Mickleover updates

[Johnny Bud]

Full time: 1.1

[Johnny Bud]

MOTM: Daniels

[RaidenYeltz]

Awful to watch. Poor result.

Long ball after long ball. It works at the moment as we have a good forward now who puts fear into defenders, in Daniels.

Once he went off, we lost presence up top and they equalised.

John's answer. Bring on a bloke who can throw into the box.

It's just shit, if I'm honest.

Don't believe me, look at attendances...

[lutleyyeltz]

Awful to watch - you cannot be serious!

[DanielRolinson]

I thought that was a really good performance? We were unlucky not to take all three points. Second half they got into the game a bit more after making substitutions but even through the lens of a camera it looked like a good game to me. Will judge again when I watch it back. It was only through not taking more chances in the first half that we missed out on all three points. That sounds rather obvious but I'm definitely encouraged by tonight.

Looking forward to Saturday.

[piearce9]

Nice, positive opener from Raiden to start the comments.

Whilst the result will no doubt give the moaners something to thrive on (and presumably Elvins, if his absence was due to the ejection of toys from a pram), there was plenty to be optimistic about. Firstly, we hassled and harried Mickleover and didn't really let them play at all. They had to resort to long cross-field passes because they didn't have time on the ball. Secondly, Daniels and Reffell are superb up top and both centre backs unloaded quite a few house bricks into their shorts. They can both play with back to goal, run in behind, and they are forming a partnership too. Lastly, it has to be said that this is a million light years from the performance at Mickleover in August, and the result shouldn't take away from the improvement in between.

Few points of concern- we always give away a goal, and whilst we've ridden our luck a little against Skem and Matlock recently, it cost us tonight. To be fair, it was another class strike from their left winger Dales, but you always have a nervousness that it's coming. I'm also not too convinced about the new lad up top who has looked a little ineffective when brought on. Don't want to be harsh given he's had two subs appearances but he needs to sharpen up a bit.

Result was a disappointment but not a crisis. Same with the attendance- it was hardly going to stoke the flames of excitement within the fence-sitters, so 250 about expected.

[andy]

Awful to watch. Poor result.

Long ball after long ball. It works at the moment as we have a good forward now who puts fear into defenders, in Daniels.

Once he went off, we lost presence up top and they equalised.

John's answer. Bring on a bloke who can throw into the box.

It's just sh*t, if I'm honest.



Don't believe me, look at attendances...

You're kidding, right?
First half we played some good stuff, slick passing, high tempo, good workrate. Second half to be fair to Mickleover, they gave us a good game and some of our football was a bit panicky. That was down to good football from the opposition though not down to poor decisions from us. I enjoyed the game and the efforts we now seem to be putting in to play football the right way. Looking forward to giving Stour a football lesson.

[juanillo]

Yes continued shoots of improvement though last time I thought that after Matlock, we let ourselves down so hopefully we'll continue the upward curve.

Daniels has made a difference since coming back.

As for the attendance, they have no away for!lowing to speak of and a dank Autumn night will always deter the casual fan and there have been a lot of home games recently.

[Wheels]

Overall a good performance faded a little in the second half after substitutions had been made which is a slight concern but the performance was ok I thought.

[RaidenYeltz]

Maybe I'm being harsh.

I thought we were average first half but contained a threat, due to the pace of Daniels.

We took the lead due to a moment of brilliance from Hales.

Second half wasn't as good and Daniels faded through fitness. When he went off it went to pot.

It's no coincidence that when Daniels went off Micklover built pressure, they scored a great goal but ultimately we lost a presence up top.

When Daniels plays we have an outlet due to his pace which relieves pressure. When he went off it showed our previous failings.

I worry for us when we lose Reffel and Hales, when their loans expire...and I worry even more if Daniels picks up a knock - which he may be prone to.

There's still too much long ball and hopeful 'hoofs' up top for my liking.

It's funny how a midfielder is never man of the match.

We're in a great league position and we have had good recent results. But I can't help feel it's a little bit false.