Torquay United vs Gillingham

[royalgull]

Not when he's started games. He's put in some really good performances and he doesn't just sit in front of the back 4. He gets up and down, can pass and he does defensive work a hell of a lot better than Wroe and O Kane. It's him or Mansell not both together which is why Joe is sub at the minute. I agree with that decision.

Again if he'd started and wroe had come on with 10minutes to go, I don't think it would have made any difference. That goal still probbaly goes in.

[Fonda]

Not when he's started games. He's put in some really good performances and he doesn't just sit in front of the back 4. He gets up and down, can pass and he does defensive work a hell of a lot better than Wroe and O Kane. It's him or Mansell not both together which is why Joe is sub at the minute. I agree with that decision.

Again if he'd started and wroe had come on with 10minutes to go, I don't think it would have made any difference. That goal still probbaly goes in.

As do i. The team functions much better with Manse in midfield. Oastler does a similar job and should only really be in the side when Manse is absent for some reason as they don't complement each other well. So why is it different for the last 10 minutes of the game? If you pair two 'combative, defensive' types together, you are sending a message to the opposition - feel free to pile the pressure on becasue we're happy to stick with what we've got.

If we're under the cosh, i can understand trying to shore things up a bit. I just get the impression we're too keen to 'get on the defensive' when there's no real need. If we're doing a decent job of containment, why change it?

[gullsrus]

if pb didnt make the change and gillingham had scored 2 and won the game i feel you might be asking why didnt he bring a defensive player on. its a decision managers take and it either works or it doesnt. i dont think there is any pattern developing by bringing oastler on just pure coincidence

[Fonda]

if pb didnt make the change and gillingham had scored 2 and won the game i feel you might be asking why didnt he bring a defensive player on. its a decision managers take and it either works or it doesnt. i dont think there is any pattern developing by bringing oastler on just pure coincidence

If is a big word...We'd happily contained them for 80 minutes. Why is it so likely we'd have capitulated and conceded 2 if we'd carried on as we were? Were we clinging on desperately at the time Oastler came on?

I should say, this isn't some kind of witch hunt against Oastler personally. He looks a perfectly decent player. It's what his introduction represents that irks me.

[gullsrus]

because they introduced 2 "fresh" attacking players

[royalgull]

Also Wroe didn't have his best game and as ever near the end we looked knackered. As i said in my first post, centre midfielders get through more 'work' than anyone else on the field, so we've got a fresh one on the bench it makes sense to freshen things up in the last 10-15mins.

I'd have made the same change, i'd have taken Stevens off as well and quite possibly Benyon off earlier.

If anything Bucks made his changes too late because Gills went all out attack and we never really matched them up with some fresh legs till it was too late.

[Fonda]

I'm surprised by the implication that we need to make a change in midfield every game due to tired legs? It's the same players being replaced every week, so is their fitness in question? Manse never gets replaced, and he does more running than anyone (with the exception of Benners probably). Which would perhaps seem to indicate it's tactical rather than enforced?

[Fonda]

You don't invite pressure, it comes from the other team if they are still in the game with a couple of minutes to go. That's football. If they didn't have a go with a few mins left then whats the point turning up?

Buckle could hae made 3 attacking changes, put 2 up front all the rest of it, it would have made NO difference to Gillingham's attitude in the last 5-10 minutes. They were going to chuck it towards akinfenwa and commit people forward.

Missed this earlier.

Of course teams that are losing will throw players forward. The point is, if you keep giving them the ball back, and dont attempt to hold possesion in the opposition half of the pitch, you are making things easier for them. It's much easier for a team to 'throw men forward' if they don't have to worry about being caught on the break. You have to get the balance right.

[Lloyder5]

Judging by the highlights Bevan had a fair bit of 'work' to do in the first half. Looked to me like a draw was pretty much the right result. Only highlights through...

[Trojan 67]

I've got no complaints about the result, just disappointed we couldn't hold on to the lead to the final whistle. Gillingham to me looked dangerous all through the match and on several occasions should have done better with the chances they had. We, as usual, failed to take ours and therefore put the game out of reach.

I might be wrong, but against Crewe in the first half it looked like we played two up front and and still failed to take advantage of chances created.

4-4-2, 4-5-1, 4-4-1-1, whatever, we are not sticking enough in the net to kill off the opposition.

If lil' o' Danny hadn't skied the last kick of the game over the bar . . . . . .

[ferrarilover]

I'd argue not. They only got one because our goalkeeper did his job in the first half and they scored with their only shot in the second half (and a bloody terrible shot it was too). We only got one despite cutting them open a few times and our bloody hopeless players missing the target (or hitting a defender) when it looks easier to score.

Matt.