THE TEAM The main talking-point was the inclusion of diminutive midfielder, Stephen Dawson, for his debut. The following Reds side took to the pitch on a cloudless day, which made everything except our shirts look sky blue: - Steele - Wiseman - Foster - Edwards - McEveley - McNulty - Smith - Dawson Tonge - Golbourne - Davies - THE FIRST HALF We did threaten occasionally, most noticeably when getting the ball wide to Smith, or Golbourne, especially the latter, who looked lively and keen to make an impression. However, on the few occasions we did get either of these players into crossing positions, the final ball was cleared, or did not find its target, even though one from Smith from the right had Murphy scrambling, but it dropped just over and wide. Tonge had what proved to be our ONLY shot on target with one which caused Murphy problems in swerving around. He took it at the second attempt. The quality of football being played by both sides was pretty poor, the game being littered with lost possession and mis-placed passes by both teams, such that neither pattern, nor flow was established in the game throughout the first half. A defensive error looked the only possible way a goal might come and Edwards, I think, made one to let in Manchester City loanee Nimely for City, but he shot wide with only Steele to beat. It tells you something about the nature of the match that the biggest talking point was the performance of the linesman, who seemed to be wearing sky blue glasses, especially when the ball seemed to be in-play for Coventry and out for us. THE SECOND HALF The same pattern emerged as the first, with the ground strangely hushed, neither set of fans having anything to cheer. Coventry did seem to gain more of the possession, but their play kept to type and broke down frequently as a result of mis-placed passes, or lost possession. There was potential danger from 6’4” front-man Clive Platt, who glanced a header wide, when he really should have buried it. Good chance gone begging. Like Coventry, we were able to establish no pattern of play, nor develop any flowing passing moves. Substitutes were introduced by both sides: Done and Cotterill, followed by Gray (so two up-top) for us and Bell for City. It seemed, therefore, that Hill, having closed the game down for seventy-five minutes, was willing to go for a more stretched contest in the hope of winning it late on. We did not ever manage to establish an attacking threat and the decision rebounded on us. City started to work good wide positions from which to get in crosses and Platt was always a threat from these. Our defence, especially Foster who had an excellent game, was being given a working over for the first time and you just feared what might happen. Steele made brave saves and Foster and Edwards put their bodies on the line with good blocks to keep City out. The announcement of three additional minutes had just been made when we failed properly to clear a cross from the City right, which came back at us from their left. This time the centre-pair were too stretched and Platt had the space to plant his header firmly past Steele. Game over. Well nearly, as Coventry kept pressing and McSheffrey’s thunderbolt almost smashed the bar.
PART TWO: ANALYSIS I said before the game that I thought that £10 was good value for a Championship match. Actually, we barely got what we paid for. In all honesty the game as a contest was desperately poor and characterised by mis-placed passes, lost possession and a lack of ability by either side to control the ball and the general play. Being true of both sides, this is why the ‘spectacle’ left so much to be desired. City played like a team low on confidence and with the doomed look of players knowing their likely fate and really with not much ambition to do anything about it. We just seemed to want to soak up what minimal pressure they could exert and see out a 0-0, which would have been a fair result as the truth is that neither side deserved to win, let alone to score. Our back four did fairly well to combat the pressure towards the end, but this was truly mainly of Foster and Edwards. We looked less convincing at full back, where the quality of passing to develop from defence to attack was most noticeably poor and a key reason why we could not seem to mount counter-attacks. We did tend to try to play too much possession across the back and it nearly cost us a couple of times. This was also because we had minimal control in midfield. McNulty played in a holding role in front of the back four – see below for comments. That left a midfield four of Smith, Dawson, Tonge and Golbourne. Golbourne kept to the left touchline, which gave us width to get out of defence and also had the potential to stretch the City defence more. On the right, Smith was not playing as a winger, but more in an old inside-right channel, which meant we did not have width right and did not stretch the defence on that side. The centre midfield two did ok in parts, but this was the area in which no control was exerted by either side. Davies battled gamely up front, but the game was chanceless for him. PLAYER ANALYSIS Steele 7: some very brave saves, especially in the second half, when he took a couple of knocks. Commanded the area well and looked in charge. Good game. Wiseman 5: Did his bit, but his distribution was often lacking and he did not get forward enough times to support Smith, which was another reason we did not create width, or crossing opportunities down our right. Maybe he was under instructions to keep back as part of the ‘clean sheet’ strategy. Foster 8: clearly my man-of-the-match. His positional play was excellent and, towards the end, he stood between Coventry and the goals a number of times, getting in several good blocks to keep out shots and generally marking well the awkward Platt. Edwards 6: also did his bit towards the end, but looked a little more shaky than Foster and let in Nimely for what should have been a goal in the first half. McEveley 4: the best I can say is that his height was useful when defending some set pieces. His distribution was shocking virtually throughout the game. It was hard to believe that any one player could misplace so many passes with such consistency throughout ninety-three minutes. McNulty 5: The idea was part of the ‘clean sheet’ strategy, I presume, and cast Jim in the holding role. It was useful to have him here when defending set plays and we certainly had plenty of height available in that respect. He is not a holding midfield player. He did come on to the ball well enough and had plenty of possession and, unlike some others, did get a reasonable number of passes to a red shirt, but his feet are not that quick, so he tended to get caught in possession and the passes he made were almost always the routine and safe ‘ten yard’ pass. Perhaps this was also part of the ‘clean sheet’ strategy! (sorry to go on about this, but Hill said it was the plan and the performance ‘lived down’ to that concept). Smith 5: ok in parts, but exerted no strong influence on the game. I would have liked to see him wider as more of a winger, but he is used to the Norwich City diamond and seemed to drift inside too much, which meant we had insufficient width to stretch City down their left. Dawson 6: mainly on potential, rather than performance. A player who was feeling his way into the team today. He showed good application and some nice touches. Hill really pursued Dawson and I hope that we have unearthed another Billy Bremner, because he has the potential to be that type of player. Not very tall, but a good engine and the potential to become the midfield dynamo to make things happen. Golbourne 6: looked keen and lively and trying to make an impression. Gave us width down our left and did stretch their defence, especially early on. Rather faded later and was substituted, but one who we can develop into a good attacking left-sided player. Davies 6: mainly for effort, although he was at times so isolated up front you wondered if the others were talking to him at all. He had no chances to score today and that was not his fault. It just tells you how little was coming forwards from midfield. We had hardly any set pieces and no corners, which is another statistic which tells its own story. Cotterill 5: did not get into the game much. Done 5: tried hard and tracked well, making one good break forwards. Gray 5: tried ok and won some headers. Did manage to find the occasional red shirt. So there you have it! It was all sky blue – the shirts, the stadium and the cloudless sky. Most of the twenty-two players out there played as if they would rather have gone fishing for the afternoon and, what is most sad, I would think that most of the 13k plus crowd had the same thought, although the City fans would be pleased with the three points. There was just nothing to engage the crowd with this game until right at the end. It was a disjointed pudding of a game. The City fans seemed to be seated such that they look like encampments of Bedouin nomads in the desert, which brought one of the few amusing reds chants of the day – “your ground’s too big for you.” Nine hundred and twenty-two was a good turn out of reds fans and yet the game produced virtually nothing at any point to get them us any sort of voice, which was the biggest let-down of all. Better days will come, but I hope we will be told the next time the 0-0 ‘clean sheet' strategy is being used, because I will keep my money in my pocket – even if its only £10. Sorry, guys! It was dire.
Great read as always mate. Lets hope that this game plan is thrown out and we go and try to get a win. I dont know what Hill says at half time but I cant remember us coming out ion the second half and US being the dominant team, I am certain we will have this season, but I am struggling to think of an occasion. Anyway, lets chalk **** on Coventry and beat Forest.
quite simply one of the worst games of football I have seen in a long time. All I can say is, I hope its just related to the fact that Coventry have everything to play for and we don't.
Come on guys, there always positives. For me, Foster was the biggest to come out of the game. Dawson, Minutes on the pitch. Cotterill more minutes even though he did switch off. Experience for the academy keeper Lucas something and Digby. Tounge, minutes on pitch. We all came out of yesterdays game angry and slightly annoyed but lets not go over the top about things.
Sorry, but being based in Aberystwyth we dont get to see that many games. Usually these are away matches, which mean we dont get to see us win very often. I read the reports on here and am generally upbeat about this seaon and was thus hoping for something better yesterday
"Experience for the academy keeper Lucas something and Digby." What does this mean? I didn't go to the match yesterday so have neither positives not negatives to offer, but keen to hear the views of those that went.
Good post mate and I would agree with you for 99% of it. Foster and Edwards at the back had excellent games and if they played like that every week they would be a decent partnership. However, the two full backs were poor in Wiseman's case and abysmal in McEveley's case. Its worrying when there is an audible grumble in the crowd when the ball goes near the guy. Tonge started well but faded badly after 35 mins or so and McNulty is not a midfielder. He was played there to do a specific job (double marking Platt) which worked well for large spells of the game but unfortunately not when it mattered. Dawson did ok but you could see that he wasn't fully fit, especially when he realed away from a challange hobbling. My issue with Dawson was he had a couple of noticable arguments with a firstly McNulty and secondly Smith. I'm all for a driving force but he doesn't want to fall out with his team mates during the game! The biggest issue was the tactics. If you play for a draw, which in my opinion you never should, you have to get one. Playing 6 defenders against a struggling side low on confidence will never win over the sceptics and will slighly annoy the Hill supporters. Not a bad stadium the Ricoh. Shame they couldn't get near filling it! Oh and if Coventry get relegated we should sign their number 2 (Keogh I think it was). A really decent, versatile defender.
really, did you think edwards had a good game? though he made a few mistakes and almoat let them in when he ran around a stright ball. though wiseman read the game well and saved a possible couple of goals.
Edwards did make a mistake or two granted (the ball he fluffed at the end of the first half was a shocker) but for all the long ball they chucked at us he stood up and did his job well for the most part. It was nice to see a centre half in a Red shirt not bullied by a big strong striker. Wiseman's distribution and use of the ball was poor. The amount of times he delayed passing the ball or cut inside when he had acres of space in front of him wasn't good. Add to that the amount of times, especially in the first half he was cought out by a long diagonal ball over the top to McSheffry was also a worry.
Wiseman isnt as bad as Maccavelli, but thats not saying much. The amount of games we have lost with him at RB is frankly staggering, and again, he was nowhere to be seen for the goal. He isnt a defender. And yet apparently, he's gods gift to some
That was the first thing i noticed with the goal. Wiseman had been dragged a long way inside and cotterill had to do the job of the right back. Steep learning curve for some.
