Last 10 games

[Redalert1970]

6 points from 30

Only 1 win

5 goals scored
21 goals conceded

Before that we won 4 out of 5 with attacking formation scoring 14 goals in the process

Real shame the tactics were changed ...hey ho league 2 is going to be very tough next season unless we get a decent start

[Gone_Shrimping]

6 points from 30

Only 1 win

5 goals scored
21 goals conceded

Before that we won 4 out of 5 with attacking formation scoring 14 goals in the process

Real shame the tactics were changed ...hey ho league 2 is going to be very tough next season unless we get a decent start

As said previously we can see now what a loss it was when Keiran Phillips left with a long term injury. Our graph of results has just nose-dived since his last game for us.

[Keith]

Real shame the tactics were changed ...hey ho league 2 is going to be very tough next season unless we get a decent start

As said previously we can see now what a loss it was when Keiran Phillips left with a long term injury. Our graph of results has just nose-dived since his last game for us.

We beat Bristol Rovers 5-1 after Phillips had gone. We had Stockton & Mellon up front together.

The next game, Derby, was one up front. After that, we played the mighty Forest Green, and stuck with Stockton, on his own. I agree, losing Phillips was a huge blow, but in the four games that we won, out of five played, we had two up front, [Phillips & Stockton, Phillips & Stockton, Phillips & Watts, Mellon & Stockton].

[Little Shrimp]

I have a little bit of a theory that Derek saw something in the Bristol Rovers performance that he wasn't too keen on. Not saying that these stats/facts are necessarily the be-all and end-all, or that Derek was necessarily thinking of these, but it's worth pointing out that Bristol Rovers had more shots, more shots on target, created the same amount of big chances and created more xG. Not to mention that our first two goals were a long range effort and a spoofy own goal. Overall, I thought we created a lot against a very flimsy defence in Bristol Rovers, who themselves created a fair amount, missed a penalty, and could well have had a couple more.

A few points to be made are that we stuck with the back three against FGR and it didn't work (it was a front three, with Crowley and Hunter flanking Stockton), Mellon has shown flashes but also struggled greatly at times, and the 4-3-3 vs Derby worked exceptionally until the McGoldrick free kick on half time (I think having a more technically gifted XI helped as we were able to play our way out of tough situations).

Overall though, I think Derek should maybe have stuck with variations on a back three, with the odd exception (such as Derby). Rotate forward options (two attacking mids flanking Stockton, pairing with Mellon, Hunter or Gnahoua etc) depending on who we're playing, and shift Gibson between LWB and midfield also dependent on opponent. I think there was enough of a formula there to go on and make little shifts/rotations when needed, such as switching personnel or between a front two or three. I also think at times maybe a bit of bravery to drop Shaw/Weir/Crowley just to get a better balance in midfield.

Let's hope we can pull things around against Oxford - most likely our last proper chance.

[Keith]

A few points to be made are that we stuck with the back three against FGR and it didn't work (it was a front three, with Crowley and Hunter flanking Stockton), Mellon has shown flashes but also struggled greatly at times, and the 4-3-3 vs Derby worked exceptionally until the McGoldrick free kick on half time (I think having a more technically gifted XI helped as we were able to play our way out of tough situations).

Overall though, I think Derek should maybe have stuck with variations on a back three, with the odd exception (such as Derby). Rotate forward options (two attacking mids flanking Stockton, pairing with Mellon, Hunter or Gnahoua etc) depending on who we're playing, and shift Gibson between LWB and midfield also dependent on opponent. I think there was enough of a formula there to go on and make little shifts/rotations when needed, such as switching personnel or between a front two or three. I also think at times maybe a bit of bravery to drop Shaw/Weir/Crowley just to get a better balance in midfield.

I broadly agree with what you say, but I also sometimes think the tinkering around and making changes weakens us. Perhaps we should identify a system that works best for the players we have, then stick to it, drilling in to the players, what their job is. We know then that against some teams, we'd struggle, but, hopefully, in the necessary games, we'd pick up enough points. Tinkering & changing depending upon the opposition simply isn't working.

Six points from the next two games is imperative. Even four points probably will not be enough. Play like last night, and we'll be out of it this time next week.

[Little Shrimp]

I broadly agree with what you say, but I also sometimes think the tinkering around and making changes weakens us. Perhaps we should identify a system that works best for the players we have, then stick to it, drilling in to the players, what their job is. We know then that against some teams, we'd struggle, but, hopefully, in the necessary games, we'd pick up enough points. Tinkering & changing depending upon the opposition simply isn't working.

I think we're still in agreement overall. I think you can definitely coach a core system and make little tinkerings without it messing things up, like changing who partners Stockton or popping Gibson at wing back for a game to deal with a particularly good right winger etc.

Get the basics of that back three of Simeu-Rawson-Bedeau tied down, Love/Cooney battling for RWB, Stockton a focal point with the likes of Hunter/Mellon/Gnahoua/Crowley/Weir/Mayor available in various combinations to support, then Shaw/Gibson/Weir competing for places in midfield and covering if Gibson has to play LWB.

[Gone_Shrimping]

A few points to be made are that we stuck with the back three against FGR and it didn't work (it was a front three, with Crowley and Hunter flanking Stockton), Mellon has shown flashes but also struggled greatly at times, and the 4-3-3 vs Derby worked exceptionally until the McGoldrick free kick on half time (I think having a more technically gifted XI helped as we were able to play our way out of tough situations).

Overall though, I think Derek should maybe have stuck with variations on a back three, with the odd exception (such as Derby). Rotate forward options (two attacking mids flanking Stockton, pairing with Mellon, Hunter or Gnahoua etc) depending on who we're playing, and shift Gibson between LWB and midfield also dependent on opponent. I think there was enough of a formula there to go on and make little shifts/rotations when needed, such as switching personnel or between a front two or three. I also think at times maybe a bit of bravery to drop Shaw/Weir/Crowley just to get a better balance in midfield.

I broadly agree with what you say, but I also sometimes think the tinkering around and making changes weakens us. Perhaps we should identify a system that works best for the players we have, then stick to it, drilling in to the players, what their job is. We know then that against some teams, we'd struggle, but, hopefully, in the necessary games, we'd pick up enough points. Tinkering & changing depending upon the opposition simply isn't working.

Six points from the next two games is imperative. Even four points probably will not be enough. Play like last night, and we'll be out of it this time next week.

I would gladly take 4 points from the next 2 games. Preferably 1 point off Oxford and 3 from MK but not looking very likely without a vast improvement.