans than that to what is, to all intents and purposes, a home game.
Previous seasons Hyde have only averaged about 300 at home games. This season their attendances have gone up
because they were top of the league. Their attendances will get back to normal when they start sliding down the
league.
You hope! ;D