tufc01
TFF member
Posts: 1,179
|
Post by tufc01 on Jan 23, 2011 13:10:45 GMT
Well listening to Buckles aftermatch interview he agreed with tufc01 - apparently he said that we were all over Gillingham so I was suprised when I read everyone elses report. Mind you as we have won a sum massive total of 4 home games all season in the league one might suggest that we are not quite as good as Buckle (or his number 1 supporter tufc 01) thinks we are. Still Buckle reckons that if we played like we did yesterday we have a great chance against Crawley, and as I believe every word he says I am now assured that we will win easily next week. Obviously you didn’t read my match report or were unable to comprehend it. At no point did I say we were all over them, neither did my best mate in his interview for that matter. This is what I actually said; I thought that we deserved to win, just. and I still believe that, if you were there yesterday you could have put your argument across that I was misguided or just completely wrong. I am also quite happy for anyone who was at the game to disagree and say that we didn’t deserve anything out of the game. I also genuinely believe that if we play like we did yesterday, and against Crewe, we will not only have a ‘great chance against Crawley’ but we will win it, as long as we cut out the silly mistakes. Yes I might be setting myself up for a heavy fall at 5pm next Saturday, but I have faith that we can perform to the level we are capable of which will be enough to see off Crawley. Not sure what Bucks has to do for you to at least give him a chance? A win on Saturday and a play off spot at the end of the season? Both achievable and both way above what anyone would have expected at the beginning of the season. There is nothing wrong with being a fan of Paul Buckle, obviously I think he has done, and is continuing to do, an excellent job and I hope he stays for a good few seasons yet. Yes he makes a few mistakes, but show me a manager at this level that doesn’t. I don’t understand why you are so anti-Buckle? Have you been expecting much greater things from our team? A team that was relegated to the conference just over 2 years ago and has a limited budget and resources now. I am more than happy with that sort of progress. At least we agree on one thing. We both now think we will win easily next week. Now all you have to do is decide whether this is a big enough game for you to attend and whether you need to stoop so low as to actually having to queue with us meagre peasants to buy your ticket. |
|
|
|
Post by chrish on Jan 23, 2011 13:19:20 GMT
4 -5 - 1 when your on top, don't you just love it.  I tried to suggest that about one of our other games and basically got told that I`m incapable of debate!  de·bate (d-bt) v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates v.intr. 1. To consider something; deliberate. 2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points. 3. To keep saying 4-4-2 good, 4-5-1 bad like Dustin Hoffman in Rainman. |
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Jan 23, 2011 13:22:31 GMT
To keep saying 4-4-2 good, 4-5-1 bad like Dustin Hoffman in Rainman. Particularly when we dominated the half when we played 4-5-1 and were outplayed in the half when we played 4-4-2! |
|
chelstongull
TFF member
Posts: 6,759
Favourite Player: Jason Fowler
|
Post by chelstongull on Jan 23, 2011 13:30:55 GMT
To keep saying 4-4-2 good, 4-5-1 bad like Dustin Hoffman in Rainman. Particularly when we dominated the half when we played 4-5-1 and were outplayed in the half when we played 4-4-2! Which half did we score the goal in? |
|
|
|
Post by Ditmar van Nostrilboy on Jan 23, 2011 15:03:14 GMT
Particularly when we dominated the half when we played 4-5-1 and were outplayed in the half when we played 4-4-2! Which half did we score the goal in? We may have scored in the first half (thanks to an excellent bit of anticipation by Benners) but to be honest, Gillingham had the better of the first half and we were the better team in the second half. Over the 90 minutes I think we probably just about deserved to win. It was pretty evenly matched thoughout between the teams and only the Rooney shot getting deflected by Robbo's boot (i think?) stopped us getting all 3 points, Bevs being in excellent form yesterday. |
|
|
|
Post by alunmeerkat on Jan 23, 2011 16:08:46 GMT
I probably won't go next week because as I have said before I won't be able to get to the ground till 20 minutes or so before kick off.
I have no issue with join a queue but I don't want to join one and get in at ten past three.
As for the manager - well my main issue is with the tactics he employs. He seems to want Zebroski to do to jobs ie winger and supporting Benyon.
Four wins at home in the league tells its own story. The two cup wins (albeit good ones) were again 1-0.
The reason we don't win enough to me is that we constantly play one up front.
The point has been made that we don't have the big striker - fair enough.
The only time to me that we have looked like ripping a team apart was the last 20 minutes against Oxford. Its no coincidence in my view that was because we had Kee and Benyon up front and Zebroski out wide.
Personally I would play Kee and Benyon up front next week and play Zebroski and O'Kane out wide.
If Crawley can handle that forward line then good luck to them in the fifth round.
Playing the two strikers releases Zebroski to be much more of a threat.
With a straight 4-4-2 match up I am convinced we will win the game because player for player we are better than them.
If we play one up front i reckon we will lose.
|
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jan 23, 2011 17:31:16 GMT
Particularly when we dominated the half when we played 4-5-1 and were outplayed in the half when we played 4-4-2! Which half did we score the goal in? And there I rest my case me lard! |
|
|
|
Post by Ditmar van Nostrilboy on Jan 23, 2011 17:41:36 GMT
Which half did we score the goal in? And there I rest my case me lard! Which half did their keeper have to make the most saves then Aus? (Heres a clue, it wasnt the first half)  |
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Jan 23, 2011 17:43:57 GMT
Which half did we score the goal in? And there I rest my case me lard! Aussie we did not score in the first half just because we played 4-4-2. They played a very poor pass in the midfield and O'Kane intercepted the pass and went on and had a shot at goal. The keeper made a grave error and Benyon was there to force the ball over the line. I have been one on here who as said we should start at home playing 4-4-2, but in the first half I felt O'Kane was mostly ineffective and hardly in the game, When we did switch the formation in the second half and had Zeb's playing wide on the right, we played much better than we did in the first half. Sometimes each formation is going to work better then the other one, but at least we now have the options to play different formations. |
|
chelstongull
TFF member
Posts: 6,759
Favourite Player: Jason Fowler
|
Post by chelstongull on Jan 23, 2011 17:52:59 GMT
And there I rest my case me lard! Aussie we did not score in the first half just because we played 4-4-2. They played a very poor pass in the midfield and O'Kane intercepted the pass and went on and had a shot at goal. The keeper made a grave error and Benyon was there to force the ball over the line. I have been one on here who as said we should start at home playing 4-4-2, but in the first half I felt O'Kane was mostly ineffective and hardly in the game, When we did switch the formation in the second half and had Zeb's playing wide on the right, we played much better than we did in the first half. Sometimes each formation is going to work better then the other one, but at least we now have the options to play different formations. Surely if we played 4 - 4 - 2 in the first half when we scored then shirley we scored because we played 4 - 4 - 2  and in the second half when playing 4 - 4 - 1 - 1 we didn't score. Obvious surely? |
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Jan 23, 2011 17:57:03 GMT
Aussie we did not score in the first half just because we played 4-4-2. They played a very poor pass in the midfield and O'Kane intercepted the pass and went on and had a shot at goal. The keeper made a grave error and Benyon was there to force the ball over the line. I have been one on here who as said we should start at home playing 4-4-2, but in the first half I felt O'Kane was mostly ineffective and hardly in the game, When we did switch the formation in the second half and had Zeb's playing wide on the right, we played much better than we did in the first half. Sometimes each formation is going to work better then the other one, but at least we now have the options to play different formations. Surely if we played 4 - 4 - 2 in the first half when we scored then shirley we scored because we played 4 - 4 - 2 and in the second half when playing 4 - 4 - 1 - 1 we didn't score. Obvious sujrely? Not at all Phil and I can only think you are teasing me the 4-4-2 hardly had anytime to work before we found ourselves in front. How many more good chances did we create in the first half? How many did we create in the second half? and would it not be fair to say if we had taken the chances we made in the second half, we would have scored more goals than we did in the first half? |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jan 23, 2011 17:57:30 GMT
And there I rest my case me lard! Which half did their keeper have to make the most saves then Aus? (Heres a clue, it wasnt the first half) I have never discounted 4-5-1 because in certain circumstances it does have very good effect, but when did we score? I thought that a change was needed at half time because we didn`t seem as organised as we should have, so the change was something that needed to happen, but I would have taken off Danny and pushed Billy up top with Elliot, giving us Eunan, Zeb, Nicky, and Manse to do the hard graft and creativity. I don`t think it was shape that was the issue, I think it was personell, even though Danny was playing o.k I feel he has been far more effective against different sides, due to his playing style, I just don`t think it was right for that game as it turns out, easy to say in hind sight `eh! |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jan 23, 2011 18:00:12 GMT
Surely if we played 4 - 4 - 2 in the first half when we scored then shirley we scored because we played 4 - 4 - 2 and in the second half when playing 4 - 4 - 1 - 1 we didn't score. Obvious sujrely? Not at all Phil and I can only think you are teasing me the 4-4-2 hardly had anytime to work before we found ourselves in front. How many more good chances did we create in the first half? How many did we create in the second half? and would it not be fair to say if we had taken the chances we made in the second half, we would have scored more goals than we did in the first half? And you recon I`m obsessed with formations, crop circles maybe but not formations! |
|
|
|
Post by stefano on Jan 23, 2011 18:04:09 GMT
Not at all Phil and I can only think you are teasing me the 4-4-2 hardly had anytime to work before we found ourselves in front. How many more good chances did we create in the first half? How many did we create in the second half? and would it not be fair to say if we had taken the chances we made in the second half, we would have scored more goals than we did in the first half? And you recon I`m obsessed with formations, crop circles maybe but not formations! Missed yesterdays game as was in France. Who was left-half and who was inside-right? |
|
chelstongull
TFF member
Posts: 6,759
Favourite Player: Jason Fowler
|
Post by chelstongull on Jan 23, 2011 18:06:13 GMT
And you recon I`m obsessed with formations, crop circles maybe but not formations! Missed yesterdays game as was in France. Who was left-half and who was inside-right? Which half would you be referring to? |
|
and in the second half when playing 4 - 4 - 1 - 1 we didn't score. Obvious surely?