Matlock Updates

[drummyb]

Gotta say I agree. We didn't deserve that scoreline. However, they pretty much took Anderson, the human climbing frame, out the game. And yet we still had very clear chances.

Third goal was on the break and the first sloppy. I do think Matlock were well organised at the back and the bloke on left midfield caused some problems. Way better than Nantwich and Ashton recently.

When we play it around we look pretty good too but its a big ask for Anderson to do all the running. Ive never been a huge fan of one up front in any team. Against lesser teams it will work, but any side with a half decent backline will mark him out the game.

[andy]

The last 2 posts are absolutely spot on, there is nothing more to say.

[juanillo]

We didn't play particularly badly but Matlock were energetic, very mobile and nifty.

The missed chances from the corners in the first half were telling.

Sloppy defending didn't help though and I agree that they cottoned on to the one up top approach which didn't change until the game was lost. I think we need to be bolder than that at home.

[HalesowenHarry]

So I now pronounce us midtable. Uncarried away by euphoria or despair. The new me....... go on try it.....

[Frodo]

What i found interesting tonight was the spell half way through the first half when we played attacking football through passing the ball on the deck, which created chances.

My question is: why have we maintained our Plan A of the long ball to a man up front, when we are capable of creating chances through playing football? My problem with tonight's defeat, as with previous games that i have watched, is not the players. It is the rigid and unimaginative long ball tactic (and the back up option of the long throw) which makes us look like a side who are desperately coping, instead of getting the ball under control and having a look where to pass it.

With Raiden i totally agree, i can only fear the worst when Anderson goes back, knowing full well that he will be replaced with another lone forward to fit the same long ball mold.

[drummyb]

I agree HH. Given we have reshaped the entire team twice since promotion, been reliant on loans, its a big ask to push for promotion. We need stability. There is no way this team, as good as the potential may be, is anywhere near National League standard. I do beleive if we can keep players, sign full team members of a good standard we have a decent foundation to work on.
Lets hope so. Nothing I would love more than to see this club at the levels Kiddy are/were.

[YeltzDoc]

So I now pronounce us midtable. Uncarried away by euphoria or despair. The new me....... go on try it.....

Hi Darren,
It seems that someone has hacked you account.
Let's discuss it when you come and collect your regular prescription for Prozac and we'll see what we can do.
Doc.

[Yeltz27]

First half we played well, we created numerous chances and should've scored. (Especially via set pieces).

Second half we just folded. But even at 1-0 down we looked capable of scoring. That is the difference to previous home games - we looked like scoring, that to me is what good football is about.

However after a well taken second it was game over.

Tonight is probably a hint of what is to come when Anderson leaves. I guess the difference between tonight and our previous results is the the fact that our chances fell to other players other than Anderson.

Had the chances we created fell to Anderson in the first half, we'd have gone in 3-0 up.

One thing I'd like to question, still, is why oh why aren't we giving Anderson support in the form of a partner up top? Either push Goddard up further or start with Delaney.

I suppose the usual suspects will point to recent results and his goal scoring record and say 'it's working'. I'd tend to disagree. He has scored wonderful solo goals recently and converted one chance a game. The only chance we've created (in games I've attended).

Imagine where we'd be and how many he would score if we were giving him service and providing 4/5 chances a game?

Second half Matlock doubled up on Anderson and it rendered us ineffective. So our get out jail card was neautrilased and we simply had no answer.

We need a plan B. Firstly when teams figure out our long ball to Anderson home run tactic and secondly a viable tactic for when we go one down.

I agree with this. In my head, when I think of the long ball we play, the image I see is Anderson chasing a ball surrounded by defenders on either side of him. In the second half, Matlock played a couple of long balls out to their wingers and I thought, that's what a long ball should be. It was precise and served a genuine purpose. There's a huge difference between that and what we play. And because of the pace they had, they had more cohesion because there were people close to the player retrieving the long ball. Our midfield doesn't have the pace to get up to support Anderson so there is rarely an opportunity to retrieve the second ball, if that's part of the plan. I've seen people on twitter saying it was clueless last night, I don't know about that as the Yeltz played pretty well in the first half, but I do think that the play is very often scrappy or a mess.

We are, in my opinion, a bit of a one man team. Once Anderson goes we will be in big trouble. I didn't see either of the last two games which we won, but scoring after 30 seconds for example doesn't suggest it was tactical nous that got the goal as the game hasn't developed at all by that point. So I'm not sure that the set up of the team had much to do with that particular goal (as the manager claimed on twitter afterwards). I think Raiden is right, a majority of his goals have been individual moments of brilliance. Playing the ball over the top to him is a bit pointless if he is more comfortable facing goal with the ball at his feet? Surely he needs a big unit up there with him to knock the long ball on to him?

Whilst I don't think we played badly last night, once Matlock scored it was always going to be more because of their pace.

[Frodo]

I don't know about that as the Yeltz played pretty well in the first half, but I do think that the play is very often scrappy or a mess.

We are, in my opinion, a bit of a one man team. Once Anderson goes we will be in big trouble. I didn't see either of the last two games which we won, but scoring after 30 seconds for example doesn't suggest it was tactical nous that got the goal as the game hasn't developed at all by that point. So I'm not sure that the set up of the team had much to do with that particular goal (as the manager claimed on twitter afterwards). I think Raiden is right, a majority of his goals have been individual moments of brilliance. Playing the ball over the top to him is a bit pointless if he is more comfortable facing goal with the ball at his feet? Surely he needs a big unit up there with him to knock the long ball on to him?

So am I right in thinking that if this is the case, Anderson has to create his own moments because our style of play doesn't suit him? I know that there should be no 'one man team', or you should not build a style of play around a loan signing, but is there anyone that the style of play benefits?

It clearly does not benefit our players when we see that they are capable of playing much better with a passing game (as we did in the first half) and it surely does not benefit ourselves who watch a team look as if they are desperately trying to cope.

Is there anyone who thinks that tactically we are a success with this style of play?

[Yeltz27]

Frodo, anybody who has had the misfortune of reading my posts over the last three years knows that there is nobody more dismayed with the style of play than I am