Bristol Post Match Waffle

[Daggers]

No, no no!

What have I done?!

Bad Joe.

Bad, bad Joe.

[shen]

Mattock and Clapham aren't helping us to score goals as far as I can see.

Twenty-six appearances for Mattock since his debut last season and he still hasn't scored and has perhaps had one assist though I can't remember it.

He's nothing more than a promising left-sided "hand" at the moment and Clapham, rock-steady and reliable as he's been, has also offered not the slightest threat going forward.

To a point I like both players but neither make enough happen for me and our team has far too many players who fit into that category. Even if we need a 3-0 win to stay up in our last game I'm convinced some people would prefer us to stick with what we are so obviously continuing to do wrong than to risk attacking with attitude.

To me that's like voting for the same political party whatever they do and whatever mess they make of the country.

You gave him a 7 for his efforts against Bristol calling his passing 'efficient'. Make up your mind.

Besides, why would Shush! have made a difference yesterday anyway? How will his presence have made Hume, Oakley, Hendrie or Howard score on the chances they got? Or are you assuming that either Shush! or King would arbitrarily have contributed a long range cracker like the Bristol rightback?

[Thracian]

You gave him a 7 for his efforts against Bristol calling his passing 'efficient'. Make up your mind.

Besides, why would Shush! have made a difference yesterday anyway? How will his presence have made Hume, Oakley, Hendrie or Howard score on the chances they got? Or are you assuming that either Shush! or King would arbitrarily have contributed a long range cracker like the Bristol rightback?

There's no condradiction whatsoever.

I judge him on what he is not what I'd like him to be. If you look back far enough you'll find all my ratings of Clapham are pretty positive because he's done what he's capable of perfectly okay so far.

I wouldn't hammer Howard because he's not a sprinter or DJ because he's not an aerial player. You can only judge people on the basis of their capabilities and how they apply them.

That doesn't mean he's what I would want as first choice left-back because he doesn't make enough happen.

As for your last point any additional opportunities created from presently sterile areas of the pitch would increase our chances of storing.

King's presence for a non-shooting defender would have improved the potential for shooting/making goals as would Shush!'s dead ball kicks given that ours were pretty tame and unthreatening on the day.

[shen]

There's no condradiction whatsoever.

I judge him on what he is not what I'd like him to be. If you look back far enough you'll find all my ratings of Clapham are pretty positive because he's done what he's capable of perfectly okay so far.

I wouldn't hammer Howard because he's not a sprinter or DJ because he's not an aerial player. You can only judge people on the basis of their capabilities and how they apply them.

That doesn't mean he's what I would want as first choice left-back because he doesn't make enough happen.

As for your last point any additional opportunities created from presently sterile areas of the pitch would increase our chances of storing.

King's presence for a non-shooting defender would have improved the potential for shooting/making goals as would Shush!'s dead ball kicks given that ours were pretty tame and unthreatening on the day.

But to me 'efficient and contructive passing', which you called it, means that it adds to an attack or at least maintains it's momentum. This is where I see the contradiction. If he maintains the momentum, he's contributing to an attack

I also understood from your ratings that Hendrie took some potential deadballs. Besides, Shush! isn't the only player within our ranks who can deliver a good deadball. As you pointed out in another post, it's the lack of potency from our otherwise aerially quite dangerous defenders that's a problem currently.

Also in circumstances like on Saturday, I believe it would've had a detrimental effect to alter the formation, which worked very well on th day, by introducing King for a defender.

And unlike you, I thought it made sense to get Mattock in. Wasn't it you that raved about his performance in the youth game a few weeks back when he was playing wide left and made things happen?

[Thracian]

But to me 'efficient and contructive passing', which you called it, means that it adds to an attack or at least maintains it's momentum. This is where I see the contradiction. If he maintains the momentum, he's contributing to an attack

I also understood from your ratings that Hendrie took some potential deadballs. Besides, Shush! isn't the only player within our ranks who can deliver a good deadball. As you pointed out in another post, it's the lack of potency from our otherwise aerially quite dangerous defenders that's a problem currently.

Also in circumstances like on Saturday, I believe it would've had a detrimental effect to alter the formation, which worked very well on th day, by introducing King for a defender.

And unlike you, I thought it made sense to get Mattock in. Wasn't it you that raved about his performance in the youth game a few weeks back when he was playing wide left and made things happen?

The formation, no more than anything else in the end, didn't work well enough. We drew a home game we should clearly have won.

Good managers like good players change things - they make a difference.

Holloway's changes made our team lose momentum not increase the pressure.

As for Clapham and Mattock, yes Clapham largely retained possession and kept moves going but he didn't do anything of consequence. He never delivers a clever pass out of the bag or gets far enough forward to have a shot.

Mattock was outstanding in the Youth Cup - I pointed out it was by far the best I'd seen him play.

He doesn't really have the pace to be so effective in the first team and never seems to play with the same freedom of expression anyway.

Mattock's time may come. But it isn't just yet.

[Babylon]

So having Shush would have made our "strikers" net one of their 26 chances?

[Daggers]

Here we go again...

[shen]

The formation, no more than anything else in the end, didn't work well enough. We drew a home game we should clearly have won.

Good managers like good players change things - they make a difference.

Holloway's changes made our team lose momentum not increase the pressure.

As for Clapham and Mattock, yes Clapham largely retained possession and kept moves going but he didn't do anything of consequence. He never delivers a clever pass out of the bag or gets far enough forward to have a shot.

Mattock was outstanding in the Youth Cup - I pointed out it was by far the best I'd seen him play.

He doesn't really have the pace to be so effective in the first team and never seems to play with the same freedom of expression anyway.

Mattock's time may come. But it isn't just yet.

Ultimately we didn't win because we couldn't take one of a host of chances. You can't put it down to the formation or the manager really. And it wasn't as if the chances were distributed unequally. We just needed a competent finish, and the game points were in the bag.

You can't blame Ferguson for being incompetent either after the loss against Portsmouth. They pinned them back for 90 minutes and still managed to lose...

That's not to defend Ollie though, but I sympathise with him. Most people in such a position would be quite clueless as to how the situation can be rectified.

[Thracian]

Ultimately we didn't win because we couldn't take one of a host of chances. You can't put it down to the formation or the manager really. And it wasn't as if the chances were distributed unequally. We just needed a competent finish, and the game points were in the bag.

You can't blame Ferguson for being incompetent either after the loss against Portsmouth. They pinned them back for 90 minutes and still managed to lose...

That's not to defend Ollie though, but I sympathise with him. Most people in such a position would be quite clueless as to how the situation can be rectified.

Ferguson is a good example. From what I saw United pulverised Portsmouth and might even have blown the ball in once they were so close to a goal but a freak result occurrred of the kind that all managrs experience.

But would you EVER see Ferguson weakening his attack when United were losing. No. He'd bring on extra strikers, extra attacking midfielders and he'd go with all guns blazing whatever the risk if he thought it might work.

Whatever most people would do managers are there to make a difference and to make the vital decisions necessary to win matches involving team selection, pre-match and within-the-match tactics and concerning substitutions.

If they can't do those things effectively more often not they're in the wrong job.

Much of it is down to pre-planning. Working out possible scenarios and best solutions. Yes, unexpected things happen and a manager would then need to react off the cuff.

But a lot of options can and should be considered beforehand.

The idea of Hendrie tiring was predictable, for instance, and inevitable once he got injured. Choices? Leave him on but re-locate him to the wing. Take him off and replace him with an attacking central mdfielder. Not an easy decision but one which Holloway had ages to ponder. And in the end he didn't choose either of the best options.

[Thracian]

So having Shush would have made our "strikers" net one of their 26 chances?

Pretending I've said something I didn't doesn't negate what I say.

Even on normal days Shush's free kicks/corners have been missed.

On Saturday the shortcoming was glaring and that in a strong, swirling wind which would have made any hard-driven and fast-spinning Shush! free-kick a nightmare to defend.

Chances are always missed in football matches but the more you create the more likely you are to score.