Minority Report v Colchester United

Personally, I thought that the first problem with the central midfield pairing was that they were dropping too close to the central defenders. When the defense won the ball back, they had no alternative but to hit the ball up to the front two, and because of the distance the ball had to travel, the front two were favourites to lose it.

The second problem was that they stayed flat in front of the back four, even after we had regained possession. Creating an opportunity to pass is all about movement in relation to the player with the ball. If there is no movement, there are no uncovered angles, and once again, the only option is the long clearance. Staying in formation in front of the defence is the better defensive alignment, and I tend to think, therefore, that the shape was planned for rather than being an accident of nerves or tension.

The third problem was that there was a large distance between the attacker and the rest of the team. When the ball was passed up to the front men from the defence, there was no time for the midfield to get up in support. Whether Winnall's lay-offs were ever goings to be effective whatever the rest of the team did is another question.

 

We can never be fully ready for the leap.

 

Isn't that what we've been doing? And those players have now matured to the point where teams in the league above will be sniffing around if we don't go up. Given that our long term strategy is going to be signing young unproven players, at some point we'll have to take the punt at testing them in the championship if we are going to be successful. Now we might get a better crop another season, we might not. But I don't think we can be sufficiently sure what will happen over the next few seasons to be turning down the opportunity of promotion when it arises.

 

We don't go up all our loans go back, guys out of contract leave and bigger clubs will come in for our better players.

If we do go up then I agree with you but would add Hourihane to Mawson. Other than that some no doubt will make the step up, but i'd say the majority won't.

 

The loans, mostly I can take or leave other than Fletcher who I hope we can keep for longer. I like Isgrove and Chapman but both are replaceable. Id imagine Williams will stay, Hammill I'm not sure and not too fussed either way either, has White signed yet?

Hopefully we'll go back in for O'Sullivan and sign a target man. Other than that we only really need a couple of squad players, a centre half, centre mid and depending on Hammill, another winger, O'Dowda at Oxford would be my choice.

 

I completely agree with your thoughts about the match, I saw the same game but to me the whole 'not ready for the championship' is a nonsense argument because it's likely to be a very different team if we did get promoted.

Cryne & Mansford have spoke about how the experienced players aren't really affordable to us in league one, if we go up they are affordable. They can complement the younger, talented players & we do have plenty of those let's not forget who have plenty of room to improve further (Winnall, Hourihane, Mawson, Roberts, Williams, Bree, Davies).

The other thing is there's nearly always a couple of sides in crisis coming down from the championship who we'd finish above.

In recent seasons that's been Coventry, Wigan, Blackpool etc. This year it's Charlton & Bolton.

I think it's naive to think this sides only just scraped into the play offs therefore we've no chance of lasting more than a year in the league above.

We're also a side that's much better on the counter attack. There's not many championship sides who'll turn up at Oakwell & be as negative as Shrewsbury, Crewe & countless others.

 

I can't remember saying you were right in a thread today.

But I do not believe you are wrong nor have i said so.

I post my own opinions and when I see those opinions that I disagree with, I post my disagreement.

According to you, this means that I "do not like" you. Which is of course wrong. Or a "troll", a concept with which it seems regular internet users are familiar. I only come on here or Amazon.

If you think I am a "troll" then I would invite you to study my posts over the years. You may still so conclude, but I suspect that you may find others concluding that it is the *****ing of your vanity and the thinness of your skin that leads you to consider someone like me a "mystery".

But that is becoming too personal. My responses are to the words of the person, and not the person himself.

p.s."more" humour?

 

I refer the gentleman to my previous comment.

 

You are right, you do not get to chose when you are promoted. However, what you do get to chose is the sort of strategy that will eventually bring about promotion on merit, and having achieved promotion, will give the team a better chance of staying in the higher division. I can go back many years of watching my club. I saw them promoted from the 4th tier under Jonny Steele and drop back again after a short stay. I can remember promotion from the 4th tier under Allan Clarke and the subsequent promotion under Norman Hunter to the second tier. That was a long stay and it was ended when we were promoted under Danny Wilson to the top tier. Our subsequent fall from grace very nearly ended in the fourth tier and did end in administration. I remember our promotion back to the second tier when we beat Swansea in Cardiff, and I have seen the subsequent result of that match on the fortunes of both clubs. There are lessons to be learned from that long history and if you do not learn those lessons, then you inevitably make the same mistakes.

It is a fact that of all the teams that I have seen promoted, the one that stands out is the Norman Hunter team. That team finished second, but was by far the best team in that division. The season after, it finish 6th in the second tier with very little change to the personnel. It did so mainly because of the investment that Allan Clarke persuaded the board to make in the team in the year before we were promoted. He used the transition year in order to build a fine team, a team capable of not only winning promotion, but also capable of sustaining that promotion once it had been achieved. All other promoted teams were promoted on a wing and a prayer and considerable rebuilding was necessary once promotion had been achieved, with all the problems for integration and balance that result. I have very little time for the cult of the manager. If you contrast the two periods we were managed by Allan Clarke, it becomes obvious the spending power is more important. However, the benefits of planning are also very obvious if you analyse that last 50 years.

Now, you may tell me that Allan Clarke built that team during a short period when cash was plentiful, and that situation is never likely to be repeated. However, my answer would be that we have a competitive budget for this division and at some point over the next 2 years, the club will receive a large sum of money for John Stones. In short, it is an ideal time to plan long term. An ideal time to build a team to go up... and stay up. An ideal time to recruit promising youth who will improve over the next two years, and we have built a recruitment organisation to do exactly that. Does it make sense to throw away all our recruitment planning and strategy in order to chase second tier ready players who will ultimately cost us a lot of money and take us back down.

I get plenty of criticism on here from people who believe that I am elitist. I am not, and I am a lot more passionate about my club in real life. I simply base my opinions on 50 years of experience.

 

If we don't go up the loans go back, Hammill/White out of contract go elsewhere and guys with one year left who are deemed our better players will have bids in for them.

If we do go up all the loans will still go back, Hammill/White will be offered contracts and Hourihane/Winnall/Scowen etc will get extensions.

 

Agree stood on each others toes first haif morphing into one player, also agree with RR and his 3 problems with the central midfield pairing which has been happening for quite some time now.

 

Many times yesterday, Conor and Josh B had ten yards free space to run into, to take us on, forward. But they kept passing it sideways. Or in Josh's case, to an opponent. Same against dem blavdes last week. And despite them playing deep, on each others' toes, it didn't stop the Colchester lad running through unopposed for their first goal. I'm a big fan of Conor's, and until the last few games, Brownhill has been a breath of fresh air. But one or both need to push on for me. Play in the opponents third.

 

Im not overly fussed whether Hammill stays or goes as I said. Cant see Scowen leaving, even though he's the best of the three but he's hardly been playing through our good run, especially in his favoured position. Not so sure Winnall will leave either but even if he and CH do leave, we'll be getting good money for them, both are replaceable.

 

The drive and movement through the centre has been missing for a while now, see this as a management decision rather than players decision.

 

My main problem with our midfield, Brownhill in particular, is that we never seem to have anyone breaking their necks to get into the box. I could understand if we we're sitting deep and keeping it tight but the amount of times opponents get in acres of spaces between our midfield and back 4 is astounding.

 

I said in my original report that it looked as though we had deliberately thrown the game. I do not say these things lightly, but like you, I was just at a loss to explain the way that we played. Normally I can watch a game without getting too involved, but that last 15 minutes left me hoarse and bald. Just exactly what were we trying to do, other than give the game away. And why was our coach standing impassively throughout when he should have been doing his nut like the rest of us.

The long break whilst their keeper was loaded onto the stretcher gave ample time for the coaches instructions to be passed to the players. The coach would have known that they had already used all their subs and that an outfield player would have been going in goal. More than half the team were gathered around the bench, taking on water and listening to instructions. I have no doubt that the way that we played thereafter was because of instructions passed from the bench, and I am not happy about it, to say the very least.

 

But I was happy about it. I felt it was the right thing to do. Not suggesting it 'was' correct, I'm no tactician. But it felt right to me. To keep the ball against ten men, run down the clock. And when you've got the ball near the corner flag in the 97th minute (the minimum time added), surely you attempt to keep it down there. Especially if as you suggest, Red Rain, the coach will have instructed the players to do. The last thing you do, is attempt some kind of showboating trick and gift the opposition an opportunity to get the ball into your defensive third.

 

Hammill did kick the ball weakly out of play, but to say a goal kick is an attacking opportunity is stretching things for me.

 

Its much more of an attacking opportunity than us having the ball in their final third. Once again, Hammill cost us by doing his little non tricks when the ball should have been played straight back in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It's a good job I didn't say that then, isn't it?

I said it gifted the opposition an 'opportunity' to get it into our defensive third. Which is what a goal kick usually does. It's a big kick that usually ends up over halfway, and gives an opportunity to get it into the opponents third. No?

Had he not kicked it weakly out of play, had he retained the ball as you claim he was instructed to do, it's unlikely that the ball would have got anywhere near our net.