yoevil v rovers

8 Sep 2009
1,983
141
63
Player
Chris Greenacre
#23
Well a draw isn’t a bad result and a clean sheet. Sums up part of our season so far by the sounds of it. Solid but not creating too much.

Oh and another daft booking for Nors

Still it’s a decent result overall. Await any reports.
 
15 Mar 2010
5,369
464
83
Player
Jason Koumas
#26
Well a draw isn’t a bad result and a clean sheet. Sums up part of our season so far by the sounds of it. Solid but not creating too much.

Oh and another daft booking for Nors

Still it’s a decent result overall. Await any reports.
In Norwood's defence, the ref was an absolute clown and gave him nothing all game. It is no wonder he got frustrated.
 
5 Dec 2015
683
118
43
Player
Bobby Hutchinson
#28
Way said: "They came here for a point and they had chance at the end and that’s what they’ve done to teams
.
Pity Nors didn't score that one on one.
He could have really moaned then.
 

Boz

Member
30 Sep 2005
4,673
133
63
Player
Iain Hume
#29
It didn't sound like we created much, aside from Norwood's miss at the death. After we get the potentially more challenging trip to Forest Green out of the way, it might be time for Micky to look at ways of getting Akammadu on the bench.
 

Ian

Super White!
21 Sep 2005
6,626
219
63
Player
Aldo
#30
Norwood actually had two decent chances towards the end and he’ll be disappointed with both efforts. The first where he tries to side foot it over the keeper but doesn’t get it off the floor and the second just lacked any power.

But not wanting to harp on too much about Norwood who was only one of XI out there, when he does have a lean spell, we need others to step up.

Like RLC says, Yeovil were disappointing and we should have beaten them but the game just lacked chances at both ends.
 
Last edited:
15 Mar 2010
5,369
464
83
Player
Jason Koumas
#31
I was disappointed we did not win a game I thought was there for the taking. Once we settled, it was clear we had more quality in midfield than Yeovil and some of our passing moves were very good. However, we were let down by our final ball, and by tactics which probably hindered us against a limited side. When your best chance comes in the 96th minute, you know you have not really done enough to merit a victory.

I don't think the 451 works for us against average teams. Gilmour was hardly involved in the game today and at times it felt he was completely superfluous; Banks and McCullough could have coped fine without him. By contrast, Norwood was too isolated up front until the introduction of Mullin. Much of the game at this level is about anticipating and winning second-balls; often today Norwood would win the first header but there was nobody within thirty yards of him to pick up the scraps. I think he is becoming frustrated by the lack of support, which partly explains the couple of misses Ian refers to above.

In the first twenty minutes our play was quite disjointed, with too many long balls played up to Nors which he could not hold on to, with the result that possession was gifted to the opposition too cheaply. However, midway through the first half the midfield settled and from that point onwards I thought Banks, McCullough Jennings and Smith were excellent. On a number of occasions good approach play resulted in a ball whipped into the box which we did not attack because Norwood was too isolated (see above re. formation). By contrast, the hosts offered next to nothing in open play. Their front players were lively, but the majority of their pressure resulted from a succession of free kicks gifted to them by a referee, most of whose decisions were mystifying. However, we dealt with the set plays quite comfortably.

In addition to the midfielders mentioned above, I thought both centre backs were excellent and Davies did not really have a save to make in ninety minutes. However, my man of the match is Jonny Smith, who was involved in all of our best moves.

We have picked up another point on the road and I should not be too critical, but today's game does feel like an opportunity missed, with some much tougher fixtures to come in the next couple of weeks.

On to The New Lawn.
 
Likes: ONIGP and Ian

Ian

Super White!
21 Sep 2005
6,626
219
63
Player
Aldo
#32
Excellent analysis of the 451 RLC and agree completely. We know the 451 works when we need control of the game but against poorer opposition not so. I’m surprised MM did not make changes sooner to give Norwood who like you say was getting more frustrated as the game went on a bit more support.

The Stockton / Norwood pairing would have worked well here.
 
29 Jul 2009
1,881
34
48
Player
Ian Muir
#33
It didn't sound like we created much, aside from Norwood's miss at the death. After we get the potentially more challenging trip to Forest Green out of the way, it might be time for Micky to look at ways of getting Akammadu on the bench.
Part of our problem is we currently have no "homegrown" classed players in our squad so can only name 6 subs and it appears all of the other loans have to be involved or we pay more of their wages
 
28 Feb 2018
102
52
28
Player
Eddie Bishop
#34
Thanks for the reports and views. It was probably a good one to miss, although an away point is not to be sneezed at. Saw the rather dismissive highlights on Quest earlier which only showed a Norwood half chance and a decent tip over by Davies. It doesn't sound like it was particularly reflective of the game and I really hope that the reporter didn't get paid for such a pathetic non-report!
 

Boz

Member
30 Sep 2005
4,673
133
63
Player
Iain Hume
#35
Part of our problem is we currently have no "homegrown" classed players in our squad so can only name 6 subs and it appears all of the other loans have to be involved or we pay more of their wages
I understand this. It was unfortunate that when Norburn left, we did not have funding to bring in another central midfielder on contract and Harris' sending-off at Swindon, forced the issue to ensure McCullough came in to provide cover. If we're penalised for not using loan players by the terms of their loan, then we need to bring in players more sparingly. DMH in the context of who we already had available was debatable, even more so now that he has been unable to recapture last season's form/perform at a higher level.

What happens to clubs who haven't had an academy for a long time, are they only allowed to use 6 subs throughout the season? Micky was initially putting Spellman on the bench and I think Long also there once, so why has this stopped? Surely better for their development to travel and work with the first team, plus if we're comfortably winning, a good time to introduce them for a few minutes.

Going back to my original point, Akammadu is a loan player, but given he's featuring so rarely, even on the bench, either we don't have to pay for his absence or his parent club are doing well out of the deal. I'm guesssing that Stockton is going to be out of the picture for the next month or so, Norwood is getting frustrated being so isolated and doesn't function well with Mullin as a forward pair. I haven't seen Franklyn in action yet, so don't know if he could fulfil a Stockton role, but if he is capable, surely worth a place on the bench, probably at the expense of Cole, assuming DMH must be amongst the subs.
 
15 Mar 2010
5,369
464
83
Player
Jason Koumas
#37
Micky was initially putting Spellman on the bench and I think Long also there once, so why has this stopped?
Because they are not doing well enough at the moment to be selected. Mellon has explained this at length in his interviews: he only wants to put youngsters on the bench on merit, not to make up the numbers. He thinks it is bad for the development of the youngsters to include them in the squad when they know they are not performing well enough to deserve it, and are there just to fill a quota, and bad for squad morale as other players - including the senior ones - know they have been left out for political reasons when their performances have deserved inclusion. I know exactly where he is coming from.

Mullin and Norwood worked ok together in the second half yesterday. If Franklin is not doing well enough to merit a place in the squad, we have to make do until Stockton returns. We have limited finances and squad numbers.

I agree about DMH but he is probably the only bad signing we have made of all of the current crop of loanees.
 
15 Mar 2010
5,369
464
83
Player
Jason Koumas
#38
If we're penalised for not using loan players by the terms of their loan, then we need to bring in players more sparingly. .
Even if it leaves big gaps in the squad, given the financial constraints (cf. McCullough, Smith) ? Our budget is similar to most clubs at this level, so we are all in the same boat.

DMH is the only unnecessary loan I can think of (Franklin was just a wild-card signing, which may or may not work out).
 

Boz

Member
30 Sep 2005
4,673
133
63
Player
Iain Hume
#39
Because they are not doing well enough at the moment to be selected. Mellon has explained this at length in his interviews: he only wants to put youngsters on the bench on merit, not to make up the numbers. He thinks it is bad for the development of the youngsters to include them in the squad when they know they are not performing well enough to deserve it, and are there just to fill a quota, and bad for squad morale as other players - including the senior ones - know they have been left out for political reasons when their performances have deserved inclusion. I know exactly where he is coming from.

Mullin and Norwood worked ok together in the second half yesterday. If Franklin is not doing well enough to merit a place in the squad, we have to make do until Stockton returns. We have limited finances and squad numbers.

I agree about DMH but he is probably the only bad signing we have made of all of the current crop of loanees.
A young player would not be keeping out a senior player for political reasons though, as under the rules, if the youngster doesn't get the place then nobody does. I would have thought that it was worse for morale for a senior player who deserves inclusion to be left out because of economic reasons forcing us to select a loanee who doesn't deserve a place. The only senior player out at present is Tollitt, who MM doesn't think deserves a place. It is also worrying that the youngsters have gone so far backward since the start of the season. It would be interesting to know Micky's thoughts on why this is and the positive steps being taken to improve their game to get them back in contention.

George would also fall into the bad loan signing category for me.

If Norwood and Mullin can function effectively together as a pair, then that would be the best solution until Stockton is ready. Akammadu apparently did ok in the Morecambe game when he came on and nobody bar Buxton came out of Shrewsbury with much credit, so wouldn't expect MM to have disregarded him just on that basis. I don't know if he can play a Stockton role, but if he could then arguably merits considering for a place on the bench as Mullin and Cole, decent players though they are can't fulfill that role.
 
15 Mar 2010
5,369
464
83
Player
Jason Koumas
#40
It is also worrying that the youngsters have gone so far backward since the start of the season. It would be interesting to know Micky's thoughts on why this is and the positive steps being taken to improve their game to get them back in contention.
I would suggest you address your concerns to Andy Parkinson, as Mellon is not responsible for coaching the young players. I daresay youngsters come in and out of form, and have positive and negative periods, as with any other player. However, given that we no longer have an academy and youth development is no longer a top priority of the club, perhaps you need to make your own expectations more realistic ?