Dagenham Match Thread
- Thread starter choirboy
- Start date
This is a huge worry. I bet Piero is absolutely gutted. I just cannot understand the manager saying that we needed more cover in midfield. We started the season with Joyce, Mingoia, Naismith, Hatfield and Windass along with the oddity of Hunt and/or Buxton. We then added Proccy. Then Maguire and O'Sullivan arrived. And Moly. And now Barry. How many midfielders do we need? It now looks as though we shall not see Josh Windass develop in the way that was starting to show promise. And it also looks as though Piero will be left out in the cold altogether. I realise that O'Sullivan and Maguire had rave reports after the Northampton game but I have seen little from them since then. The huge difference between Piero and some of the new additions is that he is a team player. Given some of today's situations, there is no doubt that he would have played the ball back to someone better positioned.
It was interesting to see/hear Tom Aldred giving O'Sullivan a piece of his mind.
It now seems that we are so overloaded with midfielders that we have to use one as a striker - while having four strikers on the bench.
Totally baffled why Carver played no part....in my eyes for the 60 minutes he played in the last game he was man of the match.Never stopped running and won a penalty from a lost cause,threw his weight around and caused mayhem.As for Beattie leaving subbing late....Coley just didn't respond to what was changing in the game....a definite 2 points lost but their goalie was outstanding...but I suppose that's football,we won 1-0 the other week and should have lost 4-1...still a good squad and plenty to build on but a few need to realize it's a team game and sometimes the simple pass is best.
Surely the point is that we had played 3 mins 30 seconds of the 4 minutes of injury time, and yet a player is injured, which takes a good couple of minutes to resolve! Surely this means there should have been time added to the injury time for a further injury. There is no point in saying he played another 30 seconds or so before the final whistle and that 'in effect' played 7 minutes, we didn't, we only played 4 minutes and nothing given for the Chapman injury!
Surely the point is that we had played 3 mins 30 seconds of the 4 minutes of injury time, and yet a player is injured, which takes a good couple of minutes to resolve! Surely this means there should have been time added to the injury time for a further injury. There is no point in saying he played another 30 seconds or so before the final whistle and that 'in effect' played 7 minutes, we didn't, we only played 4 minutes and nothing given for the Chapman injury!
I'm with lancsmatt on this one. You would be right if the injury had been in normal time but that was over. There were 4 mins added and 3 and a half played so there would only be 30 secs left even if the stoppage for the keeper had lasted 20 minutes.
In your scenario if we are a goal down and only 30 secs injury time left then we could gain more time by going down injured. A great tactic if we could get away with it
.
Agree about the substitutions, but did I detect some complacency existing in the team after half time ?. This seemed apparent particularly in the defence which to my eyes saw little wrong with allowing D and R's right side attacker to make his runs, until the ball was in the net !.
Stanley were favourites, they bossed the first half, so why allow a somewhat laissez faire attitude to creep into their play ?, which, incidentally as it invariably does, gave an unexpected boost to their opponents !.
I'm more than certain that JC will already in no uncertain terms have reminded his players that football is a 90 minutes game !.
But like most on our forum , I have seen too many points dropped through over-complacency over the years, not to voice my concern in the matter !.
Still, I saw much to be confident about in the football played by the Reds, and Alfred.E (who sneaked on disguised as BC !) says that like me , in spite of the result, he actually enjoyed the game !.
Stanley were favourites, they bossed the first half, so why allow a somewhat laissez faire attitude to creep into their play ?, which, incidentally as it invariably does, gave an unexpected boost to their opponents !.
I'm more than certain that JC will already in no uncertain terms have reminded his players that football is a 90 minutes game !.
But like most on our forum , I have seen too many points dropped through over-complacency over the years, not to voice my concern in the matter !.
Still, I saw much to be confident about in the football played by the Reds, and Alfred.E (who sneaked on disguised as BC !) says that like me , in spite of the result, he actually enjoyed the game !.
Shame in front of our biggest home contlngent this season 1335 hope they come back as not a bad game to watch but we need to win home games if we are going to be at the right end of the table come May, we seem to lack the killer instinct in front of goal at home we could have been out of sight at half time if we start to stick them in the onion bag.
Wish that F19 had been at the match Andy !...he. Might have agreed with me that our current strikers were intent on trying to score when a shot just wasn't on !...
Poor choices like a low percentage shot instead of playing a better placed player in often result in the kind of frustrations we saw on the faces of our forwards yesterday !.
So the onion bag stays practically empty and points go begging .....someone near me sighed
' pity that we don't have Kayode anymore '.....shame really I suppose !. Perhaps Sean Maguire might fill his boots ?...who knows ?
yonmon;1120694[I said:
In any team we all know there are those who go for glory, very often it's a necessary trait of goal scorers, but is not always to the benefit of the team if their skill is not as great as their egos.
I think one downside of loan players is that some are playing for their own careers first and the team second, and, if they are forwards, it perhaps shouldn't be a surprise if they go for goal when a lay off would have been the more productive option for the team.
Having said that, just watched the goals and O'Sullivan provided an excellent lay off to Naismith which, eventually, resulted in Stanley's goal.
Probably on his way back from Sligo wi his mates.True Exile !!.....
Psssssst ? Where is Dav007 I wonder ??.
True Exile !!.....
Psssssst ? Where is Dav007 I wonder ??.
Who is this 'DAV007' character you are on about?
Don't get embroiled, Choirboy.
But I suspect he's in deep mourning after Professor Coleman's first ( and we all hope last) defeat.
But I suspect he's in deep mourning after Professor Coleman's first ( and we all hope last) defeat.
Who is this 'DAV007' character you are on about?
A 6' 2" Tranvestite from Liverpool of Jamaican extraction, apparently a close friend of Coley's or at least claims to be.
Just a shame there's no way of reversing decisions like that & having the goal allowed post-matchWe was robbed!
Nice on mate,was even clearer in yer film.We was robbed!
Coley and Beattie played different formations, Beattie played 4-4-2 and Coley has been playing 4-2-3-1. We have signed different types of midfielders to play Coleys formation! Joyce, Proc or Barry to be the 2 holding midfielders whilst Moly, O'Sullivan, Maguire and Naismith play in the front 4
So yes we have signed plenty of midfielders but for different jobs!
Also, Anyone else notice Coley put Kal played most of the game up top on Saturday like he moved Bobby Grant and Gary Roberts from the wing to the front man?
Think some people on here get far too hung up on tactics and systems.
Vs Bury (JB)
................Lumley
Buxton Aldred Atkinson Mustoe
............... Joyce Hunt
Naismith.....................Mingoia
..................Hatfield
................... Gray
Vs D & R (JC)
.............Chapman
Hunt Atkinson Aldred Winnard
..............Joyce Procter
O’Sullivan.................Molyneux
.................Maguire,
.................Naismith
Don't think anyone can really argue theres a major difference in system in the 2 teams above, JB played 2 up on occasion but the only REAL difference is personnel, Proccy has been a massive signing, Hunt is a better defensive right back than Buxton, for me the other new signings are like-for-like just better players.
While I'm on, someone mentioned turning Naismith into a forward, he demonstrates almost every time he plays there that he's not comfortable and doesn't want to play there. Big mistake not putting Gray back in.
Vs Bury (JB)
................Lumley
Buxton Aldred Atkinson Mustoe
............... Joyce Hunt
Naismith.....................Mingoia
..................Hatfield
................... Gray
Vs D & R (JC)
.............Chapman
Hunt Atkinson Aldred Winnard
..............Joyce Procter
O’Sullivan.................Molyneux
.................Maguire,
.................Naismith
Don't think anyone can really argue theres a major difference in system in the 2 teams above, JB played 2 up on occasion but the only REAL difference is personnel, Proccy has been a massive signing, Hunt is a better defensive right back than Buxton, for me the other new signings are like-for-like just better players.
While I'm on, someone mentioned turning Naismith into a forward, he demonstrates almost every time he plays there that he's not comfortable and doesn't want to play there. Big mistake not putting Gray back in.