[Revived Red]

Originally Posted by Redraine

I wasn't at Hereford but I don't think we were as bad as some people have reported. At times we did play some good football without much end product, and as for our players not being passionate enough - RUBBISH.
Nobody has yet given any credit to Burton, who I thought were very strong and mobile in defence, and in Harrad and Pearson had two front men of high quality. You don't need that many chances when you have those two guys up front.

At Hereford, we were every bit as bad as reported.

Although many of us may want to imagine otherwise, our squad is NOT good enough for the play off places. If it were good enough, we would have beaten Macclesfield (twice), Torquay and Burton at least in recent weeks.

The issue of fatigue is being raised. We know that Coley has been reluctant to use substitutes. Why? Does he feel that the players on the bench are not good enough? To have used them could have given a chance for some players to be rested for the latter part of a game.

The underuse of Chris Turner is quite astonishing.

Other teams seem to have the ability to pass the ball into space knowing which players will be running on to it. We are not doing that. Stanley players look up and seek to pass to a player every time. That gives the opposition the opportunity to cover and even intercept as happened so often on Tuesday. To my mind, the problem on Tuesday was not the weather or the referee (both bad) nor the missing Michael Symes, but disorganisation. How often did we see two, sometimes three, Stanley players going for the same ball? How much variety do we ever see at throw-ins?