League Two Rovers v Sutton

[ONIGP]

They were a better collective but they are not more talented individuals.

Absolutely. But it is only the collective that matters.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

Absolutely. But it is only the collective that matters.

Indeed, but the original comment was about the quality of the squad, which I don't think is as bad as some suggest.

 

[ONIGP]

So disappointed today! We are comfortable until the final third then clueless. We could have been 3 down at half time. Morris was our best player for the first 58 minutes and was hooked. Clarke is a good defender but not a footballer and paid for the sin of pride by not hoofing the ball out of play; he is experienced enough to know better and ultimately cost us a point. I didn't see the Pizza game but from reports I don't understand why Glatzel and Maynard weren't brought on together for Nevitt and Feeney towards the end. I have appreciated Nevitt's efforts but he was poor today (yesterday) winning very little. We do have some talented individuals which makes today's result all the more frustrating. Sutton were nothing special but showed more desire to win which is gut-wrenching. Is it not a tad early for MM to be playing the his annual "look how weak we are, get out the cheque book Mark" card?

 

[ADD]

We appear to be in 2 parellel universes right now. Parallel universe 1 it's all Beck's and MP's fault re recruitment but then we ask each week how many of the other team's players would make our team and the answer seems to be not many but we ignore this evidence and absolve MM of any blame.
Parallel universe 2 is when we play enterprising attacking football with our squad players in the EFL, we all state how well they are playing and how much more productive we are playing like that whilst we finish top of our group unbeaten and then a League game comes and we switch back to the parellel universe where we ignore all of that and stick with a formation and team that is joint worst in the League for goals scored. Baffling!
Couldn't watch the game yesterday but from the extended highlights we deserved to lose. They hit the post, Clarkey hacked one of the line and they scored - we had one weak shot from McManaman on target - that was that. Commentator said it all team with fewest passes in the League playing the team with most passes in the League. Simply not acceptable in my book - one shot on target at home with 65% possession.
MM very defensive and well he might be in his post match interview accusing the interviewer of Captain Hindsight when he asked why Glatzel did not start. Also MM pretty much absolved himself of blame and blamed the players despite saying he wasn't doing that - remind us of anyone last season?
Talk of MM losing his job is of course nonsense - no way that will happen anytime soon but I do feel he needs to question his tactics and his mentality and sort things soon before crowds drop off a cliff and also before we are too far away from the play offs. Hawkes coming back may be the catalyst to do that but we should be good enough to do far better than this even without him.

 

[aldoes mustache]

at the end of the day, we are too slow in centre mid with old farts being outplayed by younger men, and when the ball is played over the top like yesterday and the old backline is run at by younger men they can't keep up with it, I am fearing we are going to take a pasting soon as this has been happening a lot over the last few weeks and with bristol and Bradford coming up with the way we are playing if you can call it that cant see where the next goal or win is coming from, I like Nevitt, but for me, he is not a forward who looks like he is going to score and think its time to get him on the bench, just glad work is stopping me watching it at the Moment

 

[Goody Two Shoes]

Is the rating of individual players based on your Match Attax collection RLC
Not aware of any other yardstick based on the here and now unless it’s based on past exploits, reputation or “potential”, which doesn’t win you games.
Even without Clarke’s error, they were still more penetrative than us up front, defensively very solid and looked decent enough in midfield too. If we’re saying they’re less talented than us individually, then maybe the issue lies with the managers; one got the best out of a team of supposedly inferior individuals, whilst one failed to deliver with a team of supposedly superior individuals; which begs the question, did we make a bang average side look half-decent.
Either way, another disappointing day at the office and I think we’re all entitled to have a gripe.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

We appear to be in 2 parellel universes right now. Parallel universe 1 it's all Beck's and MP's fault re recruitment but then we ask each week how many of the other team's players would make our team and the answer seems to be not many but we ignore this evidence and absolve MM of any blame.
Parallel universe 2 is when we play enterprising attacking football with our squad players in the EFL, we all state how well they are playing and how much more productive we are playing like that whilst we finish top of our group unbeaten and then a League game comes and we switch back to the parellel universe where we ignore all of that and stick with a formation and team that is joint worst in the League for goals scored. Baffling!
Couldn't watch the game yesterday but from the extended highlights we deserved to lose. They hit the post, Clarkey hacked one of the line and they scored - we had one weak shot from McManaman on target - that was that. Commentator said it all team with fewest passes in the League playing the team with most passes in the League. Simply not acceptable in my book - one shot on target at home with 65% possession.
MM very defensive and well he might be in his post match interview accusing the interviewer of Captain Hindsight when he asked why Glatzel did not start. Also MM pretty much absolved himself of blame and blamed the players despite saying he wasn't doing that - remind us of anyone last season?
Talk of MM losing his job is of course nonsense - no way that will happen anytime soon but I do feel he needs to question his tactics and his mentality and sort things soon before crowds drop off a cliff and also before we are too far away from the play offs. Hawkes coming back may be the catalyst to do that but we should be good enough to do far better than this even without him.

The general squad strength is reasonable but the strikers are inadequate and there is a lack of pace and that makes it very difficult to create a winning formula.

I am not sure how relevant games in the Micky Mouse Trophy are compared to competitive football.

 

[Ian]

There is also too much negativity in the play. All this passing sideways and backwards then we get it over the halfway line and it breaks down. 10-men defending a corner with no one up top.

Our passing game seems to have gone too. We used to control possession (not so long ago) spray it around and generally look good to watch.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

Is it not a tad early for MM to be playing the his annual "look how weak we are, get out the cheque book Mark" card?

I think there is something in this. Maynard arrived on deadline day and was our nth choice striker after we had missed out on numerous other targets. Because of that Mellon seems unwilling to use him, but he still seems the most likely of the forwards to score on a semi-regular basis.

Mellon does not seem to trust a number of players who may or may not have been his signings, and that comes back again to the recruitment strategy, or lack of one.

More broadly, if we are heading for a mid table season I would rather we took off the shackles and had a go at teams at Prenton Park, even if it means a pattern of win one, lose one.

 

[Sparky]

Interesting post match comments from the Sutton manager

"Some people look at Possession stats but I'm not about that at all I don't look at that, for me you wanna go and try and score goals and to score goals you need to create chances and the only other stat I look at other than goals is how many chances we've created"

 

[Keith Hill (Bolton)]

The general squad strength is reasonable but the strikers are inadequate and there is a lack of pace and that makes it very difficult to create a winning formula.

I am not sure how relevant games in the Micky Mouse Trophy are compared to competitive football.

We have a few individuals, who we are relying on!
When this doesn't happen and dont score, we are very susceptible to concede.
I really cant see how you justify backing this group of very poor, 'cheap reject oaps!'

 

[Charlton1975]

It is worrying if this first 11 is the team that Micky trusts, and the squad players he feels are not up to their standard. Makes a complete mockery of some saying that we have a strong squad.

Surely its time to give others a chance, rather than letting the likes of Macmanaman and Feeney continue to put in 4 out of 10 performances week in week out.

 

[Boz]

I don't think Clarke and Spearing should be first names on the team-sheet and automatic starters every game either. Though Spearing is apparently banned next game after picking up 5 bookings, so maybe his absence will show how badly he's missed either.

I'll also raise the goalkeeper question again. Doohan was mostly ok yesterday, stayed on his line a bit much and kicked the ball straight out in added time, when we needed better. However, he did seem to get a few verbal bashings from Clarke, which may have dented his confidence. I doubt that would happen with Murphy, so maybe time to bring back Joe. It's surprising that MMs love for older players doesn't seem to extend to our best keeper.

 

[Ian]

I agree about Joe being our best keeper but you have to remember he primarily came in as backup and that's probably what he wants. He's certainly not getting any younger and I don't think he envisaged playing as many games. I also think Micky has a soft spot for Doohan and as an up and coming keeper wants to give him game time. We have bigger problems to address anyway.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

I agree about Joe being our best keeper but you have to remember he primarily came in as backup and that's probably what he wants. He's certainly not getting any younger and I don't think he envisaged playing as many games. I also think Micky has a soft spot for Doohan and as an up and coming keeper wants to give him game time. We have bigger problems to address anyway.

A number of people castigate Mellon on a regular basis for not giving opportunities to young players, and when he backs a young player he is criticised.....

 

[Boz]

I agree about Joe being our best keeper but you have to remember he primarily came in as backup and that's probably what he wants. He's certainly not getting any younger and I don't think he envisaged playing as many games. I also think Micky has a soft spot for Doohan and as an up and coming keeper wants to give him game time. We have bigger problems to address anyway.

Mostly agree Ian. However, as we're currently playing a system which requires reliable defending to get a result and it seems our most experienced defender has some concerns about how Ross is coping from the amount of verbals directed towards him yesterday, perhaps there is a case for taking him out of the firing line. It can't be building his confidence up.

A number of people castigate Mellon on a regular basis for not giving opportunities to young players, and when he backs a young player he is criticised.....

At the risk of re-treading old ground, I don't understand why you're so negative about Murphy to the extent of suggesting his MoM awards earlier in the season were fortunate because the attackers he faced were poor. The reality is that neither Doohan/Murphy are likely to be around at Rovers next season, so we should be picking the best option for the present. We're entitled to differ on who that is.

 

[Sparky]

I don’t think we need to worry too much about the keeper, or the back 4. Yes Clarke has looked a bit rusty of late plus Tom Davies has been dropped of course. But our defensive record is still pretty decent and the obvious issues are scoring goals.

That is where the focus needs to be and how many chances MM will give the likes of mcmamanan and Feeney who have both been disappointing overall

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

At the risk of re-treading old ground, I don't understand why you're so negative about Murphy to the extent of suggesting his MoM awards earlier in the season were fortunate because the attackers he faced were poor.

I never suggested any such thing. Please don't deliberately misquote me.

I said our good defensive record was down to the performance of the back four, not solely Murphy.

I am not anti-Murphy at all. I am pro Doohan and the manager's support of him.

 

[Boz]

I never suggested any such thing. Please don't deliberately misquote me.

I said our good defensive record was down to the performance of the back four, not solely Murphy.

I am not anti-Murphy at all. I am pro Doohan and the manager's support of him.

I didn't quote you, but having looked back at the threads it's fair to say that the thrust of your argument on this issue was the general high quality of our defending at that time, so I'm sorry to have misrepresented you.

 

[bring back the cowshed!]

The reality is that neither Doohan/Murphy are likely to be around at Rovers next season, so we should be picking the best option for the present. We're entitled to differ on who that is.

I agree that Murphy is likely to retire next summer, but I think Doohan might sign for us permanently. He is well down the pecking order at Celtic and at his age will be desperate for first-team experience. I'd be surprised if we can't afford him, but we may have competition from other clubs. It may depend ultimately on his family/girlfriend situation.