|
Post by cagastrophy on Mar 11, 2020 12:20:13 GMT
I am still the same as before last night, and I think BG is the man for the job. If anything last night confirmed my feelings about Garner are right. He returned to Coughlan's set up, with Coughlan's tactics and used mostly Coughlan's squad. Guess what? We got the sort of result we could have expected under Coughlan. Kevin Maher could have been doing that for the past 19 games instead of the toot we've been being served up. So does he have to do something totally new to win to be justified? I think for the time being stick with it if we win a few. I agree that Maher could have done it, but I don't know if he wanted to.
|
|
|
Post by darkbluegas on Mar 11, 2020 12:22:13 GMT
No Banners for BG's removal No chants from supporters to get rid off him, instead only positives towards him. No sign of players not wanting to play for him - on last nights evidence total comitment to BG and Brstol Rovers Hopefully negatives will now turn to positive and BG will continue to build for next season. Funny that isn’t it. Judging by the reaction of some on here over the last few days I was expecting empty terraces and some of those in attendance spending the evening booing and jeering. Hopefully we’ll stick to the same crowd on Saturday
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Mar 11, 2020 12:25:25 GMT
No Banners for BG's removal No chants from supporters to get rid off him, instead only positives towards him. No sign of players not wanting to play for him - on last nights evidence total comitment to BG and Brstol Rovers Hopefully negatives will now turn to positive and BG will continue to build for next season. Funny that isn’t it. Judging by the reaction of some on here over the last few days I was expecting empty terraces and some of those in attendance spending the evening booing and jeering. Hopefully we’ll stick to the same crowd on Saturday It was one of the best atmospheres for quite some time. Hate cliches, but we were the 12th man last night. Outstanding.
|
|
|
Post by rovers69 on Mar 11, 2020 12:48:52 GMT
No Banners for BG's removal No chants from supporters to get rid off him, instead only positives towards him. No sign of players not wanting to play for him - on last nights evidence total comitment to BG and Brstol Rovers Hopefully negatives will now turn to positive and BG will continue to build for next season. Welcome back BG/BG's Mum/BG's other half - I guess you've been busy since Sunday preparing for last night's game? Please stick to the formation and tactics of last night on Saturday and we could be looking at another 3 points against an out of form Ipswich. UTG I Guees you are one of the armchair supporters so thank f..k for that as you are not needed at the ground-
|
|
|
Post by Rod1883 on Mar 11, 2020 13:06:43 GMT
Welcome back BG/BG's Mum/BG's other half - I guess you've been busy since Sunday preparing for last night's game? Please stick to the formation and tactics of last night on Saturday and we could be looking at another 3 points against an out of form Ipswich. UTG I Guees you are one of the armchair supporters so thank f..k for that as you are not needed at the ground-That's not very nice. You'll get another £500 fine for abuse! Anyway, what is Guees - something to do with Geese? It's true I don't get to too many games live, the next will probably be Pompey - but I am a long time supporter nonetheless, ex season ticket holder, Helpline member, who has opinions on players, tactics, formations, and the manager. Mostly formed through commentary, ifollow, some live games and the comments of other posters whose views I have learned to trust. All that entitles me to my opinion I feel. I am still intrigued why you never have any view on any aspect of how the club is run, the team is set up, the players perform or anything else other than just BG being given more time without any constructive argument or criticism either way.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Mar 11, 2020 13:09:16 GMT
Welcome back BG/BG's Mum/BG's other half - I guess you've been busy since Sunday preparing for last night's game? Please stick to the formation and tactics of last night on Saturday and we could be looking at another 3 points against an out of form Ipswich. UTG I Guees you are one of the armchair supporters so thank f..k for that as you are not needed at the ground-Thing is, since you've come on here, you've not praised the club or the team once. You've not praised a single player. You've slagged off GC and his players. You've slagged off DC's players. You've slagged off gasheads. Not praised a single thing, but backed BG on nearly every post. So it kinda looks like you're more interested in BG than the Gas.
|
|
|
Post by lastminutewinner on Mar 11, 2020 13:11:27 GMT
No Banners for BG's removal No chants from supporters to get rid off him, instead only positives towards him. No sign of players not wanting to play for him - on last nights evidence total comitment to BG and Brstol Rovers Hopefully negatives will now turn to positive and BG will continue to build for next season. Funny that isn’t it. Judging by the reaction of some on here over the last few days I was expecting empty terraces and some of those in attendance spending the evening booing and jeering. Hopefully we’ll stick to the same crowd on Saturday
But what was the alternative; watching Emmerdale, Corrie and Eastenders with the missus?...f**k that. The acid test will be on Saturday when there are other things to do, but last night would have helped push the attendance up.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Mar 11, 2020 13:16:30 GMT
Funny that isn’t it. Judging by the reaction of some on here over the last few days I was expecting empty terraces and some of those in attendance spending the evening booing and jeering. Hopefully we’ll stick to the same crowd on Saturday
But what was the alternative; watching Emmerdale, Corrie and Eastenders with the missus?...f**k that. The acid test will be on Saturday when there are other things to do, but last night would have helped push the attendance up.
Must admit, I was wishing I wasn't going last night. Glad I did. It was a great performance, great result. Hopefully word will get about that we're up for it and a few more will turn up Saturday. If the atmosphere and the support was anything like last night, it'll be a cracking game.
|
|
|
Post by lastminutewinner on Mar 11, 2020 13:20:25 GMT
But what was the alternative; watching Emmerdale, Corrie and Eastenders with the missus?...f**k that. The acid test will be on Saturday when there are other things to do, but last night would have helped push the attendance up.
Must admit, I was wishing I wasn't going last night. Glad I did. It was a great performance, great result. Hopefully word will get about that we're up for it and a few more will turn up Saturday. If the atmosphere and the support was anything like last night, it'll be a cracking game.
Definitely glad I went even though im feeling a bit under the weather. I'm still a bit concerned its taken Garner this long to produce a really good performance. even when we got relegated to the conference we beat Portsmouth 2-0 so I will need to see a few more similar performances to get excited..
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Mar 11, 2020 13:28:14 GMT
Must admit, I was wishing I wasn't going last night. Glad I did. It was a great performance, great result. Hopefully word will get about that we're up for it and a few more will turn up Saturday. If the atmosphere and the support was anything like last night, it'll be a cracking game.
Definitely glad I went even though im feeling a bit under the weather. I'm still a bit concerned its taken Garner this long to produce a really good performance. even when we got relegated to the conference we beat Portsmouth 2-0 so I will need to see a few more similar performances to get excited..
Would 3 points Saturday help?
|
|
|
Post by worrelsterlingalbion on Mar 11, 2020 13:31:44 GMT
IMO what we got last night was a mixture of both GC & BG, the 3 at the back set up and a strong base but going forward we weren't anything like a GC team. IMO the difference was work rate and getting support to JCH, the games that we have been really poor in JCH has been completely isolated and we've resorted to hoofing it in his general direction and hoping. Last night although we went long at times we had players like Hargreaves & Mitchell-Lawson with the ability to get themselves high enough up the pitch to win the 2nd ball. It wasn't all long ball though we mixed it up & played some decent stuff at times. Of course it's only 1 game but definite positive signs last night
|
|
|
Post by lastminutewinner on Mar 11, 2020 13:37:53 GMT
Definitely glad I went even though im feeling a bit under the weather. I'm still a bit concerned its taken Garner this long to produce a really good performance. even when we got relegated to the conference we beat Portsmouth 2-0 so I will need to see a few more similar performances to get excited..
Would 3 points Saturday help?
It wouldn't do any harm
Garner said he watched all our previous games so why the hell he decided to change things so drastically god only knows, and then take so long to change things. Jury is still out with him at the moment. 1 win isn't going to change3 months of poor viewing.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Mar 11, 2020 13:46:06 GMT
Would 3 points Saturday help?
It wouldn't do any harm
Garner said he watched all our previous games so why the hell he decided to change things so drastically god only knows, and then take so long to change things. Jury is still out with him at the moment. 1 win isn't going to change3 months of poor viewing.
It would be nice if he put out the same starting 11 Saturday. See what we're about.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Mar 11, 2020 13:54:00 GMT
If anything last night confirmed my feelings about Garner are right. He returned to Coughlan's set up, with Coughlan's tactics and used mostly Coughlan's squad. Guess what? We got the sort of result we could have expected under Coughlan. Kevin Maher could have been doing that for the past 19 games instead of the toot we've been being served up. So does he have to do something totally new to win to be justified? I think for the time being stick with it if we win a few. I agree that Maher could have done it, but I don't know if he wanted to. He doesn't have to do anything new. Which is what he should have been doing 19 games ago - nothing new. Instead of his clusterfuck desire for change.
|
|
|
Post by lastminutewinner on Mar 11, 2020 14:11:30 GMT
It wouldn't do any harm
Garner said he watched all our previous games so why the hell he decided to change things so drastically god only knows, and then take so long to change things. Jury is still out with him at the moment. 1 win isn't going to change3 months of poor viewing.
It would be nice if he put out the same starting 11 Saturday. See what we're about.
Yeah barring injuries I don't think anyone should lose their place after that as nobody had a bad game.
|
|
|
Post by reason on Mar 11, 2020 14:45:43 GMT
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I don't think Ben had any intention of drastic changes. I believe he saw a team looking very solid defensively, but were scoring few goals, due to very few chances created.
I think the first game that we tried a back four was the Stevenage game, which proved disappointing. You might argue that was a good game to try something different, whether you view it as an unimportant game, more like a friendly or just weaker opposition that we should have beaten. For me, it was an opportunity missed, but the players did not perform that night. We reverted to a back 3 / 5 after that but lost to Doncaster and subseequenrly he did try a back four on many occasions there on in.
For the record, since our win away to Ipswich we have played about half our games with a back four and half with 3 centre backs. We had a back 3 / 5 at Southend as well, so can we please dispel this myth that last night's result was due to returning to GC's tactics and formation - nonsense!
I do believe that a 4-3-3 or a variation with a back four, is Ben Garner's ultimate goal, and that was always going to be problematic - with our most consistent performers being our 3 centre backs. It was always going to be difficult choosng who to drop, hence the Kilgour / Menayese Right Back roles. And that was before Tom Davies' return, who I believe would have been a starter in a back four, making the decsion even more difficult, and would explain the potential move for Menayese.
We have been trying the front two supporting JCH on several occasions, and up until a few games ago, we were seeing signs of promise in the attcaking third with both Ginnelly and Mitchell-Lawson showing promise. Josh Barrett's cameo roles , also showed, I believe, the intention of having a creative midfielder in the centre three behind the lone striker.
However, formations are fluid, and they seem to be highlighted more when we lose - so alot then! The difference with last night, and a few glimses before, lies with the midfield. Teams have been pushing up two, three, even four men onto our defence, maintaining their own defensive line, and largely leaving that hole in midfield knowing that when they were in possession, they could play through that space, but also, being confident that when we were in possession we would just hoof it over the top to our front men. That was evidently not working, and to be fair to Garner, I do not think that is what he wanted our players doing!
Last night there was more energy, more endeavour. Our passing improved, and players were making themselves available, so we could play through our midfield rather than just hoof it forward. Jaydn was excellent last night, in attack and in defence, but Cameron's energy was key, both in pressuring their back line but also in being available in attack. Yes I do believe that a back three suits us best, if only to accommodate Tony Craig (I use the word 'accommodate' with no disrespect to Tony, as he has been a superb signing), as he is undoubtedly at his best in a three.
I have backed Garner beacuse I have seen glimpses of what he is trying to achieve, and I believe with the low number of chances created, let alone scored, per game, it was always going to become a problem - our outstanding defence and keeper (some world class saves) kept us in games that might have been drawn/lost. But I have also backed Garner because if you are to agree that any manager should be given time to change the club for the better, and I do believe that, then I believe he should have the Summer and the first 12 / 15 games of the new season. Yes that is a big ask for many of you here. And I know, one reslult does not change anything, except I believe it provides the security of League One football next season.
If Garner was to leave now, it would mean he has failed, but another manager would come with the same risks in trying to develop the squad to their thinking. By sticking with Garner, yes it could be proved a disaster, but there remains a chance that he can be a success - a great success. I believe as long as we're safe from relegation, let's see that through and the rewards could be far greater. Fortune favours the brave.
I know that requires a lot of patience and faith. But I am, perhaps alone, in being prepared to give Garner that time.
UTG!
|
|
|
Post by gretschgas on Mar 11, 2020 14:57:58 GMT
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I don't think Ben had any intention of drastic changes. I believe he saw a team looking very solid defensively, but were scoring few goals, due to very few chances created. I think the first game that we tried a back four was the Stevenage game, which proved disappointing. You might argue that was a good game to try something different, whether you view it as an unimportant game, more like a friendly or just weaker opposition that we should have beaten. For me, it was an opportunity missed, but the players did not perform that night. We reverted to a back 3 / 5 after that but lost to Doncaster and subseequenrly he did try a back four on many occasions there on in. For the record, since our win away to Ipswich we have played about half our games with a back four and half with 3 centre backs. We had a back 3 / 5 at Southend as well, so can we please dispel this myth that last night's result was due to returning to GC's tactics and formation - nonsense! I do believe that a 4-3-3 or a variation with a back four, is Ben Garner's ultimate goal, and that was always going to be problematic - with our most conssitent performers being our 3 centre backs. It was always going to be difficult choosng who to drop, hence the Kilgour / Menayese Right Back roles. And that was before Tom Davies' return, who I believe would have been a starter in a back four, making the decsion even more difficult, and would explain the potential move for Menayese. We have been trying the front two supporting JCH on several occasions, and up until a few games ago, we were seeing signs of promise in the attcaking third with both Ginnelly and Mitchell-Lawson showing promise. Josh Barrett's cameo roles , also showed, I believe, the intention of having a creative midfielder in the centre three behind the lone striker. However, formations are fluid, and they seem to be highlighted more when we lose - so alot then! The difference with last night, and a few glimses before, lies with the midfield. Teams have been pushing up two, three, even four men onto our defence, maintaining their own defensive line, and largely leaving that hole in midfield knowing that when they were in possession, they could play through that space, but also, being confident that when we were in possession we would just hoof it over the top to our front men. That was evidently not working, and to be fair to Garner, I do not think that is what he wanted our players doing! Last night there was more energy, more endeavour. Our passing improved, and players were making themselves available, so we could play through our midfield rather than just hoof it forward. Jaydn was excellent last night, in attack and in defence, but Cameron's energy was key, both in pressuring their back line but also in being available in attack. Yes I do believe that a back three suits us best, if only to accommodate Tony Craig (I use the word 'accommodate' with no disrespect to Tony, as he has been a superb signing), as he is undoubtedly at his best in a three. I have backed Garner beacuse I have seen glimpses of what he is trying to achieve, and I believe with the low number of chances created, let alone scored, per game, it was always going to become a problem - our outstanding defence and keeper (some world class saves) kept us in games that might have been drawn/lost. But I have also backed Garner because if you are to agree that any manager should be given time to change the club for the better, and I do believe that, then I believe he should have the Summer and the first 12 / 15 games of the new season. Yes that is a big ask for many of you here. And I know, one reslult does not change anything, except I believe it provides the security of League One football next season. If Garner was to leave now, it would mean he has failed, but another manager would come with the same risks in trying to develop the squad to their thinking. By sticking with Garner, yes it could be proved a disaster, but there remains a chance that he can be a success - a great success. I believe as long as we're safe from relegation, let's see that through and the rewards could be far greater. Fortune favours the brave. I know that requires a lot of patience and faith. But I am, perhaps alone, in being prepared to give Garner that time. UTG! Absolutely spot on, great post!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2020 15:27:53 GMT
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I don't think Ben had any intention of drastic changes. I believe he saw a team looking very solid defensively, but were scoring few goals, due to very few chances created. I think the first game that we tried a back four was the Stevenage game, which proved disappointing. You might argue that was a good game to try something different, whether you view it as an unimportant game, more like a friendly or just weaker opposition that we should have beaten. For me, it was an opportunity missed, but the players did not perform that night. We reverted to a back 3 / 5 after that but lost to Doncaster and subseequenrly he did try a back four on many occasions there on in. For the record, since our win away to Ipswich we have played about half our games with a back four and half with 3 centre backs. We had a back 3 / 5 at Southend as well, so can we please dispel this myth that last night's result was due to returning to GC's tactics and formation - nonsense! I do believe that a 4-3-3 or a variation with a back four, is Ben Garner's ultimate goal, and that was always going to be problematic - with our most conssitent performers being our 3 centre backs. It was always going to be difficult choosng who to drop, hence the Kilgour / Menayese Right Back roles. And that was before Tom Davies' return, who I believe would have been a starter in a back four, making the decsion even more difficult, and would explain the potential move for Menayese. We have been trying the front two supporting JCH on several occasions, and up until a few games ago, we were seeing signs of promise in the attcaking third with both Ginnelly and Mitchell-Lawson showing promise. Josh Barrett's cameo roles , also showed, I believe, the intention of having a creative midfielder in the centre three behind the lone striker. However, formations are fluid, and they seem to be highlighted more when we lose - so alot then! The difference with last night, and a few glimses before, lies with the midfield. Teams have been pushing up two, three, even four men onto our defence, maintaining their own defensive line, and largely leaving that hole in midfield knowing that when they were in possession, they could play through that space, but also, being confident that when we were in possession we would just hoof it over the top to our front men. That was evidently not working, and to be fair to Garner, I do not think that is what he wanted our players doing! Last night there was more energy, more endeavour. Our passing improved, and players were making themselves available, so we could play through our midfield rather than just hoof it forward. Jaydn was excellent last night, in attack and in defence, but Cameron's energy was key, both in pressuring their back line but also in being available in attack. Yes I do believe that a back three suits us best, if only to accommodate Tony Craig (I use the word 'accommodate' with no disrespect to Tony, as he has been a superb signing), as he is undoubtedly at his best in a three. I have backed Garner beacuse I have seen glimpses of what he is trying to achieve, and I believe with the low number of chances created, let alone scored, per game, it was always going to become a problem - our outstanding defence and keeper (some world class saves) kept us in games that might have been drawn/lost. But I have also backed Garner because if you are to agree that any manager should be given time to change the club for the better, and I do believe that, then I believe he should have the Summer and the first 12 / 15 games of the new season. Yes that is a big ask for many of you here. And I know, one reslult does not change anything, except I believe it provides the security of League One football next season. If Garner was to leave now, it would mean he has failed, but another manager would come with the same risks in trying to develop the squad to their thinking. By sticking with Garner, yes it could be proved a disaster, but there remains a chance that he can be a success - a great success. I believe as long as we're safe from relegation, let's see that through and the rewards could be far greater. Fortune favours the brave. I know that requires a lot of patience and faith. But I am, perhaps alone, in being prepared to give Garner that time. UTG! You are not alone. Top post in my opinion !
|
|
|
Post by worrelsterlingalbion on Mar 11, 2020 15:32:17 GMT
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I don't think Ben had any intention of drastic changes. I believe he saw a team looking very solid defensively, but were scoring few goals, due to very few chances created. I think the first game that we tried a back four was the Stevenage game, which proved disappointing. You might argue that was a good game to try something different, whether you view it as an unimportant game, more like a friendly or just weaker opposition that we should have beaten. For me, it was an opportunity missed, but the players did not perform that night. We reverted to a back 3 / 5 after that but lost to Doncaster and subseequenrly he did try a back four on many occasions there on in. For the record, since our win away to Ipswich we have played about half our games with a back four and half with 3 centre backs. We had a back 3 / 5 at Southend as well, so can we please dispel this myth that last night's result was due to returning to GC's tactics and formation - nonsense! I do believe that a 4-3-3 or a variation with a back four, is Ben Garner's ultimate goal, and that was always going to be problematic - with our most conssitent performers being our 3 centre backs. It was always going to be difficult choosng who to drop, hence the Kilgour / Menayese Right Back roles. And that was before Tom Davies' return, who I believe would have been a starter in a back four, making the decsion even more difficult, and would explain the potential move for Menayese. We have been trying the front two supporting JCH on several occasions, and up until a few games ago, we were seeing signs of promise in the attcaking third with both Ginnelly and Mitchell-Lawson showing promise. Josh Barrett's cameo roles , also showed, I believe, the intention of having a creative midfielder in the centre three behind the lone striker. However, formations are fluid, and they seem to be highlighted more when we lose - so alot then! The difference with last night, and a few glimses before, lies with the midfield. Teams have been pushing up two, three, even four men onto our defence, maintaining their own defensive line, and largely leaving that hole in midfield knowing that when they were in possession, they could play through that space, but also, being confident that when we were in possession we would just hoof it over the top to our front men. That was evidently not working, and to be fair to Garner, I do not think that is what he wanted our players doing! Last night there was more energy, more endeavour. Our passing improved, and players were making themselves available, so we could play through our midfield rather than just hoof it forward. Jaydn was excellent last night, in attack and in defence, but Cameron's energy was key, both in pressuring their back line but also in being available in attack. Yes I do believe that a back three suits us best, if only to accommodate Tony Craig (I use the word 'accommodate' with no disrespect to Tony, as he has been a superb signing), as he is undoubtedly at his best in a three. I have backed Garner beacuse I have seen glimpses of what he is trying to achieve, and I believe with the low number of chances created, let alone scored, per game, it was always going to become a problem - our outstanding defence and keeper (some world class saves) kept us in games that might have been drawn/lost. But I have also backed Garner because if you are to agree that any manager should be given time to change the club for the better, and I do believe that, then I believe he should have the Summer and the first 12 / 15 games of the new season. Yes that is a big ask for many of you here. And I know, one reslult does not change anything, except I believe it provides the security of League One football next season. If Garner was to leave now, it would mean he has failed, but another manager would come with the same risks in trying to develop the squad to their thinking. By sticking with Garner, yes it could be proved a disaster, but there remains a chance that he can be a success - a great success. I believe as long as we're safe from relegation, let's see that through and the rewards could be far greater. Fortune favours the brave. I know that requires a lot of patience and faith. But I am, perhaps alone, in being prepared to give Garner that time. UTG! You aren't alone, absolutely spot on
|
|
|
Post by exetergas on Mar 11, 2020 15:56:17 GMT
He definitely wants to play 4 3 3 but as you say the problem is Tony Craig has to play in a back 3/5 and that is his dilemma. JCH made a massive difference last night not just with the goals but making the ball stick up front.
|
|