|
|
Post by phillistine on Dec 20, 2014 9:24:53 GMT
..as last night was , it just goes to show that Gateshead took us by surprise with a tactical game that we were not expecting.
I cant believe that this was the first time that they lined up in the way that they did and whilst I appreciate that this is an assumption on my part , I feel that it highlights a glaring omission in our battleplan in that we still lack any form of structured scouting network. If we had watched them for a couple of games in advance we would have known how they might play instead of having to wait for 25 minutes for DC to work it out and change things round.
We all talk about needing a forward or maybe a constructive midfield player but the reality is that DC has shown that if he knows what to expect then he can come up with a game plan that will win or at least draw the games . We don't have a flair forward line so the old mantra of let the opposition worry about us rather than than us worry about them just doesnt work for Rovers. We need to stiffle the threat of the opponents and then grind them down.
I realise that Gateshead is one hell of a journey but DC has contacts in Hartlepool and I am sure that someone up there would have been happy to do the run over them for us .
It is known that our ex scouts are still out there but instead of working for Rovers they are scouting for league clubs.
If we really want to get back into the league and maximise our point haul then we simply have to be better prepared and the budget has to be found to get scouting reports on our opponents.
I realise that this is a feel good day but the time to plan is when you are ahead of the game not chasing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Dec 20, 2014 10:22:14 GMT
Phillistine ,
There is a big flaw in your post as Gateshead were on TV not long ago and played pretty well exactly the same way as they did last night. There were no surprises to me whatsoever and I fully expected them to pass the ball about the back four and thought that if we played our "usual" game and allowed the opponents to bring the ball out from the back and pass across the back four then we would find ourselves stretched particularly if we played with two widemen. Its one hell of a job for Mansell and Sinclair when you have a back four who sit miles too deep and I was very surprised that DC didn't start bu pressurising Gateshead from the front and compressing the game more however perhaps the way it went provided a much better game.
For all their possession Gateshead did not really create that many chances and to be honest although they play good football it is a bit boring to watch when the ball is played so much in their own half.
Anyway, a win against possibly the best footballing side in the division can't be bad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 10:26:29 GMT
At least DC can read a game and make changes to give us a chance of winning a match.
Been some time since we've had a manager that can do that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 10:27:19 GMT
If we make a habit of being able to adapt to the other team's game plan in the 90 minutes and grind out wins, suddenly the play-offs become less of a gamble?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark Ash on Dec 20, 2014 10:35:01 GMT
For me, last night highlights the different facets a successful team needs. I thought Gateshead were superb in the first half-hour, passing and moving with premiership-style smoothness in a way that we never do. (Except maybe against Barnet, nearly?) Much was rightly made on TV of Oster and Turnbull, but people were always there for them to find.
However, I was amazed how little fight they showed as soon as they went behind. 19 minutes remaining - then a stunning 7 more minutes added - but they never looked up for it. Our players had so much more will to win.
Plus the tactical switch, of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldgas on Dec 20, 2014 10:51:09 GMT
The thing with the first half is that we were disciplined and kept our shape. People around me were screaming for our players to get stuck into them, chase the ball down, fly into tackles etc. That's the last thing we needed to do, because that's exactly what Gateshead were planning on, pull us out of shape then hit us fast. They got one goal but for all their possession the ball rarely got to our penalty area. Once DC sussed out their game plan he altered our shape and we overpowered their tippy-tappy passing game and they had no answer to our more aggressive style. Thank God for the Beard, that bloke's worth 2 in midfield and his celebration was hilarious. He didn't know whether to knee-slide, jump up and down on the spot, run round like a headless chicken so he sort of combined all 3 and added hysterical screaming as well! the blokes a legend and I hope he stays with us for his whole career in football; imagine the galvanising effect he would have as a youth coach or similar, worth his weight.
|
|
|
|
Post by WeAreTheGas on Dec 20, 2014 10:55:32 GMT
For me, last night highlights the different facets a successful team needs. I thought Gateshead were superb in the first half-hour, passing and moving with premiership-style smoothness in a way that we never do. (Except maybe against Barnet, nearly?) Much was rightly made on TV of Oster and Turnbull, but people were always there for them to find. However, I was amazed how little fight they showed as soon as they went behind. 19 minutes remaining - then a stunning 7 more minutes added - but they never looked up for it. Our players had so much more will to win. Plus the tactical switch, of course. Agree with this. Gateshead - a very tidy footballing team, all players comfortable on the ball, patient in possession, incisive passing, but perhaps not mentally as strong as us when the going gets tough? |
|
|
|
Post by glostergas on Dec 20, 2014 11:11:24 GMT
The thing with the first half is that we were disciplined and kept our shape. People around me were screaming for our players to get stuck into them, chase the ball down, fly into tackles etc. That's the last thing we needed to do, because that's exactly what Gateshead were planning on, pull us out of shape then hit us fast. They got one goal but for all their possession the ball rarely got to our penalty area. Once DC sussed out their game plan he altered our shape and we overpowered their tippy-tappy passing game and they had no answer to our more aggressive style. Thank God for the Beard, that bloke's worth 2 in midfield and his celebration was hilarious. He didn't know whether to knee-slide, jump up and down on the spot, run round like a headless chicken so he sort of combined all 3 and added hysterical screaming as well! the blokes a legend and I hope he stays with us for his whole career in football; imagine the galvanising effect he would have as a youth coach or similar, worth his weight. Spot on and me and my mate was saying the same and most around couldn't understand why and moaning when he bought Ollly on but they wasn't moaning at the end UTG |
|
|
|
Post by phillistine on Dec 20, 2014 11:18:30 GMT
Phillistine , There is a big flaw in your post as Gateshead were on TV not long ago and played pretty well exactly the same way as they did last night. There were no surprises to me whatsoever and I fully expected them to pass the ball about the back four and thought that if we played our "usual" game and allowed the opponents to bring the ball out from the back and pass across the back four then we would find ourselves stretched particularly if we played with two widemen. Its one hell of a job for Mansell and Sinclair when you have a back four who sit miles too deep and I was very surprised that DC didn't start bu pressurising Gateshead from the front and compressing the game more however perhaps the way it went provided a much better game. For all their possession Gateshead did not really create that many chances and to be honest although they play good football it is a bit boring to watch when the ball is played so much in their own half. Anyway, a win against possibly the best footballing side in the division can't be bad. I dont have BT and am never sure of who is being televised. My comment was made following DC's comments that he had to switch it to counter the problems they caused - implying that he hadnt planned for it. Perhaps my opinion has been forged because I had a conversation with an ex Rovers scout who attends our games as a fan when he can. It was he who told me that Buckle dropped all of our scouts when he took charge and since then we have never replaced them. MM used to rely on Sean North a lot and they even tried sending out injured players to try and scout the opposition. His suggestion was that we do not have a structure for checking the opposition out and that when we sign players on loan we are heavily reliant on the honesty of the clubs who employ them that the players will do a job for us. People comment on DC signing players he knew from the past and that was because Rovers didn't have a scouting network in place to look at potential signings . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 12:15:30 GMT
For all their possession Gateshead did not really create that many chances This is true. Their first goal came about via a lucky deflection on the cross that fell nicely for them and apart from the second goal i cant recall our keeper making a decent save of note. |
|
|
|
Post by mehewmagic on Dec 20, 2014 12:18:06 GMT
Phillistine , There is a big flaw in your post as Gateshead were on TV not long ago and played pretty well exactly the same way as they did last night. There were no surprises to me whatsoever and I fully expected them to pass the ball about the back four and thought that if we played our "usual" game and allowed the opponents to bring the ball out from the back and pass across the back four then we would find ourselves stretched particularly if we played with two widemen. Its one hell of a job for Mansell and Sinclair when you have a back four who sit miles too deep and I was very surprised that DC didn't start bu pressurising Gateshead from the front and compressing the game more however perhaps the way it went provided a much better game. For all their possession Gateshead did not really create that many chances and to be honest although they play good football it is a bit boring to watch when the ball is played so much in their own half. Anyway, a win against possibly the best footballing side in the division can't be bad. very incisive as usual steve. I haven;t got time at mo to write my thoughts here, but my next BEP article has already been in my head since we went 3-2 up. Like you say, this playing it around the back is all well and good but you can;t score goals from your own box. Yes, we struggled to deal with it for a while but that was partly because of individual errors on both goals, plus the fact that Gateshead had an effective system and used it well, with skillful players,with amazing touches(at times...). Every 'footballing side' I can think of who has played it around the back at the Mem have gone home with zero points. |
|
|
|
Post by mehewmagic on Dec 20, 2014 12:20:00 GMT
The thing with the first half is that we were disciplined and kept our shape. People around me were screaming for our players to get stuck into them, chase the ball down, fly into tackles etc. That's the last thing we needed to do, because that's exactly what Gateshead were planning on, pull us out of shape then hit us fast. They got one goal but for all their possession the ball rarely got to our penalty area. Once DC sussed out their game plan he altered our shape and we overpowered their tippy-tappy passing game and they had no answer to our more aggressive style. Thank God for the Beard, that bloke's worth 2 in midfield and his celebration was hilarious. He didn't know whether to knee-slide, jump up and down on the spot, run round like a headless chicken so he sort of combined all 3 and added hysterical screaming as well! the blokes a legend and I hope he stays with us for his whole career in football; imagine the galvanising effect he would have as a youth coach or similar, worth his weight. ditto to my comment on steve. excellent change, and exc response (twice) by us. Maybe they even were told that this ref gives nothing so you might as well get stuck in more than usual! |
|
|
|
Post by Strange Gas on Dec 20, 2014 12:56:34 GMT
The thing with the first half is that we were disciplined and kept our shape. People around me were screaming for our players to get stuck into them, chase the ball down, fly into tackles etc. That's the last thing we needed to do, because that's exactly what Gateshead were planning on, pull us out of shape then hit us fast. They got one goal but for all their possession the ball rarely got to our penalty area. Once DC sussed out their game plan he altered our shape and we overpowered their tippy-tappy passing game and they had no answer to our more aggressive style. Thank God for the Beard, that bloke's worth 2 in midfield and his celebration was hilarious. He didn't know whether to knee-slide, jump up and down on the spot, run round like a headless chicken so he sort of combined all 3 and added hysterical screaming as well! the blokes a legend and I hope he stays with us for his whole career in football; imagine the galvanising effect he would have as a youth coach or similar, worth his weight. Great post and agree. Doesn't change the fact it was frustrating to watch it and worry about where our goal might come from as even 1-0 down looked like too much of a mountain to climb at that point. Players and fans looked afraid. I guess you are saying "keep the faith" and we should but after some of our less encouraging displays thats quite an ask! What was most encouraging was despite their skill they couldn't adapt when we changed (apart from jumping on our defensive error for their 2nd) and I hope other teams have same problem |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 15:16:36 GMT
The thing with the first half is that we were disciplined and kept our shape. People around me were screaming for our players to get stuck into them, chase the ball down, fly into tackles etc. That's the last thing we needed to do, because that's exactly what Gateshead were planning on, pull us out of shape then hit us fast. They got one goal but for all their possession the ball rarely got to our penalty area. Once DC sussed out their game plan he altered our shape and we overpowered their tippy-tappy passing game and they had no answer to our more aggressive style. Thank God for the Beard, that bloke's worth 2 in midfield and his celebration was hilarious. He didn't know whether to knee-slide, jump up and down on the spot, run round like a headless chicken so he sort of combined all 3 and added hysterical screaming as well! the blokes a legend and I hope he stays with us for his whole career in football; imagine the galvanising effect he would have as a youth coach or similar, worth his weight. Hmmm, not so sure I agree re: our lack of pressing in the first half. In fact with your final statement you've almost put what I am about to post here! Gateshead defensive players really didn't have much about them, and lost the ball quite a lot. Their attacking players were quality though. The first goal, for example, came about because their full back was allowed to hit a 50-yard cross field ball to their winger (who was also in tonnes of space, I hasten to add). Grimsby played them in August and won 4-1, primarily because they forced the Gateshead defence into making numerous errors... (See the third goal more than any of the others, high pressing all over the pitch) Thankfully we sorted it out in the second half, although at the time I still didn't agree with DC's narrow approach and a lack of wingers. Guess that's why he is the manager!  |
|
|
|
Post by Strange Gas on Dec 20, 2014 17:11:31 GMT
Gateshead defensive players really didn't have much about them, and lost the ball quite a lot. Their attacking players were quality though. The first goal, for example, came about because their full back was allowed to hit a 50-yard cross field ball to their winger (who was also in tonnes of space, I hasten to add). Grimsby played them in August and won 4-1, primarily because they forced the Gateshead defence into making numerous errors...
Agree and we should have exposed their defence in 1st half. All that fancy pants passing across the back 4 and the reckless keeper was bound to produce errors if we'd pressured them a bit more. Came good in 2nd though |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 17:38:43 GMT
In reference to the thread title. This was our greatest comeback in a game for some considerable time in fact I struggle to remember when we last came back twice in a game and won. Well done DC and the boys.
|
|
|
|
Post by fanboy on Dec 20, 2014 17:47:54 GMT
In reference to the thread title. This was our greatest comeback in a game for some considerable time in fact I struggle to remember when we last came back twice in a game and won. Well done DC and the boys. Believe the last time was 14th November 2009 at home to Carlise under Trollope. Lines with a 94th minute winner. |
|
|
|
Post by Fat Albert on Dec 20, 2014 18:20:04 GMT
I'm not sure I would agree with a lot of the talk about playing systems and switching it about etc.
I firmly believe that at this level with the exception of one or two, each player does his job for the position he is put in and no more.
A lot of what we see even at lower league level is players happy enough to not make a mistake as opposed to being truly comfortable on the ball and able to change at the drop of a hat.
You have a mixture of individuals that are effective in different roles and that's what makes your team effective overall.
I reckon it sounds good to talk of systems and changing it up etc but the reality at this level is if your centre midfielder is better than there's and works equally hard he will be more effective over the 90 minutes. So on for each positional match up.
|
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Dec 20, 2014 21:28:34 GMT
I'm not sure I would agree with a lot of the talk about playing systems and switching it about etc. I firmly believe that at this level with the exception of one or two, each player does his job for the position he is put in and no more. A lot of what we see even at lower league level is players happy enough to not make a mistake as opposed to being truly comfortable on the ball and able to change at the drop of a hat. You have a mixture of individuals that are effective in different roles and that's what makes your team effective overall. I reckon it sounds good to talk of systems and changing it up etc but the reality at this level is if your centre midfielder is better than there's and works equally hard he will be more effective over the 90 minutes. So on for each positional match up. That last bit sounds very methodical but surly every player has different strengths and weaknesses and every game is different. If you were making a football management simulation then you'd probably have results like that in terms of duals between two players but in real life all sorts of things happen and it's unpredictable. If you'd said to me at half time last night we were going to win 3-2 I'd have bitten your arm off. You wouldn't have expected that would you. |
|
|
|
Post by Fat Albert on Dec 20, 2014 22:37:58 GMT
I'm not sure I would agree with a lot of the talk about playing systems and switching it about etc. I firmly believe that at this level with the exception of one or two, each player does his job for the position he is put in and no more. A lot of what we see even at lower league level is players happy enough to not make a mistake as opposed to being truly comfortable on the ball and able to change at the drop of a hat. You have a mixture of individuals that are effective in different roles and that's what makes your team effective overall. I reckon it sounds good to talk of systems and changing it up etc but the reality at this level is if your centre midfielder is better than there's and works equally hard he will be more effective over the 90 minutes. So on for each positional match up. That last bit sounds very methodical but surly every player has different strengths and weaknesses and every game is different. If you were making a football management simulation then you'd probably have results like that in terms of duals between two players but in real life all sorts of things happen and it's unpredictable. If you'd said to me at half time last night we were going to win 3-2 I'd have bitten your arm off. You wouldn't have expected that would you. [ Yeah fair point they are all human so the better player does not always perform the best on the day. I standby my point on systems etc though. I just don't think at this level the players are good enough to do anything other than play the position they are in. All this he's gonna go here, your gonna go there, then he'll slot in blah blah blah. I honestly think that goes out of the window when the whistle goes. |
|
