Imps v Rovers

[Sparky]

Clearly Micky not happy with the finishing. Mentions a Mangan one on one and that in general we lacked composure and quality when having decent chances.

 

[Ian]

I don't think there are many teams that can match us playing on the floor unfortunately you get nothing by playing good football.

The league says all we need to know. Defensively solid and the best in the league but sorely lacking on the goal front. We do ultimately need to be scoring more goals.

Gateshead and Eastleigh in 11th and 12th have scored more goals than us and Lincoln a whopping 16 more! It's fine when you are winning games and keeping clean sheets but if we fall behind we will struggle with only 1 or 2 goals in us a game.

With the options we have up front we should be returning more. Mangans return has been a bit of an anticlimax too.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

A bit early to judge mangan I think; scored two against torquay and his all round game was good today. However, I agree that cook is our only really reliable finisher at the moment. In fairness to Mellon, playing good football has taken us a hell of a long way in the last three months, although there are some areas requiring fine tuning. I would not want us to play the way Lincoln and barrow do.

 

[bring back the cowshed!]

One crumb of comfort - the other results today were about as good as you could hope for. All our other rivals dropped points, so it was a disappointing day for all the contenders, except unfortunately Lincoln City.

 

[Cowshed Kid]

Hey ho.
Disappointing.
I thought when Harris went off Wallace might have joined the fray. To me he wouldn't changed the shape too much.
I think me and Sparky are ploughing a lonely furrow with Kirby. Shoot me down in flames but for me he flatters to deceive.
Other results were ok but it's no longer in our own hands.
BUT ....closer to our hands than it was before MM arrived.
Ignoring other teams, our next fixtures aren't too bad. We move on.

 

[Mal]

one loss in 10 isn't a tragedy. Still a long way to go. It would be worse if we hadn't played reasonably well. Onwards and upwards.

 

[bring back the cowshed!]

I agree that the title is now Lincoln's to lose. However, the season is only half over. I doubt the Imps will stay unbeaten so we need to keep winning and hoping. I've got great faith in everyone now at the club - players, coaches and general management. I'm more confident than any time last season. Just keep the faith.

 

[Boz]

Very hard to know what to make of that today. It was frustrating, that having hauled ourselves back into the game after a poor opening ten minutes and finished the first half in the ascendant, that we failed to exert control in the second half, convert our chances and were undone by poor defending of a breakaway. Moreso because the draw woud have kept us top.

I don't accept that we lost this game purely on the finishing, both goals conceded were eminently preventable. However, the way the second half was developing, we needed to slow the stream of Lincoln attacks down. My thoughts match Sparky and Cowshed Kid, that this seemed an ideal time to introduce Wallace. That's not a criticism of Kirby who did well enough and could be viewed as a more attacking option than Harris, but I don't think he'd have been able to change the pattern of play in the way Wallace might.

Up front we were missing Cookie. It was a bit surprising that we'd announced his broken finger pre-match, as normally we're like North Korea in releasing information about player fitness. Of our front pair, my view was Mangan was marginally the better, Norwood made some iffy choices and scuffed shots when in a good position. Do we recall Stephenson/Stockton, to give another option for the Macc games?

The two full-backs had decent games, but my MoM would be Jeff Hughes for converting the penalty and some delicious forward passes, not converted.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

After a very poor opening ten minutes where we failed to deal with Lincoln's very good set plays and the aerial threat of Rhead, I thought we played the better football for the remainder of the game. We were certainly better in midfield where both Hughes and Maynard were imperious I thought. Whatever the criticism of their finishing, the movement of the front two was good and caused Lincoln problems, Mangan rounding the keeper but hitting the side-netting in the first half, Norwood, Mangan, Maynard (particularly) and Tollitt all having good opportunities in the eighteen yard box in the second. We played in a flat 4-4-2, probably to counter Lincoln's threat out wide and restrict crosses to Rhead, but this meant Tollitt was tightly marked and did not have the influence of previous games. After half time Lincoln did improve, with Rhead and Robinson linking up better up front and starting to carve out openings, but I still thought we played the better football and looked more creative in open play.

I disagree completely with Boz about the substitution of Kirby. To bring Wallace on at that stage would have been a negative move and MM clearly wanted to win the game: I will never criticise a manager for being bold and having confidence in his players. Kirby added something extra in the attacking third, and while the defeat was not solely down to missed chances, if we had taken one of the several opportunities we created in the second half the manager's decision would have been vindicated. At Gateshead and Wrexham Wallace was brought on after Rovers had taken the lead, not before. The defending was poor for both goals, but given how prolific Lincoln are it was unrealistic to think one goal would have been enough in this game.

In general, I thought Rovers looked the better footballing side and were very unfortunate to get nothing. You can see how Lincoln achieve success at this level, but their play is very direct, relying heavily on set-pieces, a number of which were 'won' today by Matt Rhead dropping to the floor like a sack of spuds. I know Cowley is the current flavour of the month, but his Lincoln side are quite cynical, (Cowley himself got into trouble with the ref for refusing to give the ball back to one of our players), as were Braintree in the away game last season, and he seemed quite cocksure of himself in recent interviews. I prefer Micky's more low key approach, and I certainly prefer the football his team plays.

Individually, I agree with Boz that both fullbacks were excellent, probably their best games for us this season, and would also choose Jeff Hughes as man of the match: superb once again.

Still a lot of football to be played and there was plenty in the performance to be encouraged about. We have lost the battle but can still win the war.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

However, the way the second half was developing, we needed to slow the stream of Lincoln attacks down.

The game at Forest Green was even more open and Rovers were even more adventurous. The difference was that we took our chances in that game and we did not today. Either you go toe-to-toe with the opposition and have a game of football, or you adopt a Brabin approach of packing midfield and sitting on the halfway line.

If you are more adventurous and take more risks you are bound to lose games on occasions, but I still greatly prefer this approach (Mellon's) to what we have been accustomed to.

 

[Boz]

I don't think bringing on Wallace would have been a negative move in the context of the game. To suggest he's now only capable of playing a part in holding a lead is ridiculous and it is debatable what merit in keeping him at the club if his role is to be limited to that.

There are times when a draw is a good result and to my mind today was one of those. However as you observed yourself, the bench seemed a bit negative. Being 'more adventurous and taking more risks' to my mind might include putting one of Connor Jennings or Mekki, both of whom were with the squad today on the bench.

Finally, for all the Cowley-bashing, a substitute he introduced made a near immediate impact by scoring what turned out to be the winner.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

I don't see much 'Cowley bashing' in my post, just rebutting the line that Cowley is a better manager than Mellon which even some of our own supporters are parroting.

If we were not going to bring Wallace on in a defensive role as at Wrexham and Gateshead, why would we bring him on at all given that Harris was playing well and we were still (in my opinion) in the ascendancy ? Mellon clearly wanted to win the game and Kirby gave us more movement and energy. If Kirby's shot was not tipped round the post by their keeper Mellon's substitution would have appeared equally 'inspired'. That is football.

When I saw the bench I was afraid that Mellon was adopting a more negative approach for this match. The way we played and the substitutions we made show that clearly was not the case, something I was pleased about. A draw would have been a good result in the short term, as it would keep us top for a couple more weeks, but given we were generally the better side and playing well I can perfectly understand why he went for the three points. As I said, if you adopt a positive approach it is easy with hindsight after a defeat to say that a more negative stance should have been taken. But if we had been more cautious at FGR, Dover and elsewhere, we would not have got results in those games. Swings and roundabouts.

 

[Cowshed Kid]

Will bow to those that were there but Wirral Radio reckoned Harris went off because he suffered a knock.
At that stage it sounded like we were doing OK, holding our own, and I do think in such circs Wallace would have been a better choice.
But... MM's call and that's the end of that. He's ultimately not doing much wrong at the moment.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

Cook is out for a month apparently. A big blow, although we only have three games in that period. We need others to step up to the plate now.

 

[Boz]

In an ideal world, we'd go up playing good football. However, if it boils down to a choice between going up by winning ugly or staying in the NL playing beautiful football, I know what my preference would be.

Don't think Cowley is better than Micky, just different. As I said at h/t, it was a little surprising that Lincoln had not pressed home their advantage following a good start. Their time-wasting at that stage of the game was puzzling and actually worked against them.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

I basically agree, but I don't think we have the squad to play the way Lincoln or barrow do. From the experience with brabin, parry and others, I don't think our supporters would accept an 'uglier' brand of football either. No style of football guarantees success, ugly or attractive. However, it is very difficult to score every goal through a silky passing move and I think we need to score far more goals from set pieces. I have not seen any statistics, but I suspect we are at the low end and of the spectrum in the national league in this regard. We also need more goals from midfield: the contribution from Maynard, Hughes, harris and Jennings is nowhere near good enough in this respect.

 

[bring back the cowshed!]

I agree. If we play hoofball, we are going nowhere. There are teams better than us and bigger than us. We have to play to our strengths. If we have the best players, we must try to exploit this by trying to play the best football. With average luck and half-decent officials, we should do well.

 

[Ian]

We are doing well BBTC and whilst yesterday was a minor setback there's are still many games to play. You can't win them all.

We'll certainly be up there at the end of the season, let's hope it's enough to get us out of this league.

Completely agree with RLC regarding the midfielders. They do need to contribute more goals but this has been a problem for years.

 

[Boz]

Now seen the goals again.

Lincoln first; horrible defending. No challenge to the ball as it came into the box and Arnold unmarked to head home. Presumably either Sutton/Ridehalgh tasked with marking him.

Rovers penalty; Lincoln fans after the game were quite aggrieved this was awarded at all claiming a dive by Mangan. Hard to tell from the opposite end and the footage inconclusive. Calm penalty from Hughes when the protests subsided.

Lincoln second; while an out of position McNulty's pass was intercepted, there was still plenty of cover. Error of judgement from Scott Davies, if he'd stayed on the line and allowed the outfield players to deal, odds are the shot would have been saved.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

Largely agree with Boz's assessment of the goals. For the first one, there were three opportunities to clear the ball, all muffed. For the second, McNulty should have just knocked the ball down the line, not into the centre of the pitch when he was out of position.

However, in general the highlights show how good a lot of our football was and how many chances we had in the second half. Norwood in particular had two good opportunities which he tamely back-passed to the keeper. Although there were bodies between him and the goal, Maynard should have scored from ten yards out as well. Mangan was unlucky with the effort off the post at the end.