Shrews v Rovers

[Boz]

A difficult game up next against the Salopians, with their large squad. Plenty of Rovers connections, with boss Mellon and think Michael Jackson's still on the coaching staff. Their squad features Akpa Akpro and Robinson, along with Grandison, who was on loan to us during the Les era.

It will be interesting to see how we line up and what lessons Rob has learned from the first two games. It sounds like we will be playing a similar formation be it home or away. I'm not wholly convinced of the wisdom of that. Assuming Holness remains unfit, I'd expect an unchanged back four from the Forest game. Thereafter things get more uncertain... Shrewsbury apparently use width quite a lot, so the full-backs will need protection. Maybe a case for deploying Kirby, if he's over his back problems, as that's one area he's good at. Can't see Baggie or Bruna doing this much and even Koumas isn't that hot at covering the defenders. Gill and Rowe/Power in the centre. Up front, probably Odejayi to start, but hopefully if Richards plays it will be more as a forward than on the wing, leaving the striker isolated.

Prediction: There should be a good turnout of Rovers at the Greenhous, 700-800 would be my guess. However the home side will prove too strong and run out winners 3-1.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

A big test for us against one of the fancied teams in League Two, with an imposing forward line of Collins and Vernon. I would imagine that most of the starters on Tuesday will keep their places, perhaps including Baggie who had a decent game.

I too am unsure of the 4-5-1 system, as a team without a proven goalscorer - a Collins or Lowe - really needs to get more men in the box than we are at present. Odejayi is better able to play the lone striker role than Stockton, but has a very poor scoring record and the front player perhaps most likely to get on the scoresheet, Richards, is stuck out wide at present and has had very few chances in the two games we have played.

Given the positivity around the club at the moment I think our following might top 1,000. A game I would be happy to take a point from.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

Whatever the changes on and off the pitch in recent weeks, it is reassuring to know that Rovers can still ruin your weekend. For ninety minutes I thought we were the better side, quite comfortable defensively and set for a deserved victory. However, the immense effort we put into the game came to nothing in a suicidal last five minutes. If you are winning a game with ninety minutes on the clock, you should not lose the game, whatever the circumstances.

I was surprised at the absence of many of our creative players from the starting line up, but in fairness to Edwards the tactic of getting bodies in midfield and being tough to play against worked for the majority of the game. A turning point was probably the injury to Danny Holmes in the second half: Woodards had been outstanding again at centre back but was forced to move to right back when Danny went off, and Shrewsbury's goals both resulted from balls lumped into the box that we had comfortably cleared all afternoon.

Edwards has correctly stated that we were too deep in the second half and our ball retention was not good enough, but I think his substitutions contributed to this. Stockton was left on too long and the decision to replace Baggie with James Rowe left us with no attacking outlet whatsoever in the final twenty minutes. I think it would have been better to bring Bruna on at that stage or, if we wanted to keep the ball better, Koumas. As it was we ended up being penned in our own half in the closing stages, resulting in the two goals.

The positive for me is that big spending, promotion favourites Shrewsbury looked decidedly ordinary for most of the game and there was no gulf in quality between the two teams. I thought our central midfield looked better than theirs for long periods and until Holmes's injury the back four were outstanding again, seeing off both Collins and Vernon. Matt Gill was excellent in the midfield holding role and I was pleased to see Kirby, Laird and Baggie - players who have been heavily criticised in recent months - involved in the goal.

It was always going to be a tough opening week, but we really need to get a couple of wins from the three or four 'easier' games coming up.

Postscript: I should also add that Shrewsbury should have been down to ten men in the first half for a horror tackle on Bell Baggie; if the ref had not bottled the decision the outcome may have been very different.

It is interesting that a lot of Shrews fans seem to think we lost our defensive organisation once MacDonald came on, which allowed them back into the game. I am still not convinced he is good enough for this level and we are certainly unfortunate to have three first choice defenders injured at the moment.

 

[Ian]

What a dreadful way to lose a game and it certainly seemed to make a difference when we had to make some changes. First half looked like the tactics were spot on with five packing midfield and Shewsbury's long ball tactic smothered out effectively making OFW a spectator in the first 45.

Still a lot of naivety in the side to lose the way we did and how many times have we seen ourselves drop back and defend for long periods. Eventually, you're going to concede and we did that in the worst possible way.

I'm glad you mention that the opposition looked ordinary. Similar to the opening game. These are meant to be the better teams in the league. Having said that, I hope we don't sound like a broken record 20 games in if we're struggling to take points.

The lads have really got to be more disciplined. Most of the hard work was done and completely wasted in the final few minutes. Gutted..

 

[Boz]

Whatever the changes on and off the pitch in recent weeks, it is reassuring to know that Rovers can still ruin your weekend. For ninety minutes I thought we were the better side, quite comfortable defensively and set for a deserved victory. However, the immense effort we put into the game came to nothing in a suicidal last five minutes. If you are winning a game with ninety minutes on the clock, you should not lose the game, whatever the circumstances.

I agree with your first sentence, but think you're being a tad generous in the second. Here's my take on the game;

The first half was fairly even, the home side coming closest with an effort almost cleared off the line by Ihiekwe. Bell-Baggie got some revenge for the wild challenge from Knight-Percival, which I agree with RLC deserved a red card, by prodding the ball past the keeper after a downward header from Laird after a Kirby cross.

The second half was very one-sided. When we had the original back four, we were still mopping up at the back comfortably. Once Holmes went off injured, Woodards was moved to right-back, where he did ok but didn't look quite so comfortable as Danny Holmes. McDonald came into central defence and was woeful. Off the pace, mis-directed headers putting us into trouble and not holding the line for offsides. With hindsight, I wonder if we'd have done any worse moving Max to right-back. However things got worse when Baggie came off. I think he was carrying an injury, but he'd just gone on a good run along the touchline, so it didn't look like he had to come off at that point. Like RLC, would agree there were other options to replace him, personally would have gone for Richards rather than Rowe. Another consequence of this was that Power, who'd played well in the middle was pushed out to right-midfield and was much less effective there. Pinned back in the final third, sooner or later something was going to give. After we conceded the first, the hapless McDonald managed to put a free header wide from a corner in a rare Rovers attack, before the Shrews scored their late winner.

Shrewsbury played a different style of game to York and the first half football was decent, the second half was too one-sided to be. I don't think matches against Wycombe, who are in decent form or Cheltenham who've won both their games can be assumed to be 'easier'.

MoM. You could make an argument for any of the original back four. I'd opt for Hill.

On a personal note, I haven't seen Rovers win away since Stockport. Maybe Accrington...

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

I agree with your first sentence, but think you're being a tad generous in the second.

Away from home against a team with supposedly superior players, I thought the performance merited a victory, at least until the final twenty minutes. I thought the defensive organisation and workrate was excellent for the majority of the game. I don't necessarily consider the next two games 'easy' matches, hence my own use of quotation marks. That said, we have to take points from them or we will find ourselves cut adrift half a dozen games in.

I agree with the majority of the rest of your post, but still think Shrewsbury were pretty long ball in the first half - which our centre backs dealt with comfortably - and we had the upper hand in midfield in the first period.

Interestingly, Edwards has cited a lack of fitness as a reason for our defending too deep in the second half. Given the number of changes that we made to the team from midweek, that is slightly concerning: it is the coaching staff's responsibility to ensure the basic fitness of the players in pre-season and while running up sand dunes may not win you friends amongst your new employees, it might be necessary.

 

[Boz]

Interestingly, Edwards has cited a lack of fitness as a reason for our defending too deep in the second half. Given the number of changes that we made to the team from midweek, that is slightly concerning: it is the coaching staff's responsibility to ensure the basic fitness of the players in pre-season and while running up sand dunes may not win you friends amongst your new employees, it might be necessary.

I agree with this and the lack of fitness is in part to blame for the squad rotations. However, it worries me that RE doesn't seem to be close to deciding what his best xi is; another reason he's given to continue rotating. Also Stockton and Richards seemed to work quite well as a front 2 pre-season, don't understand why Rob's gone for a lone striker once the season starts.

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

I think playing five in midfield yesterday was sensible if our intention was to keep things tight and nick a goal. It is more of an issue at home or against weaker opposition where we have to make more of the running. Cole did a bit better yesterday, but neither he nor Richards will be able to get into the box enough playing that system. We are relatively strong in midfield and don't have a lot of natural width, which might be why Edwards favours a 4-5-1. However, we also lack an out and out goalscorer and I can't see us creating or scoring enough the way we are set up at the moment.

 

[Ian]

However, we also lack an out and out goalscorer and I can't see us creating or scoring enough the way we are set up at the moment.

Exactly right. I know he's experimenting but playing one up front is asking for trouble. We're going to struggle scoring goals this season.

 

[bring back the cowshed!]

A very disappointing outcome. That's now three games without a win for Rob and eight since Rovers last victory (against Shrewsbury). While on paper, you could make a case for saying we are making steady progress, we badly need a win to boost morale. I'll be nervous until it comes.