Keith wrote:So basically, you agree, we had two up front in previous games, but today, we had Stockton up front on his own "the focal point" and Hunter "dropping deep", so, err, not two up front then? If we agree Forest Green were playing a more defensive game, why would one of our two our attackers, need to keep going deep? On one occasion, Crowley picked up the ball on the edge of our own penalty area [because he was also playing too far back] drove forward, beating two or three FGR players until he got to the half way line, where he was finally blocked. He looked around, but had to make a sideways pass, because there were no Morecambe players in front of him. He threw his arms out in apparent frustration because, despite his run, there was no opportunity for a forward pass.
We attacked, only after we'd gone a goal behind. Evidence of this is simple. No shots on target for the first hour of the game, against the team who are bottom of the league, who had lost nine out of their last ten games. The side that beat Bristol Rovers would have hammered Forest Green. As it was, FGR deserved to win, and we were lucky to get a point.
It'd be a much better debate if you read and tried to understand my post properly rather than trying to find a sentence or two that might be able to prove that there is a tiny contradiction.
The point RE set ups etc you're missing is that they are generally fluid - by intention from the manager, the decisions players make within games, how they react the way the game progresses etc. Worth saying too that some things are only partly under a manager's control.
Early on in the game, which is generally when the manager's intentions for things are often a bit clearer, it tended to be Hunter and Crowley taking it in turns to drop back to receive the ball. One would drop deep, the other would hover nearer Stockton. But FGR made it very very difficult to find space in and around their defence, so you had Crowley getting a bit desperate and dropping deeper and Hunter pulling wide to try and find space.
Second half, we changed shape with Cooney's injury, had Crowley in a No10 spot with Mayor and Hunter wide. Thought Mayor had some nice moments but it was very crowded and difficult to impact. Crowley frustrated me after a while as his tendency to drop deep was becoming a bit maddening. We have players in Shaw and Weir who can handle the ball and create in those situations, he should have left things to them and stayed in more dangerous areas. However, I do kind of get it as it was very frustrating trying to break FGR down.
Last 10 mins we got a bit desperate (as you do when a goal behind to bottom of the league) and started hitting it long more often, and it worked out! If I'm honest, it's something we should have tried to do more often earlier in the game - if at the very least to mix it up a little and give FGR something different to think about.
The point is - we'd been trying to attack all game. Were we very successful? No. Were we a bit too risk averse in how we approached attacking? Yes. But that doesn't mean that there was a lack of intent, which is another fundamental point people are failing to grasp.
Bristol Rovers tried to play 'their way', and we pillaged them for all the space we were able to get in midfield on the counter. FGR understood our dangers and basically made sure that those counter attacking situations didn't really happen at all in the game. We had to find a different way to attack, we tried all game, but we struggled. Do you honestly think Derek said to the players 'alright lads just pass it between yourselves for the most part and only attack if we go behind'?