Robbored Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 Sums up today's game from a City fan perspective. 63% possession, 23 attempts on goal, 7 on target. 15 corners to 3, City dominated both halves and how we didn't win is a mystery. Colchesters blatant time wasting virtually all game and the ref doing nothing about it until the last 5 mins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 First half though it was far too slow. As I've said before, until we stop giving these soft goals away then the potential will never be unlocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingswood Robin Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 Sums up today's game from a City fan perspective. 63% possession, 23 attempts on goal, 7 on target. 15 corners to 3, City dominated both halves and how we didn't win is a mystery. Colchesters blatant time wasting virtually all game and the ref doing nothing about it until the last 5 mins. Let me solve it. Dodgy at the back, punchless up front. Lots of possession counts for nothing if all we can muster is long range stuff and crosses into the box for a midget to get nowhere near. I don't think we dominated at all, at times we looked awful. We gave everything we could and it wasn't good enough. I thought if Colchester had a bit more ambition they would have won it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted September 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 Let me solve it. Dodgy at the back, punchless up front. Lots of possession counts for nothing if all we can muster is long range stuff and crosses into the box for a midget to get nowhere near. I don't think we dominated at all, at times we looked awful. We gave everything we could and it wasn't good enough. I thought if Colchester had a bit more ambition they would have won it. What game were you at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 What game were you at? We did dominate but not enough clear opportunities created and not enough urgency shown until Harewood came on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pickle Rick Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 Let me solve it. Dodgy at the back, punchless up front. Lots of possession counts for nothing if all we can muster is long range stuff and crosses into the box for a midget to get nowhere near. I don't think we dominated at all, at times we looked awful. We gave everything we could and it wasn't good enough. I thought if Colchester had a bit more ambition they would have won it. Laughable, you must be joking?! We didn't win today because we.re dodgy at the back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingswood Robin Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 What game were you at? The city game I just commented on. Plenty of others were saying the same coming out of the ground. For some people, the equaliser seems to have made everything okay. I find this puzzling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepers Ball Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 What game were you at? The same on as me. He is correct. Plenty of ball time with no substance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingswood Robin Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 Laughable, you must be joking?! We didn't win today because we.re dodgy at the back? Yes, I was laughing my head off when we conceded that utterly predictable free header. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC RISK77 Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 Sums up today's game from a City fan perspective. 63% possession, 23 attempts on goal, 7 on target. 15 corners to 3, City dominated both halves and how we didn't win is a mystery. Colchesters blatant time wasting virtually all game and the ref doing nothing about it until the last 5 mins. you keep seeing that glass half full.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 RR an honest question here, given that it would appear in commentary 5 minutes before we equalised the commentator said that in the first half their keeper had never been called upon to make a meaningful save (and bearing in mind BCFC's head of communications sat next to him who agreed). My question is given our apparent better 2nd half performance and given Colchester had 11 players unavailable, do you believe perhaps Harewood should have started?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodEmperor Palpatine Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 We should've had a penalty before they scored... Looked stonewall to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodEmperor Palpatine Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 We should've had a penalty before they scored... Looked stonewall to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinYourHood Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 Well well well... Today was shocking. Instead of getting a new defender in I strongly believe we need a new striker. Jet was to deep today and baldock just isnt being given the chances. Pack had a poor game... best player for me today was flint. He seemed to be the only one who turnt up in full force. Many positives from today though. We just gotta stop hoofing the ball up top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bemmyredjeff Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 Sums up today's game from a City fan perspective. 63% possession, 23 attempts on goal, 7 on target. 15 corners to 3, City dominated both halves and how we didn't win is a mystery.Colchesters blatant time wasting virtually all game and the ref doing nothing about it until the last 5 mins. Ah, the good old time wasting moan and there's one simple solution to that, take the lead and keep it. Yes we dominated possession wise but like Shrewsbury , Colchester were quite happy to contain our pretty pedestrian forays into their half after pinching the lead. Only when Harewood appeared did the tempo of our game reach a decent and more penetrating level. Time to get more streetwise and start roughing up our opponents. Let's hope there are no more rash judgements of certain players, who after a couple of decent displays were suddenly being described as the creative midfielder we've been looking for. As against Peterbrough Reid proved lightweight and mostly innocuous. Kelly's loss in pre season has proved so costly as he would undoubtedly have given midfield the stability we are crying out for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenn Loyal Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 More like Complete Sh-te Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bemmyredjeff Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 Well well well... Today was shocking. Instead of getting a new defender in I strongly believe we need a new striker. Jet was to deep today and baldock just isnt being given the chances. Pack had a poor game... best player for me today was flint. He seemed to be the only one who turnt up in full force.Many positives from today though. We just gotta stop hoofing the ball up top. Unfortunately it was only when we started hoofing it up front to Harewood that the Colchester defence were given more to think about. Up to that point they were quite comfortable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pickle Rick Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 Yes, I was laughing my head off when we conceded that utterly predictable free header. I'll say it again: "We didn't win because we're dodgy at the back". Are you on something? Or are you oblivious to the original point? So having 63% possession and letting in a header means we are dodgy at the back, that's how we didn't win today? Seems you just want to put in a brainless dig, it is totally irrelevant in this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pickle Rick Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 Well well well... Today was shocking. Instead of getting a new defender in I strongly believe we need a new striker. Jet was to deep today and baldock just isnt being given the chances. Pack had a poor game... best player for me today was flint. He seemed to be the only one who turnt up in full force. Many positives from today though. We just gotta stop hoofing the ball up top. I think this Kingswood Robin critic would say different. We need a new defender cus' we're dodgy at the back, that's how we didn't win today (apparently) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 I'll say it again: "We didn't win because we're dodgy at the back". Are you on something? Or are you oblivious to the original point? So having 63% possession and letting in a header means we are dodgy at the back, that's how we didn't win today? Seems you just want to put in a brainless dig, it is totally irrelevant in this topic. Look I was only privy to the commentary, but did we not almost concede 3 times in the last 5 minutes, twice from Williams mistakes (one needing a last ditch tackle by Flint, that needed to be spot on as it was from behind) and 1 from a breakaway?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 We did dominate but not enough clear opportunities created and not enough urgency shown until Harewood came on. The crux of the matter. Sadly, you don't get points for possession (we'd be top of the league!) and our build-up play is so slow and hesitant, with midfielders not making themselves available in positions that the defence can reasonably be expected to get the ball to them,. Colchester inevitably had got back in numbers.By contrast they hit us doing this thing called "a break" - which I've heard of, but not seen from anyone in a red shirt. Secondly, of course, Sean is going to have to think of a starting line-up that isn't 4-4-1-1. Playing JET 'in the hole' behind Baldock seems a good idea on paper, but in practice - and although he has many, many good qualities - maintaining formation discipline isn't one of them. As oft as not, he drifts out right, or into deep midfield, leaving Baldock isolated and marked out the game by a big defender. My final plea would be for JET to be in the box rather than taking corners. We know he can't jump, but let's make use of his size and his powerdriver shot. He should've taken the last free-kick too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodEmperor Palpatine Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 RR an honest question here, given that it would appear in commentary 5 minutes before we equalised the commentator said that in the first half their keeper had never been called upon to make a meaningful save (and bearing in mind BCFC's head of communications sat next to him who agreed). My question is given our apparent better 2nd half performance and given Colchester had 11 players unavailable, do you believe perhaps Harewood should have started?. Well Wagstaff forced a great save out of their keeper first half, had him at full stretch... so it shows how much attention the commentator and BCFC's head of communications pays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingswood Robin Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 I think this Kingswood Robin critic would say different. We need a new defender cus' we're dodgy at the back, that's how we didn't win today (apparently) If we hadn't conceded yet another sloppy goal, the score would have been 1-0 to us. That's a win for us. You obviously struggle with your reading. I'll say it again (you can check if you like), we didn't win because we were dodgy at the back AND punchless up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 We barely created a goal scoring opportunity. 20 odd shots means nothing, pot shots from 40 yards aren't a reflection of dominance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TinnionForEngland Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 Most of our efforts went into row Z, they were garbage attempts, laughable at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokey Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 Well i could see improvements in our performance. If we pass it short fans moan, if we play it long fans moan. **** me our fans just like a good old ******* moan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperRed Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 For me the style of play the S'OD is trying to implement is a large part of the problem. By playing the ball around at the back we are allowing the opposition time to just set up with ten players behind the ball, which, combined with our narrow style of play, more often that not results with our moves breaking down in midfield as we attempt to force a ball that's not on or simply because of the lack of space. For me, the second halves of todays game and the Shrewsbury game have shown the way we need to play. We'd be much better off playing Harewood up front as the lone striker or going 4-4-2, allowing us the option to get it quickly into someone who we can then play off in the oppositions half rather than in our own. Unfortunately it seems that S'OD only plays like this out of necessity, when we're chasing the game, rather than will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 Well i could see improvements in our performance. If we pass it short fans moan, if we play it long fans moan. **** me our fans just like a good old ******* moan How many goal scoring chances did we make with our 63% possession? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookEnd Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 The same on as me. He is correct.Plenty of ball time with no substance Reminds me of the Missus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted September 28, 2013 Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 The city game I just commented on. Plenty of others were saying the same coming out of the ground. For some people, the equaliser seems to have made everything okay. I find this puzzling. Despite SOD's rather pathetic propaganda most fans had realistic expectations about this season. However I'm sure most didn't think that the day would come when drawing at home to Colchester would be treated as some kind of triumph. Having realistic expectations is fine. Setting them so low is likely to end up with a self fulfilling prophecy. I doubt the players go out confident of a win when SOD's pre-match talk boils down to we're crap, we can't be expected to beat such strong opposition and if we don't it's the fans fault anyway. Nobody's asking for wild predictions just some sign of a reasonable level of confidence in his players and an end to attacks on the fans. Let's have an end to the defeatism that has prevailed since he arrived or else we will all get exactly what we expect to get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.