|
Roar in me Blood
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Odd and irrelevant fact: No team has lost less games than us.
When I wear their colours, I am the club.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
charlied
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xZimbos_05 - saying you don't see what others do by judging us on that weaker line-up is not a fair comparison or any reflection on our normal side. I am sure you know that. And yet even then against Wanderers they were 'actually, sort of' competitive. Was not a good enough performance for this level though.
I understand your point, but the thing is I am not just judging us on the weaker line-up. I'm judging us based on a few performances with different line ups, including when we have our stronger players on the field. Being able to judge a weaker side is a good bar for where a squad sits. It gives an indication of the philosophy and ideology that is implemented by a coach, as well as the depth in the squad. If the squad depth can't perform when given the chance, I would be slightly worried. It means that you only have a select few players that doing well is reliant on. The philosophy should be something that is through the whole 23/25 man squad and they should all be able to play the strategy and do the role required of them. If we turn around and say that the second stringers are not expected to do that, then it's basically a dysfunctional set up without any clear philosophy. Good points. I do think our squad depth is fine for 'normal' fill ins, but we do not have replacements on the bench who are all that close to the capability of our first team. I know some will say our replacements off the bench are very close to the capability of our first team and that is part of the problem - but I think our first team is good enough to be winning games. To me, one big factor is that every game we see changes in the front third and our play is disjointed because of it. Another factor, and more damning, is that I do not think we have the strategy or team philosophy throughout the squad that has been a strength of Roar sides in the past. Depending on who we have playing on the day we go backwards or forwards in attack, we go long or do our short passing, we have players who press and players who don't, and we rarely play as a team with the focus, speed and intent, with or without the ball, that I have come to expect from our teams. I think if we have a consistent starting eleven that play together game after game then we will see more cohesive play and I also think the rest of the squad will work harder to break in. As we are now, it looks like most of the squad players are content knowing they will get their turn every couple of games and few players are playing every minute of the game like it counts (not in the blue-arsed fly sense either). Hingert, Aldred, Gillesphey, Brown, Trewin all play like moments matter. going forward or back. Scott McDonald has the required competitive streak, and both Danzaki and DWH are lively and enthusiastic whenever they are on the field. O'Shea is a clever, skilful, workhorse but playing deeper stifles what he should be bringing to the team. For the rest of the squad, whoever fills the blanks, something is lacking in their play which is not actually lacking in their skillset - resulting in broken play, overly defensive play, dwelling on the ball and giving the ball away. Our midfield does not show urgency and drive, and often shows timidity where confidence in self and teammates is required- which is odd because they have all been part of a machine that has played the 'right' way many times. Last night we saw more of the blank fillers than usual and that is why I commented on that game being anything indicative of what we should be. I know you get that point. We are competitive in the sense that we do not leak goals and we almost always have shots on goal and opportunities that arguably should be converted by the players we have. We would be more than just competitive if we were putting away that goal or two - and I take the point someone has made that most games at this level would be swung by a goal or two for either side anyway - but our chances are genuinely gettable and rarely gotten. For all that - we are still only a converted opportunity away from winning most games - which is why I call us competitive. Convert any one gettable chance and we are back to being winners. You've named 8 of 10 outfield players as delivering. So do you think Champness and A Akbari aren't? Champness did last night and I think that would be way too hard on Akbari, who I think has mostly been good. Which raises the point of your analysis naming players. Specifically it seems on this evidence to be self defeating in any sense except that it highlights the fact that this is a generalised squad quality problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Roar in me Blood
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xZimbos_05 - saying you don't see what others do by judging us on that weaker line-up is not a fair comparison or any reflection on our normal side. I am sure you know that. And yet even then against Wanderers they were 'actually, sort of' competitive. Was not a good enough performance for this level though.
I understand your point, but the thing is I am not just judging us on the weaker line-up. I'm judging us based on a few performances with different line ups, including when we have our stronger players on the field. Being able to judge a weaker side is a good bar for where a squad sits. It gives an indication of the philosophy and ideology that is implemented by a coach, as well as the depth in the squad. If the squad depth can't perform when given the chance, I would be slightly worried. It means that you only have a select few players that doing well is reliant on. The philosophy should be something that is through the whole 23/25 man squad and they should all be able to play the strategy and do the role required of them. If we turn around and say that the second stringers are not expected to do that, then it's basically a dysfunctional set up without any clear philosophy. Good points. I do think our squad depth is fine for 'normal' fill ins, but we do not have replacements on the bench who are all that close to the capability of our first team. I know some will say our replacements off the bench are very close to the capability of our first team and that is part of the problem - but I think our first team is good enough to be winning games. To me, one big factor is that every game we see changes in the front third and our play is disjointed because of it. Another factor, and more damning, is that I do not think we have the strategy or team philosophy throughout the squad that has been a strength of Roar sides in the past. Depending on who we have playing on the day we go backwards or forwards in attack, we go long or do our short passing, we have players who press and players who don't, and we rarely play as a team with the focus, speed and intent, with or without the ball, that I have come to expect from our teams. I think if we have a consistent starting eleven that play together game after game then we will see more cohesive play and I also think the rest of the squad will work harder to break in. As we are now, it looks like most of the squad players are content knowing they will get their turn every couple of games and few players are playing every minute of the game like it counts (not in the blue-arsed fly sense either). Hingert, Aldred, Gillesphey, Brown, Trewin all play like moments matter. going forward or back. Scott McDonald has the required competitive streak, and both Danzaki and DWH are lively and enthusiastic whenever they are on the field. O'Shea is a clever, skilful, workhorse but playing deeper stifles what he should be bringing to the team. For the rest of the squad, whoever fills the blanks, something is lacking in their play which is not actually lacking in their skillset - resulting in broken play, overly defensive play, dwelling on the ball and giving the ball away. Our midfield does not show urgency and drive, and often shows timidity where confidence in self and teammates is required- which is odd because they have all been part of a machine that has played the 'right' way many times. Last night we saw more of the blank fillers than usual and that is why I commented on that game being anything indicative of what we should be. I know you get that point. We are competitive in the sense that we do not leak goals and we almost always have shots on goal and opportunities that arguably should be converted by the players we have. We would be more than just competitive if we were putting away that goal or two - and I take the point someone has made that most games at this level would be swung by a goal or two for either side anyway - but our chances are genuinely gettable and rarely gotten. For all that - we are still only a converted opportunity away from winning most games - which is why I call us competitive. Convert any one gettable chance and we are back to being winners. You've named 8 of 10 outfield players as delivering. So do you think Champness and A Akbari aren't? Champness did last night and I think that would be way too hard on Akbari, who I think has mostly been good. Which raises the point of your analysis naming players. Specifically it seems on this evidence to be self defeating in any sense except that it highlights the fact that this is a generalised squad quality problem. Yes, I have named 8 out of 10 outfield players - and it is the other two players, including Daley and Akbari along with the other rotating step ins (plus more of them when any of the 8 aren't playing) that is enough to break continuity through the middle. Akbari has been playing well going forward but is weaker in defence. Daley is better in defence but weaker going forward. Neither has grabbed the position and really forced Moon to make them the first choice although Akbari is closer than Daley to that since it is our attacking strength that needs help. But we have not had McDonald since Feb, and we have lost others from the 8 through injury, rotation or whatever reason throughout the season. O'Shea needs to be further forward and more involved in our attacks. So by my analysis if we had all 8 playing and Champness proved that he could maintain the level we saw yesterday (making 9 outfield players if we had DWH, Danzaki and Champness all on at once) then we are a better chance of producing than when we are short 2 or more decent players through that midfield. Which actually makes my analysis work if you think about it. When we have the 8 we do much better than when we don't but we still have a break in our midfield. I rate what Champness is capable of highly, but he has not had many runs with us this season, and yesterday was his first real impact game. He has shown glimpses and periods of good play but not enough to warrant him being on the quality list yet. I would be happy to include him in my self-defeating team if he continues as he has. One game does not a summer make though. As you would have read - I also said that having a consistent starting team will help with our cohesion and overall performance. In short, we have a good backline, and should have a good enough forward line. With O'Shea played where we want him further forward and McDonald back, there are not many points of weakness in our team. The more we use the rest of the squad the weaker we get, until we can find some consistency and cohesion that can handle the disruption that a different player brings. Which raises the point of your analysis of my analysis... Which part of it do you actually disagree with?
When I wear their colours, I am the club.
|
|
|
|
|
zimbos_05
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xZimbos_05 - saying you don't see what others do by judging us on that weaker line-up is not a fair comparison or any reflection on our normal side. I am sure you know that. And yet even then against Wanderers they were 'actually, sort of' competitive. Was not a good enough performance for this level though.
I understand your point, but the thing is I am not just judging us on the weaker line-up. I'm judging us based on a few performances with different line ups, including when we have our stronger players on the field. Being able to judge a weaker side is a good bar for where a squad sits. It gives an indication of the philosophy and ideology that is implemented by a coach, as well as the depth in the squad. If the squad depth can't perform when given the chance, I would be slightly worried. It means that you only have a select few players that doing well is reliant on. The philosophy should be something that is through the whole 23/25 man squad and they should all be able to play the strategy and do the role required of them. If we turn around and say that the second stringers are not expected to do that, then it's basically a dysfunctional set up without any clear philosophy. Good points. I do think our squad depth is fine for 'normal' fill ins, but we do not have replacements on the bench who are all that close to the capability of our first team. I know some will say our replacements off the bench are very close to the capability of our first team and that is part of the problem - but I think our first team is good enough to be winning games. To me, one big factor is that every game we see changes in the front third and our play is disjointed because of it. Another factor, and more damning, is that I do not think we have the strategy or team philosophy throughout the squad that has been a strength of Roar sides in the past. Depending on who we have playing on the day we go backwards or forwards in attack, we go long or do our short passing, we have players who press and players who don't, and we rarely play as a team with the focus, speed and intent, with or without the ball, that I have come to expect from our teams. I think if we have a consistent starting eleven that play together game after game then we will see more cohesive play and I also think the rest of the squad will work harder to break in. As we are now, it looks like most of the squad players are content knowing they will get their turn every couple of games and few players are playing every minute of the game like it counts (not in the blue-arsed fly sense either). Hingert, Aldred, Gillesphey, Brown, Trewin all play like moments matter. going forward or back. Scott McDonald has the required competitive streak, and both Danzaki and DWH are lively and enthusiastic whenever they are on the field. O'Shea is a clever, skilful, workhorse but playing deeper stifles what he should be bringing to the team. For the rest of the squad, whoever fills the blanks, something is lacking in their play which is not actually lacking in their skillset - resulting in broken play, overly defensive play, dwelling on the ball and giving the ball away. Our midfield does not show urgency and drive, and often shows timidity where confidence in self and teammates is required- which is odd because they have all been part of a machine that has played the 'right' way many times. Last night we saw more of the blank fillers than usual and that is why I commented on that game being anything indicative of what we should be. I know you get that point. We are competitive in the sense that we do not leak goals and we almost always have shots on goal and opportunities that arguably should be converted by the players we have. We would be more than just competitive if we were putting away that goal or two - and I take the point someone has made that most games at this level would be swung by a goal or two for either side anyway - but our chances are genuinely gettable and rarely gotten. For all that - we are still only a converted opportunity away from winning most games - which is why I call us competitive. Convert any one gettable chance and we are back to being winners. If our match tactics are changing every game based on who we have on the field, it tells me that the manager has no idea on what he is hoping to achieve, but is instead trying to make a game plan to fit what he thinks will be best for the players out there. It shouldn't be that your game plan is dictated by who you choose, because then what is the point of training and the signings you make. Are you not working on a certain game plan and philosophy in the training paddock and are you not signing players to fit in to that? I'm not saying their shouldn't be fluidity in the tactics, but if you are going in to a game going, "oh, today I have a player who always turns back, so lets fit our game plan around that", then you are not going to develop any team cohesiveness and structure that will lead to success. A squad is not just made up of 11 players. If we are going to be reliant on having our 11 best on the field and then hoping it pays off, we wont get anywhere. Players are bound to get injured or fatigued and you have to make subs and rotations. We cannot get away with rigidity in the structure. The board may want to be rigid and strict because they refuse to sell and pump money in to the club, but on the football field, it has to be different.
|
|
|
|
|
Roar in me Blood
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xZimbos_05 - saying you don't see what others do by judging us on that weaker line-up is not a fair comparison or any reflection on our normal side. I am sure you know that. And yet even then against Wanderers they were 'actually, sort of' competitive. Was not a good enough performance for this level though.
I understand your point, but the thing is I am not just judging us on the weaker line-up. I'm judging us based on a few performances with different line ups, including when we have our stronger players on the field. Being able to judge a weaker side is a good bar for where a squad sits. It gives an indication of the philosophy and ideology that is implemented by a coach, as well as the depth in the squad. If the squad depth can't perform when given the chance, I would be slightly worried. It means that you only have a select few players that doing well is reliant on. The philosophy should be something that is through the whole 23/25 man squad and they should all be able to play the strategy and do the role required of them. If we turn around and say that the second stringers are not expected to do that, then it's basically a dysfunctional set up without any clear philosophy. Good points. I do think our squad depth is fine for 'normal' fill ins, but we do not have replacements on the bench who are all that close to the capability of our first team. I know some will say our replacements off the bench are very close to the capability of our first team and that is part of the problem - but I think our first team is good enough to be winning games. To me, one big factor is that every game we see changes in the front third and our play is disjointed because of it. Another factor, and more damning, is that I do not think we have the strategy or team philosophy throughout the squad that has been a strength of Roar sides in the past. Depending on who we have playing on the day we go backwards or forwards in attack, we go long or do our short passing, we have players who press and players who don't, and we rarely play as a team with the focus, speed and intent, with or without the ball, that I have come to expect from our teams. I think if we have a consistent starting eleven that play together game after game then we will see more cohesive play and I also think the rest of the squad will work harder to break in. As we are now, it looks like most of the squad players are content knowing they will get their turn every couple of games and few players are playing every minute of the game like it counts (not in the blue-arsed fly sense either). Hingert, Aldred, Gillesphey, Brown, Trewin all play like moments matter. going forward or back. Scott McDonald has the required competitive streak, and both Danzaki and DWH are lively and enthusiastic whenever they are on the field. O'Shea is a clever, skilful, workhorse but playing deeper stifles what he should be bringing to the team. For the rest of the squad, whoever fills the blanks, something is lacking in their play which is not actually lacking in their skillset - resulting in broken play, overly defensive play, dwelling on the ball and giving the ball away. Our midfield does not show urgency and drive, and often shows timidity where confidence in self and teammates is required- which is odd because they have all been part of a machine that has played the 'right' way many times. Last night we saw more of the blank fillers than usual and that is why I commented on that game being anything indicative of what we should be. I know you get that point. We are competitive in the sense that we do not leak goals and we almost always have shots on goal and opportunities that arguably should be converted by the players we have. We would be more than just competitive if we were putting away that goal or two - and I take the point someone has made that most games at this level would be swung by a goal or two for either side anyway - but our chances are genuinely gettable and rarely gotten. For all that - we are still only a converted opportunity away from winning most games - which is why I call us competitive. Convert any one gettable chance and we are back to being winners. If our match tactics are changing every game based on who we have on the field, it tells me that the manager has no idea on what he is hoping to achieve, but is instead trying to make a game plan to fit what he thinks will be best for the players out there. It shouldn't be that your game plan is dictated by who you choose, because then what is the point of training and the signings you make. Are you not working on a certain game plan and philosophy in the training paddock and are you not signing players to fit in to that? I'm not saying their shouldn't be fluidity in the tactics, but if you are going in to a game going, "oh, today I have a player who always turns back, so lets fit our game plan around that", then you are not going to develop any team cohesiveness and structure that will lead to success. A squad is not just made up of 11 players. If we are going to be reliant on having our 11 best on the field and then hoping it pays off, we wont get anywhere. Players are bound to get injured or fatigued and you have to make subs and rotations. We cannot get away with rigidity in the structure. The board may want to be rigid and strict because they refuse to sell and pump money in to the club, but on the football field, it has to be different. I suspect it is more that some players choose to play the way they do out of fear of losing the ball, a lack of trust that it will be received, or a lack of confidence in their ability under pressure - rather than Moon dictating play based on players each game. I hope it is the former - because that can be managed. Regardless, I do see what you describe in our ever changing playing style.
When I wear their colours, I am the club.
|
|
|
|
|
zimbos_05
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xZimbos_05 - saying you don't see what others do by judging us on that weaker line-up is not a fair comparison or any reflection on our normal side. I am sure you know that. And yet even then against Wanderers they were 'actually, sort of' competitive. Was not a good enough performance for this level though.
I understand your point, but the thing is I am not just judging us on the weaker line-up. I'm judging us based on a few performances with different line ups, including when we have our stronger players on the field. Being able to judge a weaker side is a good bar for where a squad sits. It gives an indication of the philosophy and ideology that is implemented by a coach, as well as the depth in the squad. If the squad depth can't perform when given the chance, I would be slightly worried. It means that you only have a select few players that doing well is reliant on. The philosophy should be something that is through the whole 23/25 man squad and they should all be able to play the strategy and do the role required of them. If we turn around and say that the second stringers are not expected to do that, then it's basically a dysfunctional set up without any clear philosophy. Good points. I do think our squad depth is fine for 'normal' fill ins, but we do not have replacements on the bench who are all that close to the capability of our first team. I know some will say our replacements off the bench are very close to the capability of our first team and that is part of the problem - but I think our first team is good enough to be winning games. To me, one big factor is that every game we see changes in the front third and our play is disjointed because of it. Another factor, and more damning, is that I do not think we have the strategy or team philosophy throughout the squad that has been a strength of Roar sides in the past. Depending on who we have playing on the day we go backwards or forwards in attack, we go long or do our short passing, we have players who press and players who don't, and we rarely play as a team with the focus, speed and intent, with or without the ball, that I have come to expect from our teams. I think if we have a consistent starting eleven that play together game after game then we will see more cohesive play and I also think the rest of the squad will work harder to break in. As we are now, it looks like most of the squad players are content knowing they will get their turn every couple of games and few players are playing every minute of the game like it counts (not in the blue-arsed fly sense either). Hingert, Aldred, Gillesphey, Brown, Trewin all play like moments matter. going forward or back. Scott McDonald has the required competitive streak, and both Danzaki and DWH are lively and enthusiastic whenever they are on the field. O'Shea is a clever, skilful, workhorse but playing deeper stifles what he should be bringing to the team. For the rest of the squad, whoever fills the blanks, something is lacking in their play which is not actually lacking in their skillset - resulting in broken play, overly defensive play, dwelling on the ball and giving the ball away. Our midfield does not show urgency and drive, and often shows timidity where confidence in self and teammates is required- which is odd because they have all been part of a machine that has played the 'right' way many times. Last night we saw more of the blank fillers than usual and that is why I commented on that game being anything indicative of what we should be. I know you get that point. We are competitive in the sense that we do not leak goals and we almost always have shots on goal and opportunities that arguably should be converted by the players we have. We would be more than just competitive if we were putting away that goal or two - and I take the point someone has made that most games at this level would be swung by a goal or two for either side anyway - but our chances are genuinely gettable and rarely gotten. For all that - we are still only a converted opportunity away from winning most games - which is why I call us competitive. Convert any one gettable chance and we are back to being winners. If our match tactics are changing every game based on who we have on the field, it tells me that the manager has no idea on what he is hoping to achieve, but is instead trying to make a game plan to fit what he thinks will be best for the players out there. It shouldn't be that your game plan is dictated by who you choose, because then what is the point of training and the signings you make. Are you not working on a certain game plan and philosophy in the training paddock and are you not signing players to fit in to that? I'm not saying their shouldn't be fluidity in the tactics, but if you are going in to a game going, "oh, today I have a player who always turns back, so lets fit our game plan around that", then you are not going to develop any team cohesiveness and structure that will lead to success. A squad is not just made up of 11 players. If we are going to be reliant on having our 11 best on the field and then hoping it pays off, we wont get anywhere. Players are bound to get injured or fatigued and you have to make subs and rotations. We cannot get away with rigidity in the structure. The board may want to be rigid and strict because they refuse to sell and pump money in to the club, but on the football field, it has to be different. I suspect it is more that some players choose to play the way they do out of fear of losing the ball, a lack of trust that it will be received, or a lack of confidence in their ability under pressure - rather than Moon dictating play based on players each game. I hope it is the former - because that can be managed. Regardless, I do see what you describe in our ever changing playing style. That's counter productive to having a manager, or a manager not totally being in control. If players are doing their own thing on the field, it's clearly not right. They may have a fear or a lack of trust, but that could also stem from the strategy not being well received or ideal, hence the player is forced to do something else. Players doing their own thing should not be getting picked. Pick the players who will carry out the game plan and the strategy, regardless of their experience or profile name. If the players does what is asked of them and does it well, and if the strategy is a good one, then it will come off on the field and you will see positive results.
|
|
|
|
|
charlied
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xZimbos_05 - saying you don't see what others do by judging us on that weaker line-up is not a fair comparison or any reflection on our normal side. I am sure you know that. And yet even then against Wanderers they were 'actually, sort of' competitive. Was not a good enough performance for this level though.
I understand your point, but the thing is I am not just judging us on the weaker line-up. I'm judging us based on a few performances with different line ups, including when we have our stronger players on the field. Being able to judge a weaker side is a good bar for where a squad sits. It gives an indication of the philosophy and ideology that is implemented by a coach, as well as the depth in the squad. If the squad depth can't perform when given the chance, I would be slightly worried. It means that you only have a select few players that doing well is reliant on. The philosophy should be something that is through the whole 23/25 man squad and they should all be able to play the strategy and do the role required of them. If we turn around and say that the second stringers are not expected to do that, then it's basically a dysfunctional set up without any clear philosophy. Good points. I do think our squad depth is fine for 'normal' fill ins, but we do not have replacements on the bench who are all that close to the capability of our first team. I know some will say our replacements off the bench are very close to the capability of our first team and that is part of the problem - but I think our first team is good enough to be winning games. To me, one big factor is that every game we see changes in the front third and our play is disjointed because of it. Another factor, and more damning, is that I do not think we have the strategy or team philosophy throughout the squad that has been a strength of Roar sides in the past. Depending on who we have playing on the day we go backwards or forwards in attack, we go long or do our short passing, we have players who press and players who don't, and we rarely play as a team with the focus, speed and intent, with or without the ball, that I have come to expect from our teams. I think if we have a consistent starting eleven that play together game after game then we will see more cohesive play and I also think the rest of the squad will work harder to break in. As we are now, it looks like most of the squad players are content knowing they will get their turn every couple of games and few players are playing every minute of the game like it counts (not in the blue-arsed fly sense either). Hingert, Aldred, Gillesphey, Brown, Trewin all play like moments matter. going forward or back. Scott McDonald has the required competitive streak, and both Danzaki and DWH are lively and enthusiastic whenever they are on the field. O'Shea is a clever, skilful, workhorse but playing deeper stifles what he should be bringing to the team. For the rest of the squad, whoever fills the blanks, something is lacking in their play which is not actually lacking in their skillset - resulting in broken play, overly defensive play, dwelling on the ball and giving the ball away. Our midfield does not show urgency and drive, and often shows timidity where confidence in self and teammates is required- which is odd because they have all been part of a machine that has played the 'right' way many times. Last night we saw more of the blank fillers than usual and that is why I commented on that game being anything indicative of what we should be. I know you get that point. We are competitive in the sense that we do not leak goals and we almost always have shots on goal and opportunities that arguably should be converted by the players we have. We would be more than just competitive if we were putting away that goal or two - and I take the point someone has made that most games at this level would be swung by a goal or two for either side anyway - but our chances are genuinely gettable and rarely gotten. For all that - we are still only a converted opportunity away from winning most games - which is why I call us competitive. Convert any one gettable chance and we are back to being winners. You've named 8 of 10 outfield players as delivering. So do you think Champness and A Akbari aren't? Champness did last night and I think that would be way too hard on Akbari, who I think has mostly been good. Which raises the point of your analysis naming players. Specifically it seems on this evidence to be self defeating in any sense except that it highlights the fact that this is a generalised squad quality problem. Yes, I have named 8 out of 10 outfield players - and it is the other two players, including Daley and Akbari along with the other rotating step ins (plus more of them when any of the 8 aren't playing) that is enough to break continuity through the middle. Akbari has been playing well going forward but is weaker in defence. Daley is better in defence but weaker going forward. Neither has grabbed the position and really forced Moon to make them the first choice although Akbari is closer than Daley to that since it is our attacking strength that needs help. But we have not had McDonald since Feb, and we have lost others from the 8 through injury, rotation or whatever reason throughout the season. O'Shea needs to be further forward and more involved in our attacks. So by my analysis if we had all 8 playing and Champness proved that he could maintain the level we saw yesterday (making 9 outfield players if we had DWH, Danzaki and Champness all on at once) then we are a better chance of producing than when we are short 2 or more decent players through that midfield. Which actually makes my analysis work if you think about it. When we have the 8 we do much better than when we don't but we still have a break in our midfield. I rate what Champness is capable of highly, but he has not had many runs with us this season, and yesterday was his first real impact game. He has shown glimpses and periods of good play but not enough to warrant him being on the quality list yet. I would be happy to include him in my self-defeating team if he continues as he has. One game does not a summer make though. As you would have read - I also said that having a consistent starting team will help with our cohesion and overall performance. In short, we have a good backline, and should have a good enough forward line. With O'Shea played where we want him further forward and McDonald back, there are not many points of weakness in our team. The more we use the rest of the squad the weaker we get, until we can find some consistency and cohesion that can handle the disruption that a different player brings. Which raises the point of your analysis of my analysis... Which part of it do you actually disagree with? Well I could offer my analysis of your analysis of my analysis but I think I'm already confused so I'll leave it there.
|
|
|
|
|
Roar in me Blood
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xZimbos_05 - saying you don't see what others do by judging us on that weaker line-up is not a fair comparison or any reflection on our normal side. I am sure you know that. And yet even then against Wanderers they were 'actually, sort of' competitive. Was not a good enough performance for this level though.
I understand your point, but the thing is I am not just judging us on the weaker line-up. I'm judging us based on a few performances with different line ups, including when we have our stronger players on the field. Being able to judge a weaker side is a good bar for where a squad sits. It gives an indication of the philosophy and ideology that is implemented by a coach, as well as the depth in the squad. If the squad depth can't perform when given the chance, I would be slightly worried. It means that you only have a select few players that doing well is reliant on. The philosophy should be something that is through the whole 23/25 man squad and they should all be able to play the strategy and do the role required of them. If we turn around and say that the second stringers are not expected to do that, then it's basically a dysfunctional set up without any clear philosophy. Good points. I do think our squad depth is fine for 'normal' fill ins, but we do not have replacements on the bench who are all that close to the capability of our first team. I know some will say our replacements off the bench are very close to the capability of our first team and that is part of the problem - but I think our first team is good enough to be winning games. To me, one big factor is that every game we see changes in the front third and our play is disjointed because of it. Another factor, and more damning, is that I do not think we have the strategy or team philosophy throughout the squad that has been a strength of Roar sides in the past. Depending on who we have playing on the day we go backwards or forwards in attack, we go long or do our short passing, we have players who press and players who don't, and we rarely play as a team with the focus, speed and intent, with or without the ball, that I have come to expect from our teams. I think if we have a consistent starting eleven that play together game after game then we will see more cohesive play and I also think the rest of the squad will work harder to break in. As we are now, it looks like most of the squad players are content knowing they will get their turn every couple of games and few players are playing every minute of the game like it counts (not in the blue-arsed fly sense either). Hingert, Aldred, Gillesphey, Brown, Trewin all play like moments matter. going forward or back. Scott McDonald has the required competitive streak, and both Danzaki and DWH are lively and enthusiastic whenever they are on the field. O'Shea is a clever, skilful, workhorse but playing deeper stifles what he should be bringing to the team. For the rest of the squad, whoever fills the blanks, something is lacking in their play which is not actually lacking in their skillset - resulting in broken play, overly defensive play, dwelling on the ball and giving the ball away. Our midfield does not show urgency and drive, and often shows timidity where confidence in self and teammates is required- which is odd because they have all been part of a machine that has played the 'right' way many times. Last night we saw more of the blank fillers than usual and that is why I commented on that game being anything indicative of what we should be. I know you get that point. We are competitive in the sense that we do not leak goals and we almost always have shots on goal and opportunities that arguably should be converted by the players we have. We would be more than just competitive if we were putting away that goal or two - and I take the point someone has made that most games at this level would be swung by a goal or two for either side anyway - but our chances are genuinely gettable and rarely gotten. For all that - we are still only a converted opportunity away from winning most games - which is why I call us competitive. Convert any one gettable chance and we are back to being winners. You've named 8 of 10 outfield players as delivering. So do you think Champness and A Akbari aren't? Champness did last night and I think that would be way too hard on Akbari, who I think has mostly been good. Which raises the point of your analysis naming players. Specifically it seems on this evidence to be self defeating in any sense except that it highlights the fact that this is a generalised squad quality problem. Yes, I have named 8 out of 10 outfield players - and it is the other two players, including Daley and Akbari along with the other rotating step ins (plus more of them when any of the 8 aren't playing) that is enough to break continuity through the middle. Akbari has been playing well going forward but is weaker in defence. Daley is better in defence but weaker going forward. Neither has grabbed the position and really forced Moon to make them the first choice although Akbari is closer than Daley to that since it is our attacking strength that needs help. But we have not had McDonald since Feb, and we have lost others from the 8 through injury, rotation or whatever reason throughout the season. O'Shea needs to be further forward and more involved in our attacks. So by my analysis if we had all 8 playing and Champness proved that he could maintain the level we saw yesterday (making 9 outfield players if we had DWH, Danzaki and Champness all on at once) then we are a better chance of producing than when we are short 2 or more decent players through that midfield. Which actually makes my analysis work if you think about it. When we have the 8 we do much better than when we don't but we still have a break in our midfield. I rate what Champness is capable of highly, but he has not had many runs with us this season, and yesterday was his first real impact game. He has shown glimpses and periods of good play but not enough to warrant him being on the quality list yet. I would be happy to include him in my self-defeating team if he continues as he has. One game does not a summer make though. As you would have read - I also said that having a consistent starting team will help with our cohesion and overall performance. In short, we have a good backline, and should have a good enough forward line. With O'Shea played where we want him further forward and McDonald back, there are not many points of weakness in our team. The more we use the rest of the squad the weaker we get, until we can find some consistency and cohesion that can handle the disruption that a different player brings. Which raises the point of your analysis of my analysis... Which part of it do you actually disagree with? Well I could offer my analysis of your analysis of my analysis but I think I'm already confused so I'll leave it there. Thing is - I would actually prefer everyone to dispute my comments with their own opinions as long as they add something to the discussion. I wanted you to say what you didn't agree with so I could consider it against what I think and see. I miss stuff and see stuff very differently a lot of the time - and the best part is getting the insight and perspective of a lot of people who know much more than me. To me that is the point of this forum and the reason I value it.
When I wear their colours, I am the club.
|
|
|
|
|
Jimo8
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 927,
Visits: 11
|
Totally agree....at least I think so????
hang on I'm confused now too!!!
actually I think we have a good squad, but without any real top shelf players.
And that there is the problem.
We were hoping Kudo was gonna be that x-factor but that hope had all but disappeared.
Moon needs to gets one or two top shelf players....if the club has ambition to be one of the front runners, sooner the better.
Probably wont happen this season and may not happen next season.
So we'll win a few and lose a few.
We'll just have to live with that.
|
|
|
|
|
Roar in me Blood
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xTotally agree....at least I think so???? hang on I'm confused now too!!! actually I think we have a good squad, but without any real top shelf players. And that there is the problem. We were hoping Kudo was gonna be that x-factor but that hope had all but disappeared. Moon needs to gets one or two top shelf players....if the club has ambition to be one of the front runners, sooner the better. Probably wont happen this season and may not happen next season. So we'll win a few and lose a few. We'll just have to live with that. I want to see McDonald and O'Shea creating and feeding Kudo for a game. That will tell us enough I think. Champness has the individual skill to be threatening from anywhere in the front half of the field - but not necessarily as a cog in a machine. Like Pele says in Escape to Victory - after you give me the ball I do this, this, this, this, this, this, this, goal. Not sure how he fits into the machine yet as a very dangerous individual when running. Maybe Kudo the lone striker and Champness a little deeper to get the run - with McDonald and O'Shea in behind them.
When I wear their colours, I am the club.
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Are we still top 4 quality, let alone title contenders? LOL
In a resort somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
Roar in me Blood
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAre we still top 4 quality, let alone title contenders? LOL If...then yes.
When I wear their colours, I am the club.
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xAre we still top 4 quality, let alone title contenders? LOL If...then yes. Lol 👍
In a resort somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
Jimo8
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 927,
Visits: 11
|
Roar in my blood-- I like that quote from Pele.
or what about this one from Cryuff
"before I make a mistake, I don't make that mistake "
|
|
|
|
|
aok
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
The recent lack of wins has been extremely frustrating (to say the least) and the team is sitting in 8th (tables never lie). But having watched a number of the games again over the long week-end (yep exciting times), there is one area that has really let us down and cost the team multiple wins. That is finishing. As much as some of the criticism of Brown and Hingert is warranted, the simple fact is this squad is the 2nd best in the league (xGF Stats) at creating quality goal scoring chances and 8th in the league in goals scored. We don't have the quality to finish the good chances that are constantly created. As good as the opposition keepers are, its the number of sitters the Roar players consistently miss that is costing this team points.
A quality, consistent striker is the hardest thing to find in football and strikers are only as good as the quality chances created for them. A good striker (say a Fornaroli) receiving the quality service and chances our team is creating would be delivering the three points more often than our current attack. Our squad lacks a finisher. Kudo has simply failed to deliver and DWH and Gol Gol are probably good squad options but unfortunately not in the same class as former Roar strikers (Bes, Taggart, JMac - to name a few). Solve the finishing problem and you go a long way towards climbing back up the ladder and challenging for silverware.
|
|
|
|
|
Roar in me Blood
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
That was a good win, and we hung on with tooth and nail for the last 5 minutes. My shoulders are aching from carrying the team. Lots of good stuff coming out of the game. To me, we out Macathured them when we decided it was worth holding onto the ball. We did not park the bus until the last 5 minutes - when we did our best to lose by letting them come at us. Every time I see that tactic I am reminded of our brilliant Roar v Mariners final - when the only reason we got a sniff was because Mariners decided to stop attacking and defended their lead. It is our attack that keeps them at bay and we should have maintained that - trusting in our really great backline to do their jobs with a third of the Macarthur players still holding back to stop our attackers hurting them further. Gillesphey had his usual blinder - cutting out so many dangerous passes on top of his deeper CB duties. Aldred and Longbottom with Gillesphey is a backline I trust and with the three of them back together it means they don't have to work out who is going to do what so much as just communicating that they are going to do it. Pragmatically speaking I do not think we have fixed anything yet in the final third. What we got was one more goal from our many created chances - which is exactly what I was asking for - but we missed such easy chances that could so easily have cost us the game. Mebrahtu just isn't being what I expect him to be - and that one criminal moment when he had a player on his left totally unmarked with the keeper out of the picture and he just bumbled into Federici instead of passing was damning. We are still so much better than that result - which is a great thing - if we can take our easy opportunities. Great to get a win. Great to basically dominate the game - with the ball and when they were coming at us with the ball. Not a one-sided game by any means - we still had to shutdown a lot of promising and well created attacks but we did it. Akbari had a great game going forwards - but a couple of real shockers defending and passing to a Macarthur player in a really dangerous place. Brindell-South had the best game I remember him playing. Moon was obviously really pleased with his performance - liked seeing that. Was happy with what Parsons offered. He was not out of place on the field and gives us another option coming through. O'Shea still had some awful directional issues this game. He was more involved but he coughed up the ball as much as anyone. And the mighty Jamie Young! Did his job brilliantly stopping goals - but until he started doing his short passes again he had me in tears of frustration giving the ball away. Mentioned in the match thread - Champness was again playing the team game rather than the individual threat game. We have other players who can do what he did tonight - what we need from him is the Champness creative factor. No doubt Moon had him tied down to a more co-operative style, but he is wasted that way. He is not great in defence so letting him off the leash is going to get more out of him than playing a solid controlled game does. Danzaki is getting better and better. Great pick up. He had to work for his tap in. Good win. Got to help confidence across the team to get that one extra goal and let's hope we continue improving. Did not need McDonald tonight - no small thing that we did it without him. Go you good things! PS: AOK - does that mean the table lied to us? ;)
When I wear their colours, I am the club.
|
|
|
|
|
overroared
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 545,
Visits: 0
|
+xThat was a good win, and we hung on with tooth and nail for the last 5 minutes. My shoulders are aching from carrying the team. Lots of good stuff coming out of the game. To me, we out Macathured them when we decided it was worth holding onto the ball. We did not park the bus until the last 5 minutes - when we did our best to lose by letting them come at us. Every time I see that tactic I am reminded of our brilliant Roar v Mariners final - when the only reason we got a sniff was because Mariners decided to stop attacking and defended their lead. It is our attack that keeps them at bay and we should have maintained that - trusting in our really great backline to do their jobs with a third of the Macarthur players still holding back to stop our attackers hurting them further. Gillesphey had his usual blinder - cutting out so many dangerous passes on top of his deeper CB duties. Aldred and Longbottom with Gillesphey is a backline I trust and with the three of them back together it means they don't have to work out who is going to do what so much as just communicating that they are going to do it. Pragmatically speaking I do not think we have fixed anything yet in the final third. What we got was one more goal from our many created chances - which is exactly what I was asking for - but we missed such easy chances that could so easily have cost us the game. Mebrahtu just isn't being what I expect him to be - and that one criminal moment when he had a player on his left totally unmarked with the keeper out of the picture and he just bumbled into Federici instead of passing was damning. We are still so much better than that result - which is a great thing - if we can take our easy opportunities. Great to get a win. Great to basically dominate the game - with the ball and when they were coming at us with the ball. Not a one-sided game by any means - we still had to shutdown a lot of promising and well created attacks but we did it. Akbari had a great game going forwards - but a couple of real shockers defending and passing to a Macarthur player in a really dangerous place. Brindell-South had the best game I remember him playing. Moon was obviously really pleased with his performance - liked seeing that. Was happy with what Parsons offered. He was not out of place on the field and gives us another option coming through. O'Shea still had some awful directional issues this game. He was more involved but he coughed up the ball as much as anyone. And the mighty Jamie Young! Did his job brilliantly stopping goals - but until he started doing his short passes again he had me in tears of frustration giving the ball away. Mentioned in the match thread - Champness was again playing the team game rather than the individual threat game. We have other players who can do what he did tonight - what we need from him is the Champness creative factor. No doubt Moon had him tied down to a more co-operative style, but he is wasted that way. He is not great in defence so letting him off the leash is going to get more out of him than playing a solid controlled game does. Danzaki is getting better and better. Great pick up. He had to work for his tap in. Good win. Got to help confidence across the team to get that one extra goal and let's hope we continue improving. Did not need McDonald tonight - no small thing that we did it without him. Go you good things! PS: AOK - does that mean the table lied to us? ;) Good analysis. I like the British boys, solid in defense and workmanlike going forward. I only wish Wenzal Halls could convert more of those chances, he would be really up with the best of the ALeague
|
|
|
|
|
invicta
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 46,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThat was a good win, and we hung on with tooth and nail for the last 5 minutes. My shoulders are aching from carrying the team. Lots of good stuff coming out of the game. To me, we out Macathured them when we decided it was worth holding onto the ball. We did not park the bus until the last 5 minutes - when we did our best to lose by letting them come at us. Every time I see that tactic I am reminded of our brilliant Roar v Mariners final - when the only reason we got a sniff was because Mariners decided to stop attacking and defended their lead. It is our attack that keeps them at bay and we should have maintained that - trusting in our really great backline to do their jobs with a third of the Macarthur players still holding back to stop our attackers hurting them further. Gillesphey had his usual blinder - cutting out so many dangerous passes on top of his deeper CB duties. Aldred and Longbottom with Gillesphey is a backline I trust and with the three of them back together it means they don't have to work out who is going to do what so much as just communicating that they are going to do it. Pragmatically speaking I do not think we have fixed anything yet in the final third. What we got was one more goal from our many created chances - which is exactly what I was asking for - but we missed such easy chances that could so easily have cost us the game. Mebrahtu just isn't being what I expect him to be - and that one criminal moment when he had a player on his left totally unmarked with the keeper out of the picture and he just bumbled into Federici instead of passing was damning. We are still so much better than that result - which is a great thing - if we can take our easy opportunities. Great to get a win. Great to basically dominate the game - with the ball and when they were coming at us with the ball. Not a one-sided game by any means - we still had to shutdown a lot of promising and well created attacks but we did it. Akbari had a great game going forwards - but a couple of real shockers defending and passing to a Macarthur player in a really dangerous place. Brindell-South had the best game I remember him playing. Moon was obviously really pleased with his performance - liked seeing that. Was happy with what Parsons offered. He was not out of place on the field and gives us another option coming through. O'Shea still had some awful directional issues this game. He was more involved but he coughed up the ball as much as anyone. And the mighty Jamie Young! Did his job brilliantly stopping goals - but until he started doing his short passes again he had me in tears of frustration giving the ball away. Mentioned in the match thread - Champness was again playing the team game rather than the individual threat game. We have other players who can do what he did tonight - what we need from him is the Champness creative factor. No doubt Moon had him tied down to a more co-operative style, but he is wasted that way. He is not great in defence so letting him off the leash is going to get more out of him than playing a solid controlled game does. Danzaki is getting better and better. Great pick up. He had to work for his tap in. Good win. Got to help confidence across the team to get that one extra goal and let's hope we continue improving. Did not need McDonald tonight - no small thing that we did it without him. Go you good things! PS: AOK - does that mean the table lied to us? ;) Good analysis. I like the British boys, solid in defense and workmanlike going forward. I only wish Wenzal Halls could convert more of those chances, he would be really up with the best of the ALeague I m a bit confused about moon's press conference comments on Scott mac. Is it injury or something else going on? Sounded like something other than injury. Anybody know anything?
|
|
|
|
|
JonoMV
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.9K,
Visits: 0
|
For me personally, Danzaki has been Brisbane's best player this season. Incredibly consistent and always a goal scoring threat (Remember he actually started that attack which led to his goal). Roar really should have been 3 up at the break and have scored at a minimum 4 goals last night. O'shea can produce high quality balls but he does appear to cough up the ball far too much or take too many touches. I thought DWH had one of his better matches this season if he can finish even 30% better Roar will be a top 6 side.
Probably one of Roar's best matches without Mcdonald.
Edit : I would also say Brisbane did not play like a side that was winless in 8 matches.
|
|
|
|
|
WSF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThat was a good win, and we hung on with tooth and nail for the last 5 minutes. My shoulders are aching from carrying the team. Lots of good stuff coming out of the game. To me, we out Macathured them when we decided it was worth holding onto the ball. We did not park the bus until the last 5 minutes - when we did our best to lose by letting them come at us. Every time I see that tactic I am reminded of our brilliant Roar v Mariners final - when the only reason we got a sniff was because Mariners decided to stop attacking and defended their lead. It is our attack that keeps them at bay and we should have maintained that - trusting in our really great backline to do their jobs with a third of the Macarthur players still holding back to stop our attackers hurting them further. Gillesphey had his usual blinder - cutting out so many dangerous passes on top of his deeper CB duties. Aldred and Longbottom with Gillesphey is a backline I trust and with the three of them back together it means they don't have to work out who is going to do what so much as just communicating that they are going to do it. Pragmatically speaking I do not think we have fixed anything yet in the final third. What we got was one more goal from our many created chances - which is exactly what I was asking for - but we missed such easy chances that could so easily have cost us the game. Mebrahtu just isn't being what I expect him to be - and that one criminal moment when he had a player on his left totally unmarked with the keeper out of the picture and he just bumbled into Federici instead of passing was damning. We are still so much better than that result - which is a great thing - if we can take our easy opportunities. Great to get a win. Great to basically dominate the game - with the ball and when they were coming at us with the ball. Not a one-sided game by any means - we still had to shutdown a lot of promising and well created attacks but we did it. Akbari had a great game going forwards - but a couple of real shockers defending and passing to a Macarthur player in a really dangerous place. Brindell-South had the best game I remember him playing. Moon was obviously really pleased with his performance - liked seeing that. Was happy with what Parsons offered. He was not out of place on the field and gives us another option coming through. O'Shea still had some awful directional issues this game. He was more involved but he coughed up the ball as much as anyone. And the mighty Jamie Young! Did his job brilliantly stopping goals - but until he started doing his short passes again he had me in tears of frustration giving the ball away. Mentioned in the match thread - Champness was again playing the team game rather than the individual threat game. We have other players who can do what he did tonight - what we need from him is the Champness creative factor. No doubt Moon had him tied down to a more co-operative style, but he is wasted that way. He is not great in defence so letting him off the leash is going to get more out of him than playing a solid controlled game does. Danzaki is getting better and better. Great pick up. He had to work for his tap in. Good win. Got to help confidence across the team to get that one extra goal and let's hope we continue improving. Did not need McDonald tonight - no small thing that we did it without him. Go you good things! PS: AOK - does that mean the table lied to us? ;) Good analysis. I like the British boys, solid in defense and workmanlike going forward. I only wish Wenzal Halls could convert more of those chances, he would be really up with the best of the ALeague I m a bit confused about moon's press conference comments on Scott mac. Is it injury or something else going on? Sounded like something other than injury. Anybody know anything? Maybe hes the one jumping ship?
|
|
|
|
|
Footballking55
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xThat was a good win, and we hung on with tooth and nail for the last 5 minutes. My shoulders are aching from carrying the team. Lots of good stuff coming out of the game. To me, we out Macathured them when we decided it was worth holding onto the ball. We did not park the bus until the last 5 minutes - when we did our best to lose by letting them come at us. Every time I see that tactic I am reminded of our brilliant Roar v Mariners final - when the only reason we got a sniff was because Mariners decided to stop attacking and defended their lead. It is our attack that keeps them at bay and we should have maintained that - trusting in our really great backline to do their jobs with a third of the Macarthur players still holding back to stop our attackers hurting them further. Gillesphey had his usual blinder - cutting out so many dangerous passes on top of his deeper CB duties. Aldred and Longbottom with Gillesphey is a backline I trust and with the three of them back together it means they don't have to work out who is going to do what so much as just communicating that they are going to do it. Pragmatically speaking I do not think we have fixed anything yet in the final third. What we got was one more goal from our many created chances - which is exactly what I was asking for - but we missed such easy chances that could so easily have cost us the game. Mebrahtu just isn't being what I expect him to be - and that one criminal moment when he had a player on his left totally unmarked with the keeper out of the picture and he just bumbled into Federici instead of passing was damning. We are still so much better than that result - which is a great thing - if we can take our easy opportunities. Great to get a win. Great to basically dominate the game - with the ball and when they were coming at us with the ball. Not a one-sided game by any means - we still had to shutdown a lot of promising and well created attacks but we did it. Akbari had a great game going forwards - but a couple of real shockers defending and passing to a Macarthur player in a really dangerous place. Brindell-South had the best game I remember him playing. Moon was obviously really pleased with his performance - liked seeing that. Was happy with what Parsons offered. He was not out of place on the field and gives us another option coming through. O'Shea still had some awful directional issues this game. He was more involved but he coughed up the ball as much as anyone. And the mighty Jamie Young! Did his job brilliantly stopping goals - but until he started doing his short passes again he had me in tears of frustration giving the ball away. Mentioned in the match thread - Champness was again playing the team game rather than the individual threat game. We have other players who can do what he did tonight - what we need from him is the Champness creative factor. No doubt Moon had him tied down to a more co-operative style, but he is wasted that way. He is not great in defence so letting him off the leash is going to get more out of him than playing a solid controlled game does. Danzaki is getting better and better. Great pick up. He had to work for his tap in. Good win. Got to help confidence across the team to get that one extra goal and let's hope we continue improving. Did not need McDonald tonight - no small thing that we did it without him. Go you good things! PS: AOK - does that mean the table lied to us? ;) Good analysis. I like the British boys, solid in defense and workmanlike going forward. I only wish Wenzal Halls could convert more of those chances, he would be really up with the best of the ALeague I m a bit confused about moon's press conference comments on Scott mac. Is it injury or something else going on? Sounded like something other than injury. Anybody know anything? Maybe hes the one jumping ship? Scott McDonald was commenting on Optus pre game show tonight. Seems we are all in the dark.
|
|
|
|
|
Footballking55
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Second to sixth drawn or lost this weekend. We are on the move at last! Funny that our dry run started with DWH's missed one on one against Macarthur and he converted a much more difficult chance on Friday to get us on the move.
|
|
|
|
|
aok
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThat was a good win, and we hung on with tooth and nail for the last 5 minutes. My shoulders are aching from carrying the team. Lots of good stuff coming out of the game. To me, we out Macathured them when we decided it was worth holding onto the ball. We did not park the bus until the last 5 minutes - when we did our best to lose by letting them come at us. Every time I see that tactic I am reminded of our brilliant Roar v Mariners final - when the only reason we got a sniff was because Mariners decided to stop attacking and defended their lead. It is our attack that keeps them at bay and we should have maintained that - trusting in our really great backline to do their jobs with a third of the Macarthur players still holding back to stop our attackers hurting them further. Gillesphey had his usual blinder - cutting out so many dangerous passes on top of his deeper CB duties. Aldred and Longbottom with Gillesphey is a backline I trust and with the three of them back together it means they don't have to work out who is going to do what so much as just communicating that they are going to do it. Pragmatically speaking I do not think we have fixed anything yet in the final third. What we got was one more goal from our many created chances - which is exactly what I was asking for - but we missed such easy chances that could so easily have cost us the game. Mebrahtu just isn't being what I expect him to be - and that one criminal moment when he had a player on his left totally unmarked with the keeper out of the picture and he just bumbled into Federici instead of passing was damning. We are still so much better than that result - which is a great thing - if we can take our easy opportunities. Great to get a win. Great to basically dominate the game - with the ball and when they were coming at us with the ball. Not a one-sided game by any means - we still had to shutdown a lot of promising and well created attacks but we did it. Akbari had a great game going forwards - but a couple of real shockers defending and passing to a Macarthur player in a really dangerous place. Brindell-South had the best game I remember him playing. Moon was obviously really pleased with his performance - liked seeing that. Was happy with what Parsons offered. He was not out of place on the field and gives us another option coming through. O'Shea still had some awful directional issues this game. He was more involved but he coughed up the ball as much as anyone. And the mighty Jamie Young! Did his job brilliantly stopping goals - but until he started doing his short passes again he had me in tears of frustration giving the ball away. Mentioned in the match thread - Champness was again playing the team game rather than the individual threat game. We have other players who can do what he did tonight - what we need from him is the Champness creative factor. No doubt Moon had him tied down to a more co-operative style, but he is wasted that way. He is not great in defence so letting him off the leash is going to get more out of him than playing a solid controlled game does. Danzaki is getting better and better. Great pick up. He had to work for his tap in. Good win. Got to help confidence across the team to get that one extra goal and let's hope we continue improving. Did not need McDonald tonight - no small thing that we did it without him. Go you good things! PS: AOK - does that mean the table lied to us? ;) Good analysis RIMB. Can't argue with what you're saying, especially with converting good chances. The table never lies :D - we were 8th best before the match and now we're 7th best - hopefully we can keep improving our conversion rate of chances and see a good finish to the season.
|
|
|
|
|
lolitsbigmic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Interesting comments by moon around McDonald not playing on the weekend. Does anyone have further information.just wonder it was just a injury or something more problematic.
|
|
|
|
|
PIFA
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 389,
Visits: 0
|
Was just told by someone who is usually quite accurate with the tidbits they give me that the Roar are offering Kudo out on a loan basis, and they're prepared to cut him altogether if there's no loan interest.
If true, I'm guessing it's a move back to J2 or even J3 for him, and the end of what has been a pointless experiment for the Roar.
|
|
|
|
|
lolitsbigmic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWas just told by someone who is usually quite accurate with the tidbits they give me that the Roar are offering Kudo out on a loan basis, and they're prepared to cut him altogether if there's no loan interest. If true, I'm guessing it's a move back to J2 or even J3 for him, and the end of what has been a pointless experiment for the Roar. Interesting to know. The worrying signs was already rocking up not fit. But all players are a gamble, visa are a bigger risk.
|
|
|
|
|
sirhcdobo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 666,
Visits: 0
|
+xInteresting comments by moon around McDonald not playing on the weekend. Does anyone have further information.just wonder it was just a injury or something more problematic. well now its a full blown conspiracy. Smac not in the squad for tomorrow, not in the injured list and not in the unavailable list and moon would not answer questions about him at training. I wonder what has gone on.
|
|
|
|
|
Footyball
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Lets get a team together to go on McDonald watch, we will get to the bottom of this!
|
|
|
|
|
invicta
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 46,
Visits: 0
|
Corey brown now suspended? Who should replace him? Parsons? Hingert? Jcb
|
|
|
|
|
Roar in me Blood
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xCorey brown now suspended? Who should replace him? Parsons? Hingert? Jcb If that was Corey's 5th, I would expect maybe Hingert and Brindell-South to be the 2 backs - but neither is a great fit for the left back role. I always picture JCP in at CB rather than racing up and down the sideline. Parsons is listed as a winger so maybe he could fill in (assuming he is defensive minded enough to get back). LB is not a position we have covered in any depth.
When I wear their colours, I am the club.
|
|
|
|