www.altyfans.co.uk

General Category => Altrincham FC First Team => Topic started by: ASMO on August 25, 2014, 05:55:02 PM

Title: why
Post by: ASMO on August 25, 2014, 05:55:02 PM
One up front , ok try it  but when it obviously isn't working change it , Reeves must be knackered after that game .
Title: Re: why
Post by: B. 4D on August 25, 2014, 06:03:25 PM
It would be good if we new which players were injured.
Then we could understand the team selections.
Title: Re: why
Post by: Hash on August 25, 2014, 06:10:10 PM
I can see why he did it , they are very strong on midfield we packed it and tbh they did ok very few chances and don't forget it a new one to them and will take time to improve it
Title: Re: why
Post by: Timperley The Best on August 25, 2014, 06:14:06 PM
clee still injured ? presume crowther is ? one shot on target but seeing the starting line up no great surprise
Title: Re: why
Post by: eightiesrobin on August 25, 2014, 06:18:30 PM
Yes, it looked a very cobbled-together line up today.

They deserved the result  but I was expecting something more. They were well organised, and closed us down quickly (where have I heard that before?) but not much else. Didn't see what exactly happened for their goal, seemed to start when Griffin's man got behind him.

We didn't look like scoring IMO. A depressing afternoon.

 

Title: Re: why
Post by: markecky on August 25, 2014, 06:20:46 PM
Not sure how he can tell people about injuries, certainly doesn't want to be giving any more away than we have to pre match.  

I'm not sure if Gillespies hamstrings will do 2 games in 3 days so that may have influenced his thinking?

Can't comment on the game too much as can only go off what I heard on Radio Robins as was ill ( hate missing games).  However when he knew he would be missing Clee and Crowther I think he was right to go for a solid formation.

We need points on the board but we are losing by the odd goal and that can be turned around, starting Saturday.
Title: Re: why
Post by: Jimmy on August 25, 2014, 06:34:51 PM
Probably did right with the 5 but at half time and losing shouldev made the change if you have 1 up front the 2 wide players shouldev done more to help reeves they were better than us not to many complaints just a little timid
Title: Re: why
Post by: B. 4D on August 25, 2014, 06:39:02 PM
Not sure how he can tell people about injuries, certainly doesn't want to be giving any more away than we have to pre match.  

I'm not sure if Gillespies hamstrings will do 2 games in 3 days so that may have influenced his thinking?

Can't comment on the game too much as can only go off what I heard on Radio Robins as was ill ( hate missing games).  However when he knew he would be missing Clee and Crowther I think he was right to go for a solid formation.

We need points on the board but we are losing by the odd goal and that can be turned around, starting Saturday.

The point I was trying to say Mark was, nobody new Crowther was injured.
When the team sheet went up, we all thought, where is a winger????
Title: Re: why
Post by: taxi Phil on August 25, 2014, 06:41:24 PM
No complaints.....we were edged out by the better side. Clark at no.6 was massive for them. I am just a little concerned about the lack of firepower, but if we keep making the openings it'll come.

Onwards to Nuneaton on Saturday........they haven't scored a goal in seven and a half hours.
Title: Re: why
Post by: Jimmy on August 25, 2014, 06:46:54 PM
No complaints today but bit. Concerned that without clee we have very little hope of winning
Title: Re: why
Post by: mortlakebob on August 25, 2014, 06:48:31 PM
Thought we gave it a decent go against a good side. Hard to argue against 4 5 1 but probably should have brought perry on 15 mins earlier to give us bit more chance. We've got a good squad but its a small squad, too small if we want to give ourselves a much better chance of staying up. We really need one more wide player to give us another option. We struggle to be creative out wide when clee is out.  Thought we matched a good midfield throughout in the centre - cavanagh very good. Next 2 games important now. Enough positives from 5 games to suggest we can stay up. On this weekend 2 years ago we were being outplayed by vauxhall motors so keep the faith.
Title: Re: why
Post by: Jimmy on August 25, 2014, 06:52:38 PM
I'd prefer a small squad the more options the more mistakes lee makes
Title: Re: why
Post by: Jezza on August 25, 2014, 06:53:53 PM
with the lack of wide players available I think Lee kind of got it right initially....we were maybe unlucky to concede right on half time.

Think Lee left it far too late to bring on Kyle who managed to hold up the high balls previously sailing over Damian's head.....a ludicrous tactic....

Stu didn't play so lee will have to find another scapegoat...probably drop reeves next.....Parton had a fairly solid debut, one brilliant save but for once marshall and havern came for and got more or less everything.....he does run across his line a bit headless chicken less...think he is going to give us a few heart stopping moments!!

We missed Buzz today!
Title: Re: why
Post by: eightiesrobin on August 25, 2014, 06:54:20 PM
I'd prefer a small squad the more options the more mistakes lee makes

 ;D

Title: Re: why
Post by: Bath Alty on August 25, 2014, 06:55:26 PM
I don't think it's too small.

We have two defenders injured, both wingers injured and turned out two decent XI's in three days.  If you want a squad with options on the bench and 4 first teamers out then there will be too many not getting game time through the season and I'd rather play the best XI more than LS seems to want to in order to keep them fresh etc
Title: Re: why
Post by: arnald on August 25, 2014, 07:09:16 PM
we were out done today no problem ,
that's the way it goes, but also there fans were good people
and sting fans  they sang Roxanne in the sh*tta
Title: Re: why
Post by: alty.fc on August 25, 2014, 07:21:06 PM
we were out done today no problem ,
that's the way it goes, but also there fans were good people
and sting fans  they sang Roxanne in the sh*tta
they created all the atmosphere second half the Alty fans were very quiet second half
Title: Re: why
Post by: Jimmy on August 25, 2014, 07:22:53 PM
with the lack of wide players available I think Lee kind of got it right initially....we were maybe unlucky to concede right on half time.

Think Lee left it far too late to bring on Kyle who managed to hold up the high balls previously sailing over Damian's head.....a ludicrous tactic....

Stu didn't play so lee will have to find another scapegoat...probably drop reeves next.....Parton had a fairly solid debut, one brilliant save but for once marshall and havern came for and got more or less everything.....he does run across his line a bit headless chicken less...think he is going to give us a few heart stopping moments!!

We missed Buzz today!
Scapegoat or not sinnott got it right starting with parton he had a decent game if you've been the first 4 games and you don't think he made the correct decision I'm amazed
Title: Re: why
Post by: arnald on August 25, 2014, 07:27:21 PM
we were out done today no problem ,
that's the way it goes, but also there fans were good people
and sting fans  they sang Roxanne in the sh*tta
they created all the atmosphere second half the Alty fans were very quiet second half
its a hangover maybe from satday
Title: Re: why
Post by: TheCultOfIanTunnacliffe on August 25, 2014, 07:48:47 PM

Too negative, for me.

The best that we could have hoped for with that starting formation was to have restricted them to a goalless draw.

Once we had conceded a goal, that plan had gone out of the window.

They came to us on the back of a defensive debacle and I think that we have let them off rather lightly.

The introduction of some extra attacking options simply came too late.

Lawrie and Richman were both hugely disappointing, I'm afraid.



 
Title: Re: why
Post by: bighairedmike on August 25, 2014, 08:02:19 PM

Too negative, for me.

The best that we could have hoped for with that starting formation was to have restricted them to a goalless draw.

Once we had conceded a goal, that plan had gone out of the window.

They came to us on the back of a defensive debacle and I think that we have let them off rather lightly.

The introduction of some extra attacking options simply came too late.

Lawrie and Richman were both hugely disappointing, I'm afraid.
 


Spot on as normal Cult. I'm a fan of Richman and he was terrible this afternoon. Lawrie started brightly but tailed off and gave away the ball far too cheaply. If we had got to half-time at 0-0 then I think we'd have changed systems. Perry came on a good 10-15 minutes too late, played very well when he did come on. That goalkeeper conceded 6 at the weekend and we tested him twice. Not good enough at all. Thought Marshall had a good game today. How did he miss that at the end though?
Title: Re: why
Post by: distancetraveller on August 25, 2014, 08:02:43 PM
Personally I was staggered by the formation our Leader selected today.

1 up top on his own will not win us games at home. I thought poor Damo ran his bollocks off today

This lot came off a drubbing last Saturday against Grimsby and we should have been at them from the off.

The managers tactics dumbfound me somewhat.

Best part of today was walking the dog round Stamford park after the game.
Title: Re: why
Post by: Nom de plume on August 25, 2014, 08:08:47 PM

Too negative, for me.

The best that we could have hoped for with that starting formation was to have restricted them to a goalless draw.

Once we had conceded a goal, that plan had gone out of the window.

They came to us on the back of a defensive debacle and I think that we have let them off rather lightly.

The introduction of some extra attacking options simply came too late.

Lawrie and Richman were both hugely disappointing, I'm afraid.

Barry, you've just taken the wind out of my sails. For once I was going to praise Sinnott's team selection, his formation and his substitutions. This may be the only time this occurs this season but given that the team which basically selected itself on Saturday was so poor, I thought it needed a radical rethink to try and get something out of today.

This was radical and it nearly came off (well, sort of!). If we'd played today the way we did and with same team as on Saturday, albeit with the addition of Cavanagh, I would had criticised Sinnott as usual, but no, he surprised me and I have to take my hat off to him, excruciatingly painful though that is.

I'm sure we'll be back agreeing on things soon!

A Sinnott blunder is but a game away.
Title: Re: why
Post by: ripleym on August 25, 2014, 08:44:55 PM
I think the only photos I have out wide were:
1) balls lumped down the channel for Reeves to chase first half
2) Ermm, nothing second half.

Very little in terms of creativity on either flank today, which tells the story of players missing.
Title: Re: why
Post by: wayno on August 25, 2014, 08:53:42 PM
2 very depressing games - I thought Williams was lively today
Title: Re: why
Post by: Jimmy on August 25, 2014, 09:00:24 PM
Williams for the second game in a row was our best player
Title: Re: why
Post by: wayno on August 25, 2014, 09:17:16 PM
Williams for the second game in a row was our best player
agreed what really worries me is without Clee we seem to lack a lot of creativity
Title: Re: why
Post by: cheshire cat on August 25, 2014, 09:43:13 PM
I reckon it was two shots on target against a side that conceded six on Saturday. The first one came after 63 minutes. It's going to be a long season.

We seem to be hoofing the ball down the pitch too often and giving possession back to the opposition.

The last ten minutes showed what we are still capable of.
Title: Re: why
Post by: Timperley The Best on August 25, 2014, 09:47:26 PM
Still think we will come good sooner rather than later .got enough quality when every one is fit which they arent at present
Title: Re: why
Post by: Paul Cain's Chip Pan on August 25, 2014, 10:05:18 PM
I think if we're going to have Clee out injured regularly (as has been the case in the past) we need to seriously look at bringing in a good winger on loan asap. Easier said than done, but we can't be going into games with no proper wingers available and hope to stay in this league. I know we've got Crowther, but I think we may need another as well.
Title: Re: why
Post by: Jenga on August 25, 2014, 10:23:31 PM
From what i have seen so far this season, Lincoln, Southport and Gateshead, is that we are not far off getting results and there is nothing really between the sides.

It will come but we need width and we need to stop lumping the ball to Reeves.

Reeves needs to either run on to through balls or more likely get his goals from poaching using width by making runs in the box. With the size and capabilities of the defenders in this league he simply can not be expected to do much with balls into his feet with his back to goal.

For me today Perry should have started in a 4-4-2 but the argument against that is would it have exposed us to much at the back taking another out of midfield.
Title: Re: why
Post by: Hamilton on August 25, 2014, 10:28:45 PM
I think if we're going to have Clee out injured regularly (as has been the case in the past) we need to seriously look at bringing in a good winger on loan asap. Easier said than done, but we can't be going into games with no proper wingers available and hope to stay in this league. I know we've got Crowther, but I think we may need another as well.

Mwasile?  ;)
Title: Re: why
Post by: Paul Cain's Chip Pan on August 25, 2014, 10:32:17 PM
I think if we're going to have Clee out injured regularly (as has been the case in the past) we need to seriously look at bringing in a good winger on loan asap. Easier said than done, but we can't be going into games with no proper wingers available and hope to stay in this league. I know we've got Crowther, but I think we may need another as well.

Mwasile?  ;)

Yes, you are very silly!
Title: Re: why
Post by: Timperley The Best on August 25, 2014, 10:32:23 PM
Gillespie should have started if fit but he may not have been
Title: Re: why
Post by: Jimmy on August 25, 2014, 11:08:48 PM
From what i have seen so far this season, Lincoln, Southport and Gateshead, is that we are not far off getting results and there is nothing really between the sides.

It will come but we need width and we need to stop lumping the ball to Reeves.

Reeves needs to either run on to through balls or more likely get his goals from poaching using width by making runs in the box. With the size and capabilities of the defenders in this league he simply can not be expected to do much with balls into his feet with his back to goal.

For me today Perry should have started in a 4-4-2 but the argument against that is would it have exposed us to much at the back taking another out of midfield.
I thought Gateshead were far better Lincoln we lost because of team selection and southport lost rather than drew or won because of poor choice of subs but yes we're not far off but need a fit clee
Title: Re: why
Post by: arnald on August 26, 2014, 12:52:30 AM
why even try Gateshead a very hard nut today
we had a few shots on goal no chance
it be best if we smashed a shot in from
the pop side from are fans an all
and no fans vocal today no one arsed
Title: Re: why
Post by: Alty Dave on August 26, 2014, 09:07:22 AM
As I have seen in previous posts' it is frustrating watching the team at present, we are so close but get punished at the slightest mistake on our part. Yesterday I thought every player gave 100%, but it looked like a training game for long periods, probably due to the fact that most players had only 1 full days rest before playing again.

They closed us down quickly and there passing was better and sharper, but not much threat in the final third. Dave Parton was solid ad the save with his feet when going the wrong way was top draw. Playing 1 up front was always going to be difficult, but we had our chances. Reeves when through and stabbed wide, the penalty shout which was a good one, and a few chances in second half when Marshall skied over the bar from 6 yards. So perhaps with a bit of luck we could have got a point.

Lets hope the injuries clear up fast and we can get some more points on the board. lets keep behind the lads as they are all putting the effort in and I am sure we will turn the corner as we get more accustomed to this level.
Title: Re: why
Post by: ASMO on August 26, 2014, 09:39:01 AM
Not doubting there effort , just thought that we should of made change of system earlier maybe half time .
Title: Re: why
Post by: andrewflynn on August 26, 2014, 10:02:03 AM
Gateshead's reluctance to play direct football will be their downfall against sides that have the bravery to pressure them at every moment. That's exactly what Grimsby did at the weekend and Gateshead couldn't deal with it.

In the first half when we played 4-5-1, for them I thought Curtis and Clark were pretty much free to carry the ball forward from the back without a challenge.

I can't believe we let them d*ck about with it, passing about their back four for the majority of the first half, when they conceded six goals at the weekend and two were completely down to defensive errors.

We should have been out there and flying at them from the off. Not necessarily even with the ball, just constant pressure until they misplace a pass. They're coming off the back of a 6-1 hiding for God's sake, there are obviously defensive issues there to exploit.

For me I felt that we were far too respectful. If Gillespie wasn't fit to start then I'd have genuinely considered playing Greg Wilkinson up top with Reeves purely to apply constant pressure onto them.

If that isn't a viable option then I'd have moved James Lawrie from that left wing, where he offered Adam Griffin (who was very good yesterday dealing with one of the league's best wingers) absolutely no protection, to play as a second striker.

4-5-1 at home may be the way to go on occasion this season, but I don't think yesterday was it. Sure, use it if you're genuinely going to be defending for your lives - but yesterday I felt the game was crying out for us to chase every player down instantly.

It should have been about getting the ball back in their half and causing problems through unexpected and constant pressure. We can't win the ball and play it out from our own defence. I'm sorry but we're not good enough.

We made it very, very easy for them by letting them play out from the back at their own leisure.
Title: Re: why
Post by: VofD on August 26, 2014, 10:23:57 AM

Too negative, for me.

The best that we could have hoped for with that starting formation was to have restricted them to a goalless draw.

Once we had conceded a goal, that plan had gone out of the window.

They came to us on the back of a defensive debacle and I think that we have let them off rather lightly.

The introduction of some extra attacking options simply came too late.

Lawrie and Richman were both hugely disappointing, I'm afraid.



 

Both are out of their depth in Conference Premier. ??? ???
Title: Re: why
Post by: York Alty on August 26, 2014, 01:14:54 PM
First game for me this season.  Gateshead ran the game from the back, mostly very composed pairing that we failed to challenge enough.  In retrospect I think Lee will regret leaving Perry on the bench for so long, it was when he came on in the last few minutes that we did challenge their defence. Somebody else mentioned the midfield where they were quicker to the ball, and smarter with it.  We didn't have the answers yesterday, so whilst we'd have probably won playing a BSN team last year we were a good 25% short  V Gateshead.  All afternoon it looked like that could move u pa gear or two and we couldn't.  We need more support for Reeves, more possession and more bite in midfield. 

The next three games are big!
Title: Re: why
Post by: AFC56 on August 26, 2014, 01:31:03 PM
Agreed V-O-D

Replace them (and Moult) with a couple more like Sean Williams and we would be flying.
Title: Re: why
Post by: AltyTunnelSteward on August 26, 2014, 03:21:20 PM
And, of course, three or four games is more than sufficient to write off a player?

Those of a certain vintage may recall a good number of years ago John King introducing a young player who was also condemned as not good enough after very few appearances in a higher league than he had been used to

That players name - Nicky Daws

Don;t be so swift to condemn / write off a player please?
Title: Re: why
Post by: TheCultOfIanTunnacliffe on August 26, 2014, 05:54:21 PM

And, of course, three or four games is more than sufficient to write off a player?

Those of a certain vintage may recall a good number of years ago John King introducing a young player who was also condemned as not good enough after very few appearances in a higher league than he had been used to

That players name - Nicky Daws

Don;t be so swift to condemn / write off a player please?



Phil,

Whilst I can see the point that you are trying to make, I don't think that using Nicky Daws constitutes a like-for-like comparison in this particular instance.

If I recall correctly, Nicky Daws was just 18 years old when he made his Alty debut, having joined us from Flixton.

The likes of James Lawrie (aged 23) and Simon Richman (aged 24) both played at a higher level of football (Port Vale) prior to their arrival at Moss Lane.

Plus both of those characters are now in their fourth season with the Robins and have three campaigns in the Conference North under their belt.

For my part, I wasn't writing either of those players off but rather merely observing that, to my mind, neither of them had performed well against Gateshead.

In Lawrie's defence, I would point out that playing him on the left wing hasn't worked for three seasons.....and, lo and behold, it didn't succeed yet again yesterday.

In Richman's defence, I believe that his best performances for Alty have come as a central midfielder and he simply isn't anywhere near as effective when he's played out on the right wing.






 





Title: Re: why
Post by: TheCultOfIanTunnacliffe on August 26, 2014, 05:56:55 PM

Too negative, for me.

The best that we could have hoped for with that starting formation was to have restricted them to a goalless draw.

Once we had conceded a goal, that plan had gone out of the window.

They came to us on the back of a defensive debacle and I think that we have let them off rather lightly.

The introduction of some extra attacking options simply came too late.

Lawrie and Richman were both hugely disappointing, I'm afraid.

Barry, you've just taken the wind out of my sails. For once I was going to praise Sinnott's team selection, his formation and his substitutions. This may be the only time this occurs this season but given that the team which basically selected itself on Saturday was so poor, I thought it needed a radical rethink to try and get something out of today.

This was radical and it nearly came off (well, sort of!). If we'd played today the way we did and with same team as on Saturday, albeit with the addition of Cavanagh, I would had criticised Sinnott as usual, but no, he surprised me and I have to take my hat off to him, excruciatingly painful though that is.

I'm sure we'll be back agreeing on things soon!

A Sinnott blunder is but a game away.



Ray,

You clearly suffered a touch of delayed sunstroke caused by standing on that open end at Southport last Saturday.

Title: Re: why
Post by: AFC56 on August 26, 2014, 06:12:48 PM
ATS As stated the observations made by Cult, VOD and myself are not based on just last Saturday's or even this seasons performances alone.

I do agree with the observation that neither player seems to be particularly comfortable out wide, why then do we insist on keep playing them there?

Title: Re: why
Post by: robininstockport on August 26, 2014, 06:19:28 PM
I do agree with the observation that neither player seems to be particularly comfortable out wide, why then do we insist on keep playing them there?



well as Crowther can't or won't play there that is the million dollar question
Title: Re: why
Post by: Jimmy on August 26, 2014, 06:53:21 PM
I was told by a staylebridge fan today he played on the right for them but that was a few years ago
Title: Re: why
Post by: TheCultOfIanTunnacliffe on August 27, 2014, 04:00:29 PM

I was told by a staylebridge fan today he played on the right for them but that was a few years ago



Looks like he only managed two appearances for them though before spending an enforced four-month 'loan spell' elsewhere: 


http://www.stalybridgeceltic.co.uk/player.php?code=CROWR&start=2010-06-01&end=2011-05-31&comp=all (http://www.stalybridgeceltic.co.uk/player.php?code=CROWR&start=2010-06-01&end=2011-05-31&comp=all)

Title: Re: why
Post by: Jimmy on August 27, 2014, 04:26:00 PM
Yes he did say he only saw him couple of times
Title: Re: why
Post by: distancetraveller on August 27, 2014, 05:00:57 PM
I have never understood why he plays either of them out wide.

But then I never understand much of what our manager does sometimes.
Title: Re: why
Post by: VofD on August 30, 2014, 10:06:10 PM

Too negative, for me.

The best that we could have hoped for with that starting formation was to have restricted them to a goalless draw.

Once we had conceded a goal, that plan had gone out of the window.

They came to us on the back of a defensive debacle and I think that we have let them off rather lightly.

The introduction of some extra attacking options simply came too late.

Lawrie and Richman were both hugely disappointing, I'm afraid.



 

Both are out of their depth in Conference Premier. ??? ???
Lawrie not even in squad today (not injured). One more to go. >:( >:(
Title: Re: why
Post by: Bath Alty on August 30, 2014, 10:16:56 PM
he may of been out of the squad but he was close to being MOTM today the way we played!
Title: Re: why
Post by: VofD on August 30, 2014, 10:18:22 PM
he may of been out of the squad but he was close to being MOTM today the way we played!
;D ;D ;D