Morecambe 1 [Stockton] FGR 1 LIVE thread

[Keith]

Why did we take until the last 5 minutes to start playing? Why were the changes made so late.
I hope that Derek watches this back and sees the mistakes. That was a most frustrating watch!!!

We didn't wait for the last five minutes, we waited until we were losing.

[Redalert1970]

Mixed results all round ...

Burton 1 Exeter 0
Morecambe 1 Forest Green 1
Barnsley 2 Cambridge 0
Cheltenham 0 Accrington 0
Mk Dons 1 Oxford 1
Charlton 1 Fleetwood 2

Good thing is we gained a point on Cambridge and Forest Green didn't gain any ground

[Keith]

Could be an oh so valuable point even though we were s***t. Some people are so over dramatic on here.

Forest Green Rovers had LOST NINE and drawn one in their last ten competitive games, yet we decided to set up in a manner that led to us failing to have a shot on target in the first hour. It isn't a "valuable point", because we need to get out of the relegation places. A win today would have taken us out of the relegation and above MK Dons & Cheltenham. This was a 'must win' game and we failed.

If we stay up by one point, it will be a valuable point. But if we're relegated by one or two points...

[scalehallshrimp]

Pretty crap really, can't understand defending at home against crap club in poor form

[dannymorc1]

Over dramatic? We changed a winning team back to the under performing team of earlier in the season.
Why? We thrashed Bristol Rovers by playing 2 up front and by pushing up the pitch at every opportunity.
Today we back pedalled and played across the pitch, and FGR almost took the three points. As Keith said, "we didn't start playing until we were losing". How many more games can we afford to play like this?

[shrimp riddle]

Thought Ash Hunter was light weight. Really missed the second striker today. Think FG fid their home work on us.

[Old Man Kensey]

Why one up front?
Spineless from Adams. Bottled it against the poorest side this season.

[Freez]

On paper, it looked a decent team, and Love and Cooney getting injured, whether we would have resorted to a back four unless this happened is a moot point.
FGR played a high line, and flooded the middle, so no room to play, it was similar to the Dagenham
Play off game at Victoria Rd all those years ago, we had no pace up front or wide, so didn’t have an outball, though we thankfully didn’t lose 6 goals.
Frustrating to watch, and I’d have taken a point as our passing was awry and the movement was stilted. In the car on the way to the ground well thought this was a stiff test as we suspected they would come not to get beat, and so it proved. I get that people are miffed that we didn’t start with a two up front, but could see the idea that it would be a narrow 3-4-2-1 with the wide men getting up and down from the 4.
It didn’t work, mainly because they flooded the middle and flanks with a 4-5-1. Credit to them. They looked decent up to the box, but final ball was awful from them, thankfully. And we defended the box well. Faz and Simeu had good games, but everyone else had a bit off an off day. A better side would have battered us, as we couldn’t keep the ball well or use it. We seemed to panic when an opposition player ran at us, and they played the dark arts well, niggley tackles, late challenges, time wasting throwing the ball away, etc. I’d have taken a point at nil nil, and when they scored, I feared the worst. However we reacted well and played some better stuff, and Cole did his thing after a nice move. Cole Goal disallowed we couldn’t see if he was, but their goal he appeared to be onside, played on by someone on the left hand side, but would love to see them both again.
We got away with one, we didn’t lose, we were below par. We move on. Hillsborough Tuesday, what can possibly go wrong??

[redrobo]

All credit to FGR who played us at our own game...let the opposition have possession and break at speed when the opportunity is there.

Felt we were lucky to get away with a point as they had speed merchants on the wing who looked good on the ball and gave our defense some anxious moments.

Was pleased to see Hunter start the game but not sure what his role was. One minute on the wing. then in midfield then in a defensive role.

Once again DA picked a team for me that had no width until Mayor came on and looked to me to be prepared to take a point with some negative tactics again with Cole as the lone striker. Why he selected such a team is beyond me...

FGR were well organized and their new signings (8in total) have certainly improved their team and their new manager has got them working to a system that today won them a point and lost us 2....

Thankfully not much damage to the league table but Burton looked to have invested in new player and have risen in the league.

Can't see us getting anything from Tuesday but at home after that for 2 consecutive games which could go a long way to determine our season.

[Little Shrimp]

Good grief, you don't half see some utter drivel posted on here.

Where the hell has this notion that Derek set up defensively come from!? It's absolute garbage. We set up in basically the same way we have done for the last few games at home. Slight change in personnel, but overall set up was the same, with the same intent to attack. It was the same lineup as against Bristol Rovers, just with Hunter (a forward) in for Mellon (a forward).

The difference was that FGR were very happy camping out, letting us have the ball and having us try to break them down. We tried, but they very much limited our room to play in and given that we rarely have to break down tough blocks like they had today, we weren't that great at it.

3-4-2-1/3-5-2/3-4-3, I think some people are getting too hung up on giving our forward players fixed positions and arguing about 'two up top' or whatever. Today, Stockton was the focal point with Hunter and Crowley buzzing around him. Ideally, they'd have stayed closer to him, but they kept dropping deep to get the ball as we were struggling to create against FGR's very solid defensive shape. Compare that to the Bristol Rovers game, when they allowed far more room in midfield for our players to cause trouble. FGR offered an entirely different problem in how they defended, and it's not one we regularly have to deal with.

Does this mean I agreed with every call from Derek? No! I think it may have been too soon for Hunter as he didn't quite look at it today, although I guess he has to start making his way back at some point. I'm also not hugely keen on Gibson at wing back against sides around us as I think we need a bit more attacking width, although I thought O'Keefe on the right was a great outlet for FGR so maybe Gibson's inclusion was to help deal with him?

Regardless, Derek didn't necessarily get everything right today, but people need get this ridiculous notion that we didn't set up to attack or play etc out of their heads because it is wrong.

Fair play to FGR - if you're a bottom half team, that was basically the perfect way to get the better of us.

[Mr Grumpy]

Good grief, you don't half see some utter drivel posted on here.

Where the hell has this notion that Derek set up defensively come from!? It's absolute garbage. We set up in basically the same way we have done for the last few games at home. Slight change in personnel, but overall set up was the same, with the same intent to attack. It was the same lineup as against Bristol Rovers, just with Hunter (a forward) in for Mellon (a forward).

The difference was that FGR were very happy camping out, letting us have the ball and having us try to break them down. We tried, but they very much limited our room to play in and given that we rarely have to break down tough blocks like they had today, we weren't that great at it.

3-4-2-1/3-5-2/3-4-3, I think some people are getting too hung up on giving our forward players fixed positions and arguing about 'two up top' or whatever. Today, Stockton was the focal point with Hunter and Crowley buzzing around him. Ideally, they'd have stayed closer to him, but they kept dropping deep to get the ball as we were struggling to create against FGR's very solid defensive shape. Compare that to the Bristol Rovers game, when they allowed far more room in midfield for our players to cause trouble. FGR offered an entirely different problem in how they defended, and it's not one we regularly have to deal with.

Does this mean I agreed with every call from Derek? No! I think it may have been too soon for Hunter as he didn't quite look at it today, although I guess he has to start making his way back at some point. I'm also not hugely keen on Gibson at wing back against sides around us as I think we need a bit more attacking width, although I thought O'Keefe on the right was a great outlet for FGR so maybe Gibson's inclusion was to help deal with him?

Regardless, Derek didn't necessarily get everything right today, but people need get this ridiculous notion that we didn't set up to attack or play etc out of their heads because it is wrong.

Fair play to FGR - if you're a bottom half team, that was basically the perfect way to get the better of us.

I'll take 7 of whatever you're on.

[Keith]

Good grief, you don't half see some utter drivel posted on here.

I generally agree with Little Shrimp's posts, but you actually contradict yourself in your own post...

We set up in basically the same way we have done for the last few games at home...
...It was the same lineup as against Bristol Rovers, just with Hunter (a forward) in for Mellon (a forward).

I think some people are getting too hung up on giving our forward players fixed positions and arguing about 'two up top' or whatever. Today, Stockton was the focal point with Hunter and Crowley buzzing around him. Ideally, they'd have stayed closer to him, but they kept dropping deep to get the ball as we were struggling to create against FGR's very solid defensive shape. Compare that to the Bristol Rovers game, when they allowed far more room in midfield for our players to cause trouble. FGR offered an entirely different problem in how they defended, and it's not one we regularly have to deal with.

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.

[Redalert1970]

Forest Green deserve a bit of credit to be fair

They knew we had been playing well at home so they came and stopped us playing so well done to them

Football is about fine margins and yesterday we weren't quite good enough

But hey ho we are still in there fighting ...yes it's going to be tough but there is at least 7 / 8 teams still in the dogfight plus 1 or 2 like Bristol Rovers who could still get sucked in

[Little Shrimp]

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'?

[Wild Bill]

Forest Green deserve a bit of credit to be fair

They knew we had been playing well at home so they came and stopped us playing so well done to them

Football is about fine margins and yesterday we weren't quite good enough

Totally agree. I think our recent home results have been largely down to getting our noses in front in the first half. FGR knew this and set up to frustrate. We also can't just set up the same every match. Derek if famous for tinkering to match the opposition so won't change. Sometimes it works brilliantly. Sometimes the opposite. I am happy with any point at this stage and coming from behind is certainly something we need to do more of to stay up

[Keith]

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.

I think that is where we fundamentally disagree, and yet, are in agreement. Instead of two up front, that has been working, we had three up front, Stockton at the pinnacle, with Hunter & Crowley in support. But, as you say, it wasn't working, and Hunter & Crowley were both dropping back, in search of the ball. The issue is, whether they were instructed to do that, or, were doing it out of frustration? Either way, it is what happened, right from the start. If it was by design, then my criticism is valid. If it is because the players were choosing to do so, then Derek needed to get the message across, to stop it. If Crowley had been told to stay further forwards, or, Mellon come on for Hunter much earlier, when it was clear it wasn't working, we may have gone on to win the game.

Right up until we went behind, there was only going to be one side score, and it wasn't us. If we can't find a way to beat the other sides around us at the bottom, we will be going down.

[sandgrown]

Good grief, you don't half see some utter drivel posted on here.

I generally agree with Little Shrimp's posts, but you actually contradict yourself in your own post...

We set up in basically the same way we have done for the last few games at home...
...It was the same lineup as against Bristol Rovers, just with Hunter (a forward) in for Mellon (a forward).

I think some people are getting too hung up on giving our forward players fixed positions and arguing about 'two up top' or whatever. Today, Stockton was the focal point with Hunter and Crowley buzzing around him. Ideally, they'd have stayed closer to him, but they kept dropping deep to get the ball as we were struggling to create against FGR's very solid defensive shape. Compare that to the Bristol Rovers game, when they allowed far more room in midfield for our players to cause trouble. FGR offered an entirely different problem in how they defended, and it's not one we regularly have to deal with.

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.

spot on post Keith

[Little Shrimp]

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.

I think that is where we fundamentally disagree, and yet, are in agreement. Instead of two up front, that has been working, we had three up front, Stockton at the pinnacle, with Hunter & Crowley in support. But, as you say, it wasn't working, and Hunter & Crowley were both dropping back, in search of the ball. The issue is, whether they were instructed to do that, or, were doing it out of frustration? Either way, it is what happened, right from the start. If it was by design, then my criticism is valid. If it is because the players were choosing to do so, then Derek needed to get the message across, to stop it. If Crowley had been told to stay further forwards, or, Mellon come on for Hunter much earlier, when it was clear it wasn't working, we may have gone on to win the game.

Right up until we went behind, there was only going to be one side score, and it wasn't us. If we can't find a way to beat the other sides around us at the bottom, we will be going down.

See this is a fairer argument - that the blend of players up top wasn’t quite right, not that we apparently weren’t trying to attack. And to an extent I agree, I don’t think Hunter had a great game and I’d say a large part of that will be that it was his first start in several months. Mellon came on the right wing but, as we saw with the goal, he’ll have more of a tendency to drift inside and get closer to Stockton. On the flip side, him not tracking his marker out wide led to the corner which created their goal.

The thing that is a falsehood is making out we’ve entirely changed the formula. Same back three, same midfield two, same pair of wingbacks. Just a tweak to the forwards, which I’m sure Derek would have had a reasonable reason for, even if it didn’t work out.

Strange to say we’re not beating teams around us. Considering we’ve beaten Accrington, Burton and Cheltenham of late, that’s simply not true. Difference was that FGR really sat back and had a superb shape. Completely different challenge to what we’ve faced of late, especially Bristol Rovers! I can’t imagine we’ll face too many opponents like that again this season. I’d wager we’ll end up creating a lot more against Peterborough next week.

[CityShrimp]

I think we just fundamentally struggle against teams that park the bus, which we aren’t used to because we are normally the underdog.

The only problem I had with the formation was our lack of width. FGR sat so compact and narrow and to me it looked like we needed to play with proper wingers, pushed up, who could get down their sides. As it was, the only width we had was from Love/Gibson at wing back who were sat deep and aren’t exactly dynamic, attacking players. Also it frustrated me to see Crowley dropping so deep - he was almost playing as a sweeper and wasn’t going to have any effect on the game from there.

On reflection I think the result seemed worse for us than it actually was (if that makes sense). I actually think we have more chance against the better teams who will come to attack.