Miserable weather caused what I like to call a "double shedder" this afternoon. A good result in the circumstances.
Charlton once again the best player on the park but, as juanillo points out, Reffell was the man who really made things happen in the final third.
Pressure is on Waite to have more of an impact as a sub. Feels like we're currently losing out when we swap him for Daniels, and it shouldn't be the case at that point in the game.
Any news on the players returning from injury? Would have thought APS is near a comeback, and any have any idea on when Joe and Bradley are due back?
Barwell
-
RobYeltz
- Yeltz Forum Member
- Posts: 1492
- Joined: 30 Mar 2013, 21:35
Re: Barwell
Joe is a 7-10 days away, a couple of weeks for Lewis. Sadly it's longer for APS as he's not fully healed, might be after Christmas for him!piearce9 wrote:Miserable weather caused what I like to call a "double shedder" this afternoon. A good result in the circumstances.
Charlton once again the best player on the park but, as juanillo points out, Reffell was the man who really made things happen in the final third.
Pressure is on Waite to have more of an impact as a sub. Feels like we're currently losing out when we swap him for Daniels, and it shouldn't be the case at that point in the game.
Any news on the players returning from injury? Would have thought APS is near a comeback, and any have any idea on when Joe and Bradley are due back?
Proud owner of THREE 'Georges'
The artist previously known as AVFCYELTZ
The artist previously known as AVFCYELTZ
-
piearce9
- Yeltz Forum Member
- Posts: 1315
- Joined: 11 Jul 2013, 16:53
Re: Barwell
Ah cheers Rob. Suppose that explains the acquisition of Rosser for some further options down the right. Shame for Ashley as he was superb in pre-season. We will have to wait!
-
RaidenYeltz
- Yeltz Forum Member
- Posts: 1740
- Joined: 31 Jul 2013, 11:15
Re: Barwell
254, on a Saturday when no league games are taking place - very poor. Ultimately, the standard of football, or lack of, is taking its toll.Johnny Bud wrote:Attendance: 254
-
dazzlingdazza
- Yeltz Forum Member
- Posts: 637
- Joined: 30 Apr 2011, 23:50
- Location: Bilston, Wolverhampton.
Re: Barwell
I thought we played pretty well yesterday. The move for the goal was excellent, if that one had fallen properly to Waite and had Gueyes chosen to shoot rather than lay it wide to Isaac Cooper we would have probably won it. We will play worse than that and win IMO.RaidenYeltz wrote:254, on a Saturday when no league games are taking place - very poor. Ultimately, the standard of football, or lack of, is taking its toll.Johnny Bud wrote:Attendance: 254
The bad weather undoubtably played a factor in the not so good attendance, it's also only 6 weeks till Christmas.
-
RaidenYeltz
- Yeltz Forum Member
- Posts: 1740
- Joined: 31 Jul 2013, 11:15
Re: Barwell
Yesterday was yet another home match when the man of the match went to a defender - in Asa, rightfully so. He was immense, again. But the fact that our best player is a defender, so many times, over the course of this season, tells its own story.
How many times was the keeper tested yesterday? I can't recall him having to make a save. How many times did we make good progress (with some good play!) out wide, but no one was in the box to offer a threat? Why aren't our players, from midfield, gambling to get into the box? It all seems pretty static.
Hales of late has been that man from midfield who gets forward, but he seemed off form a little. And the only time I noticed Deny was playing, was when he faffed on the ball and gave the Barwell goal away.
It's quite clear that with the current squad and the players we have available, that 3-5-2 is pretty ineffective. In order for the 3-5-2 to work you need two excellent wing backs, who offer a threat going forward but also work back and defend well. Sadly Connoly isn't that...
I've got a lot of time for Cooper, but he's no wing back, for me. I think he's best used as a winger.
On Tuesday night we went 4-3-3. All be it against lower level opposition, it seemed to work well. Good width and pace with the front three. We played some good stuff, carried a threat and looked capable of scoring. I don't understand why we reverted back to 3-5-2 after a relatively successful game using 4-3-3. The players to use that system were available.
The potential is there and there are some positives to take, there are some neat passages of play where good football is played. The goal, for example, great pass out wide, and a good finish from Reffell. That's the type of play I want to see more often. It's too much of a glimpse rather than the norm.
I suppose 1-1 is better than 6-0...it weren't bad, yesterday, by any means but by the same token, it weren't great. Granted conditions weren't the best, but both teams play in the conditions and not just us!
The performances are an improvement on those earlier in the season, but it's far from perfect, at the moment. We're still quite away off from where I believe we should be and are capable of being, I still believe that we're 3 or 4 players short, quality wise and that we're carrying players at the moment, who just aren't good enough. I know John can see this and is hopefully doing all he can to bring in the right quality.
How many times was the keeper tested yesterday? I can't recall him having to make a save. How many times did we make good progress (with some good play!) out wide, but no one was in the box to offer a threat? Why aren't our players, from midfield, gambling to get into the box? It all seems pretty static.
Hales of late has been that man from midfield who gets forward, but he seemed off form a little. And the only time I noticed Deny was playing, was when he faffed on the ball and gave the Barwell goal away.
It's quite clear that with the current squad and the players we have available, that 3-5-2 is pretty ineffective. In order for the 3-5-2 to work you need two excellent wing backs, who offer a threat going forward but also work back and defend well. Sadly Connoly isn't that...
I've got a lot of time for Cooper, but he's no wing back, for me. I think he's best used as a winger.
On Tuesday night we went 4-3-3. All be it against lower level opposition, it seemed to work well. Good width and pace with the front three. We played some good stuff, carried a threat and looked capable of scoring. I don't understand why we reverted back to 3-5-2 after a relatively successful game using 4-3-3. The players to use that system were available.
The potential is there and there are some positives to take, there are some neat passages of play where good football is played. The goal, for example, great pass out wide, and a good finish from Reffell. That's the type of play I want to see more often. It's too much of a glimpse rather than the norm.
I suppose 1-1 is better than 6-0...it weren't bad, yesterday, by any means but by the same token, it weren't great. Granted conditions weren't the best, but both teams play in the conditions and not just us!
The performances are an improvement on those earlier in the season, but it's far from perfect, at the moment. We're still quite away off from where I believe we should be and are capable of being, I still believe that we're 3 or 4 players short, quality wise and that we're carrying players at the moment, who just aren't good enough. I know John can see this and is hopefully doing all he can to bring in the right quality.
-
DanielRolinson
- Yeltz Forum Member
- Posts: 463
- Joined: 25 Aug 2014, 15:39
-
RobYeltz
- Yeltz Forum Member
- Posts: 1492
- Joined: 30 Mar 2013, 21:35
Re: Barwell
A tough game against Barwell no doubt. An improved second half as mentioned elsewhere on the thread but maybe the game plan was to try and keep things tight in the first half with the drubbing we had off them a few weeks ago. Someone commented to me yesterday that it was ironic that folk moan about about lack of playing through the midfield and we go long too often, Denny tried to play his way out of trouble yesterday and it cost us the goal in the end. If he had of 'hoofed it' then we'd have not conceded - but folk would probably have moaned that he hoofed it!
The conditions didn't help us (or them) at times and they hit the bar. We did have chances to get 2/3 goals in the second half, Hales' free kick was poor by his recent standards, Bragoli maybe should have hit the target when Reffell pulled the ball back and I though Waite and JMG should have had shots instead of an extra touch. Maybe playing Daniels wide might have served us better as he was getting little joy from their towering central defenders and we couldn't seem to find that pass to get him behind them. I'm not sure the 4-3-3 would have helped us really against a strong Barwell side. That said, despite the Yeltv TV graphic we looked more 4-1-3-2 than 3-5-2 from my double shed end position. It wasn't until later in the game that Westy dropped back and we pushed the full backs more into wing backs.
It was one of those games I guess that both teams could make an argument for being deserving of 3pts, but a draw was probably about right. Yes a draw was disappointing but it was a massive improvement on the result at their place a few weeks ago.
The conditions didn't help us (or them) at times and they hit the bar. We did have chances to get 2/3 goals in the second half, Hales' free kick was poor by his recent standards, Bragoli maybe should have hit the target when Reffell pulled the ball back and I though Waite and JMG should have had shots instead of an extra touch. Maybe playing Daniels wide might have served us better as he was getting little joy from their towering central defenders and we couldn't seem to find that pass to get him behind them. I'm not sure the 4-3-3 would have helped us really against a strong Barwell side. That said, despite the Yeltv TV graphic we looked more 4-1-3-2 than 3-5-2 from my double shed end position. It wasn't until later in the game that Westy dropped back and we pushed the full backs more into wing backs.
It was one of those games I guess that both teams could make an argument for being deserving of 3pts, but a draw was probably about right. Yes a draw was disappointing but it was a massive improvement on the result at their place a few weeks ago.
Proud owner of THREE 'Georges'
The artist previously known as AVFCYELTZ
The artist previously known as AVFCYELTZ
-
DanielRolinson
- Yeltz Forum Member
- Posts: 463
- Joined: 25 Aug 2014, 15:39
Re: Barwell
My mistake. I wasn't sure if it was the same as Colwyn Bay, but having tried to work out the formation towards the end of the game, whilst looking through the lens it appeared to be 3-5-2, so I assumed it was that from the start.RobYeltz wrote: That said, despite the Yeltv TV graphic we looked more 4-1-3-2 than 3-5-2 from my double shed end position. It wasn't until later in the game that Westy dropped back and we pushed the full backs more into wing backs.
Yeltz TV
-
RaidenYeltz
- Yeltz Forum Member
- Posts: 1740
- Joined: 31 Jul 2013, 11:15
Re: Barwell
Denny had three or four Yeltz players as options to pass to. God knows what he was trying to do.
If he'd have hoofed it, we'd not have conceded, I agree. But the ball would only come back and we'd invite more pressure on to the defence.
There's a time and place to try and take players on and play good football, but it certainly isn't in your own third while under pressure from the opponent!
I have no issue with the use of a long ball, if the defender is under pressure. A 'if in doubt hit it out' mentality is fine. But when it's used constantly, all game, like earlier this season. Then it's an issue. Especially when we don't have a target man as a forward to hold the ball up and bring midfielders into play.
If he'd have hoofed it, we'd not have conceded, I agree. But the ball would only come back and we'd invite more pressure on to the defence.
There's a time and place to try and take players on and play good football, but it certainly isn't in your own third while under pressure from the opponent!
I have no issue with the use of a long ball, if the defender is under pressure. A 'if in doubt hit it out' mentality is fine. But when it's used constantly, all game, like earlier this season. Then it's an issue. Especially when we don't have a target man as a forward to hold the ball up and bring midfielders into play.