Filbert_Ross Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 did either keeper make a save?? what a load of shit. why take Gallagher off? why leave it till 88mins to bring Howard on??
Asha Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 It was just plain lazy. We deserved no more than a 0-0 draw and that's what we got. But Donny were seriously there for the taking. A bit of ambition, a touch more creativity, and we would have absolutely hammered them.
Dr The Singh Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 Overall a very poor performance, we played a lone striker for far to long in the game! The movemnt of the team as a whole was very poor and the only player that had any invention (Gallagher) was taken off!! Positives are that we played a poor Doncaster team, any other half decent team would have beaten us! Back to the drawing board, especially without Fryatt, there will some changes!!
Fox92 Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 Goals is going to let us down obviousley, thats all. Need a new centre forward and with Fryatt injured I fear. Need a new right back as well I think in the summer. Nigel played the wrong team.
davieG Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 I don't believe it was intended to be 451 but 433 with Gallagher and N'Guessan playing further forward and supporting Fryatt when we had possession and dropping to wide midfeld when we hadn't. Doncaster's main attribute was passing and keeping possession in the midfield, we found it difficult to get the ball off them, are except for a short spell straight after half-time when we got stuck into them but we soon tired and gradually stopped doing that. The reason we ended up looking like a 451 defensive formation was because nearly every time we managed to get the possession we gave it back and Wellen's was the biggest culprit. The 433 will only work if you have the majority of the possession to allow your 2 wide men to be in their attacking mode for the majority of the game, based on current form that means the midfield trio should have been King, Oakley and Gallagher because those 3 are the best we have at retaining possession.
marbelladave Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 Very disappointing as every one has said. Still at least what went wrong is obvious and easy to fix, providing Pearson sticks with it and does not revert to the wretched 4-4-2 longball we have had for most of the season. Firstly it is becoming obvious that the Oakley - King - Wellens midfield is not doing the job. It lacks pace or guile, the 3 players are 'too samey', so one of them, Wellens on current form, needs to drop to the bench. Last night they were so predictable that Doncaster closed them down with ease and with it went any chance of developing our passing game that has been evident in the last 2 games. Gallagher drops into midfield to provide the creativity, he needs to work on his defensive play but in a 3 man midfield that is not critical. Secondly our wide men were too wide and allowed themselves to be pushed too deep. It was not helped by Gallagher's lack of pace on the right or the insistence on using N'Guessan as a target man, the latter only encourages more long ball play. I've said this many times before but they have to play as strikers, and get forward and support the front man. They are not wingers or wide midfielders and N'Guessan, Dyer and Waghorn are all perfect at that role, but Pearson needs to lose his conservatism, stop over burdening them with defensive duties and give them more licence to get forward. Errrr.......That's it, simple.
smudgerfox Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 Very disappointing as every one has said. Still at least what went wrong is obvious and easy to fix, providing Pearson sticks with it and does not revert to the wretched 4-4-2 longball we have had for most of the season.Firstly it is becoming obvious that the Oakley - King - Wellens midfield is not doing the job. It lacks pace or guile, the 3 players are 'too samey', so one of them, Wellens on current form, needs to drop to the bench. Last night they were so predictable that Doncaster closed them down with ease and with it went any chance of developing our passing game that has been evident in the last 2 games. Gallagher drops into midfield to provide the creativity, he needs to work on his defensive play but in a 3 man midfield that is not critical. Secondly our wide men were too wide and allowed themselves to be pushed too deep. It was not helped by Gallagher's lack of pace on the right or the insistence on using N'Guessan as a target man, the latter only encourages more long ball play. I've said this many times before but they have to play as strikers, and get forward and support the front man. They are not wingers or wide midfielders and N'Guessan, Dyer and Waghorn are all perfect at that role, but Pearson needs to lose his conservatism, stop over burdening them with defensive duties and give them more licence to get forward. Errrr.......That's it, simple.
Lillehamring Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 I don't believe it was intended to be 451 but 433 with Gallagher and N'Guessan playing further forward and supporting Fryatt when we had possession and dropping to wide midfeld when we hadn't.Doncaster's main attribute was passing and keeping possession in the midfield, we found it difficult to get the ball off them, are except for a short spell straight after half-time when we got stuck into them but we soon tired and gradually stopped doing that. The reason we ended up looking like a 451 defensive formation was because nearly every time we managed to get the possession we gave it back and Wellen's was the biggest culprit. The 433 will only work if you have the majority of the possession to allow your 2 wide men to be in their attacking mode for the majority of the game, based on current form that means the midfield trio should have been King, Oakley and Gallagher because those 3 are the best we have at retaining possession. this is what i noticed.too - for everyone's complaints that donny should have been beaten, it is important to remember that for most of the game they had the bulk of the possession. i think another 'positive' that seems to have been overlooked, is that although we only tested the keeper twice we had 9 or 10 shots off target - which suggests that the forwards actually had more opportunities last night than in many of our recent games. i understand that kingy played some nice football, too. pearson is getting there, we are having a season where the 'best formation' has been hard to spot, hindered in no small part by the inconsistency of senior players like oakley and wellens. i would have liked to have seen the following change towards the end: waghorn off, n'guessan up front, dyer to the left and solano on the right... but i get the feeling that the players and (despite his apparent touchline encouragement) pearson at the the end were happy with the clean sheet and the point - and in a sense, i can see how, in the long run, that isn't so bad, there is a lot to be said for momentum.
surrifox Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 the lack of goals must really be haunting Pearson, although as a former defender he can take pride in assembling a well organised defence and a more than competent goal keeper. The fact is that only Plymouth have scored fewer goals in this league despite our having an array of different attacking options and a couple of proven goalscorers
Guest Mee-9 Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 Our defence is sound. It's frustrating that we're not scoring goals. Couldn't really care about formations, Just get the goals in.
breadandcheese Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 I can't understand how Gallagher and N'Guessan who were so good against Blackpool can be so awful last night. I thought Wellens was poor as well, giving the ball away far too cheaply on many occasions. I also didn't understand why we waited until the 87th minute to bring on Howard. There's no point bringing someone on for 5 minutes unless you're trying to timewaste.
marbelladave Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 I can't understand how Gallagher and N'Guessan who were so good against Blackpool can be so awful last night.I thought Wellens was poor as well, giving the ball away far too cheaply on many occasions. I also didn't understand why we waited until the 87th minute to bring on Howard. There's no point bringing someone on for 5 minutes unless you're trying to timewaste. Gallagher was the creative force in midfield against Blackpool and (mostly) Newcastle, yesterday he was stuck on the right, a position he clearly does not like and is no good at. He needs to be back in midfield with Wellens on the bench. N'Guessan was given extensive defensive duties and ended up far too deep. Getting the ball and running at the defense can be highly effective from 30 yards out, but mostly a waste of time if it is done from halfway. And stop using him as a target man for hoofed clearances, pass out of defence FFS.
Ford Super Sunday Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 I hate to agree with Marbelladave but my god Wellens had a shocker last night, he really did. Why he is allowed to walk back into the team after a fantastic performance without him against Newcastle and a creditable win against Blackpool?
Sir Fynwy Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 I hate to agree with Marbelladave but my god Wellens had a shocker last night, he really did. Why he is allowed to walk back into the team after a fantastic performance without him against Newcastle and a creditable win against Blackpool? Wellens was cr@p but I had to laugh at the people rating Kings performance so highly, he almost got Hobbs done in with a few hospital passes.
FantasticMrFuchs Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 I defy anyone to identify a single highlight unless there was a camera on me having a piss at half-time. 2 highlights last night... 1: The Barry Hayles chants that got going up in L1 with the look of some bemused fans who i don't think knew who he was 2: Empty Seets was going the whole game very funny Well the football wasn't up to much was it!?!? As for Fryatt, could of happened to anyone wasn't an intentional act to hurt the player but should of recieved a yellow card to be honest. Now for his potential replacement.....Wouldn't mind James Vaughan - Everton,Jason Koumas or at a push.....Barry Hayles
martyn Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 Gallagher should never have been taken off, he was by virtue of missing a sitter and then giving the ball away once, sloppily. At the start of the second half he dropped more into a midfield role and we looked slightly better for it. As soon as Lloyd came on it disrupted what we were doing and we went back to being ineffective. Midfield was far too congested last night. Should have gone 4-4-2 at half time.
marbelladave Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 I hate to agree with Marbelladave but my god Wellens had a shocker last night, he really did. Why he is allowed to walk back into the team after a fantastic performance without him against Newcastle and a creditable win against Blackpool? Try it a little more often. You'll feel better! Read some of my other posts and you will see how last nights performance was allowed to happen, nothing new, these kinds of games have been happening all season. With a bit of luck we would have nicked a win and the forum would have been a very different place, but we would have still been playing crap though!
Guest Basildon Fox Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 As I wasn't there last night I can't really comment on how Wellens played although all Stringer kept saying throughout the match was "Wellens gives it away again!! Surely the time has come to drop this man. His Harlem Globetrotteresque through balls hardly ever come off and even his short passing seems to be simply woeful at the moment. Says something to me that for 60 minutes against the Geordies and Saturday against Blackpool we were far more fluid than when he came back last night. Overhyped and overated.
MrSpaM Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 Just in reply to all this negativity, did anyone else notice we were fine before fryatt went off. I think his injury shook our squad up a bit. Everyone looked really concerned when he was stretchered off, and i think it affected our game a little bit. Obviously it cant be used as an excuse, because their professionals, but i cant help but feel like any human would be slightly concerned about their mate being put in the back of an ambulence, after being semi-concious on the floor and without fully knowing what was wrong with them. Like i said it can't be used as an excuse because their were obviously things to improve on, i just think it affected our play more than some people realise. It really did look terrible, and their were people practically in tears in the stands. Get well soon Matty
marbelladave Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 As I wasn't there last night I can't really comment on how Wellens played although all Stringer kept saying throughout the match was "Wellens gives it away again!! Surely the time has come to drop this man. His Harlem Globetrotteresque through balls hardly ever come off and even his short passing seems to be simply woeful at the moment. Says something to me that for 60 minutes against the Geordies and Saturday against Blackpool we were far more fluid than when he came back last night. Overhyped and overated. Wellens is a decent player, his early season form showed that, but he is well off the pace at the moment, time for a break. As I said above, Oakley, King and Wellens are all too similar, decent box to box performers but nothing much that really makes a difference, particularly when, as last night, the opposition flood midfield. Replace one of them, Wellens on current form, with Gallagher, an altogether more creative player. He will prompt and make opportunities for others an may even pick up the odd goal for himself from around the box too. As last night showed he does not have the instincts to lead the line, much more of a creator for me....
marbelladave Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 Just in reply to all this negativity, did anyone else notice we were fine before fryatt went off. I think his injury shook our squad up a bit. Everyone looked really concerned when he was stretchered off, and i think it affected our game a little bit.Obviously it cant be used as an excuse, because their professionals, but i cant help but feel like any human would be slightly concerned about their mate being put in the back of an ambulence, after being semi-concious on the floor and without fully knowing what was wrong with them. Like i said it can't be used as an excuse because their were obviously things to improve on, i just think it affected our play more than some people realise. It really did look terrible, and their were people practically in tears in the stands. Get well soon Matty We weren't fine, we were not playing all that well at all. Losing Fryatt completely disrupted our forward play and it is most likely the Fryatt's injury had a part to play too. The big problem was it took us ages to work out our best formation and get after a game that was clearly winnable eventually settling on Waghorn right, Dyer left, N'Guessan down the middle, at least that looked like it could have worked if only we had someone (Gallagher?) behind them creating the chances. In any case our second and third substitutions were plain nonsense, not one of Pearson's better days!
foxoffderby Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 Terrible. My brother and I treated ourselves to couple birds in the avary last night to cheer ourselves up.
Cobbo Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 Well it was bloody frustrating wasn't it. Best player gets done in and we get done by spoiling tactics again and could easily have lost it at the end. Games like this happen (teams setting up for their 0-0's) as we are well aware - it's a case of knowing there are going to be few chances in the game whilst it is 0-0, but you will get one or two good ones, which you then have to score. We didn't score them and so it became increasingly frustrating for us, with Billy Sharp having a chance to nick it towards the end. I think Howard should have come on quite a lot earlier in this specific scenario to give us an outlet without having to utilise the over crowded midfield and then there was the case of set pieces - they were no good at attacking or defending them, yet we made absolutely no use of them on the night. Hobbs heading over a couple he should have done better with and then our deliveries letting us down. I hope no one there was a neutral, as this really was a shocker.
Ford Super Sunday Posted 10 February 2010 Posted 10 February 2010 I hope no one there was a neutral, as this really was a shocker. When you bought a Varsity ticket for the University football which is next week, you could buy tickets for this game for just £6 if you wanted. I dare say there could have been a few neutrals at that match.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.