Bury 3 Morecambe 2 [Oates, Mandeville] iFollow thread

[Keith]

Jim felt as though we played well in patches.

We did play well in patches. In fact, we should have had a penalty in the first half, which could have changed this considerably. In the second half, we were probably the better side on balance, but only created a couple of half chances and the one cracking goal.

Bury were very average. We were poor for about 70 minutes of the game but "in patches" we were pretty good. Still deserved to lose though. A decent side would have mullered us.

[Joe Oh]

First match I've been to for ages and I enjoyed it. Especially in the second half when I thought we were just on top, especially after the Ellison came on - he didn't have the best game but he just seemed to fire us up a bit. Thought we were definitely better with Oliver and Piggott up top as well. We definitely rode our luck in the first 30 mins or so though- we were pretty awful really.

Yarney wasn't that bad but our full backs were pretty weak. Especially on the left. I reckon we could do with a defensive midfielder who can break up attacks and generally protect the back 4 a bit.

Bury started time wasting on the 46th minute and every time the ball went in the air, their player would stand in front of ours when they jumped and then hit the deck. Free kick every time. Completely infuriating.

Atmosphere in the away end was pretty good.

[Little Shrimp]

Yarney wasn't that bad but our full backs were pretty weak. Especially on the left. I reckon we could do with a defensive midfielder who can break up attacks and generally protect the back 4 a bit.

Interesting point this. On the highlights I thought Yarney looked a bit lost in the box on the goals, but often when defenders are caught looking as such it's a lot down to the midfielders not tracking back into their box properly. It is, unfortunately, something that we're likely to fall foul of with a central midfield duo of Fleming and Wildig. They're both fantastic footballers but both with more of a mind on attack, so while it's great going forwards we will inevitably have some gaps going back, unless one is sacrificed for Kenyon. With a midfield two, however, having Kenyon in there stunts our attack a lot. That's the problem with 4-4-2, and why I think Jim was trying to use 4-2-3-1. Maintain defensive solidity without giving up attacking quality in midfield.

A back three could help us get more numbers into central midfield and keep two up top (3-5-2) but obviously that hasn't been possible of late due to Lavelle's injury.