|
|
Post by tarvinblue on Aug 20, 2017 17:00:00 GMT
For those that can take it link |
|
|
|
Post by Lobster on Aug 20, 2017 18:03:37 GMT
Easy to forget that it was actually a decent game for the neutral.
Those highlights give an accurate depiction of what the first half was like. Look at that moment at the 55 second mark - just awful. If that had gone in all hell would've broken loose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2017 19:06:04 GMT
Easy to forget that it was actually a decent game for the neutral. Those highlights give an accurate depiction of what the first half was like. Look at that moment at the 55 second mark - just awful. If that had gone in all hell would've broken loose.
Certainly around that point in the game the atmosphere in my part of the main stand was the most mutinous I can recall in recent times. As an aside, it's only when you watch the video that you realise how sparsely populated the main stand was, you don't realise when sat there. Another illustration of the growing disillusionment of the fans which with the undercurrent of grumbling cannot fail to be transmitted to the players |
|
|
|
Post by johnboy on Aug 21, 2017 12:26:09 GMT
Interesting interview by Sutton Mgr.
"Chester crowd were very negative it helped us"
"Should have been game over at 3-1 but in the end we would have been happy with draw"
"Chester played very well second half"
|
|
|
|
Post by Si on Aug 21, 2017 12:46:45 GMT
Interesting interview by Sutton Mgr. "Chester crowd were very negative it helped us" "Should have been game over at 3-1 but in the end we would have been happy with draw" "Chester played very well second half" All fair points. The crowd were negative, as you'd expect for 18 home games without a win and camping in our own half against Sutton United. Unfortunately it won't be any different until we either get some results or play a brand of football that can at least get the fans revved up, like we did for 20 mins on Saturday. The game should indeed have been over but the offside decision rattled them and galvanised us - that's football. We did play well in second half, but sat back after getting back into the game so late goals against us are to be expected and happen frequently. |
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Aug 21, 2017 13:11:01 GMT
Interesting interview by Sutton Mgr. "Chester crowd were very negative it helped us" "Should have been game over at 3-1 but in the end we would have been happy with draw" "Chester played very well second half" All fair points. The crowd were negative, as you'd expect for 18 home games without a win and camping in our own half against Sutton United. Unfortunately it won't be any different until we either get some results or play a brand of football that can at least get the fans revved up, like we did for 20 mins on Saturday. The game should indeed have been over but the offside decision rattled them and galvanised us - that's football. We did play well in second half, but sat back after getting back into the game so late goals against us are to be expected and happen frequently. Exactly. Someone might need to advise Macca that sometimes offence can be the best defence! But all this sitting back is only going in invite pressure. We'll lose 10-15 points in the 90th minute doing this |
|
|
|
Post by agl on Aug 21, 2017 13:18:43 GMT
Is it just me or were we not pushing forwards for the third goal and Chappel lost the ball?
|
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Aug 21, 2017 13:27:02 GMT
Is it just me or were we not pushing forwards for the third goal and Chappel lost the ball? Chapell was himself, but the team weren’t as far as I can see and that’s exactly the problem. Chapell is far from faultless but I do have some sympathy with him as at that moment he must have felt he had no other option but to run up that blind alley. Of course he should be stronger and that’s a general criticism of him, but I will stick up for him a bit in this case. Just my opinion though. |
|
|
|
Post by btb on Aug 21, 2017 14:40:01 GMT
Is it just me or were we not pushing forwards for the third goal and Chappel lost the ball? It's just you. My memory of the goal was Chappel picked the ball up about 30 odd yards from goal. He was the furthest player forward at the time so he had a little run with ball before getting swatted like a fly by one of their players. His options were, try some skill. Use his strength. Dive. Or hoof the ball forward. Unfortunately for us he tried to use his none existent strength. In his very slight defence after losing the ball our defence parted and you could have got the QE2 in between our centre backs. |
|
|
|
Post by agl on Aug 21, 2017 14:52:06 GMT
Is it just me or were we not pushing forwards for the third goal and Chappel lost the ball? It's just you. My memory of the goal was Chappel picked the ball up about 30 odd yards from goal. He was the furthest player forward at the time so he had a little run with ball before getting swatted like a fly by one of their players. His options were, try some skill. Use his strength. Dive. Or hoof the ball forward. Unfortunately for us he tried to use his none existent strength. In his very slight defence after losing the ball our defence parted and you could have got the QE2 in between our centre backs. No, you're wrong. Have a look at the video. There's at least one player further forwards. There were also two pathetic tackles (if you can call them that) by our midfield and defence after he lost the ball. Goes back to my point about getting the basics right. Also occurs to me watching that goal that some of our players are unfit. Kingsley is another just going through the motions in that clip of their third goal. |
|
|
|
Post by marner93 on Aug 21, 2017 15:07:11 GMT
Is it just me or were we not pushing forwards for the third goal and Chappel lost the ball? It's just you. My memory of the goal was Chappel picked the ball up about 30 odd yards from goal. He was the furthest player forward at the time so he had a little run with ball before getting swatted like a fly by one of their players. His options were, try some skill. Use his strength. Dive. Or hoof the ball forward. Unfortunately for us he tried to use his none existent strength. In his very slight defence after losing the ball our defence parted and you could have got the QE2 in between our centre backs. Literary genius |
|
|
|
Post by Al on Aug 21, 2017 15:18:51 GMT
It's just you. My memory of the goal was Chappel picked the ball up about 30 odd yards from goal. He was the furthest player forward at the time so he had a little run with ball before getting swatted like a fly by one of their players. His options were, try some skill. Use his strength. Dive. Or hoof the ball forward. Unfortunately for us he tried to use his none existent strength. In his very slight defence after losing the ball our defence parted and you could have got the QE2 in between our centre backs. No, you're wrong. Have a look at the video. There's at least one player further forwards. There were also two pathetic tackles (if you can call them that) by our midfield and defence after he lost the ball. Goes back to my point about getting the basics right. Also occurs to me watching that goal that some of our players are unfit. Kingsley is another just going through the motions in that clip of their third goal. You are right, and Chappell (under pressure) did have an option to release the ball sideways to a teammate before he was muscled off the ball.
But like you say, 10 other players on that pitch other than Chappell and not one of them 'took one for the team' to concede a free-kick and take the momentum out of their move. Too slow closing the ball down and putting bodies on the line to stop the attack.
I felt for Chappell with that, yes he lost the ball but until that point he'd actually been quite a bright spark since his introduction, he was always positive on the ball, turning and trying to run at defenders instead of just cutting inside and playing a square ball or going backwards like the majority of others in that side, he was turning, picking his head up and running at them.
I question the fitness of half of that squad to be honest. Neither Kingsley James nor Paul Turnbull look fit enough for me. They should be the energy in the side, yet with 20 to go it looked to me like they were both blowing out of their arses.
|
|
|
|
Post by agl on Aug 21, 2017 15:42:35 GMT
Assume Turnbull is number 8? Woeful for the goal
|
|
|
|
Post by btb on Aug 21, 2017 16:01:20 GMT
It's just you. My memory of the goal was Chappel picked the ball up about 30 odd yards from goal. He was the furthest player forward at the time so he had a little run with ball before getting swatted like a fly by one of their players. His options were, try some skill. Use his strength. Dive. Or hoof the ball forward. Unfortunately for us he tried to use his none existent strength. In his very slight defence after losing the ball our defence parted and you could have got the QE2 in between our centre backs. No, you're wrong. Have a look at the video. There's at least one player further forwards. There were also two pathetic tackles (if you can call them that) by our midfield and defence after he lost the ball. Goes back to my point about getting the basics right. Also occurs to me watching that goal that some of our players are unfit. Kingsley is another just going through the motions in that clip of their third goal. I couldn't possibly watch that again. To be fair, I was on the Harry Mac and didn't have the greatest view of it all. But saw enough to know it was a woeful goal. All three were errors of some sort. That said, I thought Sutton were a good side. |
|
|
|
Post by johnboy on Aug 21, 2017 17:34:45 GMT
First goal - should have cleared our lines earlier
Second goal - Astles too slow, problem when they counter. Gr8 finish.
Third goal - won't blame Chappell or centre mid - gr8 driving play from the Sutton player . His pass into their first forward caused both our centre backs to go to the ball he then slipped it to their other forward - who Astles would have covered if he"d stayed where he was - good finish.
|
|
|
|
Post by jb on Aug 21, 2017 20:41:27 GMT
Is it just me or were we not pushing forwards for the third goal and Chappel lost the ball? Chapell was himself, but the team weren’t as far as I can see and that’s exactly the problem. Chapell is far from faultless but I do have some sympathy with him as at that moment he must have felt he had no other option but to run up that blind alley. Of course he should be stronger and that’s a general criticism of him, but I will stick up for him a bit in this case. Just my opinion though. Chappel had about six touches all game and each time was pushed off the ball so easily. Never seen a more lightweight player at the Deva. |
|
|
|
Post by Lobster on Aug 22, 2017 11:07:20 GMT
You can always look at goals and analyse what you could've done better, but I don't really think any of those goals are that bad in themselves. Two of them are great strikes and the third was a decent move. I don't think we defended badly in the game either - I'd probably give both Astles and McCombe a 7 out of 10.
The problem is shape and mentality. We're defending bravely, but we're defending too much. If you invite a team to attack as much as we did on Saturday, then you're likely to concede by law of averages. As I said, we were playing at times like one of those micro-nations in the World Cup Qualifiers whose only ambition is to keep the score as low as possible.
It's interesting that as deep as we played, the second and third goals could both be put down to losing the ball when going forwards. This is another problem with this negative mentality. When you do get a chance to attack, it's almost a surprise and there's no outlet. This means the ball gets lost and then the whole team is out of shape.
|
|
|
|
Post by agl on Aug 22, 2017 14:18:31 GMT
Think you are being over generous.
It was a feature last year that we didn't close down well on the edge of the box and still seems to be the case. Also, that goals conceded often came from two mistakes not just one. That third goal is a classic example - fair enough Chappell lost the ball weakly (as is his custom) but there was the chance to rectify his error by Turnbull who was either too tired to put in a tackle or couldn't be arsed. Arguably, even then one of the defenders could have done the job. That's the sort of goal that bad teams give away. I disagree that it was a good move by Sutton.
|
|
|
|
Post by Al on Aug 22, 2017 14:46:31 GMT
You can always look at goals and analyse what you could've done better, but I don't really think any of those goals are that bad in themselves. Two of them are great strikes and the third was a decent move. I don't think we defended badly in the game either - I'd probably give both Astles and McCombe a 7 out of 10. The problem is shape and mentality. We're defending bravely, but we're defending too much. If you invite a team to attack as much as we did on Saturday, then you're likely to concede by law of averages. As I said, we were playing at times like one of those micro-nations in the World Cup Qualifiers whose only ambition is to keep the score as low as possible. It's interesting that as deep as we played, the second and third goals could both be put down to losing the ball when going forwards. This is another problem with this negative mentality. When you do get a chance to attack, it's almost a surprise and there's no outlet. This means the ball gets lost and then the whole team is out of shape. Sorry but you're completely wrong. All 3 goals were from shambolic defending and non existing pressing. I will break this down into three points: 1. As soon as the ball is headed to the edge of our box 2 players should be on their lad straight away. Shut off the space, put your body on the line to block the shot. I cab accept it was a good strike when he hit it, but we should always press the ball especially in those dangerous areas. 2. Poor goalkeeping for the second, keeper should never be beaten at the near post like that. Watching Astles trying to run was a sight and a half and that's not a good thing. 3. That third again was poor defensively. Yes Chappell loses it cheaply but again. McCombe tries to play their forward offside but Astles, LRT and Halls aren't on the same wavelength. Poor organisation at the back, zero pressing of the ball in key areas and poor fitness/mistake from the keeper caused our goals |
|
|
|
Post by Dodge on Aug 22, 2017 15:56:32 GMT
Did anyone hear McCarthy tell the team to drop back for the last 10 minutes? I'm not trying to defend him it's just from the Harry Mac I didn't hear or see him instructing them to get deeper, it felt like the team ran out of steam (as evidenced by Chapell and Turnbull's poor tracking back for the last goal). Be interested to hear from someone in the main stand behind him.
|
|
|
|
Post by bonecrusher on Aug 22, 2017 16:06:05 GMT
Did anyone hear McCarthy tell the team to drop back for the last 10 minutes? I'm not trying to defend him it's just from the Harry Mac I didn't hear or see him instructing them to get deeper, it felt like the team ran out of steam (as evidenced by Chapell and Turnbull's poor tracking back for the last goal). Be interested to hear from someone in the main stand behind him. I certainly don't remember seeing him screaming at them to push out during the last 10 minutes when it was obvious to us all that we were getting deeper and deeper. |
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Aug 22, 2017 16:23:15 GMT
I don't entirely blame Chappell for the 3rd goal but I truly cannot believe the man is in his third year at the club. The odd bright 15 minute cameo aside, he's been nowhere near good enough.
You can't keep employing him and then be surprised when he backs out of challenges. We know what to expect from him, unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
Post by Al on Aug 22, 2017 18:39:57 GMT
I don't entirely blame Chappell for the 3rd goal but I truly cannot believe the man is in his third year at the club. The odd bright 15 minute cameo aside, he's been nowhere near good enough. You can't keep employing him and then be surprised when he backs out of challenges. We know what to expect from him, unfortunately. Unfortunately Jack, when you're built like a whippet and a rotweiller comes along, there is only going to be one winner out of the two. What irks me is why he's not been told to do extra weights in the gym to build his upper body up. Might be able to hold his own a bit then in those situations |
|
|
|
Post by Lobster on Aug 22, 2017 19:52:56 GMT
You can always look at goals and analyse what you could've done better, but I don't really think any of those goals are that bad in themselves. Two of them are great strikes and the third was a decent move. I don't think we defended badly in the game either - I'd probably give both Astles and McCombe a 7 out of 10. The problem is shape and mentality. We're defending bravely, but we're defending too much. If you invite a team to attack as much as we did on Saturday, then you're likely to concede by law of averages. As I said, we were playing at times like one of those micro-nations in the World Cup Qualifiers whose only ambition is to keep the score as low as possible. It's interesting that as deep as we played, the second and third goals could both be put down to losing the ball when going forwards. This is another problem with this negative mentality. When you do get a chance to attack, it's almost a surprise and there's no outlet. This means the ball gets lost and then the whole team is out of shape. Sorry but you're completely wrong. All 3 goals were from shambolic defending and non existing pressing. I will break this down into three points: 1. As soon as the ball is headed to the edge of our box 2 players should be on their lad straight away. Shut off the space, put your body on the line to block the shot. I cab accept it was a good strike when he hit it, but we should always press the ball especially in those dangerous areas. 2. Poor goalkeeping for the second, keeper should never be beaten at the near post like that. Watching Astles trying to run was a sight and a half and that's not a good thing. 3. That third again was poor defensively. Yes Chappell loses it cheaply but again. McCombe tries to play their forward offside but Astles, LRT and Halls aren't on the same wavelength. Poor organisation at the back, zero pressing of the ball in key areas and poor fitness/mistake from the keeper caused our goals As I said, you can find fault with any goal you concede, but I don't think they're awful goals. We see a lot worse in this division. The goals themselves aren't the problem, it's the whole way we're set up. I suppose what I'm saying is I don't think there were too many players who really had a bad game, although I'd rather have Lynch in goal than Mitchell. |
|
|
|
Post by Al on Aug 22, 2017 20:00:09 GMT
LRT was poor, Mitchell was poor, Dawson is poor. Yes he scored but his distribution, movement and general workrate were shocking. Turnbull and James too deep for long periods as well.
They were all preventable. Yes they were good strikes but like I've said and explained above all 3 should never have been allowed to get in those shots in the first place.
Not sure what goes on in that head of yours XWWB
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodge on Aug 23, 2017 11:20:58 GMT
LRT was poor, Mitchell was poor, Dawson is poor. Yes he scored but his distribution, movement and general workrate were shocking. Turnbull and James too deep for long periods as well. They were all preventable. Yes they were good strikes but like I've said and explained above all 3 should never have been allowed to get in those shots in the first place. Not sure what goes on in that head of yours XWWB Every goal ever scored is preventable if you over analyse it enough, it's easy for us to sit on our arses and look back at highlights and say what should have been done better but football is a game played on a pitch in that split second. I agree with Lobster that it's the overall approach that was the issue rather than individual mistakes per se. I don't understand what your suggestion is, that the players aren't good enough as opposed to the issue being McCarthy's poor tactics? |
|
