Will bow to those that were there but is it possible that it was as much fatigue than lethargy or disinterest?
Possibly. But this time last season we went to Gateshead and played a side of a similar standard and did not play particularly well, but had the character and quality to grind out a result. We did not today and The Heed are exactly the kind of side you have to beat to mount a serious promotion challenge.
I think Banks did ok today: showed some nice touches but was clearly lacking match sharpness. However, the centre of midfield was a real problem for us. Without Hughes and Harris we did not rotate the ball enough, playing the simple ten yard passes that move players around and create space. Everything was hit long or was simply disjointed and Norburn did not look remotely fit to me.
Elsewhere, several other players were below par. Cook was well marshalled by Dominic Fyfield, the Heed's best player, and looked off the pace: Norwood worked hard but lacked quality on the number of occasions that he got into good areas; Ridehalgh's delivery was poor; DMH was out of sorts. As CK says, fatigue may have played a role in all of the poor individual performances. Gateshead were well organised defensively, but if our attacking play had been anywhere near the quality of recent games we would have opened them up far more than we did.
There were some positives. The back four were solid, with both centre backs and Buxton impressive. The goal was harsh on Sutton, as the real failings in the performance were higher up the pitch. If you fail to get control of the game and test the opposition, you always risk a sucker punch like we had today. I also thought Cole had a good game, looking a lot fitter than in previous matches and creating, before ultimately missing, our best chance of the match.
We are still only five points off the play-offs and all is not lost just yet, but we need a major response in the next two matches.