|
|
Post by noddy on Oct 24, 2024 15:26:21 GMT
The one thing Coates didn't have was great crosses. Most ended up in the stand. Ok. But he went past players put in an OK cross then Willoughby picked up the debris from the opposition. Only player we had who had genuine pace and frightened defenders. Yes his final ball was poor and unfortunately I agreed with his release as he spent more time out injured than on the pitch. That's one of the things we lack and have always lacked for as long as I can remember is pace in our team. As well as natural width and a focal point up top obviously! |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Oct 24, 2024 15:49:09 GMT
The one thing Coates didn't have was great crosses. Most ended up in the stand. Ok. But he went past players put in an OK cross then Willoughby picked up the debris from the opposition. Not even that, he genuinely either never beat the first man with them or skied them in to or over the stand. Almost felt like the effort to get up there was just a huge waste of time. I can only remember him ever putting in one decent cross in his whole time here to setup Willoughby at Boston, but that's it. |
|
|
|
Post by nytram on Oct 24, 2024 15:53:00 GMT
The thing I'm trying to get across (no pun intended) is we went past defenders with an attacking full back as did Heywood and Coates which caused the opposition back four problems. That to me is the difference. When teams play us I see so many attacks from their full backs because a great winger is so not available to our teams.
Ditch Willoughby and Caton on the wing have them as the front two with Peers as a supersub.
Just trying to see a correlation between our team selections this season and 22-23.
|
|
|
|
Post by billyw on Oct 24, 2024 16:14:10 GMT
The thing I'm trying to get across (no pun intended) is we went past defenders with an attacking full back as did Heywood and Coates which caused the opposition back four problems. That to me is the difference. When teams play us I see so many attacks from their full backs because a great winger is so not available to our teams. Ditch Willoughby and Caton on the wing have them as the front two with Peers as a supersub. Just trying to see a correlation between our team selections this season and 22-23. There is no chance of that happening. In the Chronicle, Cal is saying that Peers is the focal point and essential to the team adding ‘when he isn’t playing we seem to lose’ so we aren’t likely to see Willoughby in his preferred position. Madness. |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lime on Oct 24, 2024 17:12:15 GMT
The thing I'm trying to get across (no pun intended) is we went past defenders with an attacking full back as did Heywood and Coates which caused the opposition back four problems. That to me is the difference. When teams play us I see so many attacks from their full backs because a great winger is so not available to our teams. Ditch Willoughby and Caton on the wing have them as the front two with Peers as a supersub. Just trying to see a correlation between our team selections this season and 22-23. There is no chance of that happening. In the Chronicle, Cal is saying that Peers is the focal point and essential to the team adding ‘when he isn’t playing we seem to lose’ so we aren’t likely to see Willoughby in his preferred position. Madness. Be interesting to see the stats since Peers signed, as opposed to earlier last season. Then those games where we started and those he didn't. Win Draw Lose and Goals for him and the team , split home and away. I suspect Cal's argument might not stand up. |
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Oct 24, 2024 17:47:24 GMT
The thing I'm trying to get across (no pun intended) is we went past defenders with an attacking full back as did Heywood and Coates which caused the opposition back four problems. That to me is the difference. When teams play us I see so many attacks from their full backs because a great winger is so not available to our teams. Ditch Willoughby and Caton on the wing have them as the front two with Peers as a supersub. Just trying to see a correlation between our team selections this season and 22-23. There is no chance of that happening. In the Chronicle, Cal is saying that Peers is the focal point and essential to the team adding ‘when he isn’t playing we seem to lose’ so we aren’t likely to see Willoughby in his preferred position. Madness. In his post match Tuesday he said that, quite damming to say that we lose when one player isn't in the team. Almost like we should expect it, just a bizarre statement. My first thought was maybe try playing a different way to suit the players that are on the pitch then... |
|
|
|
Post by arthuro on Oct 24, 2024 17:53:50 GMT
Get Neil Turner back on these post match interviews too. These questions are not probing enough and at least Neil says it how it is. Most obvious question to have asked is that Calum said that in the close season we were going to be more physical, so where is that physicality as we started with a midfield on Tuesday that had an average height of 5 foot 7?? |
|
|
|
Post by yossergolf on Oct 24, 2024 18:05:25 GMT
Get Neil Turner back on these post match interviews too. These questions are not probing enough and at least Neil says it how it is. Most obvious question to have asked is that Calum said that in the close season we were going to be more physical, so where is that physicality as we started with a midfield on Tuesday that had an average height of 5 foot 7?? Two out of the three of that midfield with Bainbridge is ok but if Bainbridge is missing then there is no back up option and that is down to the squad built by the manager. Unfortunately the squad as is is just not physical enough, unlikely to change |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lime on Oct 24, 2024 18:26:00 GMT
There is no chance of that happening. In the Chronicle, Cal is saying that Peers is the focal point and essential to the team adding ‘when he isn’t playing we seem to lose’ so we aren’t likely to see Willoughby in his preferred position. Madness. In his post match Tuesday he said that, quite damming to say that we lose when one player isn't in the team. Almost like we should expect it, just a bizarre statement. My first thought was maybe try playing a different way to suit the players that are on the pitch then... My first thought was, that without naming him directly, he's talking about Willoughby. Although I think that was aimed at the supporters who he's aware believe Willoughby should be played central. Be worth asking him how Willoughby scored 27 goals previously and he's not a central striker now. We're not really playing much differently now, than then. |
|
|
|
Post by borussiachester on Oct 24, 2024 18:34:37 GMT
There is no chance of that happening. In the Chronicle, Cal is saying that Peers is the focal point and essential to the team adding ‘when he isn’t playing we seem to lose’ so we aren’t likely to see Willoughby in his preferred position. Madness. Be interesting to see the stats since Peers signed, as opposed to earlier last season. Then those games where we started and those he didn't. Win Draw Lose and Goals for him and the team , split home and away. I suspect Cal's argument might not stand up. Our record since Peers returned, in games in which he’s… Started (score at the time he was subbed off, if applicable): W14 D13 L8 (1.57 PPG), 49 goals (1.4 per game), 10 ‘blanks’ (one every 3.5 games) Come off the bench: W1 D2 L2 (1 PPG), 2 goals (0.4 per game), 3 ‘blanks’ (one every 1.67 games) Didn’t play: W5 D4 L5 (1.36 PPG), 13 goals (0.93 per game), 5 ‘blanks’ (one every 2.8 games) So yes, there is some truth behind Cal’s claim that we fare better with him in the team… but the sample size for games without him is much smaller than for games with him, and there isn’t really enough difference between the two to say with any certainty that we’ll win when he plays or lose when he doesn’t. My main takeaway from these stats is that even our record in games in which he’s played doesn’t equate to promotion form - it would’ve led us to the exact same position in which we’ve actually ended up, both this season and last. |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lime on Oct 24, 2024 19:53:54 GMT
Be interesting to see the stats since Peers signed, as opposed to earlier last season. Then those games where we started and those he didn't. Win Draw Lose and Goals for him and the team , split home and away. I suspect Cal's argument might not stand up. Our record since Peers returned, in games in which he’s… Started (score at the time he was subbed off, if applicable): W14 D13 L8 (1.57 PPG), 49 goals (1.4 per game), 10 ‘blanks’ (one every 3.5 games) Come off the bench: W1 D2 L2 (1 PPG), 2 goals (0.4 per game), 3 ‘blanks’ (one every 1.67 games) Didn’t play: W5 D4 L5 (1.36 PPG), 13 goals (0.93 per game), 5 ‘blanks’ (one every 2.8 games) So yes, there is some truth behind Cal’s claim that we fare better with him in the team… but the sample size for games without him is much smaller than for games with him, and there isn’t really enough difference between the two to say with any certainty that we’ll win when he plays or lose when he doesn’t. My main takeaway from these stats is that even our record in games in which he’s played doesn’t equate to promotion form - it would’ve led us to the exact same position in which we’ve actually ended up, both this season and last. Thanks for that. Appreciated. Agreed it does sort of back up Cal's comment. He's a big stats man so sort of makes that. However, the sample size without him is, as you say, small. It's even smaller if you take the games this season where Willoughby has played. Maybe if he'd played there more he'd have started scoring rather than hitting the woodwork. The big unknown is how we would have got on with a proper centre forward target man? Either way, the stats don't look great for a play off team. If we carry on like this we'll likely finish just in the top half of the table. |
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Gray's left foot on Oct 24, 2024 21:03:39 GMT
Been looking at our team selections when Willoughby scored 20+ in 22-23. It was a team with no wingers. Caton and Willoughby played up front. No Glendon. But two full backs created havoc. One was Heywood with his crosses from the left, bring him back and put Woodthorpe with Bainbridge. The other was Coates with his runs on the right with great crosses. Can someone at the club tell Hunter to do that instead of copying Weeks in passing back. Then no Weeks or Glendon. The one thing Coates didn't have was great crosses. Most ended up in the stand. Agree his crosses were crap, but he did have other good attributes and I think we should have kept him. |
|
|
|
Post by spencerwhelanleftpeg on Oct 24, 2024 21:57:54 GMT
In the USA with their games as they are ie NFL and baseball stats matter and are integral part of things
At level 6 of our football not such a big thing
Concentrate on a system and personal that works
After the diabolical display at brackley last season which killed off posy off ambitions slim as they were
It was so obvious what’s required to compete in this league
Still hasn’t addressed it properly ridiculous
|
|
|
|
Post by weareblues on Oct 24, 2024 22:55:36 GMT
Be interesting to see the stats since Peers signed, as opposed to earlier last season. Then those games where we started and those he didn't. Win Draw Lose and Goals for him and the team , split home and away. I suspect Cal's argument might not stand up. Our record since Peers returned, in games in which he’s… Started (score at the time he was subbed off, if applicable): W14 D13 L8 (1.57 PPG), 49 goals (1.4 per game), 10 ‘blanks’ (one every 3.5 games) Come off the bench: W1 D2 L2 (1 PPG), 2 goals (0.4 per game), 3 ‘blanks’ (one every 1.67 games) Didn’t play: W5 D4 L5 (1.36 PPG), 13 goals (0.93 per game), 5 ‘blanks’ (one every 2.8 games) So yes, there is some truth behind Cal’s claim that we fare better with him in the team… but the sample size for games without him is much smaller than for games with him, and there isn’t really enough difference between the two to say with any certainty that we’ll win when he plays or lose when he doesn’t. My main takeaway from these stats is that even our record in games in which he’s played doesn’t equate to promotion form - it would’ve led us to the exact same position in which we’ve actually ended up, both this season and last. Do seem to create a few more chances when he plays as in fairness he does graft but at the minute couldn’t hit a barn door just needs to gain his confidence back when he does he’ll be a vital player for us |
|
|
|
Post by boughtonbliue on Oct 25, 2024 4:10:41 GMT
The one thing Coates didn't have was great crosses. Most ended up in the stand. Agree his crosses were crap, but he did have other good attributes and I think we should have kept him. He was injured a lot though |
|
|
|
Post by tarvinblue on Oct 25, 2024 8:27:38 GMT
How were we not in the market for a forward like that Richie Bennett at Scarborough in the summer? He had been shipped out on loan to Southport last season and I would like to think we could have rivalled Scarborough for his signature and is exactly what we need. The team we had out on Tuesday night wasn't far away from what we had out last season. Cal's signings yet again have generally not worked out - Hunter, Turner, Pollock, Hancox to name 4 have spent more time off the field than on it and none have impressed when they have played. Motley-Henry looks like another we are going to end up not seeing the best of based on his lack of impact so far. It means we are generally relying on the majority of the team which proved not up to it in the second half of last season. Only Bainbridge can be classed as an upgrade and a decent signing over what we had last season at this stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by RonD on Oct 25, 2024 8:34:58 GMT
How were we not in the market for a forward like that Richie Bennett at Scarborough in the summer? He had been shipped out on loan to Southport last season and I would like to think we could have rivalled Scarborough for his signature and is exactly what we need. The team we had out on Tuesday night wasn't far away from what we had out last season. Cal's signings yet again have generally not worked out - Hunter, Turner, Pollock, Hancox to name 4 have spent more time off the field than on it and none have impressed when they have played. Motley-Henry looks like another we are going to end up not seeing the best of based on his lack of impact so far. It means we are generally relying on the majority of the team which proved not up to it in the second half of last season. Only Bainbridge can be classed as an upgrade and a decent signing over what we had last season at this stage. Excellent post. Bainbridge been superb; Pollock looks fine, but was signed as he played lots of games - unfortunately been injured twice; Hunter been in and out; Turner and Hancox hardly had a look-in. |
|
|
|
Post by Frank Owen’s Paintbrush on Oct 25, 2024 9:46:54 GMT
How were we not in the market for a forward like that Richie Bennett at Scarborough in the summer? He had been shipped out on loan to Southport last season and I would like to think we could have rivalled Scarborough for his signature and is exactly what we need. The team we had out on Tuesday night wasn't far away from what we had out last season. Cal's signings yet again have generally not worked out - Hunter, Turner, Pollock, Hancox to name 4 have spent more time off the field than on it and none have impressed when they have played. Motley-Henry looks like another we are going to end up not seeing the best of based on his lack of impact so far. It means we are generally relying on the majority of the team which proved not up to it in the second half of last season. Only Bainbridge can be classed as an upgrade and a decent signing over what we had last season at this stage. Unfair on Turner and Hancox. Turner has made the odd sub appearance but looked good, quick and mobile even when pushed out wide on the left of a 4-3-3. As for Hancox who can play left back/wing-back or in midfield - he’s only featured about twice all season. |
|
|
|
Post by weareblues on Oct 25, 2024 11:21:14 GMT
How were we not in the market for a forward like that Richie Bennett at Scarborough in the summer? He had been shipped out on loan to Southport last season and I would like to think we could have rivalled Scarborough for his signature and is exactly what we need. The team we had out on Tuesday night wasn't far away from what we had out last season. Cal's signings yet again have generally not worked out - Hunter, Turner, Pollock, Hancox to name 4 have spent more time off the field than on it and none have impressed when they have played. Motley-Henry looks like another we are going to end up not seeing the best of based on his lack of impact so far. It means we are generally relying on the majority of the team which proved not up to it in the second half of last season. Only Bainbridge can be classed as an upgrade and a decent signing over what we had last season at this stage. I’m fairly sure there was a rumour we tried to get Bennett last season He’s been on our radar a few times |
|
|
|
Post by tarvinblue on Oct 25, 2024 11:47:44 GMT
How were we not in the market for a forward like that Richie Bennett at Scarborough in the summer? He had been shipped out on loan to Southport last season and I would like to think we could have rivalled Scarborough for his signature and is exactly what we need. The team we had out on Tuesday night wasn't far away from what we had out last season. Cal's signings yet again have generally not worked out - Hunter, Turner, Pollock, Hancox to name 4 have spent more time off the field than on it and none have impressed when they have played. Motley-Henry looks like another we are going to end up not seeing the best of based on his lack of impact so far. It means we are generally relying on the majority of the team which proved not up to it in the second half of last season. Only Bainbridge can be classed as an upgrade and a decent signing over what we had last season at this stage. Unfair on Turner and Hancox. Turner has made the odd sub appearance but looked good, quick and mobile even when pushed out wide on the left of a 4-3-3. As for Hancox who can play left back/wing-back or in midfield - he’s only featured about twice all season. Neither have played many minutes but when I've seen them play neither have offered anything. Hancox was responsible for falling asleep at Kidderminster and costing us their goal whilst I've not seen anything from Turner when he has played. That might not be on him as like so many of our attacking threats he just appears non-existent. If these players aren't deemed good enough then we need to be looking to move them on but, again, isn't that what we ended up having to do last season with players Cal had signed during the summer who ended up being deemed not good enough. We just don't seem to sign players to fit whatever the system is Cal is trying to play - which presumably needs a target man to win headers and hold the ball up. Peers tries his best but he isn't that type of player. |
|
|
|
Post by Vaughan Hall on Oct 25, 2024 13:59:09 GMT
Turner hasn't had anything like the opportunity Peers has had and Peers has been appalling. I'm not saying he doesn't try but from where I stand on the Harry Mac it's obvious he just isnt a finisher. He's always just off. If Turner is quick (which I assume he is) then put Willoughby in the centre and let Turner have a run of half a dozen games on the right hand side of the three.
Right now we consistently score no goals with Peers up front.
|
|
|
|
Post by billyw on Oct 25, 2024 17:31:23 GMT
Turner hasn't had anything like the opportunity Peers has had and Peers has been appalling. I'm not saying he doesn't try but from where I stand on the Harry Mac it's obvious he just isnt a finisher. He's always just off. If Turner is quick (which I assume he is) then put Willoughby in the centre and let Turner have a run of half a dozen games on the right hand side of the three. Right now we consistently score no goals with Peers up front. Last season Hancox played in the National League while Turner played 30 games for Brackley, not saying they are the answer but surely they should be given a chance |
|
