Minority Report - Gillingham

Red Rain..........I agree with many of your points

A hint though.......please make your reports more concise

 

I can see exactly the formation and shape that was played yesterday. I also could see how they tried to adjust things later in the game. It was clear to me that we knew what we were doing and not 'searching' for a shape. Not everything a team or every player does will come off. Thats isn't a sin, despite you suggesting otherwise. I can see we are pushing for consistency but i get what the team is trying to do. Im sorry if it confuses you.

 

You lost me at after the subs Gillingham 'dominated' the game.

Nonsense.

They had a lot more of the game but it became wide open for both sides, turned from a game that was probably 80-20 in our favour to an even one.

 

I have a lot of time for these 'minority reports' but I have to take issue where I believe you've moved past analytical into over critical territory.

Firstly Winnall. You are correct, he's not suited to playing up front on his own. He doesn't hold onto the ball well enough and isn't an adequate outlet for full backs when we're under the cosh. However, he does provide 100% effort and more importantly... goals. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say he's the player most likely in our squad to latch on to the loose ball and tuck it away as he did for his goal. Call me old fashioned but you have to play someone who will take half chances when they appear. The workrate of Watkins and Harris also help where this is concerned.

Which brings me onto width. You say that Watkins and Harris spend their time tracking back which is true but it's precisely this kind of work which takes pressure off our full backs, enabling them to get down 'bomb alley'. I've become increasingly impressed by Watkins who's awkward style I must admit I was suspicious of but his workrate combined with pace and a trick or two was a handful for their defenders all game. Harris has more to do in an attacking sense but I can't fault his commitment to the cause.

Finally, I think you have a major blind spot when it comes to Crawley. He's my kind of footballer, bags of technique, a trick, positive at all times and so fluid when in possession. Yes, he lost possession (but only once from memory) and yes he'll lose his man a couple of times but I think you're ignoring the fact that every time he went near the ball we looked a threat. His first instinct is either to take a player on or bring others into the game and you can see how the opposition rate him because they instantly back off. He wasn't aimlessly wandering but rather finding space in the middle of the park and in doing so taking pressure off our back 4 under the cosh towards the end of the game. Perhaps interchanging positions isn't in LJ's grand plan and he got a bollocking for it but id rather see a player of his ability rather than a straight lines player any day.

 

Lots of good points (as ever) in the Minority Report. Bit of an exaggeration to say Gillingham dominated but they did look the more likely to score in the last 20 minutes.

Crowley I generally have time for but he gave away possession far too easily and tried tricks in the wrong places. Harris has pace and a directness about him that I like but his final ball is very poor. Watkins provides a consistent level of performance and is usually involved in any threatening attacks.

Winnall is a typical goalscorer blows hot and cold but is a constant goal threat so it's this that keeps him in the side rather than anything else.

Thanks again for the report.

 

There were some great chances for barnsley in the last 20.

 

Crowley's not got the know how of how to fit in a team yet.

That's for me why he needs to be on the bench & used as a potential game changer if we're struggling

 

I do make an effort to read your reports Red Rain, and I often find myself agreeing with parts of them, but like others I feel you're looking for things to nitpick this time around. Gillingham had a couple of half chances at the beginning and near the end but we never looked in danger after going 1-0 up, largely thanks to us retaining our shape and defending as a unit. We comfortably defeated another early pace-setter, took the chances we created and limited Gillingham and their star man Dack to next to nothing. If you can't be at least a little satisfied with that then I really don't know what you want from this team.

 

Thanks for your comments.

Winnall

I got very frustrated with his play, particularly in the first half, and particularly the times that he had done the first job (securing possession). On several occasions, he tired to use his pace run past the centre back in order to find open space and create a better position. He had the ball taken from him quite easily. So he does not have the pace needed to play the position that way. We already know that he cannot hold the ball up in order to wait for support, so he cannot play the position that way either. But you are right that he scores goals. It is a very difficult problem for LJ to deal with. At one point I thought the solution was the diamond and wing backs. Now, I really do not have a solution. But the problem is that I do not think that the team can be effective as long as the problem persists. LJ says that he does not have two midfield players who are strong enough to play 4-4-2,and I think that he is right, so how does LJ play Winnall in a pair up front. It is a problem that I first identified at the beginning of last season. Then I suggested that either Winnall or Hourihane be sold. The problem still persists under LJ, and I still can think of no better plan.

Watkins and Harris

It was not their tracking back that annoyed me. It was the fact that so much ball was lost again within our own half of the field because the wingers (particularly Harris) allowed themselves to be caught on the ball by their marker. OK, Jackson was a difficult customer and he did have a good game, but the team cannot move smoothly from a defensive shape to an attacking shape if they cannot be sure of retaining possession in their own half. There have been many, many complaints on this board during the past week about tippy-tappy football and aimless passing across the back four, but in my opinion, this results as much as anything from a lack of confidence that the team is able to retain possession. Without that, there is a lack of movement forward, and particularly movement into space ahead of the passer.

Crowley

Crowley is very young, but this is men's football, and he should not be playing with the men unless he is ready. He had replaced a winger, and in the system that we were playing, he was required to play out wide in order to look after Jackson. There were times when he forgot about his defensive responsibilities leaving Smith exposed. Just about every time he got the ball, he took it inside where he was more comfortable, but where he was not supposed to be within the team structure. He did not cost us a goal, so everyone wants to overlook it, but it could have been different. Look, he is very young, but he is here to learn the game and he will not do that by pleasing himself.

 

Like everyone on here, I would like to see us in a higher division. However, unlike most, I do not want us to fluke our way up and then struggle again. If that is to be achieved, we must be a lot better than we are at the minute. I do not know how old you are, or whether you can remember the team that Norman Hunter took to the second tier, which finished 6th the season after. Today's levels of fitness are better and the game is better understood by the coaches, but not one of the current team would get into that team. My comments must be viewed in the light of the continual improvement that the team must make in order improve the standard of player at the club. Of course, ours is a very young team and the Norman Hunter team had an average age of 25, so some of that improvement will come as they mature. However, some of the players are not right for the system the management team want to play. I have confidence that they will get it right, but it will take another two transfer windows at least. Many mistake my reports for criticism but they are not. They are observations based upon want I have seen. I am not looking for confrontation when I write these reports. I am saying, "Look, this is what I have seen. What have you seen." Sadly, so many on here use the forum principally for confrontation, and abuse that they have difficulty in seeing any other way. It is a great shame because this place could and should be so much better.

Moving on, our central 3 midfield players played very well and consequently Dack was not a force.

 

Just watched the goals back and think this is very harsh. It was a result of a great flick on from Winnall, good strength and pace from Watkins and a very good cut back which was straight in to Winnall's path. Followed up by a very composed finish. It is nice to get a different view of the game now and again but it does seem like you are taking a great deal of poetic licence in your summaries!

 

Yes Mateo, I agree with that as well. It was a brlliant drive through the defence by Watkins, which is something he is doing often. Then, instead of aimlessly laying it sideways he DELIBERATELY cut it back, wrong footing the whole defence, into the path of SSW who timed his run to perfection and scored a beauty.

 

I wonder if he is Will Self fan? Miserable, negative, verbose - that kind of thing!

I know I write at length but I'd like to think that most of my pieces have a positive theme. I feel I should be listening to my Leonard Cohen albums when reading Red Rain's reports

 

I have just watched the Winnall goal back for the first half and you may well be right. From my angle at the game, it seemed that the off balance defender was favourite and that Watkins had mis-kicked the pass.

 

If that was intended for me ok - we all see things from different angles. I'm on the half way line, ESL, and I knew he intended it at the time. Like I say, Watkins is making a habit of doing this kind of thing and we should take more advantage of his runs.

Like everything else, it will come in time. Unlike many on here, I have LOADS of patience and will give this team every encouragement to get it right. We've had three good home wins so far, all against the "top" teams. Mind you I find it hard to consider any of the top six as potential promotion challengers. SU should be in there I suppose but I am looking forward to seeing them self-combust, as always.

The rest should just part like the Red Sea as we surge through them all

Oh and PS - I am old enough (with interest) to remember the Norman Hunter glory days. My time goes back to the almost extinction of the club in the early 1960s.

 

And minority view.

 

Ahhh, the Winnall who scored 13 goals in 4 months of football and Hourihane who directly contributed to another 30 or summat? I'm glad your plan wasn't taken up by the powers that be at Oakwell otherwise we'd be reading Minority Reports after L2 matches.


I enjoy your threads, RR. But it's rare I agree with much of the content. Brain food though. All good.

 

As you know only too well, I do not do these for people to agree with. I would rather someone disagreed, but stated why. Then I also get to use my brain. Football is all about opinions, and if I have made you think and test the validity of your opinion, then I have achieved my aim.

The trouble is, most on here are not like you. They want to read something that they already agree with. Brain food is the last thing on their menu.

 

Whitey wants you to tell him Winnall and Hourihane are our best players. And have you suggest that RNL comes back from Rochdale.

The trouble with your opinion is that it is based on formations. And the idea that formations win games. Just formations win games.

This is not a supposition that most people on here, in my opinion, go along with.

If you have a round enough peg going into a round enough hole, then it's up to the players being good enough. Skill in their own area of the pitch, allied with positional sense, will do the job. Bit of organisation, bit of inspiration, but alot of talent in the position does the job.

You want a discussion on a white board in a dressing room. It is not necessary. And whilst you can carry on posting increasingly more obscure explanations regarding what you've seen, all your brain needs to know is that posters will say that they cannot agree.

And it is unseemly to start slagging off people who simply don't agree with you. I do not post in order for you to secure your brain food, nor for you to make me think.

Abuse is far too prevalent on this board. But appearing superior to "most on here" will not help you.

 

I would accept that Sam is not a specialized target man, and thus this system probably doesn't get the best from him. However, he's still scoring goals and I'd not drop him.

I'm excited by Crowley and equally as frustrated. But it is what it is. He's a useful sub. And not our player.

Watkins has been the standout player in the games I've seen, Harris I've not been disappointed or excited in the games I've seen. As much as I'm a little bit meh right now about all things BFC, there isn't a player I dislike (there's been many in recent years) and I really like the manager.