Accrington Web - View Single Post

Revived Red · 15-02-2009, 21:20

I'm not sure that it's necessarily a change of personnel, Phil. It's a change of approach.

I watched Kissock with great interest in view of the comments about his contribution last week. He must have been totally bemused. In the first half hour, he was the only player coming short to collect - but no-one ever passed the ball to him. It was the same story when Coley told him to swap wings in the first half. I don't think he played badly - he was just never given a chance to play well.

What do I mean by change of approach? Well, let's start with this. EVERY time that Kenny Arthur has the ball, all defenders and midfielders turn their back on him. The expectation is that it will be a long kick through the middle, and it usually is. (If Kenny has a weakness, it must be his kicking.) For the opposition, this lack of variation must be a dream come true. A throw-out to a full-back, even if used occasionally, would make the opposition think more. It would also begin to draw opposing players out of position. A midfielder coming deep to collect from the full-back would draw more of the opposition and create spaces which we could then utilise.

Nor does the throw-out have to be to a full-back. When Kenny collects after an attack breaks down, we need a forward or midfielder to be anticipating this and to be finding space to collect a throw. It works for other teams - why not for us?

As I said earlier, the personnel hardly matter. It is the approach that needs attention.

Harking back to yesterday, I counted at least three occasions where Stanley players stopped awaiting a refereeing decision that never happened. In a league where the standard of the officials is so poor, that is a risky strategy. On one occasion in the first half, three of the back four paused and waited for an offside decision; it never came because the fourth member of that back four was playing the Bournemouth player on by about 6 metres!

I do agree, Phil, that Bournemouth played it tight. But we made it so easy for them to play that way.

15-02-2009, 21:20	#49
Revived Red Senior Member+ Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Portishead, near Bristol Posts: 3,087 Liked: 954 times Rep Power: 28176	Re: Bournemouth Match Thread I'm not sure that it's necessarily a change of personnel, Phil. It's a change of approach. I watched Kissock with great interest in view of the comments about his contribution last week. He must have been totally bemused. In the first half hour, he was the only player coming short to collect - but no-one ever passed the ball to him. It was the same story when Coley told him to swap wings in the first half. I don't think he played badly - he was just never given a chance to play well. What do I mean by change of approach? Well, let's start with this. EVERY time that Kenny Arthur has the ball, all defenders and midfielders turn their back on him. The expectation is that it will be a long kick through the middle, and it usually is. (If Kenny has a weakness, it must be his kicking.) For the opposition, this lack of variation must be a dream come true. A throw-out to a full-back, even if used occasionally, would make the opposition think more. It would also begin to draw opposing players out of position. A midfielder coming deep to collect from the full-back would draw more of the opposition and create spaces which we could then utilise. Nor does the throw-out have to be to a full-back. When Kenny collects after an attack breaks down, we need a forward or midfielder to be anticipating this and to be finding space to collect a throw. It works for other teams - why not for us? As I said earlier, the personnel hardly matter. It is the approach that needs attention. Harking back to yesterday, I counted at least three occasions where Stanley players stopped awaiting a refereeing decision that never happened. In a league where the standard of the officials is so poor, that is a risky strategy. On one occasion in the first half, three of the back four paused and waited for an offside decision; it never came because the fourth member of that back four was playing the Bournemouth player on by about 6 metres! I do agree, Phil, that Bournemouth played it tight. But we made it so easy for them to play that way.