Shrimpsvoices

In that case Jim, please give us an attacking line up and performance, none of the hoofball rubbish.

Jettyson wrote:In that case Jim, please give us an attacking line up and performance, none of the hoofball rubbish.

Dream on Jetty my old son!

I do live in hope............

Big changes to the Shrimps side tonight. Barry Roche back from illness but Barkhuizen, Devitt and Miller all on the bench.

So much for coming out fighting.....its "if they don't score we will get a point".

Jettyson wrote:Big changes to the Shrimps side tonight. Barry Roche back from illness but Barkhuizen, Devitt and Miller all on the bench.

So much for coming out fighting.....its "if they don't score we will get a point".

As I said....dream on!

Sorry but unless them 3 have knocks thats an awful starting line up

No pace at all

From Adam Lord:

What do you make of that team selection? A gamble. Calculated Jim Bentley will say. Kind he'll get a lot of praise for or plenty of abuse.

I suspect it will be the latter.................

This is a smart move by Jim I think, devitt doesn't want to know when we come up against a physical side and they don't get any dirtier than Mansfield. Also think mullin is a better option than Miller tonight as he puts himself about abit more tha Miller when it comes to getting stuck in and dealing with big defenders. I'm sure Jim will bring them on if it's 0-0 or were losing but I'm confident he's picked the right side tonight

Jettyson wrote:Big changes to the Shrimps side tonight. Barry Roche back from illness but Barkhuizen, Devitt and Miller all on the bench.

So much for coming out fighting.....its "if they don't score we will get a point".

Could be the big 3 are not playing due to possible "Window" moves

If that was coming out fighting I dread to think what setting out to defend is.
It was $h!t, and I'm being polite.

Smart move by Jim Kendal shrimp? That first half was the worst I've ever witnessed! Why leave our most creative players on the bench? No pace and no idea....strange how things improved ten fold when Jim made the 3 subs in the second half. Sorry but Jim made a Huge error in the first half playing the players and formation that he did!

jona77 wrote:...strange how things improved ten fold when Jim made the 3 subs in the second half.

Playing devil's advocate, things "improved" because we went from a drawing position to losing after the changes? We didn't score from open play & conceded two?

Keith wrote:

jona77 wrote:...strange how things improved ten fold when Jim made the 3 subs in the second half.

Playing devil's advocate, things "improved" because we went from a drawing position to losing after the changes? We didn't score from open play & conceded two?

Keith, they improved until we scored, then instead of continuing in the same vein, we sat back and let them come onto us, hence the two conceded. My 'in game' post before (I think) our goal and definitely before they scored showed that I definitely thought that there was a significant improvement at that time, it just went to sh!t afterwards. We had 10 minutes roughly where we were totally on top.

Phil Anderer wrote:...until we scored, then instead of continuing in the same vein, we sat back and let them come onto us, hence the two conceded. My 'in game' post before (I think) our goal and definitely before they scored showed that I definitely thought that there was a significant improvement at that time, it just went to sh!t afterwards. We had 10 minutes roughly where we were totally on top.

Do you think it was tactical to sit deep or was it they were pushing with more urgency, forcing us back? We deliberately sat back or they upped their game?

Keith wrote:

Phil Anderer wrote:...until we scored, then instead of continuing in the same vein, we sat back and let them come onto us, hence the two conceded. My 'in game' post before (I think) our goal and definitely before they scored showed that I definitely thought that there was a significant improvement at that time, it just went to sh!t afterwards. We had 10 minutes roughly where we were totally on top.

Do you think it was tactical to sit deep or was it they were pushing with more urgency, forcing us back? We deliberately sat back or they upped their game?

I might be wrong (it has been known ), but I thought we sat back and invited them on. They'd not shown that much before then, so maybe our lads (& Jim?) thought they'd continue to show nothing. Stupid really, since we'd shown nothing prior to the subs, then suddenly changed completely.

Phil is spot on, for 10 minuits after the subs were brought on we upped our game, had more possession, created more space and chances and the game went from monotomy to relatively exciting, we were definitely on top.......we score and then sat back, we needed to push forward, put them under pressure and score a second goal which would have won the match.....we didn't.....if this wasn't a managerial decision Jim should have noted this and instructed the players otherwise....so surely the buck stops with him.....after we scored it was terrible again......I am really not looking forward to having to sit through another 90 mins of that crap again on Saturday.......if it wasn't for the season ticket there is no way I would attend...it is just not entertaining on the whole at the moment

As I posted on the weak players thread (but more applicable here I think):

As a (slight) change rather than 4/2/3/1, I would play 4/2/1/3.
The front 4 would be Dev playing in the hole behind Barky/Miller/Kev.
We would still have 6 defensive outfield players behind Dev, and pose a real attacking threat.

The job of the "4" and "2" is get the ball and give it to Dev; he then picks his passes to the 3 strikers!

We may concede but I'd be very surprised if we didn't score..........let them worry about us.

Phil Anderer wrote:

Keith wrote:

Phil Anderer wrote:...until we scored, then instead of continuing in the same vein, we sat back and let them come onto us, hence the two conceded. My 'in game' post before (I think) our goal and definitely before they scored showed that I definitely thought that there was a significant improvement at that time, it just went to sh!t afterwards. We had 10 minutes roughly where we were totally on top.

Do you think it was tactical to sit deep or was it they were pushing with more urgency, forcing us back? We deliberately sat back or they upped their game?

I might be wrong (it has been known ), but I thought we sat back and invited them on. They'd not shown that much before then, so maybe our lads (& Jim?) thought they'd continue to show nothing. Stupid really, since we'd shown nothing prior to the subs, then suddenly changed completely.

I think we did exactly the same against Daggers and Exeter , Phil . The two goals against Daggers were scored quite early and quickly and their manager went balistic at them and then look what happened. The game against Exeter was pretty much a stalemate until we scored and that just seemed to give them the impetus and us to think we had done enough .

parceldave wrote:I think we did exactly the same against Daggers and Exeter

Daggers was slightly different in that they adapted to the conditions far better than we did. One of the things that continually infuriates me, is that we still have absolutely no idea how to play the conditions at our own ground The fact that Dagenham & Redbridge worked them out and we didn't made it even more galling. They worked out how/where to launch a ball so that the wind stopped it and dropped it in to our penalty area when playing in to the wind (hint: it was just inside our half) whereas we persisted with Baz launching it high in the sky, wondering why we couldn't get out of our own half?

We have low sun at certain times of the year (shoot at The Bay end from distance, the keeper can't see properly) and wicked winds during the winter, that swirl. That should be enough for us to develop different corner routines for different corners and to know when we can launch it high, for the wind to stop it and drop the ball. The conditions should be the twelfth man, instead it is though we hate playing there!