Friendly Pre season friendlies

[Sparky]

1-0 . Hemmings heads in a Bristow cross. Triallist playing right of a back 3

 

[Sparky]

Norwood is here. I can see him sitting with Vaughan and James Wallace

 

[bigmart]

Trialist off Injured, we've certainly had more than our fair share of injuries already

 

[bring back the cowshed!]

Two in four minutes for the visitors. Not looking good, but at least a few fringe players have had a run out.

 

[Ian]

Not really that bothered about the performance or result but what looks like our strong and weak areas?

 

[Higgy]

Norwood is here. I can see him sitting with Vaughan and James Wallace

That's a turn up.
Tbh I was hoping for Glazel and cross fingers he stayed fit.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

It got a bit ragged towards the end when the youngsters came on and we had players out of position, but for sixty or seventy minutes it was another encouraging display. We looked sharp and fit and matched the opposition.

I thought O'Connor and Byrne were excellent, with the latter reading the game well and looking a real leader in the centre of the back three. Bristow impressed again and got the assist for the goal. If we keep hold of Cogley, I think the two wing backs will make a real impact in League Two this season.

Of the newcomers, I thought Jameson looked ok and was quite composed on the ball. The Forest trialist was decent in possession, but I was not convinced by him defensively. His positioning was awry at times and he did not seem happy playing in a back three. However, it is difficult to judge on one appearance.

Nevitt ran the channels well and worked hard, but I think we are going to need more up front. Hemmings is the only striker we have that anticipates things in the box, as he did for his goal tonight, and we can't afford to be too reliant on him.

Another decent display and a draw would have been a better reflection of the ninety minutes.

 

[Sparky]

Agree with a lot of RLCs points. Byrne made a number of good interceptions and blocks. Bristow looked dangerous down the left. I was pleasantly surprised by Jameson who gave us balance on the left of the back 3. The trialist didn’t convince me and it looked like a hamstring so he’ll likely be gone.

OConnor had a good game. Nevitt as ever worked his socks off but doesn’t look like scoring. He had a good chance early on but had to hit it first time but took a touch and the defender got a block. We definitely need another striker in. Hopefully not an unproven youngster or someone mid 30s.

RLC - what did you think of Mclear and Nolan? The latter again didn’t look particularly mobile or effective . Mclear worked hard but I’m not convinced yet. He looked quite inexperienced.

We have a lot of midfield options but if the season started tomorrow I’m guessing it would be a midfield 3 of OConnor, Lewis and Hawkes behind the front two.

I think hearts edged it but late on brought on their big guns like Boyce whereas we made a lot of changes and had some youngsters on.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

Agree with a lot of RLCs points. Byrne made a number of good interceptions and blocks. Bristow looked dangerous down the left. I was pleasantly surprised by Jameson who gave us balance on the left of the back 3. The trialist didn’t convince me and it looked like a hamstring so he’ll likely be gone.

OConnor had a good game. Nevitt as ever worked his socks off but doesn’t look like scoring. He had a good chance early on but had to hit it first time but took a touch and the defender got a block. We definitely need another striker in. Hopefully not an unproven youngster or someone mid 30s.

RLC - what did you think of Mclear and Nolan? The latter again didn’t look particularly mobile or effective . Mclear worked hard but I’m not convinced yet. He looked quite inexperienced.

We have a lot of midfield options but if the season started tomorrow I’m guessing it would be a midfield 3 of OConnor, Lewis and Hawkes behind the front two.

I think hearts edged it but late on brought on their big guns like Boyce whereas we made a lot of changes and had some youngsters on.

I agree about McAlear and Nolan. I just wonder whether Nolan will be fit enough to get around the pitch. He is clearly a decent player, but in League Two you need the legs to get up and down and I worry that he has sat very deep in the two games I have seen.

McAlear was quiet again, but did show some nice touches. However, I agree that he needs to get more involved. In any event, we have got plenty of options in midfield.

I agree that O'Connor and Hawkes are certain starters, but I think Micky might prefer McAlear to Lewis.

 

[Sparky]

I could hear Micky shouting at mclear quite a bit to get in pockets to find space. Maybe he just needs educating a bit which will come with time.

Hemmings wore the armband again so wonder if he has it.

With Davies missing again I was thinking before kick off that we could start the season with only cogley from last seasons back 4 which overall had a very good defensive record. After tonight I I’m more optimistic but we need another striker in

 

[Boz]

It didn't read from the very brief twitter updates as though Rovers were spurning lots of chances. While Nevitt may not have the anticipation of Hemmings and we need another striker for sure, perhaps we're still missing the pacey wide-player in the Omari Patrick mould? I would be uncomfortable with a heavy dependence on our wing-backs for chances, despite their obvious ability and pace.

Rovers twitter also says nothing about the two Hearts goals. I understand our shuffling the playing staff may have contributed, but it would be interesting to hear how they came about and whether we could have defended them better.

Hoping to get to Southport on Saturday and see some of the additions in the flesh.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

The wing backs will create plenty of chances for a striker in the mould of Hemmings, who knows when and where to be in the box. For all his other attributes, Nevitt is not that kind of player. We also missed two sitters tonight from good set plays by McAlear and Hawkes.

A heavy dependence on wing backs did not do Forest Green any harm last season, but crucially they had two prolific strikers to feed.

The Hearts goals were scored when we had Hughes at right wing back and Cogley and Merrie at centre half, with a number of youngsters elsewhere on the pitch. It is not worth dwelling too much on the final twenty minutes, as the line up was such a mish-mash, but we looked very solid with a regular defensive line up, and Hearts had barely troubled us in the first half.

 

[O4anotherplayoff]

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

It didn't read from the very brief twitter updates as though Rovers were spurning lots of chances.

We did miss chances, as Sparky referenced above. However, strikers have to make chances through their own movement and anticipation. A midfielder or wing back can not supply a ball to thin air.

 

[Boz]

We did miss chances, as Sparky referenced above. However, strikers have to make chances through their own movement and anticipation. A midfielder or wing back can not supply a ball to thin air.

Sparky initially mentioned one chance for Nevitt, you in your first reply above mention a couple of sitters missed and the club twitter suggested a handful of Rovers goal attempts. While movement and anticipation from the forward undoubtedly improves things and it's hard to evaluate from brief reports and tweets along with the highlights Notanotherplayoff has kindly linked, my impression remains that Rovers chances were not that abundant in this game.

I have concerns about a reliance on wing-backs and intuitive strikers to be our main source of goals. It doesn't seem either that we have (m)any options at right wing-back if Cogley's unavailable; Hughes doesn't seem to be comfortable there, so there is a need to recruit another full-back/winger for cover, if it's the preferred system.

From the highlights, the Rovers goal was well-worked and finished. Doohan might feel he could have done better with the Hearts leveller, though it looked like he had a decent game and there was a total switch-off for their winner, though the personnel changes and players deployed out of position are likely to have been a factor as you identify.

 

[Sparky]

I’ve not watched the highlights yet boz but at the time I said to the chap next to me I wondered if Doohan could have kept the first one out although there were some bodies in either way so he may have seen it late. I’ll have another look.

We did create chances last night but few in the second period. Hearts brought on their big players and we made all sorts of changes so they had the majority of the play, although I think it was Hockenhull who missed a sitter at the kop end heading over a Hawkes free kick

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

Sparky initially mentioned one chance for Nevitt, you in your first reply above mention a couple of sitters missed and the club twitter suggested a handful of Rovers goal attempts. While movement and anticipation from the forward undoubtedly improves things and it's hard to evaluate from brief reports and tweets along with the highlights Notanotherplayoff has kindly linked, my impression remains that Rovers chances were not that abundant in this game.

I have concerns about a reliance on wing-backs and intuitive strikers to be our main source of goals. It doesn't seem either that we have (m)any options at right wing-back if Cogley's unavailable; Hughes doesn't seem to be comfortable there, so there is a need to recruit another full-back/winger for cover, if it's the preferred system.

From the highlights, the Rovers goal was well-worked and finished. Doohan might feel he could have done better with the Hearts leveller, though it looked like he had a decent game and there was a total switch-off for their winner, though the personnel changes and players deployed out of position are likely to have been a factor as you identify.

We were playing a side that finished third in the SPL last season so we were not going to be peppering their goal. However, we did create and we do have more creativity in the side this season with the addition of Nolan and McAlear, two mobile wing backs, and Morris or Hawkes playing centrally. However, I don't think it is outrageous to suggest we need another decent striker, as we cannot rely on Hemmings and Nevitt over forty six games, with the latter unlikely to be prolific.

 

[Boz]

Thanks Sparky. There are some OTT comments elsewhere about it being a Doohan howler, he clearly saw it late and suggestion of a deflection.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

Sparky initially mentioned one chance for Nevitt, you in your first reply above mention a couple of sitters missed and the club twitter suggested a handful of Rovers goal attempts. While movement and anticipation from the forward undoubtedly improves things and it's hard to evaluate from brief reports and tweets along with the highlights Notanotherplayoff has kindly linked, my impression remains that Rovers chances were not that abundant in this game.

I have concerns about a reliance on wing-backs and intuitive strikers to be our main source of goals. It doesn't seem either that we have (m)any options at right wing-back if Cogley's unavailable; Hughes doesn't seem to be comfortable there, so there is a need to recruit another full-back/winger for cover, if it's the preferred system.

From the highlights, the Rovers goal was well-worked and finished. Doohan might feel he could have done better with the Hearts leveller, though it looked like he had a decent game and there was a total switch-off for their winner, though the personnel changes and players deployed out of position are likely to have been a factor as you identify.

Re. the reliance on wing backs, Cadden and Wilson created more goals than any pair of wingers in League Two last season, so that system can absolutely be creative and effective if used well. I did not suggest we do not need any further bodies, including a wide man to give us the option of switching to 442 if necessary. Port Vale and Exeter also played 352 all season and won promotion.

The first Hearts goal came through bodies so Doohan was unsighted, as well as taking a big deflection.

 

[ADD]

Thanks for posting the highlights Notanother.. It looked like the game was played at pace and we looked fit. We created a good few chances with on another day a couple of headers that would at least have been on target rather than way over. Overall not unexpectedly they looked the better side from the highlights but we looked to be playing with purpose and I agree Bristow at this level will likely be very strong for us. Is crying out for a fully fit Glatzel or a Glatzel like player alongside Hemmings and we will score plenty. Byrne looked good with a couple of excellent blocks.
Doohan I agree with Boz I thought he probably should have done better than he did for the first - on the highlights if there is a deflection which I can't see from the video it isn't a big one. That said he made an excellent save later but I would have liked to see Hewelt given 45. Poor defending for the second.
Overall from the highlights it looked like a good performance and IF Cogley stays and IF we get in another striker I think we will certainly be able to be competitive whilst also being far more attacking in our outlook than last year which will be great to watch.