Phillips

According to match reports Lee Phillips was injured and substituted in the 56th minute last Saturday.

Garry Hills' selection and his subsequent decision not to use him was justified with a 4-0 away win last night.

I watched the first half, and wouldn't say R&D's (and therefore Hill's) way of playing the game was any different than Torquay United's (and thus Paul Buckle's) game plan.

Was there a sudden switch to playing the game "the way it was meant to be played" in the second half last night? The fact that a goalless first half was followed by a four goal thrashing leads me to make that point, but knowing Garry Hill from old and having extensively seen his methods close up at Dagenham - where he was so successfull, I would be more than surprised.

What I asked was.............."was there a change of style?" because having witnessed Hill's teams playing the ball forward at the earliest opportunity throughout his successful time at D&R, I would doubt that he got his fine tuning any more sophisticated than maybe delivering that ball from a wider angle.

Mark Janney was a huge weapon in his armoury at Daggers, but more often - rather than go for the cross - his way was to run at defenders finishing off with a shot for himself. If I shut my eyes now, I can still hear Hill and his coach (Terry Harris) berating Janney for taking matters into his own hands and "going outside" rather than "going inside"....................Hill didn't want crosses, he wanted shots on goal!

When it was looking like Janney was going to get a move to a higher level (he turned it down as he had a stock exchange job too) I actually recommended to Harris that they take a look at Tony Bedeau who I thought could be played to his main strengths in that fashion.

As I said, I only saw the first half and R&D played pretty much out of that mould last night. I wanted to know if they changed that approach at all, not a Soap Box paranoid tirade against "hoof ball"

Despite what you choose to believe, I love to study playing formations and tactics. There is no "way football was meant to be played" Dave, it is about applying your mind to the method that best fits the players you have at your disposal, the amount of time you have available to coach them, the method that (in your opinion) will maximise returns of points from games and (if possible) a degree of flexibility so as to retain the element of surprise. Different managers use different methods. The two ultimate and polar opposite methods of direct, high tempo attack and patient, ball retention and build up attain no greater success ratio of one over the other at the level of the game we (Lge 2 & BSP) play at in my opinion.

Confident "direct" sides play the strikers in early and to feet whilst those lacking in confidence bely that insecurity by launching it through the air from the back. Confident "passing" sides make damaging incisive moves but when their touch and confidence goes they look for the easy and safe option often leading to overpassing the ball.............again, in my opinion.

Hey I've just realised...................Garry Hill has managed both D&R and R&D - spooky or what?

I was hoping for a more objective report Dartgull.

I've now got one from the Rushden web site that states that the first three goals were from re-starts: two free kicks and a corner and that only the fourth came from "open play" and involved a low cross for Leon Knight to head home.

According to the Diamond's site, the catalyst for better football came from the second goal reducing the fear of conceding an equaliser and thus the side settled down to play "the sort of football the fans had hoped to see earlier in the season" Six minutes and three goals must have seen Lewes fall apart I would think.

[glow=red,2,300][/glow]