Final third; set pieces and pitch shocking.
Effort was there but that doesn't matter if you can't put the ball in the back of the net.
Well that wasn't much better.
Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin
Guys, I know it wasn't great but other than in the final third I feel we actually played pretty well and were comfortably the better team. Cambridge played with their backs to the wall and other than a couple of chances never threatened, Scotty was a spectator but pulled off a cracking save when he needed too, Boyle drove the team on, both full backs attacked, Winchester played some nice stuff.
The problem was the front three I'm afraid, none of which did well enough.
The problem was the front three I'm afraid, none of which did well enough.
Too simplistic analysis, I am afraid.
The basic premise, that there was not much between the teams is accurate
I know we had more possession (BBC says 58%) but I am more surprised that the stats say we had 12 shots, five on target
How come I was there for the full 90 and cannot recall them.
Cambridge scored early, and although they can be said to have parked the bus, it was not backs against the wall, as we did not press them enough to force them back. That meant there were only a couple of times when I thought we might have scored. There were also two occasions when Cambridge should have scored again. There clear cut chances were more clear cut than ours.
We have a boggy midfield, and we tend to get bogged down in it. This was not helped yesterday by a midfield that failed to provide movement off the ball, or routes for the man on the ball to pass to. We need to get more crosses into the box. The inevitability that many of these are poor means we need a high quantity of supply so as there are enough good ones to get something from. Diagonal crosses sent in from a player 20 or more yards from the goal line, or short passes in the 18 yard box do not cut in a crowded area.
I would not have brought off Waters. He was clearly floundering behind the front pair, but he will always run until he drops. Davis was having a mare at wing back, not helping at either end of the field. It seems we have "Cheltenhamified" him from a player who everyone wanted to sign on for next season into another who looks out of place as a professional footballer. No doubt he will look better in games again, but as with most of our players, he will not produce consistently. Had we taken Davis off and played Dayton as winger, (another for all the comments I have just made also applies), then we could have switched to 4-4-2 and possibly played a wider game.
Whether this would have worked or not is open to debate, but is anyway a moot point now.
The basic premise, that there was not much between the teams is accurate
I know we had more possession (BBC says 58%) but I am more surprised that the stats say we had 12 shots, five on target
How come I was there for the full 90 and cannot recall them.
Cambridge scored early, and although they can be said to have parked the bus, it was not backs against the wall, as we did not press them enough to force them back. That meant there were only a couple of times when I thought we might have scored. There were also two occasions when Cambridge should have scored again. There clear cut chances were more clear cut than ours.
We have a boggy midfield, and we tend to get bogged down in it. This was not helped yesterday by a midfield that failed to provide movement off the ball, or routes for the man on the ball to pass to. We need to get more crosses into the box. The inevitability that many of these are poor means we need a high quantity of supply so as there are enough good ones to get something from. Diagonal crosses sent in from a player 20 or more yards from the goal line, or short passes in the 18 yard box do not cut in a crowded area.
I would not have brought off Waters. He was clearly floundering behind the front pair, but he will always run until he drops. Davis was having a mare at wing back, not helping at either end of the field. It seems we have "Cheltenhamified" him from a player who everyone wanted to sign on for next season into another who looks out of place as a professional footballer. No doubt he will look better in games again, but as with most of our players, he will not produce consistently. Had we taken Davis off and played Dayton as winger, (another for all the comments I have just made also applies), then we could have switched to 4-4-2 and possibly played a wider game.
Whether this would have worked or not is open to debate, but is anyway a moot point now.
I was also there for the full 90 mins and, although the BBC stats can sometimes be baffling, I think our shot count was about right yesterday. That said, very few of them represented a real scoring threat, unlike a small number of the opposition's chances. I agree that Cambridge didn't park the bus, but they appeared content to sit on their early lead. They were, unfortunately, able to sit back and easily absorb our pressure and when, they did break, they did so in numbers. However, I must say for a team in their league position, Cambridge didn't impress me yesterday. I hate saying it, but the poor state of the pitch was a major contributory factor to the poor quality football on view from both sides yesterday.
-
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
- Posts: 29811
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
If anyone didn't see the shots on target I assume they were in the C&G. First which spring to mind in H2 were Davis jinking into the nox and finishing softly and Wootton along the ground to their keeper.
I agree with most of your post but as much as I like Dayton I don't think he or any other winger can dribble past players on that pitch.leohoenig wrote:Too simplistic analysis, I am afraid.
The basic premise, that there was not much between the teams is accurate
I know we had more possession (BBC says 58%) but I am more surprised that the stats say we had 12 shots, five on target
How come I was there for the full 90 and cannot recall them.
Cambridge scored early, and although they can be said to have parked the bus, it was not backs against the wall, as we did not press them enough to force them back. That meant there were only a couple of times when I thought we might have scored. There were also two occasions when Cambridge should have scored again. There clear cut chances were more clear cut than ours.
We have a boggy midfield, and we tend to get bogged down in it. This was not helped yesterday by a midfield that failed to provide movement off the ball, or routes for the man on the ball to pass to. We need to get more crosses into the box. The inevitability that many of these are poor means we need a high quantity of supply so as there are enough good ones to get something from. Diagonal crosses sent in from a player 20 or more yards from the goal line, or short passes in the 18 yard box do not cut in a crowded area.
I would not have brought off Waters. He was clearly floundering behind the front pair, but he will always run until he drops. Davis was having a mare at wing back, not helping at either end of the field. It seems we have "Cheltenhamified" him from a player who everyone wanted to sign on for next season into another who looks out of place as a professional footballer. No doubt he will look better in games again, but as with most of our players, he will not produce consistently. Had we taken Davis off and played Dayton as winger, (another for all the comments I have just made also applies), then we could have switched to 4-4-2 and possibly played a wider game.
Whether this would have worked or not is open to debate, but is anyway a moot point now.
-
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
- Posts: 29811
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
To be honest, Cambridge didn't have to do too much to win. Was fairly easy.
Too simplistic I'm afraid Leo. We played pretty well in first half, kept ball on ground despite pitch and Davies was absolutely fine. It's true he didn't provide the same in the second half but that is mainly because he was not given the opportunity as he usually had two players around him There were one or two occasion when he had oceans of space but was not given the ball. Yes his free kicks were poor but to say he has be "Cheltmanised" is ridiculous and very harsh.. Good player who will hopefully be with us next season in Div 2.
Our problems lie with the front three which sadly included a very poor Billy. He has not scored for umpteen games and did not look remotely like doing so yesterday. Downes up there for last half hour would have brought greater threat. When Stoz is back there can be no place for Billy as Winne and Pelly have to play and currently he is not worth his place. "Running till you drop", as good as that is, does not mean a place is guaranteed unfortunately.
Our problems lie with the front three which sadly included a very poor Billy. He has not scored for umpteen games and did not look remotely like doing so yesterday. Downes up there for last half hour would have brought greater threat. When Stoz is back there can be no place for Billy as Winne and Pelly have to play and currently he is not worth his place. "Running till you drop", as good as that is, does not mean a place is guaranteed unfortunately.
Most of his runs are across the pitch and not at the defence where his pace might worry a defender.Oldun wrote:Too simplistic I'm afraid Leo. We played pretty well in first half, kept ball on ground despite pitch and Davies was absolutely fine. It's true he didn't provide the same in the second half but that is mainly because he was not given the opportunity as he usually had two players around him There were one or two occasion when he had oceans of space but was not given the ball. Yes his free kicks were poor but to say he has be "Cheltmanised" is ridiculous and very harsh.. Good player who will hopefully be with us next season in Div 2.
Our problems lie with the front three which sadly included a very poor Billy. He has not scored for umpteen games and did not look remotely like doing so yesterday. Downes up there for last half hour would have brought greater threat. When Stoz is back there can be no place for Billy as Winne and Pelly have to play and currently he is not worth his place. "Running till you drop", as good as that is, does not mean a place is guaranteed unfortunately.