Monday November 12th, 19.30, Venue: 3 Rock, SS Rovers V Boardeaux.

LeixlipRed

I think the injuries,etc have prevented us from getting a settled back 4 and that's affected us quite a bit. We've had 4 people play right full, 4 play centre half and 2 play left back since the season started. The injuries to Shay and Joe mean we've no centre mids when Kenny isn;t there (Sav playing upfront of course). All that chopping and changing is killing us. If we had our strongest XI out there every week we'd be challenging for this league. Winning it more than likely but it aint happening. It;s frustrating. It's also frustrating that it's only 6 of us or so who ever get to discuss this stuff on here. Des, get a team meeting or something going so we can salvage this season

LoBo

One point I'd agree with is using subs for 10 mins to give tired players a rest. We have unlimited subs and always have a big bench of players at matches. I agree with sav that at that point in a game a like for like sub may not help - if we had limited subs like in real football. Since we don't and we have the squad I think we should try and use it more. 10 mins into the 2nd half swap a couple players for 10 mins rest. I think it could help.

Anyway this isn't particular to monday's game since I wasn't there to see it. Hard luck on the loss and hopefully I'll be back next week (played some football this week after 3 wks rest and once again groin sore after- frustrating).

BlackWizard

Yeah I agree with that. No sub will mind if say Sav wants to come off for 5-10min for a rest then go back on again.

Q_Ball

Savman wrote: »

You're suggesting they lost us the game, which really isn't the case. I could argue that if it wasn't for them we wouldn't have been leading so convincingly at half time.

The midfield was fantastic in the first half, i'm not disputing that. I just said that they went missing parts for the second half that allowed the opposition to get a greater stranglehold on the game. I'm not saying the midfield - or the defence, or any individual for that matter - was at fault for the loss. I'm also not saying that regaining the midfield would have resulted in us winning. I'm just pointing out areas where i feel we went wrong.

Savman wrote: »

As for our defence, well it had some obvious miscommunication issues that have already been raised. I remember a few games back our defence was rock solid but we weren't looking great in the final third, so I'll cut them slack for all the other times they saved our bacon.

Yeah it was an unusual performance from a generally solid defence (of which I'm proud to (hopefully) be a part of), I agree with you again. The full backs were attacking well in the first half and the centres were solid. It seemed like the tiredness that set in towards the end led to the mistakes (in all areas) which is why I think brining on someone would have been an idea, even to give someone a break for a few minutes like colm and darragh have pointed out.

Savman wrote: »

All I'll say here is that more often than not, football seems like a much easier game from the sideline bud.

Player managers > sideline managers (> armchair managers )? I had the same view of the game as the manager, and I'm just expressing the areas where I thought we fell down and possible ideas on how to avoid doing so again. And trying to do so in as constructive a way as I can so I apologise if I seem to be harsh.

Savman wrote: »

...including Martin's which I was convinced was goal bound. We could have been leading 4 or 5-1 at HT and that would have been game over.

I was just about to celebrate when I saw where it was going! 4 or 5-1 and the game would have been dead in the water. At 3-2 the confidence seemed to go and that started us on the slippery slope.

Savman wrote: »

Lessons learned, take chances and defend better. I don't think we need to be told

Thats a very easy conclusion to reach but its not what I'm getting at, just voicing my opinion as a player and a fan

BlackWizard

Lads listen up.

It's ALL Savs fault

Next week we will ask him to do better.

LeixlipRed

Sav wants to come off for 5 minutes in the second half for a rest and who replaces him lads? That only works when you have the players. Darren is a right full, Michael a left full. Art was already on the pitch. Throwing on players willy nilly to replace tired players could be worse than leaving those tired players on. The roll on roll off has its advantages but I don't think it should be ever used like that unless the player coming on can do a job in that position. If I'm brutally honest, I hate the roll on roll off system. It's great against rubbish teams but in a tight game it can totally unsettle the team. Anyway, nothing we can do about that.

Great to see some good debate on it though

Savman

BlackWizard wrote: »

Lads listen up.

It's ALL Savs fault

Next week we will ask him to do better.

C'mon stop mincing your words

Q_Ball

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Sav wants to come off for 5 minutes in the second half for a rest and who replaces him lads? That only works when you have the players. Darren is a right full, Michael a left full. Art was already on the pitch. Throwing on players willy nilly to replace tired players could be worse than leaving those tired players on. The roll on roll off has its advantages but I don't think it should be ever used like that unless the player coming on can do a job in that position. If I'm brutally honest, I hate the roll on roll off system. It's great against rubbish teams but in a tight game it can totally unsettle the team. Anyway, nothing we can do about that.

Great to see some good debate on it though

It takes me a friggin' age to write these cos there's a senior exec sitting behind me!

I wouldnt advise subbing players to a position where they cant do a job, obviously. It only makes sense to throw on a sub if they can do a job in that position like you say. Advantage of the roll on roll of system is that, for example, I had replaced simon for a spell and it was blatently obvious i was struggling then I could replaced straight away. It doesnt defeat the purpose of doing the swap in the first place because you're giving yourself the opportunity to rest a player. The subbed player could even play so well that they mightn't have to be taken off again. In one way you're changing the risk of a goal being conceded due to tired legs to the risk of a goal being scored because the sub doesnt play well.

But i'll bow to experience on this, if people feel that subbing like for like to give players a rest is a bad idea then fair enough.

Savman

Q_Ball wrote: »

In one way you're changing the risk of a goal being conceded due to tired legs to the risk of a goal being scored because the sub doesnt play well.

I actually don't remember any goals conceded due to blatant and obvious tiredness.
Lack of communication, failing to clear our lines, basic errors....
Tiredness? Can't really say I noticed it being a huge issue.

Let me just clear one thing up, I'm not saying I'm against Substitutions, we just did not have enough Impact players on the line on this occasion. Now before you or Mike or anyone takes offense, that's not a criticism of personnell but a simple matter of observation. Also I have never in all my life heard of a double substitution where a team brings on 2 Full Backs

I won't open a can of worms by asking who you would have taken off, but I have to maintain the players on the pitch were more than capable of winning the game.

I know you're not necessarily moaning cos you didnt get a game and I honestly don't know Des' exact reasons for not changing things, I'm just giving you my own view. It's perfectly natural for a Sub to be watching a game like that when things go bad and think "I can do better", but I can assure you that our problems as a team are not in any way related to Subs.
Don't worry you'll get your chance to show us all how it's done. We're expecting BIG things :D:D

Q_Ball

Savman wrote: »

I actually don't remember any goals conceded due to blatant and obvious tiredness.
Lack of communication, failing to clear our lines, basic errors....
Tiredness? Can't really say I noticed it being a huge issue.

I never said that goals scored in the game were a result of blatant and obvious tiredness. I do believe that the concentration went because of it though which, partly or otherwise, resulted in some of their goals. At least thats how I saw it but as you said yourself, its an easier game from the sidelines.

Savman wrote: »

Let me just clear one thing up, I'm not saying I'm against Substitutions, we just did not have enough Impact players on the line on this occasion. Now before you or Mike or anyone takes offense, that's not a criticism of personnell but a simple matter of observation. Also I have never in all my life heard of a double substitution where a team brings on 2 Full Backs

I never said to use a double substitution. I said there were two subs there that could have been used and, in my opinion, should have been used to some extent. people wont agree with it but thats opinion for ya.

Savman wrote: »

I won't open a can of worms by asking who you would have taken off, but I have to maintain the players on the pitch were more than capable of winning the game.

I have to maintain the players on the pitch were more than capable of winning the game.

Savman wrote: »

I know you're not necessarily moaning cos you didnt get a game and I honestly don't know Des' exact reasons for not changing things, I'm just giving you my own view. It's perfectly natural for a Sub to be watching a game like that when things go bad and think "I can do better", but I can assure you that our problems as a team are not in any way related to Subs.

I'm not moaning I'm expressing my own view. If we had have had two subs for any other position I'd still be saying the same thing. Even if i was injured I'd still be saying the same thing. But you're right, our problems are not related to subs, our problems should be addressed at training...

*edit* Do you think we'd have finished the first half 3 - 1 up if i had started? I dont think so. I know where I stand in the team and I stand there *literally * for a reason.

Savman wrote: »

Don't worry you'll get your chance to show us all how it's done. We're expecting BIG things :D:D

No pressure then :eek: :rolleyes:

FrankGrimes

LeixlipRed wrote: »

willy nilly

Good to see some decent debate going on lads, and I'll try get time to post later today...but for the moment all I wanna add is

Using the term 'willy nilly' on this forum, in public, in this day and age - WHAT THE F**K?

LeixlipRed

I love that expression. Allows you to throw the word willy into a normal conversation without raising an eyebrow

Q_Ball

Its just become my phrase for the week. Didnt even notice it in your original post!

Savman

FrankGrimes wrote: »

willy

LeixlipRed wrote:

willy

hee hee

FrankGrimes

Good to see some interest in discussing the team’s fortunes and some suggestions for improvements. Consider this forum the changing rooms, admittedly one where outsiders can listen in, but the changing room nonetheless. Players can give their thoughts on what we’re doing wrong, how to improve things, use of subs etc. However, just like any team, the manager has the final say in selection and substitutions, so I don’t feel people should be questioning specific selections or substitutions, though just like any team, you’re always free to call out praise for particular players as you see fit. By all means comment on generics like ‘we should be making impact subs’ but I don’t think it’s a player’s place to question a specific substitution.

That said, what happens here is pretty much within those boundaries, so that’s really just saying it before it might have been discussed.

My own view is that tiredness did affect us last week and concentration dropped also, which is usually related. That’s an indictment of us when you consider it’s only a 60-minute game, but in fairness, we had a midfield that had never played together and ran themselves into the ground in a great first half. It’s not like people were out on their feet, but when you’re not fresh enough to be covering the ground without thinking about it, the tendency is to drop off a yard or two and it makes a difference, and they used this to really take ownership of the centre of the park. The defence also sat very deep, which is a mindset thing I’ve referred to before, and it means we didn’t have the attacking threat from fullback that we should have. I’ve said it before, but sitting deep leads to a cycle of defence clearing it and it just comes straight back with forwards starved of quality ball in the final 3rd.

One centre-half needs to take responsibility for the defence by talking to them and getting them to push up while the ball is in play, and fullbacks need to take the responsibility to make the effort to present an attacking option. I think our centre midfielders should be playing alongside each other not one in front of the other cos when the forward doesn’t have an opportunity to make the forward burst, neither of them go. When they play side by side, one will always be in a position to get forward. All that means that when we do get the ball it’s further up the pitch and we have a chance to create more, and it’s pretty much what we did in the first half to great effect. Yep, the defence need to be on their toes, but in general when we’ve played that way they’ve taken care of it.