League Two Rovers v Stags

[Rockford's Love Child]

Burton probably will start ahead of Mumbongo in the coming games, albeit he and Saunders are quite similar and will not necessarily be effective as a partnership. For all of his faults, Mumbongo is physically strong and can shield the ball when it is played into him, whereas both Burton and Saunders look to run in behind.

However, we are talking about marginal differences or improvements here, rather than a change that will make a substantial difference.

 

[Ian]

Mumbongo is physically strong

I don't think he's even that. He's a big lad but does not put himself about. He seems keen on just running than the physical side of things.

 

[Higgy 2]

Granted Mumbongo should use his physical assets to cause problems, but as Ian states he doesn't seem to fancy it.
Whereas Burton will use his assets. I think him and Saunders pressing will make defenders rush any passes forward. He got in a couple of good positions and can win free kicks. There doesn't appear to be an answer to the current plight, but we might as well explore any marginal improvements we can. Perhaps Kane will come back rejuvenated.

 

[Ian]

Burton was through a few minutes after coming on so maybe our best bet as Higgy says above is to play to their strengths. Keep the ball on the floor and try some through balls as at least Saunders and Burton do have pace to cause big defenders problems.

 

[keep the faith]

all very well saying micky should stay until the end of the season but can only see the fans voting with their feet, and dread the atmosphere that could ensue, I would place him on gardening leave and tell dawes/parky to keep us ticking over, dread to think of the stick micky could receive if we don,t improve.

 

[O4anotherplayoff]

Stevenage next week looks daunting, but the six games following it will tell us a lot more about the character of this squad. All very winnable, most of which should be won.

But we’re at the point of the season where clubs like those who are fighting for survival start picking up unexpected points. Often against teams with little left to play for….like us, arguably.

So the attitude in those games will need to be spot on. A poor return will really crank up the pressure. Although, bizarrely, a half decent return could yet take us back within touching distance of the play off fight!

 

[bigmart]

Stevenage next week looks daunting, but the six games following it will tell us a lot more about the character of this squad. All very winnable, most of which should be won.

But we’re at the point of the season where clubs like those who are fighting for survival start picking up unexpected points. Often against teams with little left to play for….like us, arguably.

So the attitude in those games will need to be spot on. A poor return will really crank up the pressure. Although, bizarrely, a half decent return could yet take us back within touching distance of the play off fight!

We have won 4 out of the last 21 games, we don't score enough goals we will not get near the play offs

 

[keep the faith]

I can,t think of anything more daunting than us actually making the play-offs, don,t know the answer but has Hendry brought more than merrie to the team throwing the raw youngster from Newcastle in against a very good Mansfield seemed a bit desperate to me.

 

[O4anotherplayoff]

We have won 4 out of the last 21 games, we don't score enough goals we will not get near the play offs

That wasn’t my point, which was that the six games after Stevenage will reveal a lot. To the extent that they may even define some people‘s futures.

We‘re on a run of 4 in 21 because, generally, we’re not good enough. But should be good enough to do much better in that run of six games. If we don’t, it‘d suggest relegation-threatened nobodies have more balls than we do, or are more motivated than we are, which would take the current situation to a whole new level.

It’s nevertheless highly probable that a decent haul from those six games will put us back within touching distance of the playoff fight. But that’s just a side issue to my point because I agree that, even if we did get back within touching distance over the next month, we almost certainly wouldn’t have enough to push on from that.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

I don't think he's even that. He's a big lad but does not put himself about. He seems keen on just running than the physical side of things.

My point was more that there is a constrant in styles between Saunders and Mumbongo, with the former running in behind and the latter coming short for the ball.

If you play two strikers who both want to run in behind (Saunders and Burton) it often does not work, as they both make the same movements. I think that is why Mellon has been starting with Mumbongo, not because he thinks he is a great player.

 

[bigmart]

My point was more that there is a constrant in styles between Saunders and Mumbongo, with the former running in behind and the latter coming short for the ball.

If you play two strikers who both want to run in behind (Saunders and Burton) it often does not work, as they both make the same movements. I think that is why Mellon has been starting with Mumbongo, not because he thinks he is a great player.

4 4 2 isn't working regardless of who the 2 up front are, as Micky won't start Burton why not change the formation 4 3 3, 4 2 3 1 just something different rather than the same all the time

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

4 4 2 isn't working regardless of who the 2 up front are, as Micky won't start Burton why not change the formation 4 3 3, 4 2 3 1 just something different rather than the same all the time

I think the significance of formations is greatly overstated. We started the season with 532, which was not any better, and I am not sure Hemmings would be effective as a lone striker.

 

[Keith Hill (Bolton)]

The really important thing to me this season and it has inflated and influenced many supporters, is the five games winning streak we had earlier in the season which pushed us up to close to the play offs. Without that run we would be in serious trouble, which was compounded lately with the good wins at home. That is the twenty points that have seen us mid table and season over.
32 points, 32 goals, 32 games!
A very average season!

I think I know what would be happening if we hadn't had those wins!

 

[Boz]

I can,t think of anything more daunting than us actually making the play-offs, don,t know the answer but has Hendry brought more than merrie to the team throwing the raw youngster from Newcastle in against a very good Mansfield seemed a bit desperate to me.

I think Hendry makes himself available more and is more likely to go for an attacking ball or have an attempt on goal than Merrie. The latter seems to put more tackles in and maybe greater stamina; not seen a game where I'd thought CM, whatever his other failings, was looking drained. Hendry looked fairly tired by the second half in both the Bradford and Mansfield games, so was surprised MM didn't make a change.

Chalmers looked ill-equipped to fill either the Morris or Hawkes role at Bradford, so could understand Micky giving Turner-Cooke a go, given his mind was set on sticking with 442. I think Jay is the better fit and he's the better player of the pair, but if Morris is out for a while we need to be looking at other options.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

Yes, Hendry is clearly more creative than Merrie, albeit Saturday's game was one where he was hardly likely to shine. I also agree with Boz about Turner-Cooke. It was worth starting him after Chalmers' poor showing at Bradford.

 

[Boz]

Turning to the vexed question of formations and Micky's fondness for 442.

I have some reservations that we've got the players for 442 in Morris' absence. The two youngsters have found it difficult standing in for Kieron and I'm doubtful Chalmers has the defensive skills to be able to cope with that role at present. Could Lewis or Nolan play there and how effective would they be? Other possibilities would be pushing JDC up and moving O'Connor to right-back or switching Josh Hawkes to the right and using Merrie on the left. I'm unsure we've got the squad for a 4 diamond 2 either.

4231. I doubt would work with the current personnel. Can't see Hemmings functioning effectively as a lone striker, Mumbongo even less likely, so Saunders probably the better candidate, although given his inability to get off the mark in a more conventional role, perhaps the wrong time to ask him to try.

433 seems like the best switch to look at. It seems that there are enough players capable of filling the midfield three, though the front three would be harder to blend

Finally Micky. It's not known how big a role he had in the summer recruitment, so can cut him some slack on that. However I don't accept that it was only going to be minor adjustments from last season, ideally we needed a keeper, left-back central defenders, midfielders and a striker. The financial reality was we needed to switch to a development model and there's already been some gain with the January window. Losing JDC in the summer is the last of a line of players like Ihiekwe Cook and Norwood. However in the January window, Micky was the one controlling the player movements, subject to budget constraints, so he has to own those decisions such as not replacing Doohan and concentrating on midfield recruiting when our defence had been depleted to the extent appearance for Jameson are inevitable.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

However in the January window, Micky was the one controlling the player movements, subject to budget constraints, so he has to own those decisions such as not replacing Doohan and concentrating on midfield recruiting when our defence had been depleted to the extent appearance for Jameson are inevitable.

I think the club as a whole 'owns' those decisions, not any one individual. For example, Mellon rated Doohan and would not have wanted to lose him if he had the choice. Nor would he have wanted us to be weakened defensively. However, if the necessary strengthening was to happen in other parts of the pitch, we had to sell players. So the decisions were driven by finances, not just Mellon's preferences.

Similarly, it is clear that we tried and failed to sign strikers like Matt, Stevens and the lad from Ireland before alighting on Saunders, so the players we brought in were not necessarily Mellon's first choices.

I don't think trying to scapegoat individuals for the problems with recruitment gets us anywhere. The club as a whole, from the top down, needs to do better in that regard, and until finances improve the recruitment probably won't improve.

 

[Boz]

I think the club as a whole 'owns' those decisions, not any one individual. For example, Mellon rated Doohan and would not have wanted to lose him if he had the choice. Nor would he have wanted us to be weakened defensively. However, if the necessary strengthening was to happen in other parts of the pitch, we had to sell players. So the decisions were driven by finances, not just Mellon's preferences.

Similarly, it is clear that we tried and failed to sign strikers like Matt, Stevens and the lad from Ireland before alighting on Saunders, so the players we brought in were not necessarily Mellon's first choices.

I don't think trying to scapegoat individuals for the problems with recruitment gets us anywhere. The club as a whole, from the top down, needs to do better in that regard, and until finances improve the recruitment probably won't improve.

If Micky had insisted that we replaced Doohan, for example with the Everton loanee at Chester, with the parent club apparently willing, it would happen. If Micky had looked at the defence, realised that because of Simeu and Byrne departing, we were one injury/ban away from needing to use Kyle Jameson and been unhappy with that, he could have prioritised bringing in another defender. I'd not mentioned strikers in my previous post, because not disputing what is said although apparently we'd been interested in Saunders last summer. If we'd just brought in a young keeper and young defender instead of Chalmers and Turner-Cooke the squad would arguably look more balanced.

I don't think scapegoating gets us anywhere either, but some of the irritating remarks earlier on this thread were of the "poor Micky, having to work with all these players he didn't want variety", whereas my feeling is some of his choices have contributed to our current difficulties with the squad.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

If Micky had insisted that we replaced Doohan, for example with the Everton loanee at Chester, with the parent club apparently willing, it would happen. If Micky had looked at the defence, realised that because of Simeu and Byrne departing, we were one injury/ban away from needing to use Kyle Jameson and been unhappy with that, he could have prioritised bringing in another defender. I'd not mentioned strikers in my previous post, because not disputing what is said although apparently we'd been interested in Saunders last summer. If we'd just brought in a young keeper and young defender instead of Chalmers and Turner-Cooke the squad would arguably look more balanced.

I don't think scapegoating gets us anywhere either, but some of the irritating remarks earlier on this thread were of the "poor Micky, having to work with all these players he didn't want variety", whereas my feeling is some of his choices have contributed to our current difficulties with the squad.

If Mellon is forced to sell players in one part of the team to finance essential signings elsewhere, how can he possibly guarantee a balanced squad ? The problem is we simply don't have the resources for a squad that is strong in all areas.

The world and his wife knew we needed another striker and more creativity in midfield to stand any chance of progress up the table, so if Mellon had failed to address those areas he would have been castigated. He had no alternative but to release defenders to finance the creative signings.

You can't separate the club's financial situation from the manager's transfer decisions. They are intrinsically linked,

 

[Boz]

If Mellon is forced to sell players in one part of the team to finance essential signings elsewhere, how can he possibly guarantee a balanced squad ? The problem is we simply don't have the resources for a squad that is strong in all areas.

The world and his wife knew we needed another striker and more creativity in midfield to stand any chance of progress up the table, so if Mellon had failed to address those areas he would have been castigated. He had no alternative but to release defenders to finance the creative signings.

You can't separate the club's financial situation from the manager's transfer decisions. They are intrinsically linked,

My previous post suggested just by changing the areas in which we loaned youngsters, the squad becomes more balanced, it doesn’t affect the financial position.

There was scant evidence of any midfield creativity in the Mansfield game and 3 unused midfielders stuck on the bench. Nolan is supposed to be an attacking midfielder and Merrie can break up play and initiate attacking moves, so when Hendry was getting overwhelmed, why not use the options to make a change?

I accept that MM is out of his comfort zone with the development player project and hasn’t got the squad he would choose. I do not share the view that he bears minimal responsibility for the last two poor performances though.